What would happened if the D-Day had finished in a fiasco?

[Gallo Rojo]

I saw a movie named “Fatherland” on TV yesterday night . The movie argument is that the there is a nazi government in German during the ’50, since they had defeated the western allies at Normandy. In the movie the war in the eastern front continues in a form of guerrilla actions.

What’s your opinion guys? If the Germans had won in Normandy, would they have been able to stop the USSR?

Personally I think that the Soviets would have defeated them anyway. It’s clear that the STAVA had clamed for a second front during 1941 to 1943, but after Kursk the strategic initiative was on Russian side. On the other hand, although it seems clear that by 1944 it was not possible for the Germans to force the URSS to surrender (take Moscow, etc.), they may be had been able to force a pace agreement (if they defeated the soviets in some crucial battles).

[jpkeenan]

I dont have an opinion as to what would have happened, but this sure is fodder for our expert scenario designers to make some "what if" scenarios ... Are you listening W.B. ??

JPKeenan
Proud son of an 86th Blackhawk division dad during WWII

[Scipio Africanus]

I agree with you Gallo Rojo- The Soviets would have defeated them anyway- It would have taken longer as more troops could have moved east, but the strategic bombing campaign would have continued and there were just too many determined Russians. But, if Hitler hadn't violated his treaty with Stalin in the first place, the world might be much different...

Cheers,

------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

[David F. Wall]

Gee, I wish they'd show that movie around here. I can't find it on tape, either.

The movie is based on a book, and while the book is a lot more concerned with its central murder mystery plot, it puts forth some interesting alternate history. I don't believe the U.S. ever goes to war with Germany in the book -- they content themselves with stomping on Japan and slipping the Russians supplies on the sly. I'm also fairly certain the books alternate history includes a successful invasion of the United Kingdom, though it's been a while since I read it. Even in this book, which cuts Nazi Germany several substantial breaks, the Germans still haven't managed to completely conquer Russia after twenty-two years of more or less continuous warfare.

Stephen Ambrose has asserted that if the invasion of Normandy had failed and no successful equivalent were mounted, that the war in Europe would have been ended in April, 1945 by Little Boy. It is not clear to me that Stalin would not have been prepared to cut some kind of deal with Hitler (or whoever) without the successful opening of a second front.

I agree, it would make fascinating scenario fodder. As would the aftermath of any of the misfired attempts to assassinate Hitler.

[This message has been edited by David F. Wall (edited December 14, 2000).]

[Rhone]

Don't mean to stop the what if situations, but if we failed at Normandy, and the issue still looked in doubt in mid 1945 we would have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany to get them to surrender.

Those guys had an awesome responsability. Bet they didn't know they were fighting for German families as well.

[Ilja Varha]

...But what if the Germans shot down the plane carrying the atom bomb and the whole bomber fleet would have been blasted in mid air... Maybe consider the next bomb a bit more carefully...

And what if the Japs won Midway and the Russians lost Typhoon and Rommel won el Alamein and Finns won the Winter War by advancing as far as to Ural??? It's full of possibilities, which will never happen... You all know why. And that's why the real scenarios get me playing, not the what if ones...

Ilja

[Bonzo]

I think that an early failure at Normandy, before the bulk of the Allied forces got inland, would have resulted in more resources being sent into Italy, which had seen a substantial reduction in resources leading up to D-Day.

------------------
Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay, Coordinator
28th (North-west) Battalion Headquarters
Main http://nwbattalion.tripod.com
Mirror http://dreadnaught.home.icq.com
E-mail nwbattalion@icqmail.com

[Rhone]

Or perhaps the western landings...I believe that the Germans would still have gone with Plan B and retreat to the Westwall. Probably would have not delayed the Allied Plans too much but fuel would have been a much bigger problem then.

[Wild Bill]

All speculation, of course. By the way, I was listening John .

The 2nd alternate battle of Utah to the Rhine is an evacuation of Utah Beach under fire.

I don't think anyone has done badly enough to play that one, so we may just convert it into a scenario in itself. Interesting.

If the invasion had failed, it would have been a few months before another could be mounted. It would have given Germany a lot of time to slow the Soviet advance and to continue in the manufacture of advanced weaponry, including jets, rockets and work on the A-bomb.

Resources used to fight the Allies in France (petrol, steel, etc) could have been used both for development and defense on the Eastern Front.

But then of course, the attempted coup and assasination of Hitler in July might have succeeded, changing the whole tenor of the war.

It might have gotten very ugly.

Wild Bill

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[Anatoly Chekov]

Hey guys, I'm a newbie to this message board but have just spent the past month developing a scenario which you might find of interest.
Hitler fortified the Channel Islands against the advice of his generals and diverted much needed resources to achieve his aim. The British put together Task Force 135 with the 115th Infantry Brigade as its core with the plan to invade and retake these Islands.
Those of you who are familiar with the campaign to secure Cherbourgh will probably be aware of their existance. A re-inforced German Infantry Division 319 was based there and eventually cut off after the successful D-Day landings.
My "what if" scenario is centred around the notion that a foothold has been secured after D Day but the Brits are bogged down (historical), Omaha is a bit of a disaster and no progress has been made. (See "Disaster at D-Day" by Peter Tsouras), Utah has been successful but the Americans are not gaining ground in their drive on the port of Cherbourgh.
The Brits propose a relief landing on the west of the Contentin peninsular but first of all have to neutralise Jersey, the largest of the Channel Islands, where 170 artillery pieces control the access to the French beaches.
In this scenario the German positions are historical (down to actual leaders) and the British Task Force has been strenghened by Special Forces.
I have been play testing this for a while now and it is very large and quite challenging.
I have written it using version 4.4 and wonder if any of you guys would be interested in trying it out.

------------------

[Don Doom]

Interesting, beatin at d-day. hmm Well lets start with the german side first: a win would have risen moral up serval points. The odds of the july plot going through would be small. The germans would have lost equipment that they could not efford to lose if they were to then turn to fight the russians. Their factorys could not replace any large losses. Even small to medium would be hard to replace.
The US would be able to replace losses very easly. The British and others who had been fighting since 39 would not be able to replace the losses in men, equipment maybe but not men. The allies most likly figured out that after d-day the only other way to invade was futher north, possibly thru Denmark. Who knows.
The russians would have had a harder time but would have worn down what little resourses the germans would have left.
The war would have most likly lasted maybe year to a year & haft more but doubt any longer.
Well that is my two cents.

Don D.

[Lou]

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

If the invasion had failed, it would have been a few months before another could be mounted. It would have given Germany a lot of time to slow the Soviet advance and to continue in the manufacture of advanced weaponry, including jets, rockets and work on the A-bomb.

Resources used to fight the Allies in France (petrol, steel, etc) could have been used both for development and defense on the Eastern Front.

But then of course, the attempted coup and assasination of Hitler in July might have succeeded, changing the whole tenor of the war.

It might have gotten very ugly.

Wild Bill

You paint a grim picure, WB. Espeically the "Still Life With Jet Fighters".

You also add a provocative question to the mix. What would have happend had someone capped Hitler? Most of the histories I've read say that the war would have lasted longer without H's meddling. Folks who knew how to fight would be running the show. Brrrr. The biggest difference? No Battle of the Bulge. Estimates say that that one battle shortend the war by six months.

It's funny how things work out


Lou

[Lou]

Originally posted by Don Doom:
The germans would have lost equipment that they could not efford to lose if they were to then turn to fight the russians. Their factorys could not replace any large losses. Even small to medium would be hard to replace.
Don D.

Actually, you might be off on the production estimates. There is an excellent book by John Ellis called "Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War" that claims that for every war material except oil, production went up. Of course, having the stuff to fight a war but not having the fuel to run it hurts. Also, using that production capacity to build the wrong material is a dead end as well.

I agree with your assesment of US material. No matter how much stuff got trashed, the US could just make more (within some limits, of course).

Lou

[Skorpion]

There IS a book out called "Disaster At D-Day" by Peter Tsouras (I think). Heckuva read. The premise is that had just a couple things gone differntly, the whole Normandy campaign could have turned into a bloodbath that resulted in .... well, I don't want to give away the ending.

[McGib]

Originally posted by Lou:
You also add a provocative question to the mix. What would have happend had someone capped Hitler? Most of the histories I've read say that the war would have lasted longer without H's meddling. Folks who knew how to fight would be running the show. Brrrr. The biggest difference? No Battle of the Bulge. Estimates say that that one battle shortend the war by six months.

Lou

Actually Lou there is a book out called "Fox on the Rhine" by David Nissen (I think thats the authors name) and it starts out with the July plot succeeding. I've read a bit of it and it seems very good. I know its available in Canada through Chapters, I'm sure its available elsewhere though.

------------------
McGib
Ready Aye Ready

[Alexandra]

If the invasion had failed, it would have been a few months before another could be mounted. It would have given Germany a lot of time to slow the Soviet advance and to continue in the manufacture of advanced weaponry, including jets, rockets and work on the A-bomb.

I'd have to disagree with you, respectfully here, Bill. Carlo D'este in his quite excellent "Decision In Normandy" indicates that it was the clear view of the Combined Chiefs of Staff that Overlord was a one shot operation. The main reasons for this, IMO - and I can't back this up with hard data - are the lack of transports, and the begining of war weariness in the US. By June '44, there was already the political whispers of the everpresent, it seems, US Peace Movement.
Britian, as well, as again shown in "Decision in Normandy" was at the end of it's manpower and economic tether, and may now have been able, even if willing, to try an Overlord Two.


However, even had a second effort been made - perhaps an upgunned Anvil, or a new push in Italy, it may have made no difference. According to - among others - Andrei Gromyko, Stalin had already floated peace feelers - based on Status Quo Ante to Hitler in both '42 and '43, using contacts between his own and the German Ambassadors in Sweden and Switzterland.

Given Joe's paranoia, and insitance on the Second Front, I truly feel that had Overlord failed he would have made broader concessions to Hitler to end the War in the East.

As for the Bomb argument, I don't think so. I don't feel that any US President would have, at that point, authorized the atom boming of any European nation, and, with respect to the Atom Bomb therorists - what difference would it have made? We had two, and every city of note in Germany was already rubble. We may have killed the upper elements of the NSDAP and OKW and OKH, but, it could be argued that would have made the Wermacht - or more specifically the Heer, stronger not weaker. Guderian, for one, wouldn't have minded seeing Hitler and OKH go up in a big cloud of dust

However, the worse case scenario for the bomb is that someone like Himmler would have come to power...

Alex

[Flashfyre]

There IS a book out called "Disaster At D-Day" by Peter Tsouras (I think). Heckuva read. The premise is that had just a couple things gone differntly, the whole Normandy campaign could have turned into a bloodbath that resulted in .... well, I don't want to give away the ending.

You are correct, Skorpion. That book deals factually with "what might have been". Small details, not easily noticed, even by hardened D-Day historians. Things like a change in weather, a general's decision to delay his trip east by 24hrs, an unlucky shell hit, etc. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the Normandy possiblities.

------------------
The Motor Pool
http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550
kmcferren@cvn.net

[Rhone]

As for the Bomb argument, I don't think so. I don't feel that any US President would have, at that point, authorized the atom boming of any European nation, and, with respect to the Atom Bomb therorists - what difference would it have made?

Everybody suspected that Hitler's secret weapon to end all secret weapons was the Atom bomb. We were in a race to make the atom bomb before Hitler did, not the Russians. (Well, both) Where was Hitler intending on using his bomb had he had an opportunity to use it?

I am quite certain that if the Allies had to make a choice between 100,000 German civilians or 250,000 Allied troops, they would have dropped the bomb on Germany.

They didn't totally understand the bomb, MacArthur wanted to drop 40 or 50 of them on Communist China in 1950...and I'm not so sure that the long term affects of the bombs themselves were what shot that down, it was the overall immediate destructiveness that nixed that idea. Thank God.

I guess it is fun to think about what would have happened, I of course wish Germany (and Russia) would have called it quits prior to Sept. 1st, 1939...that way we would have had 50 years of production from Eastern Europe as opposed to the 50 years of stagnation we had to deal with. because of that fateful decision to invade Poland.

[Rhone]

Wait a second, had Germany not invaded Poland, there wouldn't have been WWII, and what the hell would I do with my free time??????

[Bonzo]

Don't fret Rhone, you still would have had the war in the pacific.

------------------
Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay, Coordinator
28th (North-west) Battalion Headquarters
Main http://nwbattalion.tripod.com
Mirror http://dreadnaught.home.icq.com
E-mail nwbattalion@icqmail.com