Any "What If" thoughts on D-Day?

I'm a day late, but this is from BBC. Thoughts?
:cheers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3732417.stm

What if D-Day had failed?

By Dr David Stafford
Centre for World War Two Studies, Edinburgh University


How were the huge risks involved in D-Day overcome, and if the D-Day landings had not succeeded, what kind of a Europe would have prevailed?

D-Day success was no sure thing and failure would have meant military and political catastrophe.

No-one knew this better than the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D Eisenhower.

On the night of 5 June, after he'd given the final order for the Allied invasion to proceed, he took a scrap of paper from his pocket and wrote out the text of the press release he hoped he'd never have to give.

It read as follows: "Our landings have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops.

"My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available.

"The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do.

"If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

Then he put it in his pocket and forgot about it. What if he'd had to use it?

QUOTE

D-Day success was no sure thing and failure would have meant military and political catastrophe.

I think you are exagerating. D Day passed on through carrefull planing and tactical reviews. Still there where a lot of mistakes specialy on OMAHA beach... :wink:

From Galland's memoires the number difference between the air forces was 20 to one. I think that OVERLORD was very well planned and the indesicion of Hitler and his generals made the Overlord success.

Bm

I've heard of a theory that said whether the Anglo-Americans had landed in France in 1943, the war would have been much shorter. In 1943 the Germans were not so strong in France like in 1944.

QUOTE

I've heard of a theory that said whether the Anglo-Americans had landed in France in 1943, the war would have been much shorter. In 1943 the Germans were not so strong in France like in 1944.

The Allies had problems with the equipement (logistic pb??) to make the big ARMADA that cross the sea in june 1944. Transport of the troops over the Channel was a big problem. After the failed landing at Dieppe in 1942, the Allied command didn't want to take any more risks. Of course until 1944 the Germans had time to built the so called "Wall of Atlantic" but today we know the result.

Bm

The Normandy landings could of well been a huge catastrophe for the Anglo-Americans. If the 101st , 82nd, (American) 1th, and 6th (English) Airborne divisions hadn't suceeded on the pre-invasion drops over Normandy, Panzer divisions would of reached Utah, Juno, and Sword and then Gold and Juno. The Anglo-American forces, if they suceeded in breaking through the "Atlantic Wall" the Panzer divisions would of driven them back into the sea. Hundreds of thousands of Anglo-American soldiers would of died, the Germans would of invaded England again. With the Anglo-American's dieing by the thousands in the English channel and southern England (and maybe eastern England if the Germans decided to attack england from Scandanavia) Russian morale would of wavered. Stalingrad might not of been such a sucess for the Red Army. Moscow would of fallen, and Russia would be in Nazi hands. A puppet facist ruler would be placed in charge of Russia. With the shift of troops from Russia, England would've fallen. The English in North Africa, having lost their fatherland would've surrendered or be annihlated. A puppet facist ruler put in power there too. The American fleet, pre-occupied by the Japanese at the time, would of had trouble stopping a mainland invasion. Eastern America would fall. I beleive if the war lasted that long a long war of attrition, like WWI, would of started. Causing years more of bloodshed. The Americans would have to shift troops from Japan to mainland America. The Japanese would of pushed the Americans back and would eventually make it to the west coast of America. The Americans would probably press for peace by then. If the Americans produced atomic bombs they still might not of won becuase if they use money needed for military production they would have less and less troops untill America is occupied.

Maybe I'm getting too far ahead of myself, but the Normandy invasions, if they had failed, would've caused huge problems for the Allies. Communism would not of spread. Hitler would of conquered the world for all I know. Hitler's empire would most likely fallen becuase of wide spread partisan activities, and suffer a similar fate as the Romans.

This may not of been caused becuase the D-day invasion failed, but if it did we will never know if it changed world events.

I think you are overreacting, by 1943 the URSS was already able to win the war by itself, in terms of industrial power.
On the other hand I don't think the allies would have ceased their struggle in opening another major front.
There was nothing that Germany could have done to win the war. In my opinion,only some nuclear weapons (quite a few, actually) could have changed the strategic balance as late as 1944.

Probably true, but without the Normandy invasion, most of Western Europe would have ended up with Communist regimes.

This is a too complicated matter, even for this what-if scenario.
maybe, maybe not...
My only sorrow is that the romanian anti-communist resistance has sacrificed itself hoping that "the americans would come", but this is not what this topic is about.

The actual wide-spread landings of the American divisions, actually helped in delaying the German response. The scattering of the men confused the Germans as to the focus and strength of the assualt.

Under the air superiority of allyes, german army had a pretty hard momment to organize and counter the atack. And "wide - spread landings", in this condition (air inferiority) was more hard to counter.


About topic - what if, like Victor "says without the Normandy invasion, most of Western Europe would have ended up with Communist regimes".

But, whitout Normandy invasion, what time was necesary for Red Army to touch the Atlantic (to conquer all Europe land)? 1,5 - 2 years? Or more? And in this time, germans may develop improved models of his arms...
??????????????


Iama

How can you develop something when you are under constant bombardment and you have no fuel to move your armies of defend your airspace. Germany was defeated and no wonder weapon Hitler boasted with could save it.

Like they did. In tunnels, and other places hidden. With fuels, is more bad... Maybe some "pottato fuel"? Maybe a new inovation? Yes, you are right, no chances...


Iama

One must remember that the Allies had already invaded mainland Europe in 1943, by there invasion of Italy.

I would suggest that if the Normandy invasion didn't go ahead, then more Allied resources would have been pumped into Italu and thus a quicker resolution to that campaign would have been at hand

And from my point of view... is hard to forget one thing: Italy had mountain, and is not a country for maneuvres like flanking (short distance East to West, or reverse ). With more AAA to cover the front is a problem for USAAF to obtain results. If - wht if thing - US and co. forces are blocked in South, and in this way no airbases for strategic bombers... one of the results are Prahova petroleum (*???) zone are more secure, and Axis have enough fuel for his engines.
How many tons want Hitler? He tells to Antonescu some like 4 mil. t. fuel/ year, or so.
If you want a "wat if" from this period of time, things are chanced. Is a more permissive land of gaming. It is a long way to ... GAME OVER...

Iama