Did anyone besides a few paranoid nutcases* like Churchill actually think in that way? Sure Stalin was paranoid but he saw that the WAllies making a second front taking land was a GOOD thing (as long as they stood to the pre agreed occupation zones at least). While on the other hand i dont think the WAllies ever thought that the Soviets doing worse against the Germans would be a good thing.Off the top of my head, I wonder whether a debacle at Normandy might lead to "supply issues" and "logistical problems" slowing the flow of Lend-Lease materiel to the Soviets in an effort to slow their advance into Germany until the Western Allies can regroup and either (a) launch another invasion or (b) finish the Manhattan Project with intensified strategic bombing concentrated in Western Germany being used in the interim. I can't imagine an unimpeded Soviet advance all the way to the Rhine going down well with either the UK or France nor can I see that being viewed particularly favorably in Washington, either.
Another question, after the war were occupation zones seen (by the West at least) as perks/a positve or as a burden (have fun rebuilding half of Europe you Russkies!
*His own nation saw him as a paranoid both before and after the war!