Were Stalin's suspicions of the west during ww2 justified?

edhunter76 · Sep 17, 2010

LRusso216 said:

OK, if opening a second front means Allied troops on the continent, then to my way of thinking it actually occurred beginning with Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily, in July 1943. If that isn't enough, then how about Avalanche in Salerno in September 1943? All too frequently, in my mind, the Mediterranean campaign is ignored and overshadowed by the Normandy invasion. I have a bit of an ax to grind since my father spent three years in North Africa and Italy, and all too frequently his efforts seem to be overlooked. I know I always felt that way as a kid, since it seemed no one spoke about it. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

North African front shouldn't be overlooked in any way as German troops were thrown away for good from there. North African front was a real test for the US army and there they got a first impression of what they were fighting against to.

In my opinion, this has to do with two totally different "factions" fighting against common enemy. Churchill had suspicions against Stalin from the start so why wouldn't Stalin have suspicions against western allied forces?

Stalin thought that it took too much time to open the second front in Europe against the Germans. Soviet forces took the heaviest blast from the German army, when British forces were on their knees and US army were getting their hands full with the Japanese army. Soviet army were alone against huge invasion for a while so there must have been a real "fear" that their allies would let them down even if the "lend and lease pact" was very clear indication from the US that there were no intention to sacrifice the SU.

In my opinion, this doesn't take anything away from the USA as they really did everything that was possible at the time.

OpanaPointer · Sep 17, 2010

Not One Step Back said:

OpanaPointer said:

I have a two volume set of correspondence between Stalin and the Western heads of state if you want to see it. They are in PDF format.
QUOTE]

sounds interesting. i would be interested in seeing that if you have the time

cheers
Click to expand...

ibiblio.org/pha/policy/Stalin%27s%20CorrespondenceV1.pdf

ibiblio.org/pha/policy/Stalin%27s%20CorrespondenceV2.pdf
Click to expand...

Not One Step Back · Sep 18, 2010

brndirt1 said:

I don't know if "convenient" is the proper term. The west (Britain and France) had been fighting the Nazis for twenty months while the USSR supplied them with goods with which to fight. It is difficult to wholeheartedly and with energy; "throw your support" behind a nation who has been helping your enemy with the tools to attack you. The USSR made a deal with a snake, the snake turned around and bit them. If Hitler and the Nazis hadn't turned on him, Stalin would probably have been just as pleased to supply Hitler with the tools and materials to keep the aggression in the west while he (Stalin) solidified his position.

While Truman's quote is all well and good, he was simply a little known Senator from Missouri in charge of a little known sub-committee investigating Defense Spending gouging practices at the time. He was still trying to keep American involvment at the minimum in human lives and tax dollars.

It was certainly practical and rational for America and the western allies to only apply themselves to the attack on Axis Europe when there was at least a chance of success. Moving the men, material, and transport across three thousand miles of ocean, dodging U-boats to build up supply is certainly not the same as driving a T-34 out the door and into battle on your own tuff. And don't forget, America had another little problem in the Pacific and the China theater to deal with as well.

The USSR had one enemy, on one thousand mile front, on their land (for the most part). Different problems entirely.
Click to expand...

some good points, which i may include in my essay.
cheersww

Not One Step Back · Sep 18, 2010

OpanaPointer said:

Not One Step Back said:

ibiblio.org/pha/policy/Stalin%27s%20CorrespondenceV1.pdf

ibiblio.org/pha/policy/Stalin%27s%20CorrespondenceV2.pdf
Click to expand...

thanks a lot these look very helpful!
Click to expand...

OpanaPointer · Sep 18, 2010

Not One Step Back said:

thanks a lot these look very helpful!
Click to expand...

This is another resource you might look at:

Treaties, Declarations, Insturments of Surrender

(~2,000 documents there right now, with more coming.)

And if you want to avalanche the prof:

HyperWar: ETO/Overlord--Contents

urqh · Sep 18, 2010

White army 1918 onwards..British officers and politicians of the time as participants...Now in positions of power 1944... If I was Stalin and not me and what I know now...Id trust Churchill as much by his previous actions and statements as much as his need to have me Stalin..on board now...Which is about as much as a fox and a lamb.

OpanaPointer · Sep 18, 2010

urqh said:

White army 1918 onwards..British officers and politicians of the time as participants...Now in positions of power 1944... If I was Stalin and not me and what I know now...Id trust Churchill as much by his previous actions and statements as much as his need to have me Stalin..on board now...Which is about as much as a fox and a lamb.
Click to expand...

The distrust was shared on all sides. WWII sometimes reminds me of the climactic scene in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

Not One Step Back · Sep 18, 2010

OpanaPointer said:

This is another resource you might look at:

Treaties, Declarations, Insturments of Surrender

(~2,000 documents there right now, with more coming.)

And if you want to avalanche the prof:

HyperWar: ETO/Overlord--Contents
Click to expand...

thanks, those will keep me going for a while =]

OpanaPointer · Sep 18, 2010

Not One Step Back said:

thanks, those will keep me going for a while =]
Click to expand...

You'll want this if you plan to cite the quantities of landing craft available:

Author Mowry, George E. (George Edwin), 1909-1984. Title Landing craft and the War Production Board, April 1942 to May 1944 / prepared under the supervision of James W. Fesler ; by George E. Mowry. Published Washington, D.C. : U.S. Civilian Production Administration, 1946.

Totenkopf · Sep 18, 2010

LRusso216 said:

OK, if opening a second front means Allied troops on the continent, then to my way of thinking it actually occurred beginning with Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily, in July 1943. If that isn't enough, then how about Avalanche in Salerno in September 1943? All too frequently, in my mind, the Mediterranean campaign is ignored and overshadowed by the Normandy invasion. I have a bit of an ax to grind since my father spent three years in North Africa and Italy, and all too frequently his efforts seem to be overlooked. I know I always felt that way as a kid, since it seemed no one spoke about it. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

I can understand why it was no regarded as the second front, while the battles were ferocious and costly for the Allies, the fact was in numbers of German personal there in 1943 and 44 it was more of a side operation for both sides as the Allies didn't make great speed up the boot and the Germans did a great job at doing a delaying action with their much smaller force (In comparison to France) and overall the operation didn't drain German reserves like that of France with the attrition that both sides suffered through.

Log in or Sign up

Were Stalin's suspicions of the west during ww2 justified?

edhunter76 Member

OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

Not One Step Back Member

Not One Step Back Member

OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

Not One Step Back Member

OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

Totenkopf אוּרִיאֵל

Share This Page

About US

Useful Links