Operation Overlord: US vs Britain - Historum

Partorgdunaev · November 25th, 2011, 05:06 PM

Recently I read some strange and new (well, for me) version of the Operation Overlord motives, presented by the one American user. He said, that landing in Normandy was not only about defeating Reich and stealing Europe from advancing Red Army, but also about competition between US and Great Britain, about race for European dominance between Allied forces, internal Anglo-Saxon struggle. Please, tell me, where I can read more about that point of view (which is totally unrepresented in the Russian WWII history school).

**Earl_of_Rochester** · November 25th, 2011, 05:54 PM

Enoch_Powell

Quote:

It was in Algiers that the beginning of Powell's dislike of the United States was planted. After talking with some senior American officials, he became convinced that one of America's main war aims was to destroy the British Empire. Writing home on 16 February 1943, Powell stated: "I see growing on the horizon the greater peril than Germany or Japan ever were... our terrible enemy, America..."[3]:75 Powell's conviction of the anti-British attitude of the Americans continued during the war. Powell cut out and retained all his life an article from the New Statesman newspaper of 13 November 1943, in which the American Clare Boothe Luce said in a speech that Indian independence would mean that the "USA will really have won the greatest war in the world for democracy"

Partorgdunaev · November 25th, 2011, 06:05 PM

Thank you! Can you please recommend monographs about that aspect of Allied relations? (sorry for the novice questions - I read a lot about WWII, mostly Russian historians, but that point of view is totally new for me, in modern Russia Allied Forces are perceived as a monolithe block).

**Earl_of_Rochester** · November 25th, 2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Partorgdunaev

Thank you! Can you please recommend monographs about that aspect of Allied relations? (sorry for the novice questions - I read a lot about WWII, mostly Russian historians, but that point of view is totally new for me, in modern Russia Allied Forces are perceived as a monolithe block).

I don't think the Anti Empire agenda from the US was well known in the UK, it's probably still relatively unknown today. There was also a lot of competition between General Patton and Field Marshal Montgomery.

Amongst the regular forces there was a saying that the Americans were 'oversexed, overpaid and over here'. The American response was to say the Brits were underpaid, undersexed and under Einsenhower.

Naturally there were some disagreements between the allies, the Germans and Japanese also tried to get in on this with propoganda leaflets about Americans and Aussie or English women (some of which was true

) but for the most part I think there was good camaraderie. I've come across just as many accounts for praising each other's efforts as there are for petty rivalries.

EoR

**Earl_of_Rochester** · November 25th, 2011, 06:22 PM

I also understand that there's a Russian view that the allies purposefully left the Germans to attack the USSR whilst delaying the invasion until 1944. It's a good argument for democracy against communism, but you also have to bear in mind the disastrous attempt at Dieppe and the technicalities of organising the largest amphibious assault in history. Not to mention the lend lease convoys to Murmansk by the Royal Navy and allied navies which supplied essential materials to Russia such as planes, tanks, jeeps,trucks, ammo, boots and chemicals. This I think may often be overlooked.

Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

Partorgdunaev · November 25th, 2011, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester

I don't think the Anti Empire agenda from the US was well known in the UK, it's probably still relatively unknown today. There was also a lot of competition between General Patton and Field Marshal Montgomery.

Amongst the regular forces there was a saying that the Americans were 'oversexed, overpaid and over here'. The American response was to say the Brits were underpaid, undersexed and under Einsenhower.

Naturally there were some disagreements between the allies, the Germans and Japanese also tried to get in on this with propoganda leaflets about Americans and Aussie or English women (some of which was true

) but for the most part I think there was good camaraderie. I've come across just as many accounts for praising each other's efforts as there are for petty rivalries.

EoR

I am very intrested in the Anti-Empire American Agenda - was really shocked when read, that last American war plan against Empire was developed in 1936 (so-called War Plan Red,

War_Plan_Red

), here in Russia common image is "US and GB were loving each other very much, cause they are all Anglo-Saxons, you know".

**Earl_of_Rochester** · November 25th, 2011, 06:36 PM

That I spose is one of the great 'what if scenarios' had there not been a Nazi Germany who knows what would have happened? The rise of American dominance after WW1 was certainly a threat to the British Empire what with the ideas of democracy and self determination. The USA had also started to build quite a significant naval fleet during the inter war years too.

Partorgdunaev · November 25th, 2011, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester

I also understand that there's a Russian view that the allies purposefully left the Germans to attack the USSR whilst delaying the invasion until 1944. It's a good argument for democracy against communism, but you also have to bear in mind the disastrous attempt at Dieppe and the technicalities of organising the largest amphibious assault in history. Not to mention the lend lease convoys to Murmansk by the Royal Navy and allied navies which supplied essential materials to Russia such as planes, tanks, jeeps,trucks, ammo, boots and chemicals. This I think may often be overlooked.

Arctic convoys of World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You will be surprised, but the role of lend-lease is one of the hottest topic in Russian historic community, people are battling hard for every plane and tank shipped to USSR, trying to argue had USSR resources to defeat Reich without Allied help or not. Personally I think that the USSR war capabilities were created by US (like massive heavy industries construction projects developed in Moscow by Albert Kahn, American God of Industrial Architecture Albert Kahn (architect) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and most of the vital military-industrial complex objects were built by US, so lend-lease is just a small portion of American invests in USSR.

But the reasons for delayed Overlord and Phony War are really in question here, yes.

Partorgdunaev · November 25th, 2011, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester

That I spose is one of the great 'what if scenarios' had there not been a Nazi Germany who knows what would have happened? The rise of American dominance after WW1 was certainly a threat to the British Empire what with the ideas of democracy and self determination. The USA had also started to build quite a significant naval fleet during the inter war years too.

Dont you think that there were unannounced war between US and GB for the sphere of influence after WWII? (most obvious example - American and British diplomatic fight about reoccupation of Viet-Nam in 1945, which ended by the victory of the American-supported Viet Mihn)

Fire_Raven · November 26th, 2011, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester

I also understand that there's a Russian view that the allies purposefully left the Germans to attack the USSR whilst delaying the invasion until 1944. It's a good argument for democracy against communism, but you also have to bear in mind the disastrous attempt at Dieppe and the technicalities of organising the largest amphibious assault in history. Not to mention the lend lease convoys to Murmansk by the Royal Navy and allied navies which supplied essential materials to Russia such as planes, tanks, jeeps,trucks, ammo, boots and chemicals. This I think may often be overlooked.

Arctic convoys of World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add to that the US and significant portions of the British Commonwealth were also splitting resources to fight the Japanese in the Pacific along with Allied forces fighting in Italy and the Mediterranean and nearly everything being brought in by ship meant that gathering sufficient men and material for an invasion the size of Normandy took an amazing amt of logistics.

The Soviets had a huge front against the Germans but it was still a single front that could be supplied by land which allowed quicker movement of men and supplies via truck,train, wagon/sled and shank's mare.