Could the Germans stop the dday invasion and what if they did?

ken76 · 14-10-2015 9:04am #1

Hi

I was just wondering, in what set of circumstances could the germans of repelled the DDay invasion or did they not have necessary resources?

If luck had gone their way could it of happened?

Even if they had of repelled it would the out come of the war changed in anyway? Or would it just of delayed the war by an extra year or 2?

So basically if they had moved more soldier to Normandy or tanks could they of stopped it and what would've happened if they did?

Thanks

mrDerek · 14-10-2015 9:09am

I dont think they would have been able to stop the invasion unless they knew about the exact location of the landings which was kept under wraps until the actual invasion.
The Germans built up a force along the most likely areas of landing but were caught unawares further down south.

In terms of outcome of the war had they not invaded Russia when they did i think they would have won, As we all know fighting on two fronts was a major factor for what did them in in the end. They were close to developing a nuclear weapon and were also first to develop jet Tech combined with their rocket advances these technologies would have swung the war and we would all be saying Ich bin ein Berliner at this stage :P

Manach · 14-10-2015 9:24am

My understanding, based on books like the "Big Red One" and Von Luck's memoirs that had the Allies been unlucky with the weather or less skilled in getting troops on the beaches, then it could well have gone awry. On the German side, they were hampered by near total Allied command of the air, but if they had been more flexible at freeing up tank reserves (High command believed that Normandy was initially a feint) and getting them to the beachhead, then it could have severly impacted the landings.

Jawgap · 14-10-2015 1:25pm

Could they have stopped D-Day on the day?

Probably not.

Could they have won the subsequent Battle of Normandy?

Quite possibly. An amphibious operation carried out with total air supremacy and supported by significant naval gunnery by a force that had already developed it's experience through 4 other similar (and in one case larger) landing would be difficult to stop on the beach.

In all probability the Germans would never have been able to prevent the initial lodgment from being achieved.

The follow-up phase to an amphibious landing is basically a race - if the the landing force can pour more divisions, more manpower and more supplies into the lodgment than the defending force can then they will likely prevail.

The Germans certainly had sufficient forces available to overwhelm the Allies but for various reasons including the wrecked rail infrastructure, the command arrangements and - to a lesser extent - the Allies control of the sky - they were unable to react quick enough.

If Hitler and OKW had been quicker to realise that Normandy was the Allies main effort (in other words if they'd tumbled FORTITUDE) and reacted swiftly to release available divisions to the local commanders it might have ended very differently for the Allies - it would also have likely led to the war ending with the Soviets on the Rhine (or even the Seine) instead of the Elbe.

Even if things had developed the way they did, the Germans could probably have frustrated Allied attempts to move on Paris by not undertaking operations like the Mortain counter-offensive and by retreating in good order to the Seine instead of letting themselves get chewed up.

Tzar Chasm · 14-10-2015 9:01pm

mrDerek wrote: »

I dont think they would have been able to stop the invasion unless they knew about the exact location of the landings which was kept under wraps until the actual invasion.
The Germans built up a force along the most likely areas of landing but were caught unawares further down south.

In terms of outcome of the war had they not invaded Russia when they did i think they would have won, As we all know fighting on two fronts was a major factor for what did them in in the end. They were close to developing a nuclear weapon and were also first to develop jet Tech combined with their rocket advances these technologies would have swung the war and we would all be saying Ich bin ein Berliner at this stage :P

I have read up on this a bit, the Germans were nowhere near development of an effective nuclear weapon, a reactor might have been a possibility but they just didn't have the capacity to build a bomb. They had the missile delivery system, but no bomb.

That said a functioning reactor might still have helped if they had more time to develop it

Jawgap · 14-10-2015 9:18pm

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

I have read up on this a bit, the Germans were nowhere near development of an effective nuclear weapon, a reactor might have been a possibility but they just didn't have the capacity to build a bomb. They had the missile delivery system, but no bomb.

That said a functioning reactor might still have helped if they had more time to develop it

As a weapon the V2 was a bit of a disaster. It soaked up huge resources in terms of R&D and production and in terms of destructive capacity delivered it was very limited - about 1300 were fired at London killing about 2 people for every missile.

They probably killed 10 times as many slave labourers building them as they did from firing them.

Also building a nuke would have been just the first phase, to get it on to a missile they'd have had to develop the miniaturisation technology.

Manach · 14-10-2015 9:31pm

In defence of the Nazi's V2 WMD (a sentence that I thought I'd never have to the opportunity to say :-) ) the book V2 by Tracy Duggan does indeed back up what Jawgap said. However it also mentioned that the creation of the weapon did do significant damage to areas which were beyond the reach of the Axis at that point, it acted as a weapon that significantly effected civilian moral and it caused major diversion of Allied resources to hunt down and destroy V2 sites.

ken76 · 14-10-2015 9:41pm

Manach wrote: »

My understanding, based on books like the "Big Red One" and Von Luck's memoirs that had the Allies been unlucky with the weather or less skilled in getting troops on the beaches, then it could well have gone awry. On the German side, they were hampered by near total Allied command of the air, but if they had been more flexible at freeing up tank reserves (High command believed that Normandy was initially a feint) and getting them to the beachhead, then it could have severly impacted the landings.

Did the Luftwaffe have any capabilites then in western europe in 1944?

Jawgap · 14-10-2015 9:47pm

ken76 wrote: »

Did the Luftwaffe have any capabilites then in western front?

Significant capabilities, but most of it was concentrated on defending the Reich from the CBO. Basically, the Germans were 'happy' to leave France etc to be pounded from the air by the Allies. I think on D-Day the Luftwaffe managed to launch about 30 sorties whereas the Allies flew over 5,000.

Their problems in late 44 into 1945 related not to available aircraft, but to fuel. They lacked sufficient fuel to run proper basic and operational training.

Tzar Chasm · 14-10-2015 9:56pm

Jawgap wrote: »

As a weapon the V2 was a bit of a disaster. It soaked up huge resources in terms of R&D and production and in terms of destructive capacity delivered it was very limited - about 1300 were fired at London killing about 2 people for every missile.

They probably killed 10 times as many slave labourers building them as they did from firing them.

Also building a nuke would have been just the first phase, to get it on to a missile they'd have had to develop the miniaturisation technology.

Thats an accurate appraisal of the V2 program, however the technology was evolving and improving continuously, they had the back broken on the R&D aspect, but obviously the war was taking its toll

Victor · 14-10-2015 9:57pm

ken76 wrote: »

I was just wondering, in what set of circumstances could the germans of repelled the DDay invasion or did they not have necessary resources?

The Germans didn't take the invasion seriously, as they didn't think the Allies could keep it supplied, especially with fuel. However: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour

If luck had gone their way could it of happened?

Luck is the combination of chance and the presence or absence of hard work.

Even if they had of repelled it would the out come of the war changed in anyway? Or would it just of delayed the war by an extra year or 2?

The war was probably won or lost in 1942-43, not 1944. The war would have lasted longer, but the ultimate conclusion would have been much the same.

So basically if they had moved more soldier to Normandy or tanks could they of stopped it and what would've happened if they did?

I think the Allied effort was too much to overcome. If the Germans concentrated in Normandy, the allies might have invaded elsewhere.

Jawgap wrote: »

As a weapon the V2 was a bit of a disaster. It soaked up huge resources in terms of R&D and production and in terms of destructive capacity delivered it was very limited - about 1300 were fired at London killing about 2 people for every missile.

The V1 and V2 campaigns made a million people homeless in London, which can't be overlooked.

Dating back to the First World War with the Zepplin bombing raids and the Blitz, it has to be appreciated that 'unstoppable' weapons have a strong effect on morale.

Jawgap · 14-10-2015 10:05pm

Victor wrote: »

The Germans didn't take the invasion seriously, as they didn't think the Allies could keep it supplied, especially with fuel. However: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour
......

That's a good point. The Germans thought you could not supply and sustain a large invasion force over the beach and assumed the Allies would have to go for a port. Consequently, they thought as long as they garrisoned the ports they could hold off an invading force, bring up reinforcements and chuck it back into the sea.

Hooooooowever, the Allies learned from Dieppe (JUBILEE) that attacking a port was pretty much suicide, while the Siciliy and Italian landings showed that an amphibious landing could be sustained over the beach with proper organisation.

skooterblue2 · 14-10-2015 10:43pm

ken76 wrote: »

Hi

I was just wondering, in what set of circumstances could the germans of repelled the DDay invasion or did they not have necessary resources?

If luck had gone their way could it of happened?

Even if they had of repelled it would the out come of the war changed in anyway? Or would it just of delayed the war by an extra year or 2?

So basically if they had moved more soldier to Normandy or tanks could they of stopped it and what would've happened if they did?

Thanks

One of the most important things we forget about World War 2 is that the biggest part of the war was won and lost on the Eastern Front. That is not to take away from D-day, the Battle of the Atlantic, Battle of Britian, North African campaign, breaking Enigma and many others.....

World War 2 could never have been won out right by the Germans but IF everything had gone differently AND IF Germany had kept peace with Stalin (some hope of that). AND IF Invaded Ireland before Britian AND forced a stalemate with the US .......... (see how many IFs and ANDs I used). Germany would have been totally exhausted after the war and Stalin could have marched from Moscow to London unopposed.

I am very confused about the D-day landings. Mathemathically the numbers say they could have lost many more as the Germans had planned a landing at Calais. But all I ever hear is the huge losses on D-day and shortly there after. I agree if it werent for Operation Pluto and the fuel lines it could easily have been another Dunkirk, or worse.

I feel that Germany had all the better training (6 years prep), equipment (MP 38, MG 34, uniforms, 88 guns) and vehicles (Panzers) and they needed a short swift end to the war. Europe of today would have looked totally different if the Americans didnt keep a presence in Europe through the cold War.

purplepanda · 25-12-2015 1:56am

The germans wouldn't use women for production tasks in their arms factories, believing a woman's place was at home, breeding the master race & looking after children. Unlike the allied nations, who would use women for transport & supply duties, as well as factory workers in their tens of millions.

Meanwhile the germans used forced & slave factory labour instead of a motivated patriotic population. They also devoted much of their potential military resources to brutalising & mass murder of conquered populations & political enemies.

The soviets, in particular, used many women for front line combat duties, such as the "Night Witches" biplane harassment bombing pilots.

In the age of total war, failure to seriously make productive & military use of half of the population in the war effort was a very costly mistake, especially when your enemies do so. Freeing more soldiers for front line duty.

Hardly surprising that the Nazi's had serious manpower shortages, and couldn't have won any long drawn out conflict even without invading Russia.

German war policy & planning was severely flawed in many aspects despite having advanced military hardware & innovative warfare methods. The allies could produce military equipment in much larger numbers more quickly after the first years of war were over.

Germany's failure to match allied military production meant defeat was inevitable.

The Chieftain · 16-01-2016 7:49am

What seems to be overlooked here is that even if the Germans had performed better with the D-day landings, and had managed to contain them - which was a serious possibility - their hold on France would still have been lost just two months later, with the landings in Southern France, which they had no realistic possibility to contain.

TerrorFirmer · 16-01-2016 3:25pm

It's not overlooked. If the main landings were thrown back into the sea, the southern landings would never have happened.

Tony EH · 16-01-2016 3:34pm

ken76 wrote: »

Hi

I was just wondering, in what set of circumstances could the germans of repelled the DDay invasion or did they not have necessary resources?

If luck had gone their way could it of happened?

Even if they had of repelled it would the out come of the war changed in anyway? Or would it just of delayed the war by an extra year or 2?

So basically if they had moved more soldier to Normandy or tanks could they of stopped it and what would've happened if they did?

Thanks

The Germans never had a chance to stop the D Day landings. Not in a 100 years.

By 1944, they were a spent force. By 1943, they were essentially done.

BTW, soldiers and tanks weren't going to stop the landings. What was needed was an intact air force, which the Germans didn't have. Years of attrition on the eastern front and constant whittling away in the west had reduced the Luftwaffe to a shadow of former self. Even before the allies had got going seriously in 1943, the Luftwaffe was on its last legs.

There's simply no realistic scenario whereby the Germans can repel the allied landings on all beaches, even if they knew exactly where the landings were to occur.

Even as it stands, Omaha was merely a slight setback and the rest of the beaches landed pretty much unopposed.

It would have taken monumental efforts far, far beyond what the Germans possessed, even in 1942, to stop the landings.

Tony EH · 16-01-2016 3:39pm

mrDerek wrote: »

They were close to developing a nuclear weapon and were also first to develop jet Tech combined with their rocket advances these technologies would have swung the war and we would all be saying Ich bin ein Berliner at this stage :P

The Germans were, at the very least, ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon still in 1945.

Once the hard water facility in Norway was hit, the German nuclear weapons program was effectively finished.

Tony EH · 16-01-2016 3:47pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Significant capabilities, but most of it was concentrated on defending the Reich from the CBO. Basically, the Germans were 'happy' to leave France etc to be pounded from the air by the Allies. I think on D-Day the Luftwaffe managed to launch about 30 sorties whereas the Allies flew over 5,000.

Their problems in late 44 into 1945 related not to available aircraft, but to fuel. They lacked sufficient fuel to run proper basic and operational training.

That wasn't the Jagdwaffe's only issue.

By 1943, their training programs had been slashed in order to get more pilots into the air. Contrary to popular belief, the Germans didn't have things all their own way in the skies over Russia and the attrition rate was more than the Germans could cope with.

The "experten" could deal with life flying 3 or 4 sorties a day and knew how to deal with combat, but the average fliers took the brunt of the loss stats.

The older pilots, the ones who had been around for a while, were dismayed by the lack of hours that the "kids" had arriving at the front, knowing many were not going to see beyond 10 sorties.

Jawgap · 16-01-2016 6:16pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It's not overlooked. If the main landings were thrown back into the sea, the southern landings would never have happened.

Quite possibly - they used a lot of same landing craft. If the landings had failed there may not have been sufficient landing craft for ANVIL/DRAGOON.

Also, replacing the losses would have meant drawing on landing craft earmarked for the Pacific which may not have been politically possible in the wake of a failed European landing.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-02-2016 2:36am

Jawgap wrote: »

As a weapon the V2 was a bit of a disaster. It soaked up huge resources in terms of R&D and production and in terms of destructive capacity delivered it was very limited - about 1300 were fired at London killing about 2 people for every missile.

A V2 cost about the same as a fighter aircraft. The fuel was alcohol based so took a lot of potatoes when they were already short on food. And yes slave workers were most of the people killed by the V2.

V2 had a payload of 1 tonne , far too small for the first generation of nukes. Also they V2 used special insensitive explosives because of the rigours of launch. And besides 1,000 bomber raids could do as much damage as an A-Bomb. In an the alternative history where the Germans had nuked London and the Allies didn't have the bomb it's likely that poison gas would have made a comeback from last part of WWI. Yes Germany had nerve agents, but we're right back at the 1,000 bomber raids again and don't forget that Scottish Island with the Anthrax.

Manach wrote: »

In defence of the Nazi's V2 WMD (a sentence that I thought I'd never have to the opportunity to say :-) ) the book V2 by Tracy Duggan does indeed back up what Jawgap said. However it also mentioned that the creation of the weapon did do significant damage to areas which were beyond the reach of the Axis at that point, it acted as a weapon that significantly effected civilian moral and it caused major diversion of Allied resources to hunt down and destroy V2 sites.

Oddly enough the V1 was a greater drain on resources because it was possible to intercept it so the effort had to be made with the barrage balloons and moving all the AA to the south coast and sending planes up fly close enough to affect the airflow over it's wing. Actual contact was stupid.
The V2 was impossible to stop once it was on it's way and IIRC only one was ever caught in flight and it had only just lifted off. AFAIK they didn't catch any of the SCUD launchers during the Gulf war either.

As for D-Day look at Anzio, that wasn't contained.

Snickers Man · 24-02-2016 1:54am

Manach wrote: »

had the Allies been unlucky with the weather..... then it could well have gone awry...

Absolutely. And I also believe that if they hadn't bitten the bullet and gone across on June 6th, after a 24 hour postponement because of bad weather, they wouldn't have been able to attempt an invasion for another month because of tidal and other meteorological issues.

And the only reason they were able to go on the 6th was because of an update report from an Irish weather station in Mayo which indicated that there was going to be a break in the bad weather which would have given them the necessary window to make the landing.

So WE won the war. Even though we weren't in it.

:D

gizmo555 · 26-02-2016 5:34pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

And the only reason they were able to go on the 6th was because of an update report from an Irish weather station in Mayo which indicated that there was going to be a break in the bad weather which would have given them the necessary window to make the landing.

So WE won the war. Even though we weren't in it. :D

Naval Service Recruit Class "Sweeney" just passed out yesterday (Feb 25) at Haulbowline.

Their class, Recruit Class Sweeney, is named after Ted Sweeney, the late Irish Coast Guardsman and lighthouse keeper whose weather forecast from Blacksod in Co Mayo was crucial to the success of the invasion.

Mr Sweeney’s weather forecast from the western tip of Europe on June 3rd, 1944, persuaded Allied Supreme Commander, General Dwight D Eisenhower, to delay the D-Day invasion by 24 hours.

Despite Ireland’s neutrality during the second World War, the Irish Free State had continued to send meteorological reports to Britain under an arrangement which had been agreed since independence . . .

D-Day was originally planned for June 5th, 1944, but June 6th and June 7th were also pinpointed as possible dates because moon and tide conditions were deemed ideal for seaborne landings.

Mr Sweeney’s first report at 2am on June 3rd showed unfavourable weather conditions for June 5th, so Gen Eisenhower decided to delay the huge operation to invade Hitler’s Fortress Europe.

Then, at 12pm on June 4th, Mr Sweeney sent another report that offered hope to Eisenhower and the Allied commanders and enabled them give the go-ahead for Operation Overlord on June 6th.

Some 5,000 ships and more than 11,000 aircraft carrying approximately 156,000 Allied troops participated in the Normandy landings which led to the liberation of France and ultimately helped defeat Hitler.

Those events from more than 70 years ago will be recalled at Haulbowline Naval Base in Cork Harbour today, when Mr Sweeney’s son Edward will watch the class named in honour of his father, graduate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/key-irish-role-in-d-day-landings-to-be-marked-at-navy-hq-1.2548177

Snickers Man · 08-04-2016 9:25am

You know I was really speaking tongue in cheek. But it's interesting how many people claim to be the main agents in the war against Hitler.

The British are convinced that THEY won the war. Because after all didn't they "stand alone" against the might of the Third Reich after France and Poland (and Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway) had all been defeated? Until with some typically tardy help from their American cousins, they finally managed to turn the tide after D-Day.

The Americans, for their part, just know that they had to intervene for the sake of humanity and liberate the poor miserable Europeans who couldn't do the job for themselves. So it was Uncle Sam who came along and won the war against Hitler, without which everybody in Europe would be speaking German now.

The French like to inflate their role in the enterprise. De Gaulle kept "l'honneur et la gloire de la France éternelle" alive from his government in exile while the majority of his countrymen were kept in thrall by a collaborationist government in Vichy.

What few in the West care to acknowledge is that it was essentially the Soviet Union who defeated Hitler. They occupied most of his army, even after D-Day. The war on the Western Front was, literally, a side show.

And anyway, it was the Irish who were responsible for making that victory possible.

Jawgap · 08-04-2016 10:32am

I think Stalin had it right - the British provided the time, the Americans provided the materiel, the USSR provided the blood.

Tony EH · 08-04-2016 11:30am

Snickers Man wrote: »

You know I was really speaking tongue in cheek. But it's interesting how many people claim to be the main agents in the war against Hitler...

The Russians won the war in Europe. Over 80% of the Whermacht was destroyed by Russia.

Everything else is a bit part in comparison.

For Hitler, Russia was the war.

Snickers Man · 08-04-2016 11:53am

Tony EH wrote: »

For Hitler, Russia was the war.

I think, with the passing of time, this is finally becoming acknowledged as the greater truth even in the west. Although there are plenty of hints in the historical record that it was obvious to many people much earlier.

I think in particular of German fighter ace and later General of Fighters, Adolf Galland, being interviewed for the World at War documentary series in the early 1970s about Operation Sea Lion, the putative German invasion of Britain in 1940. "It wasn't serious!" he said.

The implication being that it was basically a pressure ploy, along with the Luftwaffe bombing raids, to get the British to make peace and drop out of the war. Which would have done Hitler grand because he wanted to concentrate on his real enemy to the east. Fair play to them; they didn't but it still doesn't change the basic numbers game about who did what to whom the most.

Tony EH · 08-04-2016 12:04pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

I think, with the passing of time, this is finally becoming acknowledged as the greater truth even in the west...

It already is, to a very large degree, by serious students of the war as the historical record bears the facts out.

It was the cold war, when the Russians were reverted back to the status of "enemy" after their usefullness was at an end in 1945 that framed the war as a western allied victory for a lot of people. That coupled with the endless soft propaganda of hollywood war movies went a long way to solidifying that impression in a lot of people's minds.

But the popular history of the war has changed since the 90's and the general idea of the war in Europe has been expanded a great deal for the average Joe. Beevor's 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' being No.1 best sellers would have been unheard of in the 60's for instance.

A lot of factors went into the allied victory over the Germans in WWII. It's a complex series of events leading to an inevitable conclusion IMO. The Germans could never have won the war, once they invaded Russia, which Hitler was always going to do, as that was the whole point of the war, in the first place.

As for Sealion, even Churchill knew it was a ruse.

"I'm not saying they won't come...but they won't come by Sealion."

Jawgap · 08-04-2016 12:20pm

There's no doubt that the Eastern front was the decisive campaign of WWII in respect of Germany, but I think it's always worth remembering that while the US & Brits only had a series of land campaigns that, in comparison, were small, if not tiny, compared to the Red Army's efforts, they still had to do almost all the heavy lifting in respect of the naval and strategic air campaigns.

And before anyone jumps up and down, I'm not saying an undistracted Germany would have enjoyed victory in the East - in fact far from it, the USSR simply could not, in my view, be defeated by Germany. The Germans may have reached a 'conclusion' of sorts where they occupied large swathes of European Russia, but it's highly doubtful they could have consolidated and held their gains beyond the short-term.

nuac · 08-04-2016 12:52pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

Naval Service Recruit Class "Sweeney" just passed out yesterday (Feb 25) at Haulbowline.

Their class, Recruit Class Sweeney, is named after Ted Sweeney, the late Irish Coast Guardsman and lighthouse keeper whose weather forecast from Blacksod in Co Mayo was crucial to the success of the invasion.

Mr Sweeney’s weather forecast from the western tip of Europe on June 3rd, 1944, persuaded Allied Supreme Commander, General Dwight D Eisenhower, to delay the D-Day invasion by 24 hours.

Despite Ireland’s neutrality during the second World War, the Irish Free State had continued to send meteorological reports to Britain under an arrangement which had been agreed since independence . . .

D-Day was originally planned for June 5th, 1944, but June 6th and June 7th were also pinpointed as possible dates because moon and tide conditions were deemed ideal for seaborne landings.

Mr Sweeney’s first report at 2am on June 3rd showed unfavourable weather conditions for June 5th, so Gen Eisenhower decided to delay the huge operation to invade Hitler’s Fortress Europe.

Then, at 12pm on June 4th, Mr Sweeney sent another report that offered hope to Eisenhower and the Allied commanders and enabled them give the go-ahead for Operation Overlord on June 6th.

Some 5,000 ships and more than 11,000 aircraft carrying approximately 156,000 Allied troops participated in the Normandy landings which led to the liberation of France and ultimately helped defeat Hitler.

Those events from more than 70 years ago will be recalled at Haulbowline Naval Base in Cork Harbour today, when Mr Sweeney’s son Edward will watch the class named in honour of his father, graduate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/key-irish-role-in-d-day-landings-to-be-marked-at-navy-hq-1.2548177

I agree with above.

I had a chance to look at the Normandy beaches last year on a day when a SW Force 3 was blowing. There was quite a swell on those long flat beaches. Crewing and handling small boats would have been difficult, especially as there was no pier or jetty available. The day's postponement, based on the Blacksod info, was imho crucial.

There were a few other matter which were relevant i.e.

1. Hitler worked late and slept late. His personal permission was needed to release to Normandy armoured divisions stationed elsewhere. They were afraid to waken him early with the bad news. Rome had fallen a few days before so further bad news would not have been welcomed. Valuable time lost,

2. Because of the bad weather the Germans assumed that no invasion would happen those few days. Rommel went home to visit his wife and to talk to Adolf. Another high ranking officer went back to Paris to see his mistress. Other officers were at war games in Rheims. If only they could have tapped the line from Blacksod to UK!

3. Even with the massive advantage in terms of men and materiel, absolute air superiority, naval gunfire etc Normandy was close run e.g.

(1) Some battle hardened divisions from the Russian front were in the Caen area to rest and refit. They were used to tough fighting in Russia, and were able to dig in and counterattack. In one area the German counterattack nearly broke thru to the beaches.

(2) The plan was to capture Caen within a day of landing, They got to the outskirts on D-day, but could not capture it for at least another month. The failure to get this strategic communication centre by D +1 held up the enlargement of the bridgehead.

(3) Because of (1) and (2) above the beachhead had a depth of only approx 20 miles for at least a month. Obviously at risk if the Germans of counterattacked in force.

Therefore imho the reports that month from the Sweeneys of Blacksod cannot be overestimated

Victor · 08-04-2016 9:40pm

Tony EH wrote: »

The Russians won the war in Europe.

I think you mean the Soviet Union.

Tony EH wrote: »

The Russians won the war in Europe.
....
Everything else is a bit part in comparison.

While the Eastern Front saw the bulk of the fighting, it was the cumulative effect of being attacked on all sides that won the war. Remove the British or Americans and the war would have been very different.

nuac wrote: »

(3) Because of (1) and (2) above the beachhead had a depth of only approx 20 miles for at least a month. Obviously at risk if the Germans of counterattacked in force.

Something like 100,000 men landed on the first day. Within a month, I imagine that was much larger. Squashing them would have needed a vast force, which the Germans didn't have in France. The Allies bided their time to build up their supplies, broke out and barely stopped in the next few months.

Jawgap wrote: »

There's no doubt that the Eastern front was the decisive campaign of WWII in respect of Germany, but I think it's always worth remembering that while the US & Brits only had a series of land campaigns that, in comparison, were small, if not tiny, compared to the Red Army's efforts, they still had to do almost all the heavy lifting in respect of the naval and strategic air campaigns.

I think the effect of these are boosted by propaganda / popular culture during and after the war.

The 'bigging up' of the Battle of the Atlantic was as much about managing expectations ("no, you can't have fancy tea every day") on the home front as winning the battle. A lot of the strategic bombing was wasted - not much use in sinking ships of iron ore off Norway if that ore can be replaced by ore from France or Poland. The latter policy of targeting fuel, railways and ball bearing manufacture was much more effect - hundreds of nearly fully-complete tanks 200km behind the front with no ball bearings and no fuel is a much greater waste of German resources than making people homeless.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-04-2016 1:17am

D Day was nearly a year after Kursk.

Would Kursk have been cancelled if the Germans were more worried about a D-Day in '43 ?

Or would it have happened with less reinforcements leading to a greater Soviet victory ?

Tirpitz acted as a fleet in being. The British and later Americans had to deploy battleships to protect convoys on the off chance she'd intercept. A complete waste of resources that could have been more use in the Pacific. That's why they were so determined to sink her.

Norway had 300,000 German troops stationed there during the war, oddly enough the same number as France. One way of looking at is that Swedish iron ore was that vital to the war effort. Churchill even had a hare-brained Galliopili style plan to send three old battleships into the Baltic ! But it shows that Germay wasn't that worried about a second front in France.

Yes the invasion of Sicily took some pressure off the Russians at Kursk. But had Germany been more worried about an invasion of France in 43 then the effect could have been greater. It could have helped divert Germans to France before the Italian camapign. Another Churchill special that soft underbelly. It's like trying to defeat China by invading South Korea. Zero chance of a breakout due to the number of defensive positions.

In theory it worked by causing Italy to surrender but since the allies didn't capitalise on it by stepping in , an impossibilty given the lack of resources, it it was like having to then go on to fight North Korea from scratch and still not getting to Pyongyang by April 1945. Most of Italy's industrial heartland was still not in Allied hands by then, Bologna , Milan , Turin , the Po valley, La Spezia were all on the German side of the front line.

Much like the American campaign in the Philipines the Italian campaign was pretty much a complete waste of resources and lives. The Philipines could have been bypassed like Rabul, and Italy could have been threatened from Sicily enough to keep hundreds of thousands of German toops tied up without having to actually invade, plus you save a lot of ammunition and wear and tear on the tanks and planes.

By comparison US carriers took out most of the Japanese aircraft on Taiwan, leaving it to "wither on the vine", like other Japanese bases. Italy could have been the same , the Allied conquest of Sicily being like Tirpitz requiring the opposition to maintain defences just in case. And France should have been the same, the threat of invasion should have required more than 300,000 troops stationed there, at least until late 1943, because after that the threat of Soviet invasion was real.

Tony EH · 09-04-2016 1:44am

Victor wrote: »

I think you mean the Soviet Union.

I know exactly what I mean.

Victor wrote: »

While the Eastern Front saw the bulk of the fighting, it was the cumulative effect of being attacked on all sides that won the war. Remove the British or Americans and the war would have been very different.

Of course the war would have been different. But there is still no German victory, even if the western allies were absent.

Hitler's plans for Russia were simply too ambitious. The best they can hope for was a stalemate of some description, but even then there is an uneasy cold war that would threaten to be come hot in a serious way over the slightest provocation.

Jawgap · 09-04-2016 2:09pm

Victor wrote: »

......

The 'bigging up' of the Battle of the Atlantic was as much about managing expectations ("no, you can't have fancy tea every day") on the home front as winning the battle. A lot of the strategic bombing was wasted - not much use in sinking ships of iron ore off Norway if that ore can be replaced by ore from France or Poland. The latter policy of targeting fuel, railways and ball bearing manufacture was much more effect - hundreds of nearly fully-complete tanks 200km behind the front with no ball bearings and no fuel is a much greater waste of German resources than making people homeless.

You kind of overlook the fact that the German resources tied up by the Western Allies through prosecuting the air and naval campaigns were pretty significant.

Take the Brenner Pass - by late 1943 it was the mostly heavily defended air space in the world - the Germans had over 2,000 AAA pieces along its length including over 800 88's or heavier, at a time when there were barely 200 88s along the entire Eastern Front - and every shell going up, was one that wasn't going out.

Likewise, the resources poured into the air defence of the Reich, to building and - to a degree, manning - the Atlantic Wall were also resources that couldn't be deployed in the east.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

.......

Yes the invasion of Sicily took some pressure off the Russians at Kursk. But had Germany been more worried about an invasion of France in 43 then the effect could have been greater. It could have helped divert Germans to France before the Italian camapign. Another Churchill special that soft underbelly. It's like trying to defeat China by invading South Korea. Zero chance of a breakout due to the number of defensive positions.

In theory it worked by causing Italy to surrender but since the allies didn't capitalise on it by stepping in , an impossibilty given the lack of resources, it it was like having to then go on to fight North Korea from scratch and still not getting to Pyongyang by April 1945. Most of Italy's industrial heartland was still not in Allied hands by then, Bologna , Milan , Turin , the Po valley, La Spezia were all on the German side of the front line.

Much like the American campaign in the Philipines the Italian campaign was pretty much a complete waste of resources and lives. The Philipines could have been bypassed like Rabul, and Italy could have been threatened from Sicily enough to keep hundreds of thousands of German toops tied up without having to actually invade, plus you save a lot of ammunition and wear and tear on the tanks and planes.

By comparison US carriers took out most of the Japanese aircraft on Taiwan, leaving it to "wither on the vine", like other Japanese bases. Italy could have been the same , the Allied conquest of Sicily being like Tirpitz requiring the opposition to maintain defences just in case. And France should have been the same, the threat of invasion should have required more than 300,000 troops stationed there, at least until late 1943, because after that the threat of Soviet invasion was real.

The Italian Campaign made a contribution by tying up German divisions - the Allies could afford to have the 14 or so Divisions there, the Germans really couldn't. Plus, HUSKY (which was a larger amphibious operation than the NEPTUNE element of OVERLORD) was an important learning experience for the Allies. As the saying goes, OVERLORD couldn't have been done without SHINGLE; SHINGLE couldn't have been done without AVALANCHE; and AVALANCHE couldn't have been done without HUSKY.

Even if you compare the loading tables for HUSKY with OVERLORD it's clear how radically Allied logistical planning changed in the 9 months between them. Plus, those pre-cursor operations proved it was possible to supply a large force across the beach and the importance of naval gun fire.

Tony EH · 09-04-2016 2:22pm

Jawgap wrote: »

You kind of overlook the fact that the German resources tied up by the Western Allies through prosecuting the air and naval campaigns were pretty significant.

Take the Brenner Pass - by late 1943 it was the mostly heavily defended air space in the world - the Germans had over 2,000 AAA pieces along its length including over 800 88's or heavier, at a time when there were barely 200 88s along the entire Eastern Front - and every shell going up, was one that wasn't going out.

Likewise, the resources poured into the air defence of the Reich, to building and - to a degree, manning - the Atlantic Wall were also resources that couldn't be deployed in the east.

None of which would have made any difference and we've had this conversation before.

German needs a decisive victory in Russia in 1941. Without it, Hitler's plans are doomed. 1941 is THE year that Germany needs the knockout blow to occur.

1943 is simply too late and by then every German offensive had failed in its goals. There may be a chance of holding Russia to a draw of some description after that, but that's it.

Jawgap · 09-04-2016 2:49pm

Tony EH wrote: »

None of which would have made any difference and we've had this conversation before.

German needs a decisive victory in Russia in 1941. Without it, Hitler's plans are doomed. 1941 is THE year that Germany needs the knockout blow to occur.

1943 is simply too late and by then every German offensive had failed in its goals. There may be a chance of holding Russia to a draw of some description after that, but that's it.

No, I'm not arguing. I think even if the Western Allies had not fought or been forced from the war, then Germany still couldn't have defeated the USSR.

They might have occupied a large chunk of European Russia, Ukraine etc and they might even have precipitated a heave against Stalin, but that wouldn't have amounted to a Soviet defeat at the USSR would have persisted and no doubt rallied a few years subsequent to any such occupation and recovered most if not all of any lost territory.

One point worth noting though is that the US and the Brits did a lot of the R&D heavy lifting - between penicillin, radar, high efficiency fuel refining, radio comms gear & radio navigation aids, computers and computational analysis, cryptography and crypto-analysis, proximity fuses, napalm etc Even the slinky was invented during WW2 as an accidental part of a US Navy research project.

Wurzelbert · 09-04-2016 3:13pm

Tony EH wrote: »

The Russians won the war in Europe. Over 80% of the Whermacht was destroyed by Russia.

Everything else is a bit part in comparison.

For Hitler, Russia was the war.

true, though the red army drove to berlin in american-made trucks and tanks made from american steel, running on american fuel, soldiers wearing american boots and eating american food…and they fought an enemy substantially weakened by the british blockade and anglo-american bombing that destroyed much of germany’s infrastructure and industry…

Tony EH · 09-04-2016 4:35pm

Not in 1941, or 42 or 43.

And they were the years in which Germany was decisively beaten by Russia every time, with Russian blood and Russian equipment.

Lend lease only really made its presence felt in 1944 (in a truly significant way), by which time there was only one outcome on the eastern front.

Lend lease quickened the demise of Germany, but it wasn't the key to it.

TerrorFirmer · 17-04-2016 12:12pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Take the Brenner Pass - by late 1943 it was the mostly heavily defended air space in the world - the Germans had over 2,000 AAA pieces along its length including over 800 88's or heavier, at a time when there were barely 200 88s along the entire Eastern Front - and every shell going up, was one that wasn't going out.

An interesting point as Manstein wanted to plaster the eastern front with 88's and let the Russians break themselves in '43.

Hitler's plans for Russia were simply too ambitious. The best they can hope for was a stalemate of some description, but even then there is an uneasy cold war that would threaten to be come hot in a serious way over the slightest provocation.

Personally I believe that without western involvement the Eastern Front would most likely have ended this way.

Also the history of the book Fatherland.

Wurzelbert · 17-04-2016 2:22pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Not in 1941, or 42 or 43.

And they were the years in which Germany was decisively beaten by Russia every time, with Russian blood and Russian equipment.

Lend lease only really made its presence felt in 1944 (in a truly significant way), by which time there was only one outcome on the eastern front.

Lend lease quickened the demise of Germany, but it wasn't the key to it.

well, in a way they did from day one, also indirectly…without america, britain and thus all the western and mediterranean fronts would have been done with in 40, just like the allied blockade and bombing campaign would not have happened…russia would have been defeated in 41…the soviets on their own would not have gone anywhere if not for american aid and involvement, whether they got deliveries or whether it weakened their enemies…of course stalin never really acknowledged any anglo-american help with anything…

Tony EH · 17-04-2016 3:08pm

There isn't a single chance of Russia being defeated in 1941.

The main reason being that the German plan for Barbarossa was just far too difficult to accomplish. Coupled with the fact that the German leadership were just too out of touch with what the Russians could actually do and how much they could take.

Hitler simply believed that "all you had to do was kick the door in and the whole rotten edifice would come down."

He was of course, very, very wrong in that assertion as history has shown and once his hope for a quick victory in 1941 was withered away, he knew that he was in for a long and costly war. A war of attrition that Germany couldn't win.

The simple fact is Barbarossa failed in 1941 and failed badly, because the goals were simply out of reach.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-04-2016 6:57pm

Tony EH wrote: »

There isn't a single chance of Russia being defeated in 1941.

“The whole situation makes it increasingly plain that we have underestimated the Russian colossus...At the outset of war, we reckoned with about 200 enemy divisions. Now we have already counted 360. But there they are, and if we smash a dozen of them, the Russians simply put up another dozen.”
From the diary of General Franz Halder, August 11, 1941

That's only day 51 of the invasion.

The quality of the equipment was also important. And this wasn't the same Russian army trying an invasion of Finland just after purging all the officers. The Russians had learnt from that debacle. The Russians were on home territory, look at the partisan activity. The Germans split their resources. Leningrad didn't help them. Getting Moscow didn't win the war for Napoleon. That just leaves the food of Ukraine and the oil of the Caucasus. And even then there'd still be the temptation of Stalingrad.

In theory if they had taken the Caucasus and been able to transport stuff across the Black Sea then they might even have been able to hold out against a thrust down the Volga. Ship the oil to Bulgaria. But they'd didn't so Russia still had oil. Even if they had taken and defended the area Russia could have sourced oil from the convoys from the US. And when the Russians moved the factories past the Urals they also start utilising resources there, new mines and oil wells.

Even if the Germans had conquered the oil fields it's likely they'd have been destroyed first so Germany would still have a massive logistical problem.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

At the outbreak of the war, Germany’s stockpiles of fuel consisted of a total of 15 million barrels. The campaigns in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France added another 5 million barrels in booty, and imports from the Soviet Union accounted for 4 million barrels in 1940 and 1.6 million barrels in the first half of 1941. Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia. The need to provide the lacking 1.9 million barrels per month and the urgency to gain possession of the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus mountains, together with Ukrainian grain and Donets coal, were thus prime elements in the German decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.

interesting
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=78524

It is interesting that the Soviet Union prior to Barbarossa supplied such a small part of Germany's oil consumption, and that even with the imports from the Soviet Union Germany suffered an oil deficit that would have brought its war effort to a halt in August 1941, thus causing its defeat.

It seems that in early 1941 Hitler was faced with the choice between screwing more oil out of the Soviet Union or surrendering. No doubt Stalin would have resisted any German demand for increased oil deliveries, or at least made such an increase dependant on greatly increased German deliveries of manufactured products that Germany would have been incapable of meeting. Viewed in that light, the German invasion of the Soviet Union appears inevitable, even without the ideological aspect.

In 1941, just before Pearl Harbor, Hitler’s armaments minister and long-time trusted confidant Fritz Todt told the Führer that “this war can no longer be won by military means,” because Germany couldn’t match the growing production of the U.S. (which was providing more and more materiel to Britain and Russia), not to mention the increasing output of the Soviet Union and Great Britain. Todt recommended that Hitler negotiate the best deal he could and end the war.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-04-2016 11:31pm

D'oh , the Russians would of course have got their oil from Iran had Germany taken the other side of the Caspian sea. And they'd have been within easy reach of allied aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

Because of the German lack of fuel and allied air supremacy there was always going to be difficulties in a race to the front unless the units were already near. Because of overwhelming naval firepower those units couldn't be too near. Because of commitments in Norway and Greece there were many divisions too far away to be of use. But they'd probably be used on the Eastern Front anyway so a moot point.

BeardedNomad · 17-08-2016 2:13am

In truth the German's could have stopped D-Day if someone had woke up Hitler so that the tanks would be released. The addition of German Panzer's would have crushed the lightly armed airborne units that were meant to hold back the Germans and the beachheads would have been too lightly defended in the beginning to hold back the Germans. IMO

However, the affect this would have had on the overall war would be negligible. Likely the Allies would just try again. If not then all the troops that would eventually participate in Operation Overlord would probably have been sent to Italy, where the Allies had already practically won and they would have just had to cross the alps. More people would have died in the mountain warfare which the allies wouldn't have been equipped for and would stretch their supplies thin as would the extra deaths on D-Day.

Even if the Italian front never went anywhere though the German's had already lost the war. Their was a story in a Stephen E. Ambrose book which I think was called the Victors about Rommel in North Africa in 1942 after Stalingrad had been lost. Where he tells a fellow soldier that the war is already over. That true. Once Russian concentrated their ENORMOUS manpower the Germans had lost.

That's my rant over.

Jawgap · 17-08-2016 8:59am

BeardedNomad wrote: »

In truth the German's could have stopped D-Day if someone had woke up Hitler so that the tanks would be released. The addition of German Panzer's would have crushed the lightly armed airborne units that were meant to hold back the Germans and the beachheads would have been too lightly defended in the beginning to hold back the Germans. IMO

However, the affect this would have had on the overall war would be negligible. Likely the Allies would just try again. If not then all the troops that would eventually participate in Operation Overlord would probably have been sent to Italy, where the Allies had already practically won and they would have just had to cross the alps. More people would have died in the mountain warfare which the allies wouldn't have been equipped for and would stretch their supplies thin as would the extra deaths on D-Day.

Even if the Italian front never went anywhere though the German's had already lost the war. Their was a story in a Stephen E. Ambrose book which I think was called the Victors about Rommel in North Africa in 1942 after Stalingrad had been lost. Where he tells a fellow soldier that the war is already over. That true. Once Russian concentrated their ENORMOUS manpower the Germans had lost.

That's my rant over.

In all probability if OVERLORD had failed the Yanks would have just folded their tents and left for the Pacific, leaving some token support and promises to supply the Soviets who would have been effectively left to finish the job on their own.

The anglophobic Admiral King would have got his way as regards supply and personnel being routed away from Europe into the Pacific, and this, crucially, would have included the Higgins' boats and various other landing craft.

Also, the Brits were tapped out. One of the reasons Monty was so timid in his handling of his ground forces and why such reliance was placed on armour by him was because the British were scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel at this point in the war. It was a real struggle to field infantry divisions and replace casualties, and even the veteran formations were war weary - there's likely no way they could have run another major amphibious operation in Europe for several years.

In the event of OVERLORD failing they would more likely have used what reinforcements they could field to shore up Alexander's campaign in Italy, but more likely with the Yanks switching to the Pacific, they'd have reinforced Slim's (by far their best general) campaign against the Japanese in Burma, which in mid to late '44 was achieving some notable successes.

In mid to late 1944 and into 1945, the Italian campaign was not amenable to to receiving reinforcement beyond replacing casualties - at the point it was still mired in the mountains between Florence and Bologna - it was mountain fighting which meant despite having nearly 500,000 personnel in the country and 14 field divisions and overwhelming air power, the fighting often came down to a company or two slogging it out against a prepared German defensive position because that's all the narrowness of the valleys permitted - it was brutal, attritional fighting, and during the winters it was every bit as terrible as the Eastern Front, but on a much smaller scale.

Beyond the mountains lay the Emilia Romagna - which because of it's flatness the tankers were dying to get loose in. When they eventually broke out they found it was an alluvial plain, criss-crossed by an infinity of irrigation and drainage ditches which made perfect anti-tank obstacles. And because it was alluvial it turned to a tread clogging mud at the first drop of rain and rose in choking clouds (which made close air support difficult) when it was dry.

Alexander's assessment was that he'd need 28 divisions to drive the Lubjana Gap, and probably another 10/12 for a drive on Vienna. Even if OVERLORD had ended in tatters the Yanks wouldn't have provided that kind of manpower and the Brits didn't have it - the Italian campaign was never going to lead to a German defeat, its value lay in the fact that it forced the Germans to tie up divisions they could ill afford and could put to better use elsewhere, it also forced them to supply those divisions (which tied up more precious resources operating and protecting lines of communication) and it drove a certain amount of innovation in combat practice on the Allied side that proved very useful elsewhere, particularly in relation to combined arms warfare, close air support and indirect fire support.

Tony EH · 17-08-2016 10:11am

If Overlord failed it would have been the most bizarre and incredible military blunder in the entire history of the world.

The Gerries couldn't even occupy every machine gun nest on Omaha. They simply hadn't the man power.

It would have been a miracle of absolutely epic proportions if the Germans managed to defeat the allies in June '44 and if, by some utterly ridiculous scenario, they'd done it, it would have been due to a major allied screw up, or series of unbelievable screw ups.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-08-2016 4:54pm

BeardedNomad wrote: »

In truth the German's could have stopped D-Day if someone had woke up Hitler so that the tanks would be released. The addition of German Panzer's would have crushed the lightly armed airborne units that were meant to hold back the Germans and the beachheads would have been too lightly defended in the beginning to hold back the Germans. IMO

Air supremacy would have taken out a good few but if they had sent the tanks all the way to the front line then it would have been tanks vs. navy and there's only one winner there.

Jimbob1977 · 17-08-2016 5:06pm

A delay to the end of the war... possibly by a year.

The Allies were surging through Italy and the Russians had the momentum on the Eastern Front. American factories were at maximum production and their infrastructure was 100% intact.

If D-Day had failed, the Allies might have redeployed towards the Benelux countries or South Eastern Europe

Another interesting question for another day.... if the United States hadn't used the two atom bombs, how long could Japan avoid defeat for?

Tony EH · 17-08-2016 5:20pm

They were given, at best, til the end of the year by a study after the war.

The Purple decrypt's showed full well that they were done.

They were looking for a way out in any case, before the first bomb fell.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-08-2016 6:19pm

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

A delay to the end of the war... possibly by a year.

The Allies were surging through Italy and the Russians had the momentum on the Eastern Front. American factories were at maximum production and their infrastructure was 100% intact.

Surging through Italy ?? Remember that started in 1943.

It was April 1945 before they got to Bologna and the industrial areas of the Po Valley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SpringOffensiveItaly1945.jpg
The corresponding area in Germany was the Rhur and it had already been occupied.

Italy wasn't the soft underbelly, it was just attrition on both sides all the way up.

If D-Day had failed, the Allies might have redeployed towards the Benelux countries or South Eastern Europe

Italy was to be the point to jump to the Balkans 'cept it didn't work out that way. Some say for UK post war influence in the area. The US wasn't keen on diverting resources to help them do that.

Or go to Norway to stop the shipments of Swedish iron ore. Helps the Soviets in Finland and means bombers could fly around much of the Radar / AA defences.

Another interesting question for another day.... if the United States hadn't used the two atom bombs, how long could Japan avoid defeat for?

Not very long. Soviets had blitzkrieged though Manchurian and half way down Korea.

All of a sudden Japan had no plan B , no offshore bases, a million troops captured , all the resources and area in China gone.

Jawgap · 17-08-2016 6:21pm

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

A delay to the end of the war... possibly by a year.

The Allies were surging through Italy and the Russians had the momentum on the Eastern Front. American factories were at maximum production and their infrastructure was 100% intact.

If D-Day had failed, the Allies might have redeployed towards the Benelux countries or South Eastern Europe

Another interesting question for another day.... if the United States hadn't used the two atom bombs, how long could Japan avoid defeat for?

Sorry, but after Rome fell the Allies raced to Florence then spent six months slogging it through the Apennines - they weren't surging anywhere.

Plus, King and Leahy would finally have got their way and all their agitating against resources being sent to Europe would have been vindicated, and crucially the landing craft would've been pulled for use in the Pacific.....plus given Roosevelt was a navy guy and was disposed to listening to his admirals, the failure of OVERLORD would have likely damaged his perception of Marshall, who championed Europe because that was the army's campaign.

Could the Germans stop the dday invasion and what if they did?

Comments