D-Day

[Csargo]

We are learning about D-Day in School and while my teacher was talking about it I was wondering. Was it possible for the Germans to kick the Allies out of France when D-Day first began and if so what kind of shape would the Allies have been in afterwards.

[Brenus]

Of course it would have been possible. However, The Germans were in difficulties in Italy, the second landing in Provence (South France) would have received all the reinforcement, and the Russians would have push, well, like they did. Hitler’s Germany was doomed when she didn’t succeed in Russia.
Now, Perhaps the map of Europe would have been different, perhaps all Germany under Russian Control, fall of Greece under Communism…
In our Countries we got use to underestimate the power of the Russians. I know it is difficult to admit, but like for Napoleon, it was the Russians (or the Soviet Union) which defeated Hitler. Just have a look to map to see where the Red Army was in June 1944.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Well there was a small penninsula in which the allies had trapped the Germans. In this space they pushed the germans back far enough that they were in range of allied ships off shore.

Also, I think the germans had anticipated an invasion too far east instead of Normandy. The lack of troops might have been why the allies got a beach head. I'm not sure why they couldn't push them out though. I would think the germans would be able to, but who knows?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...sion_Force.jpg

[Kraxis]

An Allied loss at D-Day was possible, if not too likely given the superior amount of materiel the Allies poured into it.

So I'm off to talk about a situation where the Allies had indeed been thrown into the sea.

That woud likely have been the worst possible scenario for Europe.
Germany would still be in serious trouble. The Allies would not come running to the table over such a defeat. They would retreat and plan for new operations.
But those operations would take time, and until then only the planned ones could be carried off, if not too securely.

So we have a huge Allied army still sitting in England, just edging to get over the little stretch of water. This would force Germany to keep the garrisons in France in place. Of course some more mobile units could be transported to the east, but they would be far from enough to halt the Russians. A few divisions might even get sent to Italy, bogging the Allies down once more.
But ultimately Germany would still lose, but this time she would basically only lose to the Soviet Union, which due to the transfer of troops (and lack of the opposite later) would suffer more losses, and would feel a right to all of Europe if not just a much larger share than they got historically.

Personally that would mean I would have been speaking Russian as my second language rather than English (it was damn close even in the historical events).

[Keba]

D-day merely accelerated the fall of the Third Reich, the war was already lost. Naturally, with D-day things ended up better, rather than 50 or so years of communism (and that can mess up a country big time, I speak from experience), a good part of Europe was captured by western democracies.

IIRC, wasn't it the allied generals who gave the operation 50-50 chances of success?

[Csargo]

An Allied loss at D-Day was possible, if not too likely given the superior amount of materiel the Allies poured into it.

So I'm off to talk about a situation where the Allies had indeed been thrown into the sea.

That woud likely have been the worst possible scenario for Europe.
Germany would still be in serious trouble. The Allies would not come running to the table over such a defeat. They would retreat and plan for new operations.
But those operations would take time, and until then only the planned ones could be carried off, if not too securely.

So we have a huge Allied army still sitting in England, just edging to get over the little stretch of water. This would force Germany to keep the garrisons in France in place. Of course some more mobile units could be transported to the east, but they would be far from enough to halt the Russians. A few divisions might even get sent to Italy, bogging the Allies down once more.
But ultimately Germany would still lose, but this time she would basically only lose to the Soviet Union, which due to the transfer of troops (and lack of the opposite later) would suffer more losses, and would feel a right to all of Europe if not just a much larger share than they got historically.

Personally that would mean I would have been speaking Russian as my second language rather than English (it was damn close even in the historical events).

So what your saying Kraxis is that if D-Day would have failed for the Allies then Europe have been most likely all Red after WWII?

[Kagemusha]

So what your saying Kraxis is that if D-Day would have failed for the Allies then Europe have been most likely all Red after WWII?

Well The Soviets didnt stop until they met the Western Allies.They would have eventually "gave freedom" to all Western Europe.Without the Allied advance in Western Europe.

[Lord Winter]

Many people say if hitler haven't held back his reserve of panzers, the allied invasion would have been crushed and a thrown back to sea, but the germans would have taken heavy causalities as well due to allied air superiority. Lucky for us this didn't happen due to allied deception including the creation of several inflatable "tank divisions". Also the allies using a network of double agents and false messages made it look like they were actually going to invade the Baltic.

IIRC, wasn't it the allied generals who gave the operation 50-50 chances of success?

Eisenhower had a letter ready were he would take responsibility for the failure of the invasion, it sounds familiar thou.

[Papewaio]

If D-Day had failed and then the extra German troops diverted to slow down the Russians and tourniquet the Italian peninsula it might have meant that:

1) Two German cities rather then two Japanese cities would have been nuked. I remember reading biographies of some of the scientists at the Manhatten project, they were all for nuking the crap out of Nazi Germany but were not partial to nuking Imperial Japan.

2) A larger portion of Europe would have been part of the Soviet Union. Germany for starters would have been totally consumed and probably Vichy France as well. Possibly because the SU would have had greater leverage the pogroms run by the SU would truly have made Hitler look like a prom night newbie when it came to screwing over the people of Europe.

[Kraxis]

Also with no strong Allied presence in form of 'newly' created Allied states the SU could do pretty much what it wanted in Europe. The surprisingly 'easy' peace Hungary and Rumania got could possibly have been a lot nastier.

From the amount of killing and raping done to the relatively few Germans they got hold of... Well the situation would have been pretty grim for the Germans, but also for the various states that worked with Germany (my own Denmark would not have been treated nicely I think). It is a little known fact, but the SU troops on Bornholm (stayed for a year after the war had ended) in the Baltic acted to a fairly large extent as lords over the local population. They didn't abuse them, but their made their will go through. And this was in a country the Western Allies had claimed officially in a world where the SU was fairly weak.
I do not want to think of them taking the entire country in a stronger state, with more of a reason to be angry.

But I'm certain that an Allied defeat at D-Day would produce a Europe under Soviet control.

[rotorgun]

This is a good question to debate, and has been wargamed to death by many avid gamers from my generation. The general concensus is that If the Panzer reserve was held closer to the beachead, and the German high command could have worked together with the operational commanders, that Germany could have defeated the invasion. There was an excellent game that Avalon Hill published back in the pre-computer game days of my youth that had an enormous amount of counters. It had the complete order of battle down to the company and battery sized elements for the battle. Air power and off shore naval artillery were abstracted, but played a big role in the game. Although the Germans were able to create several breakthroughs to the beaches with their armored units in about 50% of the games, when they did so, allied naval fire and air power destroyed them in the process. So at best, the allies lost only half the time. As others have said, the overwhelming allied material superiority made this very unlikely.

Had Germany suceeded in reality, I believe that the political fallout would have been dramatic. FDR and Churchill would likely have had to sack Eisenhower and Montgomery at least. There is some probability that they might have lost the confidence of the war weary people back home; losing the elections of 1944 was a serious posibility IMHO. As to wether they would have tried again is certain. Europe dominated by Hitler was unthinkable. The war would have only dragged on longer. I must admit that a greater portion of Europe would have come under Soviet sway as a result.

Great topic CSAR!

[English assassin]

Hmm. But:

If the allies had been pushed off the beaches in June 1944, the Germans would have known there could be no invasion in the west for at least another year. (Due to a combination of a need for good weather and the sheer lead time required for planning)

They could therefore safely have stripped NW Europe pretty bare of troops until, say, May 1945. Also, presumably, most of the Norway divisions could also have been redeployed, since it would have been clear there could be no landing in Norway either.

IIRC the Soviets were actually closer to the limits of their available resources and manpower than is generally realised by the end. With the extra divisions available possibly the Germans could actually have held them off. Presumably also the Italian front could have been held static.

I can't see the allies nuking Germany in this case, since that would hand the continent to Stalin.

The big unknown are the politcial ramifications. Churchill was seriously worried about the effect the V2's had on civilian morale in London and if the D day failure was sufficiently bloody, would there have been any appetite for another go in 1945? if the Russians were fought to a standstill in Poland in 1944, with no second front and no promise of one in 1945, would Stalin have offered/accepted a separate peace? Who can say? But some sort of armistice leaving Nazi germany intact and in control of NW Europe must have been a possible outcome. And once the Soviets had made peace the western allies really would have had little prospect of taking western Europe.

[Kraxis]

No Germany couldn't strip France and Norway bare.
They knew the Allies had more in them than a one-shot chance. They had seen that in Italy.

Of course any really large attacks such as D-Day would be unlikely, but smaller ones like the landing in Southern France would still be possible and the Germans knew that.
A defeat of D-Day wouldn't be very costly in terms of men and materiel. That is the point. The Allies would rebound pretty fast. But the opportunities for landings were quite slim after a few months, but the Germans couldn't know if the Allies had more landings planned. Thus their forces had to stay on the whole more or less.
Remember, the Germans expected landings as far back as early 42. Would they really abandon that thought? After all the Allies had not lost very much and had had so long a time to build up, they must have had large reserves of materiel important for other landings (and actually they did). That is how I think the Germans would have thought after a victory at D-Day.

In fact I think if they had transfered the likely 5-6 divs east they would just have been eaten up by Operation Bagration. That operation was nowhere near failing and I doubt the Germans could have halted it unless they had all their troops facing it.

[English assassin]

IMHO it depends whether the Germans correctly identified the failed D day landing as the main invasion attempt. If they mistook it for a decoy, then your point holds. If not they could safely transfer. Even allowing that no new material, fuel, etc would be required (in itself very, very unlikely,) planning landings on that scale takes many months of really good quality staff work. There simply would be no way the allies could be re-organised before the 1944 weather window closed.

In a way, though, holding forces back in France and Norway until towards the end of 1944 in the face of an imagined invasion threat might have turned out to have been even better for the Germans.

[Louis VI the Fat]

'What if' history is free-for-all history. This scenario is not at all unlikely:

Operation Overlord failed, another major invasion is politically and logistically not possible until spring 1945. The SU still overruns Germany, but continues it's drive all the way into western Europe, reaching the Atlantic. Their forces are drastically overstretched and the SU has reached the very limit of it's available resources and manpower.

Not keen on a Bolshewik continent, the Americans and British seize the opportunity to destroy the exhausted SU. They land in Normandy in june 1945 to little resistance and manage to push the Soviets all the way back into Russia by winter. Unlike nazi Germany, they do win the hearts and minds of the Ukranians and Baltic peoples.

The SU, being the loser of WWII in this scenario, implodes and the western allies have succeeded in establishing democracy from the Atlantic to the Ural.

[Pannonian]

'What if' history is free-for-all history. This scenario is not at all unlikely:

Operation Overlord failed, another major invasion is politically and logistically not possible until spring 1945. The SU still overruns Germany, but continues it's drive all the way into western Europe, reaching the Atlantic. Their forces are drastically overstretched and the SU has reached the very limit of it's available resources and manpower.

Not keen on a Bolshewik continent, the Americans and British seize the opportunity to destroy the exhausted SU. They land in Normandy in june 1945 to little resistance and manage to push the Soviets all the way back into Russia by winter. Unlike nazi Germany, they do win the hearts and minds of the Ukranians and Baltic peoples.

The SU, being the loser of WWII in this scenario, implodes and the western allies have succeeded in establishing democracy from the Atlantic to the Ural.

Would Stalin go beyond the Germany? His objective was to smash Germany and set up a buffer between the USSR and the west. In the OTL, Soviet troops reached Austria and Denmark, but withdrew when asked to by the Allies. In other areas not immediately bordering the USSR Stalin also refrained from intervening, such as Greece where the Communists were actively asking for his help. He was quite aware that the USSR was at the limits of its manpower, and so were his Marshals. Why would he overstretch himself when he could achieve all his war objectives and maintain a facade of trustworthiness, ensuring at least neutrality if not friendliness from the west? After all, his doctrine was Communism at home, whereas spreading Communism abroad was the mark of his rival Trotsky.

In the OTL, it was two Allied individuals who advocated fighting another war, this time against the Soviets. Churchill was voted out by the British public, while Patton was killed in a road accident. AFAIK, no-one from the Soviet side even thought about attacking the west. So any what-if scenario of a war between the Soviets and the Allies should realistically have a startpoint of the Allies attacking the Soviets, not the other way round. In which case the question should be asked, what would the public back home think of their militaries attacking their former allies?

[Grey_Fox]

In which case the question should be asked, what would the public back home think of their militaries attacking their former allies?

Depends on how effective the propoganda is. With enough "SU IS TEH EVILZORZ!!!!!11!!1oneeleventhirten" it would be possible to drum up enough support for war.

Defeating the Soviet war machine would be a different matter altogether since the western Allies were nowhere near as militarily effective as the German army of WW2.

[InsaneApache]

In which case the question should be asked, what would the public back home think of their militaries attacking their former allies?

Depends on how effective the propoganda is. With enough "SU IS TEH EVILZORZ!!!!!11!!1oneeleventhirten" it would be possible to drum up enough support for war.

Defeating the Soviet war machine would be a different matter altogether since the western Allies were nowhere near as militarily effective as the German army of WW2.

Not true. The British (and Commonwealth) Army had beaten the Wehrmacht in Africa before the USA got there. If anything, the Regimental system of the British Army was at least equal to, if not superior to the Wehrmacht.

[Kagemusha]

Not true. The British (and Commonwealth) Army had beaten the Wehrmacht in Africa before the USA got there. If anything, the Regimental system of the British Army was at least equal to, if not superior to the Wehrmacht.

But the British had 2/1 ratio of troops and tanks compared to Germans in North Africa.What made the British Regimental system better then German equivalent?

[InsaneApache]

I can't do detail at the moment, (gotta be at airport in 6 hours), but the lessons of the Battle of the Somme fundamentally changed military doctrine in the UK after WWI.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

A lot more Soviet influence if allies were repelled on the western front all times.

[Grey_Fox]

Not really. German troops were better motivated than their opponents and could pull off amazing feats even when ridiculously outnumbered.

I can't do detail at the moment, (gotta be at airport in 6 hours), but the lessons of the Battle of the Somme fundamentally changed military doctrine in the UK after WWI.

Didn't help the BEF in France in 1940...

[rotorgun]

As for the effectiveness of the German army and its superiority over the allies on the tactical level, I believe any knowledgable person would agree that there was no comparison. It was numbers that ultimately beat them for sure. One must admit that Soviet tank design had gone far ahead of anything the allies produced, but was not descisive against the Germans alone. In the west, I must remind myself that Britain, France and America faced only 1/4 of the German Army. But for allied control of the air, Germany would have defeated them. This is rather humbling to admit for an American, raised as I was on the myths of invincibility created by our victory. But for a few mistakes....Mein Gott!

I believe that Hitler would have turned his Panzer resreve east as soon as he felt he had sufficiently secured the Atlantic Wall. A failed D Day could have brought about a peace agreement with Hitler exchanging France (except for the Rhineland areas occupied prior to the war) and the Low countries for military aid against the Soviets. The Allies might have accepted the offer to minimize the political damage of such a defeat. It is doubtful, given Hitler's megalomania, but possible. The Generals would have been in a better position to argue for such a course. With the combined forces against the SU, a push into Germany would have been impossible for them.

Those who underestimate the superiority of the Soviet Armies tank designs should try to match the American late war Shermans and Pershings against the Soviet T 34 85's, JSI and JSII heavy tanks in a wargame. In equal numbers, and make no mistake, the Sovets had plenty, there is no competition. Only allied aircraft had technical superiority over Russian planes. Even then, it was not marked by this stage in the war. Perhaps the A Bomb would have been used in Europe as well against the Russians?

[Pannonian]

As for the effectiveness of the German army and its superiority over the allies on the tactical level, I believe any knowledgable person would agree that there was no comparison. It was numbers that ultimately beat them for sure. One must admit that Soviet tank design had gone far ahead of anything the allies produced, but was not descisive against the Germans alone. In the west, I must remind myself that Britain, France and America faced only 1/4 of the German Army. But for allied control of the air, Germany would have defeated them. This is rather humbling to admit for an American, raised as I was on the myths of invincibility created by our victory. But for a few mistakes....Mein Gott!

Compare with Operation Bagration in the east which took place at roughly the same time. Pages 57-61 contains a nice summary of the Soviet doctrine of "Deep Operations" and its implementation at this stage of the war.

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...ubs/connor.pdf

[Kraxis]

The original T-34 could have matched the Sherman (better gun, lesser armour and superior mobility), the 85 version was upgunned and armoured so that the Sherman would feel like it was facing a Panther. But unlike previously, there would be hundreds of these tanks (in fact they would be as numerous as the Allied tanks).

But the Allies had training on their side.
If you look at the battles in Lorraine between Allies Shermans (and some Tank Destroyers) and German Panthers you will se that the Allied tankers were simply better educated. That would be a huge advantage when facing the horribly trained Russian tankcrews.
But I think it would have been a rude shock for the Allies to fight the Russians.

[Lord Winter]

I think like everyone else the Russians would have over ran Germany and probably gulped up most of northern/western France, with the allies sallying from Italy and possibly another landing in Normandy, thus taking south France. Then i think the soviets would turn east like they did historically after V.E. and declare war on japan. Quite possibly the allies would then make peace with Japan and open a second front on Russia with the added man power freed up from the pacific.
After that who can say? It would have been a terrible war of
with Germany changing hands many time, huge bombing raids by the allies and probably a blockade too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It would have been difficult for the Germans to have defeated the Normandy landings -- but not impossible. Greater success at Omaha beach, a rapid night counterattack while the British and American forces were still unlinked, a greater degree of success in shrugging off the impact of the paratroopers. Germany might have eked out a win while the Allied lodgements were too small for their greater logistics to be brought to bear.

If defeated, the Wermacht would have been reasonably sure that another invasion could not be mounted for some time, possibly as much as a year. This would have placed greater reserves at the disposal of commanders in the East and slowed, albeit not halted, Soviet gains that year. The Atlantic Wall would still have required many troops, and only a Wermacht commitment of nearly 100% of all forces might (and only might) have stopped the Sovs.

But slow the advance of the Soviets 6 months, maybe longer, and I think you do see the first nuke used on Germany rather than Japan as a means of wiping out the Leadership and preventing the feared Bavarian redoubt.

[Kraxis]

I'm certain the Allies might have redoubled their efforts in getting the landings in Southern France going. So perhaps it might happen strengthened and earlier. This would force teh Germans to keep her troops in France, but southern France wouldn't be as easy to supply so the Allies couldn't put much pressure on Germany.

Grmany wouldn't be able to send too much to the East.

[Brenus]

“Many people say if hitler haven't held back his reserve of panzers, the allied invasion would have been crushed and a thrown back to sea, but the germans would have taken heavy causalities as well due to allied air superiority.” Could be, but I doubt of it. The main problem for the Germans was, either to put all the defence near the coast (Rommel), and be bombed by the Navy (400 mm guns) or to prepare a defence (Von Runstedt) in land and be attacked by the Air Forces.

Louis, you had still the landing in Provence on the others side of France. De Lattre and US army push along the Rhone and went to Belfort and Strasbourg. IF D-day would have failed, well, the allies would have shift the effort on this front, and it will have, perhaps few weeks or months delay.
The D-Day was just a part of a bigger plan. Like the Russian offensive, stated sooner than intended by the STAVKA in order to put pressure on the Germans and to prevent reinforcements to come.

Perhaps it would have favoured USSR to take more territory, but even that isn’t sure. The US Army withdrew from part of the German territory they occupied, like agreed in Yalta (or Teheran, I don’t remember).

“I believe that Hitler would have turned his Panzer resreve east as soon as he felt he had sufficiently secured the Atlantic Wall. A failed D Day could have brought about a peace agreement with Hitler exchanging France (except for the Rhineland areas occupied prior to the war)” Interesting comment but I don’t see how the French would have accepted the deal. So how the US and English would have, first disarmed the, I thing around 600.000 regular Free French Army fighting on their side in Italy and Provence, the FFI AND the FTPF (communist movement) which fought the Germans during 4 years. That could have been an interesting move. And what would happen after the discovering of the Death Camps?

[rotorgun]

“I believe that Hitler would have turned his Panzer resreve east as soon as he felt he had sufficiently secured the Atlantic Wall. A failed D Day could have brought about a peace agreement with Hitler exchanging France (except for the Rhineland areas occupied prior to the war)” Interesting comment but I don’t see how the French would have accepted the deal. So how the US and English would have, first disarmed the, I thing around 600.000 regular Free French Army fighting on their side in Italy and Provence, the FFI AND the FTPF (communist movement) which fought the Germans during 4 years. That could have been an interesting move. And what would happen after the discovering of the Death Camps?

Perhaps you are thinking that I meant that France would have remained in German hands? If so, what I was implying is that Hitler could have used France as bargaining chip with the allies after a failed invasion, giving up France to the Allies in agreement for military, political, and possible military assistance against the Russians. I doubt that they would have gone so far as to giving direct military aid, but I can envision the US and England giving the Germans a free hand in the east. It is a doubtful, but plausable surmise. Do you agree?