[Donna]

The general narrative of the Allied effort in WWII tends to be overly romantic, with the war effort of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union portrayed as something of an alliance of civilization against the barbaric Nazi conquest. I don't really think it needs mentioning that the Soviet Union as an 'allied power' was a heterogeneous entity contrasting the relationship between the powers of Great Britain, France, the United States etc. From the end of the First World War to the start of the Second, the Soviet Union tended to have a diversified and novel regard by Western powers, who by all means feared their own working class and the ideological illuminance generating from Russia than its actual existential puissantry. Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union during the war, and more over, when the Soviet Union began pushing the German Wehrmacht back into continental Europe, appears to have changed all that - as if the Cold War itself did not start after World War II, but during it.

I suppose the question I would like to raise is as such: were the Western Allies more mindful of a Soviet dominated Europe than a Nazi dominated one when they set across the English Channel to invade Normandy and ajar a Western front against Nazi occupation? By the summer of 1944 it should have been quite palpable that the Soviet effort in the east would eventually (even if longer than it historically played out) arrive at the door of Berlin. Obviously, if the Western Allies had not made their way on to French soil the Red Army would have continued to absorb Europe as it was unto the occupation of Nazi Germany. It seems completely ostensible that the United States and Great Britain would have been willing to sacrifice much in a concerted 'race' for Berlin, or in general, however far east the Western Allies would be able to osmotize and seize before meeting the frontier of Soviet occupation.

Thoughts?

[Einherjar]

As such, the Cold War started earlier, in the last stages of World War I, when Wilson and Lenin proclaimed International Democracy ("a world safe for democracy") and International Revolution respectively. Given the universality of both proclamations, it would not be possible for one ideology to coexist with the other in the long run.

[pikachu]

From the end of the First World War to the start of the Second, the Soviet Union tended to have a diversified and novel regard by Western powers, who by all means feared their own working class and the ideological illuminance generating from Russia than its actual existential puissantry.

Sources? From what I can recall off the top of my head, the Westerners hated USSR in 1920s, in 1930s, in 1940s, in 1950s, etc etc. The only period in which there was a semi-positive regard was 1941-1945, during which the whole "communism" thing was deliberately ignored and Russia was portrayed just as another Allied nation struggling against aggression.


Of course, as long as Bolshevism was limited to the Russian steppes, people like Churchill with his constant demands to invade Russia were in the shadows - the USSR was just a strategic partner, simply not worth bothering about. The "Red threat" existed more as a threat of communist revolution than a Soviet invasion. As soon as the Red Army was approaching Central Europe, the vision of Soviet threat became much more real, of course, and the Cold War was in full swing.

as if the Cold War itself did not start after World War II, but during it.

If anything involving Soviet vs Antisoviet competition qualifies as being Cold War, then the Cold War must have started way earlier than WW2. But usually we like to date the beginning of the Cold War to at least 1945, if not 1949.

were the Western Allies more mindful of a Soviet dominated Europe than a Nazi dominated one when they set across the English Channel to invade Normandy and ajar a Western front against Nazi occupation?

The western allies were always mindful of Soviet domination anywhere - especially in Europe. The western allies were also very much mindful of each other's domination anywhere - especially in Europe. This isn't limited to WW2.
In 1944 the Soviets were certainly becoming more of a threat than Germany, which was being beaten on all fronts. So yeah, they were mindful of course. That doesn't really mean anything though.

[MB.]

I find it humorous how often Russian/USSR was (is?) portrayed as an octopus in propaganda.

[pikachu]

The interesting thing is that this trend seems to originate from before the Bolshevik revolution.

[Oxymoron]

Something about the last picture just screams Phalus.

[Potemkin]

I suppose the question I would like to raise is as such: were the Western Allies more mindful of a Soviet dominated Europe than a Nazi dominated one when they set across the English Channel to invade Normandy and ajar a Western front against Nazi occupation?

In fact, Stalin had been calling for the Allies to open a Second Front for a year or more before they got around to actually doing it. Far from wishing to take over the whole of Western Europe, Stalin was interested only in defeating Nazi Germany as quickly as possible. It was the Allies who were reluctant to invade Western Europe under Nazi occupation; Stalin did not discourage them, he positively encouraged them to do it. Your little historical revisionist theory holds no water at all.

[pikachu]

That was 1941/1942 when Stalin was really wishing for a second front in Europe. By 1944, I'm sure he would have preferred otherwise.

[Potemkin]

That was 1941/1942 when Stalin was really wishing for a second front in Europe. By 1944, I'm sure he would have preferred otherwise.

Evidence?

[pikachu]

The whole Soviet treatment of the Warsaw Uprising and Race to Berlin things seem to indicate that both sides would have preferred if the other was not involved.

[Igor Antunov]

It was an alliance of convenience. When the war ended allies became enemies and that was it. Why?
It is easier to herd the sheep into the holding pen each evening when there are wolves howling in the distant hills.

[Nattering Nabob]

It seems completely ostensible that the United States and Great Britain would have been willing to sacrifice much in a concerted 'race' for Berlin, or in general, however far east the Western Allies would be able to osmotize and seize before meeting the frontier of Soviet occupation.

Churchill was very mindful of retaking European territory befor the Russians could...Roosevelt actually had the Americans stop before reaching Berlin allowing the Russians to do so as was arranged in prior meetings...Churchill tried to warn Roosevelt of the coming Soviet danger but was unheeded...

[Igor Antunov]

Churchill was very mindful of retaking European territory befor the Russians could...Roosevelt actually had the Americans stop before reaching Berlin allowing the Russians to do so as was arranged in prior meetings...Churchill tried to warn Roosevelt of the coming Soviet danger but was unheeded...

Documented evidence? You make it sound like one of the largest and bloodiest battles in ww2, the battle of Berlin, was some kind of walk in the park: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

[Nattering Nabob]

Documented evidence? You make it sound like one of the largest and bloodiest battles in ww2, the battle of Berlin, was some kind of walk in the park:

I said nothing of the kind...

[Igor Antunov]

I said nothing of the kind...

You didn't true, but you sure did make it sound that way.

[Dave]

In fact, Stalin had been calling for the Allies to open a Second Front for a year or more before they got around to actually doing it. Far from wishing to take over the whole of Western Europe, Stalin was interested only in defeating Nazi Germany as quickly as possible. It was the Allies who were reluctant to invade Western Europe under Nazi occupation; Stalin did not discourage them, he positively encouraged them to do it. Your little historical revisionist theory holds no water at all.

The Allies didn't just sit around waiting for a "safe" time to invade Europe--they quite literally could not invade until 1944. Due to the Battle of the Atlantic, the US estimated it would only have been able to land 8 divisions in Europe in 1943. Landing in Europe earlier would've requiring expending fewer resources on strategic bombing and especially on the Pacific War. The former was considered strategically unacceptable, the latter politically unacceptable.

[Potemkin]

The Allies didn't just sit around waiting for a "safe" time to invade Europe--they quite literally could not invade until 1944. Due to the Battle of the Atlantic, the US estimated it would only have been able to land 8 divisions in Europe in 1943. Landing in Europe earlier would've requiring expending fewer resources on strategic bombing and especially on the Pacific War. The former was considered strategically unacceptable, the latter politically unacceptable.

I don't dispute that. I was merely pointing out that Stalin did not fight Nazi Germany solely with the Machiavellian intention of taking over Western Europe. If that had been his aim, he would hardly have been calling for the Western Allies to open up a Second Front in Europe, now would he?

[Dave]

Sorry Potemkin, it's just a common accusation that Russians (and communists) often make.

[Potemkin]

That's okay, Dave. That sort of thing annoys me too.

[albionfagan]

Churchill, Stalin and Rooselvelt got on quite well really, in fact Rooselvelt preferred Stalin.

The cold war didn't begin until Truman came in, even the Iron Curtain speech by Churchill wasn't totally hostile to the Soviet Union. The Truman doctrine and Marshall plan, combined with Stalin's desire to see friendly states surround the Soviet Union brokered the Cold War.