It would not be until May 9th,1945 that the Channel Islands were FINALLY liberated from NAZI occupation- yes two days AFTER the Unconditional German Surrender. In the meantime, they had been so horribly starved that a RAT cost a week's wages on 'black market'.
That these British subjects were allowed to have endure this so long is one of the more maddening deals of WWII. Even if Churchill or others in the British high command couldn't have cared less how these poor souls had to fare, why didn't anyone point out how CLOSE they were to valuable Allied Cross-Channel supply lines (to say nothing of D-DAY's operation itself). I mean, at ANY time the NAZIs could have cut off said supplies via striking from this locale.
So does anyone else think WWII might have ended SOONER had they actually liberated the Channel Islands at the same time as D-DAY or, for that matter beforehand?
That these British subjects were allowed to have endure this so long is one of the more maddening deals of WWII. Even if Churchill or others in the British high command couldn't have cared less how these poor souls had to fare, why didn't anyone point out how CLOSE they were to valuable Allied Cross-Channel supply lines (to say nothing of D-DAY's operation itself). I mean, at ANY time the NAZIs could have cut off said supplies via striking from this locale.
So does anyone else think WWII might have ended SOONER had they actually liberated the Channel Islands at the same time as D-DAY or, for that matter beforehand?