MovieChat Forums > The Grey Zone (2001) Discussion > If 2nd front was before 1944?

If 2nd front was before 1944?


I just want to share the thought: if Americans helped Russians before 1944 to fight against Germans , it seems that much less people died in concentration camps

reply

The Soviet Union received plenty of material help well prior to 1944. Lend-Lease provided thousands of trucks,thousands of planes,thousands of half-tracks,and tons of food.

Although the Soviet Union shouldered the burden of Nazi Germany's armies the U.S. was fighting a two front war.

Also the Soviets weren't concerned about the destruction of European Jews.

reply

Well, this is a dangerous territory: everybody knows about Lend-Lease, but about real help? people? army?why U.S. waited until 1944? because became afraid of communistic threat? But 20 millions Soviets died (official number)in this war , who knows how many in reality...
About Jews: what Soviet Union can do if for 4 years the war was on its territory?
The bottom line is: if U.S. & Great Britain helped to fight Germany before 1944, the war was finished much early and less people died, including Jews

reply

The U.S. was involved in the European ground war prior to 1944.
-N.Africa
-Sicily
-Italy

Also the strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany starved the Germans on all fronts of war material.

reply

I aware of that, what I'm trying to convey is that U.S. and Great Britain didn't want to interfere in major war which was between Soviet Union and Germany. What you are mentioning was low profile war with low casualties.
We started this topic about 6 millions Jew died in WWII, most of them in concentration camps, and it is a historical fact, that if U.S. started to fight against Germans in Europe (not only Italy, by the way Sicily was a part of Italy? may be not in time of WWII?), a lot of Jews will be saved from gas chambers. This is very sad historical fact, but I'm not sure if Americans ever accepted that, which I saw in your post

reply

Prior to 1944 the U.S. wasnt ready to open a 2nd front against Germany.
See the Dieppe raid.

Do you seriously suggest the Americans should have invaded France before they were ready? Then pushed through France and Germany into Austria and Czechoslovakia to get to where the majority of the camps were located when they were not capable of doing so.

The target during WWII was Nazi Germany. The Allies targeted Nazi Germany. Not the camps. Yes, the Russians would have prefered a second front before 1944.

But by bringing Germany to its knees as early as they did the Allies did save many,many lives.

reply

I like our discussion; it seems that you are very knowledgeable in this topic.
But this discussion will never have a happy finale, because you saying Americans were not ready to open 2nd front before 1944, I'm pretty sure it was an excuse, very convenient position. By the way Soviet Union was not ready to fight also, but it was no choice.

The sad part is that the Americans were taught that U.S. won this war, but it is not true; Soviet Union won this war with a price of 20 million human lives.

reply

I'd like to think of a way historically that it could have been done.

Finding a way to have prevented or cut short the Holocaust would have been wonderful.

And I do believe the Soviets were responsible for victory over Nazism in Europe.

reply

You're asking the wrong question Dia. The question should be: Why didn't the Allies bomb Auschwitz. It was at the time known to be a camp of sorts. They knew the jews were being murdered. Plus at that time it was said that to bomb Auschwitz would be "just a nudge on the joystick". After all they bombed Buna which was a synthetic rubber works.

reply

that's a question that still burns to this day.
of course the Allies knew what was going on with Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc.
Escapees from the camps got to the UK and told Churchill what was going on.
and it was admitted recently that plans were drawn up to bomb the camps but they couldn't be sure they'd hit the gas chambers and not the prisoners in the main camp.
(that's their offical excuse too)
i don't know. I've heard theories that it was virtually impossible to fly bombers to Auschwitz and back on account of the distance. but Buna was bombed and with it Auschwitz but not intentionally.
the worst theory i've heard from several sources was that the Allies knew what was going on over in the 'east'. but as long as it was Germany's signature on the dotted line, that the blame for mass genocide would fall on the Nazis, why don't we let them get on with it. We stall aid (be it invasion or bombing) until we have no choice and play the hero for those prisoners who are still alive (hopefully not too many though).
I hope to G-d, with all my heart, that that is not true. but i don't know.

does it rank right up there with the JFK assisnation and the 9/11 'controlled demolition' as insane theories?
Probably. but from what i've read over the years i cannot find many justified reasons for not bombing the camps especailly hfter their locations were known. and that really sucks.

reply

Hello?? McFly??
North Africa and Sicily was mainly against Germany (w/ Italy in a supporting role). Rommel was German. And the US was also busy fighting a little something I like to call "The Empire of Japan" to prevent it from creating a little something that it liked to call "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".
The main reason the Germans were in North Africa in the first place was they hoped to meet the other Germans (who were heading east through the Soviet Union) somewhere in the Middle East. The Germans in North Africa were stopped by the Brits in El Alamein and they were pushed out of Africa altogether by the Brits and the Americans.

~~Bayowolf
If we die... it will be for GLORY, not gold.

reply

Nice idea, but...

The bombing campagn, of which the Americans were only one part, did not reduce the production of war materials by Germany. German production, inspite of all bombing, increased every year.

reply

It reduced increasing. But the best way (and so far simpler) would be to just kill Speer.

reply

Yeah!

The U.S. was involved in the European ground war prior to 1944.
-N.Africa
-Sicily
-Italy

And a little something that I like to call "The Pacific War"!!
[While technically not part of the war effort in Europe, our involvement in the Pacific War did free up European forces for use in Europe and, at the same time, prevented Japan from biting the USSR on the butt when it was busy taking on the Nazis.]

~~Bayowolf
If we die... it will be for GLORY, not gold.

reply

I guess the camps just weren't important in the Allies eyes.
USA had problems with the Japanese in the east, USSR was losing millions of its own people in hellish situaitons like Staligrad and the like, and UK and the likes of France had their own problems trying to support the USA & USSR and fend off the Germans on their own.
But D-Day was June '44. After that time I can't understand why something wasn't attempted, especially when all the death camps were running at 110%, faster than they were at the start of the war.
And even if they couldn't do anything then, at least they could have sent more aid than they did to fend of the winter of '44-45. which is recorded in european history as one of the worst winters ever.
You're right. I do want to know why nothing was done? But i know that is a fruitless search. We'll never know.
I'm too humane i think, that's what nursing does to you. But the quesiton is always raised: If you see a child being abused, and you know that the abuse is continuing, and you do nothing about it, aren't you as guilty of abuse as the abuser?
Because you knew, yet you did nothing?
food for thought

reply

Many histories say that although some news of the concentration camps made it to the Allies, most of those in charge simply couldn't believe something that horrific was actually being done.

reply

Politics are not for a weak hearted. It was beneficial for USA that Europe bleeds as much as possible. Try to find out what country president grandfather helped to arm Hitler, for example

reply

I believe the currently accepted history is that news of the ghettos and deportation reached the Allies, but that the fact that the concentration camps were actually extermination camps was not uncovered until Allied soldiers actually reached the camps.

reply

no. there were escapee's who told churchill and Roosavelt what was going on, as well as the leaders of the Polish liberation movement who asked both Prime Minister and President for help. both told the Polish movement that the perpetrators of such crimes would be brought to justice (and most of them were), but they would offer no help at the present time as they had other more important things, like the Normandy invasions to plan.
and also, the more Europe bleeds the more power the US gets in its Cold War conflict with the USSR.

reply

The black helicopter people have shown up. The U.S. was involved with Japan and Germans. Let us get one thing straight. If it was not for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA there would be NO Europe as we know it today. This notion that the U.S. did not want to have a second war with Germany is rediculous. Let us look at the facts shall we. #1: The U.S. could not and still cannot today push a button and out pops tanks, guns, ammunition, soldiers, etc. These things take time to produce. #2: The U.S. made a pact with England that said they would defeat Germany and Italy first, then worry with the Japanese. #3: The amount of men, the amount of supplies, the amount of ships, and the logistics of an European based army was not available before 1944. #4: The Russian winter stopped the Germans, not the Soviet Union. #5: General G.S. Patton knew the Russians were trouble and wanted to nip that problem in the bud, he was called crazy, then ignored. #6: Prior to Germany invading Russia, Hitler and Stakin signed a non-aggression pact. I could go on and on, but that would take quite a bit of time. So, there was no conspiracy to make Europe suffer, It was a lack of ability at that time to open a second German front. Oh, those of you who think that Russia and Germany was any different are sadly mistaken. Nazi is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. U.S.S.R. is short for United Soviet Socialist Republic. NO DIFFERENCE,except minute details.

reply

I wonder if the mighty USSR could have defeated the Nazis if the Japanese were allowed to invade from the East? Hmmm..I wonder if there's a reason the Japanese DIDN'T invade the USSR? The United State's 2nd front was in the Pacific.

And the previous poster is right...very little difference between Nazi Germany and USSR. Germany declared war on the U.S. and the USSR didn't.

reply

No, the US second front was in Europe - the first front in the Pacific. The war began for the US with Pearl Harbour (without it, Churchill and Stalin would have been hard-pressed to get the unwilling Americans to fight), and Germany declared war on the USA December 11 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl.

The reason the Japanese did not attack the Soviet Union was simply because a) it didn't fall into the sphere of interest of Japan, b) the Soviet Union was already busy with the war against Germany and c) they didn't have the resources for a long land campaign in the Soviet Union since most of their army was tied up by the war in China.

And there wasn't a world of difference between the communistic Soviet Union and Nazi-Germany - just because the Soviet Union didn't declare war on the Axle Which the World Turns Around didn't make them better however.

Stalin was responible for the largest man-made famine in world history when millions of Ukrainians died of starvation during the 30's; the gulags were concentration camps of a worse kind than the German ones and the Soviets didn't care at all for the well-being of it's people. The one thing the Soviet Union did lack however was extermination camps - they prefered to simply starve the Jews or send them into combat as cannon-fodder. The difference was that Jews killed by the Germans were victims; Jews killed by the Soviets were heroes killed in the defence of the Motherland...

reply

No, the largest famine was Mao's Great Leap Forward.

reply

The reason why Japanese didnt invade from the east was that they had already tried it once and had been beaten pretty badly by General Zhukovs very effective combined arms tactics.

Because of the defeat at the hands of the Russians Japanese shifted their attention away from the northern far-east towards the pacific for gaining much needed resources (US had issued a trade blockade againts the Japanese because it judged the Japanese war against the Chinese to be inhumane, thus blocking Japanese oil supply)

reply

They didn't invade Russia because the Russians gave them a bloody nose on a number of occasions before.

It's a common mistake that people make when they think Japan surrendered because of the dropping of the two nuclear bombs. They didn't, they sharp surrendered when Russia invaded Manchuria.

reply

Shoulda, Coulda, woulda. I hate to say this but North Africa was a training ground & was completely needed could practice before wessd invaded the europe W/out thr invvation, D-Day woulld have made a mess.

reply

zumber1969 said:

They didn't invade Russia because the Russians gave them a bloody nose on a number of occasions before.

One main occasion (the others being preliminaries), which turned to be enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Aftermath

An unknown watershed moment.

~~Bayowolf
If we die... it will be for GLORY, not gold.

reply

The Japanese forces in Manchuria (and Korea) were completelly irrevelant in 1945, when the US forces were preparing for the (apocaliptic) invasion of Japan. Just as irrevelant like these in Burma-Thailand-Indochina (defeated in 1945 by the British forces), China (defeated in 1945 by the Chinese) and elsewhere, they just fought on even AFTER surrender of Japan. Anyway, their value was: 0 (null, none), they were left for dead as these back in Japan were preparing for their finest hour at best and a heroic national suicide at worst (which was more probable).

If you think the Soviet offensive in Manchuria made them surrender, you probably also wonder why the loss of south-east Asian colonies to Japan in 1941-42 didn't make Britain surrender to Germans somehow.

reply

[deleted]

ok. so from what you say why didn't the US airforce bomb the main camps in 1944?
they knew about the camps as far back as '42 (a minutes silence in both House of Parliment in UK and the Vatican in Rome) so why not dirupt the rail systems or knock out the crematoria?
i agree with a lot of your points; well except #4, i mean although the weather played a part in Stalingrad i don't think it did in the Battle of the Kursk which is now seen as the turning point of the eastern front but i digress.
it's just the more you uncover now about the knowledge that both the Allies possessed about the camps the more the guilt grows. Saying you couldn't help is one thing, saying you won't is something else.
and there's nothing so far that proves the USA and the UK were the former rather than the latter.

reply

Well, the allies did know that some camps existed, but they were generally unaware that genocide was done there - they were as most civilian Germans fooled into that they were very harsh work camps so the camps weren't of high priority.
That's probably the first reason.

The second is that Germany was riddled with camps, and some were holding Allied PoWs. Add to this the fact that Germany maintained a very large fighter force over mainland Germany and occupied territories that took a heavy toll on the Allied bomber fleets, whose first and foremost mission was to bomb German cities and factories.

The last reason would be that the camps (and crematorias) are very small targets. To attack them smaller tactical aircrafts would have been needed, and they were busy destroying the German ground forces - which were THEIR first priority. The flying fortresses had troubles hitting the right city - then hitting a camp maybe 1 x 1 km large would have been near impossible.

Then we shouldn't forget this, that those killed in the camps were Jews, and in very few countries the Jews were seen as just people as everyone else. It just turned out that Germany took the anti-semitism too far.

reply

Oh, they knew. The answer is somewhere between "they didn't believe" and "they didn't care".

(I mean the leaders and their intel people, civies and grunts were not informed.)

reply

Thank you jsHealey for at least introducing some FACTS to this discussion.
The U.S. was at war since 1941 on two fronts. At the time - a gambling man would have been betting on a U.S. and Allies loss in the Pacific and a very unpalatable truce for the Allies in Europe.

The only conspiracy in WWII was the secret pact between Russia (Soviet Union) and Germany to divide up Poland and strike quickly at opposition and to present the world a fait accompli.

RUSSIA caused WWII as equally as Germany because the Germans would not have dared strike at the West without their accomplice (Russia) "holding down the arms" of the victim while Germany raped and killed them.

Anyone who is not certain of this could at least read the John Keegan books on WW One and WW Two before coming up with their patheticly worn out anti-American theories for WWII. There are dozens of rather simple books that will confirm these fact. At least look on Amazon.com and read the editorial summaries if you are too lazy to read the books.

[email protected]

reply

well Hitler wanted allies of the UK (our Royal Family is Germanic in origin after all) which is never tried a land invasion of the island.
and UK still had to survive alone against Germany for over a year before Pearl Harbour borought the US into the conflict.

The secret pact between the USSR and Germany? the Warsaw pact? or before that when Germany agreed to allow it's troops to be trained in the USSR and thus circumvent the terms of the WW1 surrender?

USSR? I dunno. maybe Stalin would have done his own Holocaust, and it can be said he did in the post-war purges, but the selections, the ovens, the antisemetism?
i just find it hard to believe that it would happen without the input of an Austrian madman.

reply

The Germans and Russians signed a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1939 (or might have been already 1938, can't remeber for sure)

This pact divided the eastern Europe in to Russian and German areas of influence. Germany would get western Poland and Russia eastern poland, baltic countries and Finland.

Because of this pact Soviet Union invaded parts of Poland at the same time with Germany and tried to invade Finland, but was badly beaten.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not a lasting pact between two likeminded regimes, though, as some of the posters on this board seem to think. Nazis were rabid anti-communists and Hitler had been preaching about Germans conquering "lebensraum" from the slavic "untermenschen".

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact suited the needs of the both parties: Germany feared a two front war and wanted to fight the western European countries before concentrating on Soviet Union. Russia feared it was not ready to defend itself against a German invasion and wanted to buy time.




reply

The Japanese and the Soviet Union had a couple of border skirmishes in the late 1930's in Manchuria. The Japs had thier asses handed to them by the Russians so they weren't too keen on taking them on big time. Despite the "Pact of Steel" that Japan signed onto with Germany and Italy, they left Russia alone, much to the disgust of the Germans who were counting on the Japanese opening an Eastern Front in Siberia.
As to America invading Europe before 1944. First off, even before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt decided "Germany first." We engaged the Germans in 1942 in North Africa and, after getting OUR asses handed to us at Kassering Pass, we eventually brought about the surrender of over a quarter of a million Germans in Tunis in May, 1943. It was described as a "second Stalingrad" We tied down many German divisions and industry in Italy.
The biggest delaying factor for the Invasion of Northern Europe was landing craft. We simply did not have enough. What we had and what production was geared for was for Europe. The Pacific constantly had to take a back seat in Equipment and men.
Admitedly, the objective of the War for America was not saving the Jews, but the destruction of Nazi Germany. Our State Dept. had a shameful history pertaining to the Jewish plight in Europe(as it has today for the plight of Israel) As we recognized the scope of the Holocaust the leaders felt that the best thing we could do to stop it was bring about the destruction of Germany. Yes, we could have done more, bomb the rail lines leading to Auchwitz, publicly layout what the Germans were doing in detail, but, Mr. Armchair General, 60-odd-years-on, how were you going to convince Hap Arnold to divert planes, bombs and risk the crews to attack a concentration camp in Southwest Poland? The Air Corps did bomb the Farbin plant at Birkenau. With 20/20 hind site, we can all see what we should have done. But we did what we did, good and bad.
If you want to blame people, try blaming England and France for not taking the dozens of opportunities, before and during the War to stop Hitler and keep 12 million human beings from vanishing into the night of Man's inhumanity.
As we listen, today, to anouther "funny-looking" madman publicly anounce nuclear genocide, we still resist doing the right, if difficult, thing. We make excuses, we use anti-war propaganda to stop us from stoping Iran. I've even read some blogs that ask why the big deal, they're only Jews. And in 2060, when Israel and Iran are nuclear ashtrays and people are bemoaning the "23 million" lost in the "Iran/Israeli War"; why didn't we, the people of today, do something to stop that squinty-eyed madman in Theran? Like our fathers in 1933, we have the answer, not the will.

reply

Extremely well written.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

The Americans landed in Africa (where the British and their allies had been fighting for 2 years already), won there, and then landed in Sicily and took Italy out before 1944.

reply

from what I know neither the Russians, who done their own progroms against their jewish population since 18th century and even earlier, nor the Americans, who knew about what happened in the death camps since at least 1941, cared much about the fate of the Jews. America at least had to pretend to care about the public opinion and the wealthy american Jews, but that was it. The U.S. joined the european theater for preventing the Nazi occupied territories to fall into soviet hands and for the same reason hurried to end the pacific war with bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when Russia massed troops to invade Manchuria. They acted like they always did and still do, with the sole purpose to take care of their own interests. And who could blame them.

reply

[deleted]

There was, just not in France, in Africa and than Italy (that it was first in France - and Poland and Balkans and Norway and such, but back when the Soviets were still the Nazi allies).

And then there was the whole 2nd war in Asia and the Pacific.

reply

Why doesn't anybody ever pull the Swedes up for providing the Nazi's with minerals throughout the war? Neutral my ass.

--------------------
God Hates Fangs!

reply

Well, the Swedes didn't have much choice really. Either they offer minerals for the Germans and keep quiet or get themselves invaded just like the other countries in Europe.

Let the world change the punishment for sexual-related crimes to execution

reply

1. Sweden was geopolitical isolated.
The need for trade was essential for the state, and who was there to trade with?

Norway (occupied by Germany)
Denmark (occupied by Germany)
Poland (annexed by Germany)
The Netherlands (occupied by Germany)
Baltic states (annexed/occupied by Soviet union/Germany)
The Netherlands (occupied by Germany)
Finland (war-torn and in desperate need for sympathetic contribution, not a very strong trading partner).

Do you get my point? The western allies were not very liable trading partners because all trade routes with them were either blocked or seriously hostile.
All that was left was either Germany (And only Germany from 1941 -1944) or the Soviet Union (which in itself was many times regarded as an even greater threat to Scandinavia).

Of course Sweden could have rejected their vital trade with Germany and completely starved her people and frozen their homes for the sake of moral righteousness, but the Swedish politicians were a bit more serious then that.

2. Sweden had a very limited armed force.
Sweden was surrounded by greatly hostile and ambitious military superpowers. Not the best time to abandon diplomacy and start making demands.
Can you name a single country that was invaded and occupied by Germany/Soviet that didnt have a neutral relationship at first? I cant. So why are you hammering on about Sweden being a traitor for maintaining this position?
Why would you as a state official risk the very lives and freedom of your entire people by declaring war (cutting trade) for the sake of moral righteousness? The Swedish politicians knew that the best way to save lives from the war was to stay out of it.

3. Sweden was pressed by two ruthless dictators.
Finland was invaded in 1939. This was a greater tragedy and moral responsibility to the Swedish people, much more then the discrimination and (rumored) violence against minorities in Germany.
Stalin, and communism was seen as just as bad, if not worse at the time. And with the bloody onslaught put on Finland, who was there to offer protection if UK and France ignored it.

Conclusion: It's easy for anyone to point fingers when reading about a historic event.

reply

I just want to share the thought, if the Germans hadn't elected Hitler, we wouldn't have needed the 2nd front.

reply