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

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is a bit of a bump but the recent documentary on RTE on the 75th anniversary of D-Day credits the weather readings and report to a Miss Maureen Sweeney, not Ted. Perhaps they were related, although the documentary suggests she got the postmistress' job by responding to an advertisement.

Why the discrepancy, I wonder?

By 1943, the Germans were done in the East. There was no victory to be achieved there for them and had D-Day, by some absolute miracle failed in 1944, it wouldn't have changed the over all outcome of the war. It would only have meant a return to pre-D-Day circumstances.

The war would have taken longer to complete. But it still would have completed with a Soviet victory over Germany. There was no stopping the Russians at that stage and, remember, the Germans had been in retreat in the east for a year before the Summer of 1944.

The "political effects" that you're trying to outline in the event of a Normandy failure (which was never going to happen in the first place) are firmly a fantasy and not "speculation", which has to be based on something tangible even if it's without evidence. The idea that the Russians would just give up, when they had Germany on the back foot in 1944 has absolutely no credence to it.

The Russians had just gone through three years of the most devastating war that ever hit their country from a foe that was intent on its complete destruction. That foe was now being pushed back all across the front and the Russians also had Op. Bagration to slam the Germans with, which would have seen the complete collapse of Army Group Centre with or without D-Day. The end of the war would still have been a ways off, for sure, but it was very clear that the end was coming and that Russia was completely in the ascendancy. There's just no way that the Russians would just decide to quit at that point. Not after they had been knocking the crap out of the Germans all along the front since before the Summer of 1943.

1943 was a disastrous year for Germany. After Stalingrad, they managed to briefly halt the Russian advance at Kharkov but were never in a position to hold out indefinitely and "Manstein's miracle" in the first quarter of the year had a lot to do with the fact that the Red Army had out run its supply lines. But it was inevitable that the Germans would eventually have to surrender that position sooner or later. The Russians were still in such a good position after the Germans managed to retake Kharkov and Belgarod that they could halt and resupply, waiting for any probable German attack that Summer. The Germans were in pretty poor shape, though, even if Hitler's plan for the Kursk salient was in full expectation of success. But Hitler's last throw of the dice in July was only one part of the eventual collapse for the Germans in that year. All along the eastern front they had been experiencing difficulties through 1943 and once Kursk had failed, it was obvious that German ambitions in the east were finished.

By the time we get to the Summer of 1944, there's only one road for Germany and that's all the way back to Berlin. The Red Army are in a far superior shape and the Wehrmacht are a shadow of their former selves with a list of outright failure in the east and none of their objectives met. The best the Germans can hope for in the east at that point is trying to delay the inevitable which, in fairness, they did a great job of doing. It's no exaggeration to say that they managed to pull off some incredible feats which would have seen many other nation's militaries completely routed. But the writing was absolutely on the wall.

There is a very slim possibility that had D-Day occurred in 1943 instead and subsequently failed, that Stalin may have entertained some notions of concluding a peace, of sorts, with Hitler. But there isn't any reliable evidence to back something like that up either and in fact, on the back of Stalingrad Stalin was bolstered with the idea of completely defeating Germany. After Stalingrad, the war in the east was no longer a one way street, not that it ever really was in the first place. But after the conclusion of that battle, the Russians had been imbued with a very real hope. That hope was an absolute certainty by the time the western allies got their act together in 1944. The only variable was how long it was going to take before Germany was completely defeated.

Because speculation relies on, at least, some evidential fact.

And the fact of the matter is that the "political effects" you are outlining, were Russia just gives up in the unlikely event of a D-Day failure, could never have happened in 1944. The cards were just too heavily stacked in Russia's favour. So that particular "what if" fails rapidly.

And BTW, there is no possible way that the Germans could have stopped the D-Day invasion in 1944. They simply weren't equipped to do so. They just didn't have the manpower or the materiel. They could only man one in every five positions on the Normandy beaches because of the shortfalls in personnel. If D-Day had failed, it would have to had failed due to a non-military intervention, like a massive disaster at sea where a significant amount of the allied invasion force perished some how. As it stands, aside from the troubles on Omaha, the allies basically waltzed in and there was nothing the Gerries could do about it.

In fact, it's doubtful that they could have fended off an invasion in 1943 either. But the might have been in better shape than the were a year later.

The problem with the "what if" of the thread is that Germany would have to have fielded a much greater number of troops to have been able to absorb the casualties that any allied landing would have inflicted.

Now, IF they had been a more benevolent conqueror of the territories that they invaded and acted like the liberators that many thought they were, they might have been able to increase their pool of resources to use in such an eventuality.

There's a "what if" that could have been a possibility open to them. But then, that requires Hitler to be a different person and a radical change to Nazi policy.

Even if the Germans somehow stopped D-Day dead in the water against all odds it would have had no overall impact on the eastern front.And obviously, keeping in mind the Germans were also conducting a fighting withdrawal in Italy.

Shortly after the Red Army literally annihilated Army Group Centre. There was zero hope for them in the east after Kursk, let alone a full year later. Maybe Stalin might have considered peace in early 1943 but even then probably not, and summer 1944 not a chance.

As to what would happen in the extremely unlikely event of D-Day failing, mainly all Germany falling to the Soviet Union. If every German soldier and piece of equipment in France/Italy was instead on the Eastern Front, it still wouldn't have made any overall difference, other than to lenghten the conflict.

They would still have the same issues, particularly industry incapable of meeting demand, total lack of fuel, etc. It was game over for Germany from mid 1943 and the Germans themselves knew this. It was only a matter of when not if.

Germany invaded the SU in 1941 in the expectation of military dominance and swift collapse. They were not at all capable of sustaining a protracted war and never were at any point between 1939-45.

Their best chance in 1942-43 would probably have been to go defense in depth and try let the Soviets bleed themselves out into some sort of stalemate but even that would have been hard to achieve.