D Day repulsed:What Then?

[Dunash]

If Eisenhower's worst case scenario, for which he was prepared, had happened on D Day ie one massive Omaha Beach with the invasion repulsed with 20,000 lost, what would have been the most likely scenario? How many troops would Hitler have been able to transfer to the Eastern front? David Irving makes much of how just a few of the crack SS divisions would have made all the difference holding the Russians. Is he correct? When would the Allies have tried to invade again and where? With what consequences? Ultimately Germany probably being A bombed in July 1945 any way.

[Anthony Appleyard]

Likely USSR forces take all Germany and much of France.

[aktarian]

Bagration would still wipe out AGC. Maybe not as much but still a lot. Few more crack W-SS would mena few more crack W-SS divisions would be destroyed. Remember Bagration was timed to be launched short time after Overlord so even if Overlord fails it would still go as planned.

[Underboss_3]

did you ever read the book "What If" ? It has a short essay by Stephen Ambrose talking about this. The point of his essay was that Americans would want to focus on the War in the Pacific more and abandon Europe. He also mentioned Dewey being elected over Roosevelt in 1944, which (even though 20,000 casualties on Omaha Beach would not be good for a reelection bid) I doubt would have happened. Roosevelt was too popular.

[Peter]

The Iron curtain would be at the Rhine. Jugoslavia, Albania, West Germany, Finland, Denmark and West Germany would all be stalinist lands. Maybe Norway and the benelux countries too.

[zoomar]

I think it is more likely the Britain, not the US, would begin backtracking on a committment to establishing a western front. AFter all, they'd been fighting for 3 years before the US became a serious player and the Normandy invasion was pushed by the USA anyway - somewhat against Churchill's initial wishes. With a disaster of this magnitude, the Churchill government might even collapse, and a conservative government more willing to consider a separate armistice with Hitler might come to power. This would cause some very interesting problems in the Anglo-American alliance, especially if Nazi armistice offers required (which they almost certainly would) British neutrality and a removal of all US military forces from British territory. I've written a detailed, somewhat fictionalized, TL which then posits a power struggle between the "peace" government and the Churchill "war" faction who want to continue the war - leading to a brief civil war with the US tacitly supporting the "war" party - and with Churchill leaving the UK to establish a rival government in exile.

If it is deprived of bases in England or British colonies, the US also would eventually realize the near impossibility of invading Europe and defeating Germany in the near future. I suspect the US would focus more on Japan and speed up the development of planes like the B-36 to permit a continuation of the air offensive against Germany from more distant basis like Iceland and North America. Essentially, you might have several years of "phony war" between the US and Germany until the US was ready to take the war to Europe.

Personally, I believe that the Germans would be able to push the Soviets back - at least initially - with the Anglo-Americans essentially out of the war. Also, given the strongly anti-communist nature of the US, one wonders if it would consider to offer lend-lease assistance to Stalin. Thus I see Hitler consolidating his power in Europe - and beginning to obtain the grudging acceptance of German hegemony by conservative elements in France and other western European nations.

It is also interesting to speculate if Britain would continue to be a combatant in the Pacific against Japan. I tend to suspect they would, since the issues in this theatre are independent of the anti-Hitler coalition. In fact, Britain might actually contribute even more - at least until their colonies were regained.

Since the Anglo-Americans won at Normandy, there is a tendency to forget how truly decisive D-Day was. Once the British and Americans were safely onshore, complete Allied victory was inevitable; before the invasion, the long-term survival of Nazi Germany was still very possible.

[Tom_B]

Originally Posted by zoomar

I,Since the Anglo-Americans won at Normandy, there is a tendency to forget how truly decisive D-Day was. Once the British and Americans were safely onshore, complete Allied victory was inevitable; before the invasion, the long-term survival of Nazi Germany was still very possible.

Disagree very strongly. By the beginning of 1944 Nazi Germany is doomed.

Need to distinguish two things in this discussion. One is a scenario where Omaha Beach is eliminated by a German counterattack, the other beaches suffer heavier losses and the German cordon off the beachhead better--this could well have happened and is a meaningful discussion point.

The other is complete failure of the invasion and I find that extremely hard to believe given the air superiority and naval firepower, etc.

But through enough handwaing to power all the windmills in the world we assume it does, the likely results are:

1] Britain stays in the war. But Churchill forces FDR to back off "unconditional surrender" a notch. The "clarification" of unconditional surrender is designed so that if the German military overthrew the Nazis they could negotiate an armistice without complete surrender.

2] Italian campaign is intensified. Southern France is invaded.

3] Bagration still destroys Army Group Center People who think late war POD's can save Nazi Germany simply do not comprehend the importance of the Russian Front.

4] Roosevelts recovers some but not all of the lost prestige in the Pacific. The election is closer but he still wins

5] There is some possibility that a military coup allows Germany to survive with a negotiated armistice but the Allied terms will be severe. It would require the handing over of the Nazi leaders for war crimes.

6] More likely the Soviets overrun Berlin in June 1945 and the rest of Germany crumbles soon afterwards. The idea that the Soviets were scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower has some truth but they are producing huge numbers of tanks, planes and artillery--and the Germans are in still worse shape with manpower.

7] Interesting side effect of this is that the softening of "unconditional surrender" may allow Japan to escape Nagasaki, maybe even Hiroshima.

World War Two was a colossal mismatch. Nazis lose.










`

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Tom_B

The other is complete failure of the invasion and I find that extremely hard to believe given the air superiority and naval firepower, etc.

D-day postponed for 2 weeks. Landings go just before that big storm hits. Beacheads are cut off at critical moments and lack air and naval support. Add to this that German genrals are actually in France and you can give Germans victory.

[Mike Collins]

I think Tom B hit on the likely outcome. The allies focus on more conservative approaches like attacking through Italy into France and the likelyhood of a conditional surrender (dont know if the Sovs would go for it, but the Western allies might). How about this. Eisenhower gets fired. Who takes over as Supreme Allied Commander?

[Xen]

I dont agree with the Iron Curtain at the Rhine. Remember America and Britain had a foothold in in Europe already,we were pushing our way up Italy. An invasion of southern France is also likely. An invasion of Norway and perhaps of the Lowlands might be in the works and with the allies pushing up from the south it might succeed this time.

And wasnt Stalin under treaty to give the US/UK half of Germany by this time anyway?

The number 1 effect would be the resignation of General Eisenhower, obviously he retires and doesnt even bother with the Presidency.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Xen

And wasnt Stalin under treaty to give the US/UK half of Germany by this time anyway?

Stalin solemnly signed treaties promising to

- support Germany in her war against Poland, Britain and France

- share Germany with his allies

- hold free elections in the conquered areas of Eastern Europe

- not develop or use chemical or biological weapons

- support the development of a unified, demilitarised Germany post-war

- not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations

- respect the human rights of the inhabitants of the Soviet Union

As far as I can see, the only treaty he kept without need was the one about supporting Hitler. I don't think Stalin would risk a war with the US/UK Alliance when meeting their troops coming up through the Rhone valley or the Alpine passes. However, I find it equally unlikely the western allies would risk a war with Stalin over a 'renegotiation' that gives them Austria and him Germany, with Russian troops vacating a large chunk of France and the Benelux.

[Grimm Reaper]

Dunash: I doubt David Irving has much to offer on the subject. Not only is his other work being ravaged of late, but the entire German contingent in France when the Western Allies invaded would not have replaced what Hitler lost to Bagration and he could hardly have taken them all out with the US and England still in.

Zoomar, had England done that, the US response would have been awful. Likely the British lose their colonies in India and Asia by 1948, and the Middle East collapses by about 1952. The economy, deprived of Lend Lease and then the Marshall Plan, and possible seizure of Brit assets, would be back in the Great Depression. Meanwhile the USSR would likely have advanced to the English Channel. To give an idea of the USSR's advantage by then, the US and allies faced approximately 50 German divisions on D-Day. By the end of 1944, the USSR was able to swallow 32 German divisions in Bulgaria and Romania as if they were appetizers.

Even the US alone could have maintained the front in Italy and the most that Germany could have withdrawn elsewhere would likely have bought a few more months, even recognizing further German production. Stalin likely pushes to the Elbe by June 1945, and about the time we force Japan's surrender, the Red Army is nearing the English Channel.

Aktarian, you mean after Bagration had begun, also known as the destruction of Army Group Center? Don't know how strong the Germans would be in Normandy if they were trying to recoup from THAT disaster a week before we invaded.

In the aftermath, if we were fortunate, we might salvage Italy, France, Benelux, and the Rhineland for the West.

[Karlos]

Well, I think the Allies would have landed again, sometime in the spring of 1945. With the soviets entering Berlin, I doubt the germans would have left a sizeable force in the beaches of France, or elsewhere. The allies would do wathever to deny the soviets french territory, and a second landing would have taken place agains token resistance -maybe against no resistance at all. It would have made an interesting race towards Paris, Rotterdam, Brusels... Maybe the local communists -french and italian- would help the soviets, or Stalin would send paratroopers... Spain could be also interesting. Do the soviets stop at the border? Stalin could count with 10.000 spanish maquis to begin the fight. I can see the british landing in Portugal in a hurry.

[wkwillis]

We so outmatched the Germans that we had two separate invasions going. Anvil would still have landed troops in France, just farther away. The Germans abandoned France because they could not logistically defend the Normandy pocket and also defend the South of France. If they had controlled the Normandy pocket to outside the range of the battleships, then they would have still had to fight on a front in the south.
We had that many landing craft in Europe at that time. They were completely outclassed. It was incredible that they fought on after June of 1944 instead of collapsing right then. It also cost them more than half their casualties in the war. If they had surrendered right then they would have been better off and we would probably have had to fight them again in the sixties. Only the complete occupation defeat of their country made them abandon plans for dominating Europe.
Normandy was one battle, not a war, or even a campaign.

[Paul Spring]

I agree with wkwillis on this one - the invasion of southern France would still be successful, and many units would have been diverted from England to southern France if "Overlord" failed. It might take a little longer to push the Germans out of most of France, though. If the Germans could transfer any troops from the west, it wouldn't be enough to have a significant impact on the eastern front. The meeting line between Soviet and Western forces could be somewhat farther west, leading to a Germany that's divided about 50/50 between communist and non-communist governments, instead of East Germany being much smaller than West Germany.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Aktarian, you mean after Bagration had begun, also known as the destruction of Army Group Center? Don't know how strong the Germans would be in Normandy if they were trying to recoup from THAT disaster a week before we invaded.

In the aftermath, if we were fortunate, we might salvage Italy, France, Benelux, and the Rhineland for the West.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Bagration was timed to be launched some time after Overlord. When Stalin learned that D-Day would be in early June they timed start of Bagration acordingly (actual symbolic date wasn't ment to be such). Even if somehow Overlord on 6.6. fail Bagration would still go on as in OTL. If it is postponed I don't think it could be postponed by much.

[Nonny]

WI Anvil is called off before the troops land due to some stunning troop ship (eg five ships with 4000 men on each) losses due to lucky Fritz X and Henschel 293 hits. Hitler deems his Western Front safe for the time being and dares to denude it and rush 500,000 troops from Holland, France and Norway to the Eastern Front in time to stop the Russians dead on the Vistula?

[Admiral Matt]

That still wouldn't stop them.

[Nonny]

Together with that 500,000, if the Anglo-Americans are unable to land anywhere in France until 1945, would the 350,000 German troops,1000 aircraft and 1000 tanks slated for the Bulge, which was originally planned to be launched in November, plus the 100,000 from Northwind, plus 50,000 from the winter-moribund Italian Front, all toting Panzerfausts, at least have been able to hold the Russians from entering Prussia, or are the Mongols & T34s unstoppable?

[Grimm Reaper]

Nonny, yep, they are unstoppable. The forces from the Bulge and onwards do not exist yet and can't be counted. As for the other 500,000 troops, some were of questionable quality and most can't go anywhere. What happens if Hitler DOES pull them all out? The western allies claimed 500,000 troops in summer of 1944, so if we assume half the troops in Norway go(about 150,000) then that leaves 350,000 or two-thirds of Germany's forces in France. With that reduction, Anvil alone could take much of France.

Even assuming a wipeout at Normandy with @50,000 dead, would remaining forces, ships, and supplies suffice for a second attempt if German forces are so dramatically reduced, especially with Anvil diverting most of whatever was left?

Aktarian, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that Bagration first would probably divert any potential German reserves and maybe even reduce the forces in France, then the Allies invade Normandy.