Postponed/Failed D-Day - Future of Occupied Germany?

[The B]

For one reason or another, D-Day is substantially delayed or fails. This means the Soviets are able to take a large amount, or all, of Germany before the Allies pick themselves up again and get some momentum.
Often many people would say that this would lead to a Communist liberated France, but let's say the Soviets don't get that far.

-As the dust settles, how do the first few years after the war turn out?
-And the years after that? There would be no events like the Berlin airlift to create tension in Germany, however I'm sure there would be tensions on the German(?)/French border
-What is it like in Germany? How is the country treated? Are the post-war borders any different?
-In the case the the Cold War does not warm up, and the USSR collapses as OTL, what is free Germany like?

[The B]

Hmm-hmm hmm.

[Richter von Manthofen]

The way Germany was divided was not determined how far the Russsians and Western allies got in their campaign. The division of Germany was agreed on quite earlier.

So even the Soviets got to the Rhine they would only get to occupy what they did IOTL.

The question would be - would the Soviets actually pull back or would they say -- We stand where we are (OTL the WAllies pulled back and honored the deal)

Say the Russkies do NOT honor the deal then the Wallies have the choice of accepting that (and prove they are weak) or would they go to war with the SU.

Another pouint is when would the Germans surrender.

If the Russians reach Berlin? - maybe notbut I think they would retreat from France and Italy to focus on the Reds (I assume AH is dead when the Russians reach Berlin and cooler heads - Dönitz - take over).

Thus I think Germany would surrender somewhere east of the Rhine...

[Magnum]

Plus, the allies also have the landing in southern France, which is unlikely to be defeated, as well as the possibility to try again in northern France later, once the nazis have pulled enough units out of there

[AdA]

Lets say D Day fail monumentally on the first days. Allies pushed back to the sea, etc. (For me, D Day failing is about as likely as Sealion suceding, but...)
Bragation happened about to close to D Day for the Gemans to redeploy in time to alter it much, but once Bragation is over in August, The German units liberated (pun intended) from France will be redeployed to the East.
No Normandy, No Falise, etc liberates a lot of forces. No Ardennes even more. With no prospect of a Second front in 1944, the Germans will probably hold the eastern front much better. Berlin in May 1945 will not happen.
Now what will the Wallies do? Do not underestimate the capability of the US to get monumentaly angry whem things go wrong. The US will blame the Brits for a failed D Day, and start working like hell for D Day II "the comeback"
B29s deploying to Europe will be inevitable, but the big question is were will the land forces hit. With nowhere else to fight, the allies will concentrate on clearing Italy and will stop on the Alps. More landings on the Med? seize Greece and go North from there? Another go at France? Norway, turn Finland and join with the Russians?
When D Day II comes it will take advantage from the mutual bleeding in the eastern front and the US Army 2.0 might even make it to Berlin ahead of the Russians?
And we'll have created a perfect POD for fans of the Me262 and of the Frisian Islands to really get loose...

[Urban fox]

At the very least the Soviets would strip the Ruhr and other industrial regions bare. along with the German countryside. Before handing the zones over to Allies. Also now the Soviet victory such that even the most obvious ''Hollywood histories'' of the war in Europe couldn't ignore the fact the Soviets won the land-war practically single-handed Stalin's position at the bargaining table is now much stronger...

[jmc247]

A failed D-Day comes up alot and the answer I always give is the devil is in the details. If its simply things go bad at the beaches and IKE and Monty pull them back before they lose hundreds of thousands of men then the WAllies will try again and I honestly don't think the Russians get alot further then OTL.

If its a Peter Tsouras Disaster at D-Day like failure where the British Army is basically screwed its a whole different ball game. Rommel knew the war was lost at this point, but was hoping for some kind of seperate conditional peace or at worst conditional surrender of German forces at Normandy. If the WAllies don't take what he offers in such a scenero then we are talking about a Soviet controlled central Europe.

[AdA]

Many assume a failed D Day would be good for the Soviets. I disagree. The USSR paid a huge price for getting to Berlin in May 45. A higher price in combat deaths in the final offensive alone than the US in the whole war. (300000+ deaths). That was with significant part of the German forces fighting the Wallies.
Rossokovsky himself admitted that he had been in a tight spot in Poland when the Germans comited a single PzK to a counter attack. A failed D Day gives the possibility of large redeployment of German armour in time to turn the 1st Bielorussian Front troubles into a defeat.
And if we factor in all the losses in armour and (critically) aircraft the Germans sustained in France, the conditions for the Vistula Oder offensive are not as favourable as in OTL.
There would be another D Day, with more agressive revenge thirsty commanders backed by an angry US public. Meanwhile the Germans and Russians would have worn each other in Poland.
There is a small chance that the fall of Hungary, Romania, etc, might have been prevented.
The war might well end with the Wallies taking Berlin after a lightning campaign while those countries still held. The USSR might have been contained.
the Russians always felt the Wallies were postponing D Day to lower their share of the losses and raise the Soviet death toll. They had a point...

[AdA]

If D Day failed, who would replace IKe and Monty?

[ObssesedNuker]

Originally Posted by AdA

Many assume a failed D Day would be good for the Soviets. I disagree. The USSR paid a huge price for getting to Berlin in May 45. A higher price in combat deaths in the final offensive alone than the US in the whole war. (300000+ deaths).

The United States total dead numbers over 400,000 dead throughout the entire war. The number of dead the Soviets suffered in the Berlin operation amounts totals 81,000. If you count the entire period between January 1945 and May 1945, the Soviets suffered close to 300,000 combat deaths (rounding up).

And the Soviets will still be in a favorable position for the Vistula-Oder Offensive. Once Bagration has smashed Army Group Center, the Soviets will be able to exploit that success and seize Romania, crippling Germany's fuel production. Still ongoing Allied strategic bombing against the synthetic fuel plants would eliminate almost all of the rest. And there is Operation Dragoon and the Italian front still sucking away Germany forces.

All those extra troops and equipment doesn't do the Germans any good if they can't be moved quickly enough for lack of gas.

At the very least the Soviets would strip the Ruhr and other industrial regions bare. along with the German countryside. Before handing the ones over to Allies. Also now the Soviet victory such that even the most obvious ''Hollywood histories'' of the war in Europe couldn't ignore the fact the Soviets won the land-war practically single-handed Stalin's position at the bargaining table is now much stronger...

This is the most likely outcome.

[Chris S]

Originally Posted by Urban fox

At the very least the Soviets would strip the Ruhr and other industrial regions bare. along with the German countryside. Before handing the zones over to Allies. Also now the Soviet victory such that even the most obvious ''Hollywood histories'' of the war in Europe couldn't ignore the fact the Soviets won the land-war practically single-handed Stalin's position at the bargaining table is now much stronger...

Agreed. This seems the most likely outcome. Stalin simply orders all the areas of Germany occupied outside of the designated Soviet zone to be stripped of as much material (industrial and foodstuff) as possible to form reparations.

Additionally the Red Army would probably leave behind some better organized local German communists and other leftists (probably purged of any elements deemed as being inimical to Soviet interests). How that affects post-war politics in the western zones could be interesting.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Richter von Manthofen

The way Germany was divided was not determined how far the Russsians and Western allies got in their campaign. The division of Germany was agreed on quite earlier.
..

True. But when? A quick google suggests that the IDEA of occupation zones was agrred on at Tehran in 43, and that the final borders, carving a french zone out of the us and uk zones, was agreed at yalta in early 45. What, precisely was agreed on by Dday, and how firm was it? If Stalin makes it all the way to the Rhine, he is NOT going to accept as little as he did iotl. Maybe austria ends up his, or greece?

[AdA]

Originally Posted by ObssesedNuker

The United States total dead numbers over 400,000 dead throughout the entire war. The number of dead the Soviets suffered in the Berlin operation amounts totals 81,000. If you count the entire period between January 1945 and May 1945, the Soviets suffered close to 300,000 combat deaths (rounding up).

And the Soviets will still be in a favorable position for the Vistula-Oder Offensive. Once Bagration has smashed Army Group Center, the Soviets will be able to exploit that success and seize Romania, crippling Germany's fuel production. Still ongoing Allied strategic bombing against the synthetic fuel plants would eliminate almost all of the rest. And there is Operation Dragoon and the Italian front still sucking away Germany forces.

All those extra troops and equipment doesn't do the Germans any good if they can't be moved quickly enough for lack of gas.



This is the most likely outcome.

1. Combat deaths.
2. The Germans would move by train. (they had plenty of coal) They had enough gas for tactical moves.
3. The LW lost a lot of aircraft in the west in 1944. They would be able to move some East.
4. The forces wasted on the Ardenes operation alone would have been extremely useful in the East...

[krull1m]

The answer will depend on what the POD was.

For example, if d-day was postponed due to really bad weather, well the allies would simply have waited a little bit longer and then made a dash across the channel at the first opportunity. So overall there would be little difference to OTL.
It might have made the initial landings harder but given the air power that was available there would be no way for the Nazis to mass enough force to repel them. Cerrtainly they wouldnt be able to repel all the seperate landings.

Now, there is always the argument that the Nazis now have more time to bring in additional troops to man the defences. Which is valid, but those troops have to come from somewhere, and if they are fighting the western allies then that means they are not available to face the soviets. Which could make their fight easier than it was getting them to Berlin quicker. There is a huge question over how much additional strength could be brought in in the short time though. And in fact having more nazi troops in easy range of the allied air forces and naval guns could actually turn out to be a good thing. Kill/capture them there and you dont have to chase them all across France meaning that the allies could reach Berlin that much quicker themselves...

Alternatively you can have the invasion fail due to enemy action, which could only come about if the defences were massively increased in the proceeding years, with more tanks, planes, troops etc ready to repel any attack. Of course, you also then have to have the allied intelligence sticking their heads in a bucket for 2 years and missing the whole build up. Something that is not likely to happen.
And even if this did happen, again you are taking nazi strength away from the other fronts of the war.

Now, assuming that a plausible POD is found, and the soviets take more of Germany I can easily see them refusing to give it back. That would lead to a standoff with the rest of the allies (many of which are not to friendly towards the communists ayway), and that standoff would last as long as it took for the US to drop the a-bombs on Japan. At which point the soviets realise that their massive war machine is now a great target for a similar attack and so decide to go back to the agreed boundries.

Even if they thought about being stupid and wanted to resist, the best they could do would be to launch a massive attack into western europe, straight into the face of the massed military there, with the constant fear of having a-bombs dropped on their homeland launched from bases in Asia.

[ObssesedNuker]

Originally Posted by AdA

1. Combat deaths.

Which made up the majority of their deaths in '45.

2. The Germans would move by train. (they had plenty of coal) They had enough gas for tactical moves.

Too slow and inflexible to keep up with Soviet mechanized assaults. Case in point: when Hitler transferred a Panzer Corps from East Prussia to Poland by rail, it took two weeks. By the time it arrived, the German line had well disintegrated and the Corps had to be committed piecemeal... where it was destroyed piecemeal. Even worse, this played into the Soviets hands as it weakened East Prussia's defenses right before the Soviet attack there happened.

3. The LW lost a lot of aircraft in the west in 1944. They would be able to move some East.

The Germans had lost air superiority in the West and East well before D-Day. Moving "some" aircraft to the East just means more for Frontal Aviation, whose recovery paralleled that of the Red Army, to shoot down. Plus, the Luftwaffe will be the first to feel the fuel shortages.

4. The forces wasted on the Ardenes operation alone would have been extremely useful in the East...

At best, they delay the Red Army and cost it a couple more tens of thousands of deaths. And again: lack of fuel will limit the mobility of those German forces.

[AdA]

If you POD away D Day you give the Germans back all they lost after that in France. Some of it is stuff that was actually moved from Germany to France, and would go east in this scenario.
Why should the tanks used in the Ardenes, that were mostly built after DDay, need more fuel to be used in the east than what they needed to go west in OTL, considering that there were no resources wasted in the battle of France?
You're assuming that the soviets face larger and better Germans forces, aren't in a race with the Wallies to get to Berlin (and elsewhere) first, and yet get further and faster than OTL?

[General Tirpitz]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

True. But when? A quick google suggests that the IDEA of occupation zones was agrred on at Tehran in 43, and that the final borders, carving a french zone out of the us and uk zones, was agreed at yalta in early 45. What, precisely was agreed on by Dday, and how firm was it? If Stalin makes it all the way to the Rhine, he is NOT going to accept as little as he did iotl. Maybe austria ends up his, or greece?

Stalin though could stop when he's got his occupation zone in Germany and let Western Allies to do fighting in West Germany. Soviets also wouldn't have to rush so much and for example could have a chance to get Finland as now they don't have to hurry their troops towards Berlin.

[ObssesedNuker]

Originally Posted by AdA

first, and yet get further and faster than OTL?

Further? Yes. Faster? Probably not. The key is that a failed D-Day holds the Western Allies up even more then it would the Soviets.

Originally Posted by General Tirpitz

Stalin though could stop when he's got his occupation zone in Germany and let Western Allies to do fighting in West Germany. Soviets also wouldn't have to rush so much and for example could have a chance to get Finland as now they don't have to hurry their troops towards Berlin.

I don't know... Stalin would recognize that even if he had to give up West Germany once the war was over, he could still snag all of its industry before he has too. IOTL, the Silesian Industrial Region was quite important to the Soviet Post-War reconstruction, ATL the Rhineland could be even more so.

[AdA]

And since the Germans were running on empty, they blow their last ressources on the east, in the process dramatically weakening the Russians, who finished the OTL war pretty much running on their last roubles of ressources, leaving the west open for a second coming of the Overlord.
Failed D Day is ASB. Failed D Day and they don't come back a few months later when the time is just right is ASB on acid. The Reds would be claiming to this day that the allies had failed D Day deliberately just to bleed them white (pun intended)

[ObssesedNuker]

Originally Posted by AdA

And since the Germans were running on empty, they blow their last ressources on the east, in the process dramatically weakening the Russians, who finished the OTL war pretty much running on their last roubles of ressources.

What world do you live in? The Soviets on VE Day were just as powerful as the Soviets in January 1945. More powerful, actually, since they now had access to their occupied territories industry.

What resources were the Soviets running out of? They still had all the raw materials they started the year with, they still had all of the refining and manufacturing capacity they started the year with, they would still be recieving lend-lease material...

There is manpower, of course. But in January of 1945 the Soviet Armed Forces had 11 million personnel, of whom 6.5 million were facing the Germans. In May of 1945 the Soviet Armed Forces had... 11 million personnnel, with 6.5 million facing the Germans.

Plus, the Soviets still had men of military age they could conscript. They would have to put women into work and it would have negative impact on the post-war period, but they could probably raise another two or three million troops if pressed.