Earlier Allied Liberation of Channel Islands in WWII

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?
 
at ANY time the NAZIs could have cut off said supplies via striking from this locale.

So why didn't they?

As unfortunate as it was for the people of the Channel Islands, they were a strategic irrelevance and the Allies were far more interested in destroying Germany on the mainland than they were in a few thousand half starved Germans on Jersey.
 
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.
With what? Skipping stones? Supply lines work both ways, and the Channel Islands at that point had no offensive capability that I'm aware of. I'm pretty sure SHAEF had seen a map before, but as Mike pointed out the islands were completely worthless strategically because they were separated from the mainland and the Allies had air and naval supremacy.
 
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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands#Under_siege

In September 1944 a ship sailed from France to Guernsey under a white flag. The American on board asked the Germans if they were aware of their hopeless position. The Germans refused to discuss surrender terms and the American sailed away.[71]:54
 
I do not know the whole history, but it seems a chance for too many civilians AND soldiers to die for little gain. Yes it is a shame that the German garrison was not willing to surrender earlier.
 
The Channel Islands were extremely well fortified and Red Cross ships were allowed to dock there and provide food for the populace (though not for the German garrison, which was worse off by the end of the war). I suppose that's why you don't hear of air drops of supplies to the islands such as were done in Holland. Actually lots of civilians were starving at the end of the war.
 
From what I understand, the persons on the Channel Islands were relatively left alone and not as hassled as many under the yoke of Nazi occupiers.
 

Towelie

Banned
The Islands certainly could have been taken. The operations against Nazi channel ports took a fair bit of manpower, but those forces did not immediately move out east after taking their assigned locations.

If one island is taken, I think the others would surrender. The Germans refused surrender when offered OTL, but landing a Commando force and a few regiments of reserve Allied troops in Southern England could have taken an island. Naval superiority and air superiority would have been assured.

I think, however, that the British were concerned that invading the islands would lead to excess civilian casualties. The people there weren't terribly treated, but they were almost hostages for the safety of the garrison.
 
The civilians were safer as IOTL than suffering a battle for the islands. I think Channel Islanders might dispute the mildness of their conquerors. Especially those whose relatives were sent off to concentration camps and never came back. Not like in Poland for example of course but not un hassled by a long way. It was a wise, but uncomfortable, decision not to defend them and not to liberate them by force.
 
Top