Did the allies delay the invasion of Normandy on purpose?

[Independent voter]

The campaign, involving many organs of the government-controlled press here, holds that Western powers delayed the invasion in order to allow the Germans time to inflict more damage on the Soviet Union - and only belatedly mounted the Normandy invasion to grab part of the credit for defeating Hitler.

''The outcome of the war had already been decided'' before the June 6, 1944, invasion, according to a retired Soviet general interviewed by Tass, the official government news agency. Those who see history in a different way are, according to Soviet writers, ''falsifiers'' or representatives of ''bourgeois'' mass-information media who blend ''deliberate distortions of history together with ill-intentioned lies.''

The Soviet Union has long held that the Red Army bore the brunt of World War II (which is known here as the ''Great Patriotic War'') - and that it played the major role in defeating the forces of Adolf Hitler. But lately the campaign has become louder and shriller in an obvious effort to counter the planned observances of the 40th anniversary of D-Day, the first day of the Allied assault on the European mainland.

On June 6, President Reagan will join French President Francois Mitterrand, Queen Elizabeth, and Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau at ceremonies in Caen, France, to mark the occasion.

But an official journal of the Soviet Defense Ministry has already dismissed the ceremonies as a ''pompous propaganda campaign.'' And Izvestia, the official government newspaper, recently carried an article that drew crude parallels between Hitler and President Reagan, implying that the two men share the ''distorted consciousness of a maniac killer.''

For years, the Soviet Union has complained that its contributions in World War II have been consistently understated by contemporary historians. The claim is, according to some military analysts, not without some justification.

In fact, this country suffered grievous losses during the war: Some estimates run as high as 20 million people. The losses in a single Russian city - Leningrad - were calculated at nearly 1.5 million people. That, according to one account, was at the time equal to ''the entire war losses suffered by the United States in the whole of its history.''

Wartime losses of young Russian men are still felt in this country, notably in the form of a male-female population imbalance that will persist for several more generations. The country is studded with war memorials and statues, and memories of the conflict can even now provoke emotional responses, especially for Russians.

A kerchiefed Russian babushka, for example, interviewed on a Moscow street, broke down into tears when recalling, ''I lost two brothers during the war.'' Then, she added as she hurried away, ''and now look what Reagan is doing. . . .''

That is precisely the connection the Soviet leaders would like more people to make.

During the current press campaign, the Soviet government is suggesting that today, as in 1944, the US is no real friend of Europe. The current observances of D-Day, the Defense Ministry's ''military-historical journal'' argues, are aimed at trying to ''dispel the anxiety of Europeans who, according to Washington's strategic plans, are to be the first to be burned in a 'limited' nuclear war in Europe.''

Pravda, the official Communist Party newspaper, recently carried an article by a former war correspondent identified as Daniil Kraminov. In it, he wrote that ''moral preparations'' are under way ''for a new, this time, nuclear war, which dooms Europe and the European civilization to destruction.''

That, of course, dovetails with Moscow's ongoing propaganda efforts against the stationing of new American-supplied nuclear missiles to Europe.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0605/060519.html

Did the allies delay the invasion of Normandy on purpose?

[Puupi]

News from 1984 with Soviet propaganda, published by Christian Science Monitor.

I don't usually attack the source, but come on...

[BreathTaker]

They only jumped in to prevent USSR from controlling whole Europe after the defeat of Germany.
The moment was when it became clear who's winning. There is nothing more on the matter.

[Rendark]

No they didn't.

[Toxuvox]

Nope....any delays were down to either environmental variables, or simply in order to adjust plans prior to execution. Russia has always been quick to claim the injured party stance in modern history.

[Blightrose]

Did the allies delay the invasion of Normandy on purpose?

They might well have done, as they say the war was already decided at the point and US/UK didnt even need to do the invasion in order for Hitler to be defeated, the main reason they did it was to stop the Soviet Union from basically taking all of Europe which would have put US/UK in a very bad position.

[Ghostpanther]

No they didn't.

This is about as well as anyone can answer the OP's question. The weather for one played a role on the timing. Plus training, preparations, is not something which haphazardly should be done.

[josykay]

This is about as well as anyone can answer the OP's question. The weather for one played a role on the timing. Plus training, preparations, is not something which haphazardly should be done.

Also, the Uk hat the great displeasure, of witnessing, what happens if the Operation failed. A fuck up like the Gallipoli campaign was inacceptable.

[smityx]

Also why we expedited the dropping of the bombs on Japan as the Russians had started getting involved there and would have gobbled up territory there should the war have lasted longer.

[draynay]

Like all of your terrible history conspiracy theory threads, the answer is still "No".

[Independent voter]

The allies did mess around Africa and Italy for months. It didn't accomplish much militarily. Soviet soldiers were dying at the time.

I'm just saying the old Soviets might've had a point.

[Thekri]

The allies did mess around Africa and Italy for months. It didn't accomplish much militarily. Soviet soldiers were dying at the time.

I'm just saying the old Soviets might've had a point.

Not sure why you think Africa and Italy were militarily inconsequential. They defeated one of the three axis powers there, and pulled a huge amount of resources from Germany as well. In addition it caused a staggering fuel shortage for the Germans (Combined with the Soviet Union keeping them away from the Baku fields, and allied strategic bombing in the Balkans). So those two campaigns crippled Germany and knocked out Italy.

Anyway, the thread is a ridiculous historical conspiracy theory. The invasion of France was launched as soon as possible while ensuring sufficient resources were available to succeed. Now granted, it might seem different to the Soviets, who never had the luxury of sitting back and fully planning and resourcing an offensive, but it was a good strategic move. The only "Point" the Soviets had in this line of thinking is that the west does tend to undervalue Soviet contributions toward defeating Germany. But then the Soviets undervalued the contributions of the West to an even larger extent.

[Tiwack]

Make a friend and ask them

[Grimbold21]

News from 1984 with Soviet propaganda, published by Christian Science Monitor.

I don't usually attack the source, but come on...

Wouldn't it be great if Kangodo came in praising the source

[Nitros14]

If they had attacked in 1943 they probably would've encountered a bloody repulse.

If they had attacked in 1942 they 100% would've encountered a bloody repulse.

A massive amphibious invasion against a strongly held coastline is a pretty difficult thing to pull off without air supremacy.



They probably did nuke the Japanese to stop the Soviets from getting more territory though.

[draynay]

I'm just saying the old Soviets might've had a point.

That Reagan was a "maniac killer"?

[Independent voter]

Not sure why you think Africa and Italy were militarily inconsequential. They defeated one of the three axis powers there, and pulled a huge amount of resources from Germany as well. In addition it caused a staggering fuel shortage for the Germans (Combined with the Soviet Union keeping them away from the Baku fields, and allied strategic bombing in the Balkans). So those two campaigns crippled Germany and knocked out Italy.

Anyway, the thread is a ridiculous historical conspiracy theory. The invasion of France was launched as soon as possible while ensuring sufficient resources were available to succeed. Now granted, it might seem different to the Soviets, who never had the luxury of sitting back and fully planning and resourcing an offensive, but it was a good strategic move. The only "Point" the Soviets had in this line of thinking is that the west does tend to undervalue Soviet contributions toward defeating Germany. But then the Soviets undervalued the contributions of the West to an even larger extent.

General Marshall thought Italy and North Africa were a waste of time and told Roosevelt as much. If you want to kill a snake, you go for the head.

Roosevelt said no, Churchill was his friend and we should follow Churchill's lead.

Stalin said, you've got to invade Northern Europe. Now.

General Marshall and Stalin won the argument and the Invasion of Normandy was launched.

How surprised would you be if Churchill was thinking more about 1948 than 1945?

[Dreknar20]

They only jumped in to prevent USSR from controlling whole Europe after the defeat of Germany.
The moment was when it became clear who's winning. There is nothing more on the matter.

pretty much

1944 was very late in the war. At that point it didn't matter if the Western Allies invaded in terms of making sure Germany lost.

- - - Updated - - -

General Marshall thought Italy and North Africa were a waste of time and told Roosevelt as much.

very true.

Britain historically preferred to fight in secondary theaters due to its naval supremacy but small army

[breadisfunny]

hubcap you need to stop drinking paint. it's just not good for you. no seriously this is terrible even by your shitty standards.

[shadowmatrix]

A war is never over till everyone has disarmed, soldiers who believe it ends with a peace treaty often end up in graves in a foreign land.