What if thread #2: D-Day Fails

[sgt_G]

still though makes an interesting analogy on the impact of WWII on a broader spectrum


'cept the tentacle ****

[Avon]

War in Europe take 4 to 6 months more to be finished. That means that invasion o Japan mainland is delayed, nukes are already used in Europe, no surprise element in Japan and Japan scatter its troops and population to minimize the effects of nuclear attacks.

If the invasion had failed, it would have taken at least eighteen months to recover, set up a situation where the next invasion would succeed in Europe. Gen Eisenhower had already written a letter of resignation in case the Normandy invasion failed. Remember, Normandy was the most lightly defended area plus it was close enough to provide great fighter protection. The loss of the invasion would have eliminated all of America's and Britain's airborne forces! Another invasion in that area would face stiffer resistance. An invasion in any other area provided greater logistic problems and less air support. The Soviets would have had to defeat the Germans in Europe by themselves!
Without the US troops from the European Theater, the invasion of Japan would have to be delayed until the war in Europe (the Allies first priority), was complete and Germany was defeated.

Western allies have to conduct counter-insurgence operations in Japan until 1952.

How would a counter insurgency work in Japan? There would be no friendly people to help out any insurgency. Insurgencies can only work when there are friend civilians in the areas. If the civilians in the area can not help, the insurgency can not succeed. The very reason there was not much insurgency in the Philipine Islands. The Japanese Army would kill any group of people of whom they thought might be helping out the insurgency.

I think the nuclear bomb would have been used on Berlin if am not mistaken the Enola Gay flight's over Japan was around that time as time as well..

The pictures of little Japanese children who survived the atomic attacks were prohibited from being released to the American public for many years. The magnitude of the damage was also kept from the public, until the late 1950s. I have to agree with the Luftwaffe's Herman Goring, the pictures of White German children who survived an atomic attack and were injured would have caused a revolt within the USA.

It will depend upon just how badly the pooch was screwed at Normandy, but it is possible. The Western Allies have until September or so in 1944 to try again if they want, although getting the political momentum behind it may be difficult. (Wasn't Roosevelt up for re-election in November 1944)?

The Democrats and Republicans of the House of Representatives and the Senate in 1943 all agreed to forgo the elections in an effort to remain united. The very reason President Roosevelt was in office serving his third term when he died.

[CASQUIS]

if D-day failed we would all be singing horst wessel and id be calling my girl fraulein

well seriously now, the war would have been much longer but since germany eventually fell to the russuans and D-day didnt affect them in any way at all except maybe a few less soldiers to fight the allies wouldve still PROBABLY won

[RSone]

IF D-day had failed, and the European theatre remained the Allies' first priority, another invasion would have ocurred, although the fighting thereafter could very likely have devolved into a stalemate. With Hitler out of the way, and a high command not giving itself a reach around, the Germans would have probably sued for a peace with the western allies. Probable conditions would be a complete withdrawal from all occupied territories in Western-Northwestern Europe, and(i'm not too sure about the allied perception and awareness of the scale of the final solution at the time) the release and free passage of all jewry and other people in concentration camps to their homecountries, to be supervised/guarded by British/American troops in the country.

A important one: Complete and utter transfer of any and all intelligence, secret research dossiers and personnel involved in that research.(a logical demand, looking at the amount of R&D the allied forces made off with, which subsequently turned up in a lot of fields, such as rocketry etc.)
The SS would have to be disbanded(although not without a fight, in all probability) and the leadership, including himmler et al, would be transferred to the allies for trial, if they hadn't all offed themselves by that time...
Perhaps parts of the previous leadership would be forced to step down and indicted as well, seeing as doing that to the SS would be the most logical step as well, but nailing Goering, Himmler, Goebbels etc, would be hard while simultaneously leaving Doenitz and others to their 'job', although one can argue that the Heer and Kriegsmarine were not as influenced by party ideals as the SS and paramilitary(they sure didn't do a lot to hinder it, though)
Germany would be allowed to redeploy toward the east to fight the Soviets, with the tacit support of the western allies. At this point, east-west allied relations would be non-existant, but the western allies actually moving in behind the germans and getting in the thick of it seems unlikely. Victory for the Germany 'under new managemant' seems unsure to me, though.
With soviet/British-American relations all but downright hostile by that time(preventing that would be geographical conditions, for a limited amount of time, at least) there wouldn't be a whole lot stopping uncle Joe from moving south through the caucasus and striking at the middle east, perhaps even at british held territories even in north africa.

[TheKiwi]

The July 20 bombers had their plans for reaching a settlement with the western allies. Their demands were (to be blunt) odd for a country about to undergo the catastrophe Germany was. They included keeping Poland, Alsace-Lorraine and the Sudetenland.

Frankly, I couldn't see the western allies going for this under any circumstances. They had already laid down the "unconditional surrender" demand at that stage.

And Germany, whether at war with the western allies or not, was going to be crushed by the Red Army at that point. The only difference would be timing. Releasing some of the forces in France and Italy would make the eastern front last a little longer, but there would still be a red flag over Berlin before the end of 1945.

[Mordoror]

Interesting one James.

I would posit the following:

-----------

Just my 0.02c

that's i was about to wrotte but rather than Norway i would have seen a second attempt in Danemark which is nearer to the German Heathland both to put directly a pressure on Nazi Germany and to have a possible holding line against advancing soviet forces later

I don't see a second attempt of landing in France anyway, not on the Mediteranean coast (Dragoon occured only because german forces were diverted on the North, without a DDay success the path is far away to Germany, as far and as compicated as from Italy) and a landing on the Atlantic shores is also a long journey if successfull to Germany

Conerning a landing in the Balakns it is a Churchill joke. No strategical interest except trying to outrun the sovs but the landscape is difficult and quite closed until you reach the northern serbian plains that are the only area open to developp further mechanized offensive

an action (combined with strategical interdiction by SAC and Fleet) in Danemark although difficult would have cut the steel road from Sweden, put the Norwegian german puppet in difficult situation and staled the Finnish as well as opening a dierct path to Northern Germany and some valuable industrial assets (Hanovre then Hamburg)

could have been the solution
that 's just one cent further than Flagg

[RSone]

An invasion at Denmark's coast would have been more difficult to mount, as it was much more within the kriegsmarine's reach than Normandy, where it had to face a royal navy with ample resupply just across the channel. At the northsea above the Netherlands, about the skaggerak/ Kattegat, the RN as well as airsupport would have to travel further.

At one point The Netherlands was considered for a seaborne invasion as well, but even doing it here would be a bit of a stretch, especially considering you're basically in a sort of coastal corner, after the invasion, between the garrison forces, reinforcements from Germany and from down south...

[Mordoror]

An invasion at Denmark's coast would have been more difficult to mount, as it was much more within the kriegsmarine's reach than Normandy, where it had to face a royal navy with ample resupply just across the channel. At the northsea above the Netherlands, about the skaggerak/ Kattegat, the RN as well as airsupport would have to travel further.

i agree that it is a concern
however once the invasion of Northern France is a defeat there is a lot of options of close and easy possibilities. All are farer to English coast than Normandy and Pas de Calais
a second attempt in the same area is obviously not a solution and rather a suicide op
a second attempt would have then to be away
let's sum where :
Southern French atlantic coast : as i stated it is far also for the support, possibly exposed (although unlikely) to a spanish reaction and far away from the main target :Germany
Balkan coasts : see my post above, it would have a been a unnecessary and useless move
Southern mediteranean French coast : from a logistical point of view, would have been easier with algeria under now control but far away from the strategical target GErmany
Moreover the landsacpe is not very suited from down to middle France for a large mechanized army
Holland/Belgium coast : would have been a solution but you stated the limits
Norway/Danemark : yes farer and more complicated operation to implement (needing the neutralization of German Navy) but closer to the Reich

directly on the Northern German coasts : same problem with Holland and Danemark but a direct knife to some important industrial areas of Germany; A possible but risky gambit

[Zarak]

but there would still be a red flag over Berlin before the end of 1945.

I'm not so sure it would be that easy for the Soviets. Even something as seemingly small as freeing up the resources from Wacht am Rhein for the Eastern Front could've significantly delayed the Soviets. Likewise, 'elite' units including the 1st SS Panzer Div, 2nd SS Panzer Div, 9th SS Panzer Div, 10th SS Panzer Div, 12th SS Panzer Div, Panzer-Lehr Div, etc. etc. would have had never been transferred from the East to the West (Or, depending on the circumstances of the failure of D-Day, soon been transferred back East).

Many of these 'elite' units spent June 1944-January 1945 on the Western front. During this time, in the East, events like Operation Bagration occurred where having an additional 6+ SS Panzer Divisions (In addition to numerous Heer Panzer Divisions, and various other units - 72 Divisions, total in August 1944) would've been game changing.

This would've had a major impact on the Eastern Front and significantly delayed the Soviets.

http://axishistory.com/index.php?id=7288
Here's an interesting page with Divisions per-front per-month.

[Mordoror]

In addition to numerous Heer Panzer Divisions, and various other units - 72 Divisions, total in August 1944) wo(uld've been game changing.

yes and no
after a first attempt the logical move from the OKH and OKW would have to be to reinforce their garnison in the west to avoid a second attempt
so it would not have been all western divisions reaffected to the east
maybe the 6 PzK you are listing would have been moved against the sovs but i don't se a lot of others (that were anyway second hand units)

[pobeda]

I personnally believe if D-Day did failed the war would have still ended in total annihilation for the Nazis and Japanese, I don't believe the war would have been prolonged because the Russian offensive was moving so fast that Germany would have fallen to the Red Army around the same time Germany surrendered in reality. Even with huge resereve units in France that woud have repelled the attempted US and British invasion,would have faced an inevitable rise in resistance activity and heightened alert to another attempt at france would have forced the Nazis to keep the Resever units in France , thus the red army ground offensives combined with US air superiority would have been able to dish out the same amount of offensive damage. Also teh US and Uk with no units dedicated to France with the added manpower may have been able to launch a invasion through Italy and than launched a conventional invasion through France and achieved maybe even better results.
YET THE NAZIS WERE SCREWED EITHER WAY in my opinion.

[Mastermind]

I think the scenario is self destructive. Rommel saw the "writing on the wall" so-to-speak by January...in fact, he knew there was not to be a German victory after the Torch landings (based on some of his own writings). D-Day would have suffered some awful set backs if Rommel had had his way...But, let us not forget, the final concentration of German forces at Falais gave the fighter bombers the and higher altitude bombers the targets they had been hoping for..there is no reason to believe (baring unforeseen and unprecedented weather for the Normandy area that time of year) the Allied air forces would have been unduly hampered to take advantage of such an opportunity.

Ike probably could have been persuaded to hold the Omaha landings...to write that end of the beach off..but, the other landings wen remarkably well...and, so much equipment had been put ashore, there was little hope of a German victory in all areas forcing an allied total withdrawal...I suspect a more feasible possibility than utter defeat at the beaches would be a repeat of the Anzio experience...a temporary bottling up of the allied offensive, forcing them to huddle under naval and air umbrella for a time until the Germans took so huge a loss from concerted allied tactical bombardments on their rear area communications.

Removal from the beaches a la Dunkirk was just not going to happen....not at that time in the war. The Germans certainly could have succeeded in reducing the threat...but, not eliminating it when we consider the dismal failure of the Luftwaffe on all fronts. With such Allied air superiority..in fact, we really should say air supremacy at the time...there was just not going to be a defeat unless the allies managed to totally screw things up in the manner of Hitler screwing up the efforts on the Eastern front.

So, in my own opinion, yes, the scenario applied could have made things difficult...even vastly more difficult...but, would not have stopped or defeated the overall invasion.

[TheKiwi]

I am inclined to agree with you MM. The worst case scenario I could see for D-Day would be it turning into another Anzio, with substantial allied forces on the beach, but under constant siege from the surrounding Germans. The RN and USN's capability to turn approaching armoured forces into junk was just too high for a Panzer attack to be able to completely drive the allied forces back into the sea.

[3rdMillhouse]

I think the Western Allies would have attempted another landing in May or June of 1945. Operation Anvil, the invasion of Southern France, was contingent upon a successful invasion of Normandy, so I don't think that would have replaced the D-Day landings. The Allies in Italy would continue slogging north, albeit at heavier cost, since the Germans wouldn't have so many forces tied down in France. Stalin would have been furious with Churchill and Roosevelt, but I think the USSR would have continued to crush everything in it's path. If one considers the real pace of the Manhattan project, I think it well within the realm of possibility that we might have seen atomic weapons used against Germany. I also think the Soviets would have advanced farther west; the Rhine seems a natural place to stop.

In the end, I think there would have been another invasion, and that it would have been successful. The Allies would defeat Germany, but in 1946. I think the biggest changes would be in what took place after the war.

Considering you sugestion of the usage of atomic weaponry against Germany, I recall reading somewhere that Berlin was considered to be the primary target for the outcome of the Manhattan, but the war ended in Europe before the US could field any bombs by then. So they switched sights to Japan.

[gosho4]

In my opinion, if Germany beat back D-Day, and Hitler was out of the picture, a peace in the west could have been accomplished, as both sides had soemthing to gain, Germany Fights on one front, Western Allies dont have to fight through Italy and Northwestern Europe.


If the peace was accomplished, and someone with a wish for peace came after Hitler, then the Germans, would send peace Request to USSR, but the USSR even if the Western Allies made peace would not make peace at that point.


But with some adjustments to the Military, Economy, and the General activities of the Germans the War could end without Defeat.