D-Day:A TOTAL FAILURE

Karlos

Let's see. The Allies had massive superiority in the air and in the sea. A better german reaction, even a free hand for Rommel, could have meant more (much more) allied casualties, but not a failure.
The only way I see a possible failure has to be through intelligence. If the germans somehow knew the place and time of the invasion and were able to keep this knowledge in secret, they had a chance. Of course, they would have to concentrate armor, planes, V-1's, and their best troops on the beaches, and assume big losses themselves, but they could have done it.
In this event, the allies could very well have postponed Dragoon (Churchill was always against it) and try to push elsewhere (Italy, Balcans). The worst side of it would have been the total loss of the airborne divisions, hig-trained specialists, essential to a new attack.
 
Noravea

Noravea

I doubt that the Allies would be able to land in South France, the only reason they landed was to connect with Allied Forces in Normandy, they would cancel the Invasion and work on pushing into Northern Italy Instead.

Hitler would probably transfer a hell of a lot more troops from the West to the Eastern Front, slowing the Soviet Armies. This would probably decrease Soviet Morale, knowing that the West was crushed. The Italian front would halt in its tracks, and probably the Germans in the First few months could make Advances.

On the Eastern Front, the Soviets probably would continue to advance, but at a much slower pace. The Russians would take Eastern Prussia about a month later, and the Germans probably holding the Front outside of Berlin for quite some time.

Eventually, this would be not so important, the Battle of Berlin turns into a repeat of Moscow, the Russian supply lines cut short, but the Russians probably taking the city by the end of 1945.

The Soviets would attempt to move into the Rest of Germany, but the Poles, realizing the Russians as bad as the Germans, would start a guerilla warfare, bogging down the Soviets. The Soviets would also have to face urban warfare across Eastern Germany, and fight die hard loyal Germans, and also mountain warfare in the Alps.

The Germans would move their government to Munich or Paris, and Hitler would still be alive, continuing the Final Solution. The Russian morale by this point would collapse, and hopes for the Axis would skyrocket. Several German offensives, led by Rommel (If he is still alive), could crush the Soviets at Berlin.


By this point, the Western Allies in January of 1946, would still be fighting at the city of Rome, possibly seeking a ceasefire. If accepted, Southern Italy, Sicily, and Libya (As well as Ethiopia and Somalia) would be returned to Italy.

If the Ceasefire is accepted, Axis troops could fight off the Russians in the Alps, which would be under-supplied and defeated by the SS and Italians who are more superior in mountain fighting. The Germans could probably push into Yugoslavia and Poland, but for the duration of the war, the conditions would be much like the Western Front in WWI, continuous stalemate.

This would most likely lead to a ceasefire between the Soviets and Germans/Axis forces, Hitler gaining all of Eastern Europe, some of the Baltic, and Western Ukraine and Belarus. The War would probably end between 1947-1951.
 

BlackWave

As mentioned before, the Allies can still bomb the crap out of the Germans, and will hold back even less. Hell, Hitler, now spooked by the possibility of another Allied incursion, may divert even more troops to the West. As the Poles rebelling, I frankly think this is ASB--they weren't all that enthusiastic about Soviet rule in OTL, at least after a short while, but they couldn't rebel--their country and people were broken, and the Soviets weren't actively trying to eradicate them like the Nazis. So, by this point, Hitler is beaten no matter what. It may just take a bit slower at best.
 

lothaw

It's quite possible Stalin would sue for some sort of peace treaty. In OTL he was constantly complaining that the Soviet Union was bearing the brunt of the fighting.

With the failure of the Normandy invasions, it's possible he could put out peace feelers for a 1941 border via the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Whether or not Hilter accepts this is another story.

That would put the allies in a very tight spot for two reasons. One they have to take on German West Europe on their own and two, how long before Stalin decides to take on China and Japan and expand communism into those lands?

Would Allied morale be high enough to continue the war under the circumstances? Certainly the atomic bomb is a year away at this point, but will the people of America and Britain keep up the war until then? Brtain especially has already borne the cost of this war to it's full measure and didn't have much left. That could be a crippling blow for them and could lead for a vote of no-confidence in Churchill. It seems unlikely that the US could continue the war on Germany without any allies left in Europe.

A peace treaty could consist of diplomatic recognition of the Petain regime and return of all France and Italy's colonies minus Indochina. Formal German annexation of the Low Countries and Alsace-Lorraine. Likely keeping Vichy France under military occupation.

Again, not sure if Hitler would go for this though butterfly effect could lead to a successful July 20 plot, which the proposed government could very well get peace on these terms.

The Pacific would then turn into a race between the former allies. Downfall's timetables would almost definitely have to be accelerated to before the Bomb is ready, just to keep the Russians from getting any sort of toehold. So you'd likely see Iwo Jima and Okinawa happening earlier, possibly the Phillapines getting skipped over completely.

Huh, this might not make a bad TL.
 

Kevin Renner

IMO opinion the success of Overlord was never really in doubt. Eisenhower's statement he had prepared in case of the landings failing was simply something that the Allies had to have ready just in case. What had to of been in doubt was just how much success there would be. Even if Omaha fails or is contained then Utah becomes the focus of American efforts. As noted previously, the amount of maval gunfire support along with the overwhelming Allied air supperiority is going to make any German counter-offensive open to being mauled while still in their deployment phase. But looking at the map of Normandy I have to wonder, just how tempted were the planners for Overlord to stage the landings to the east of Le Harve*. That would of put them right next to a major port. And on the east bank of the Seine. Or are the beaches there not conducive to a landing

*See what happens when you spend too many Sundays watching Brett Favre :rolleyes:
 

shillinger

BlackWave said:
Unless we get a earlier POD that screws up the arrangements or strength.
Click to expand...

Supposed the Germans knew where they were going to land, made better preparations, etc.

But if such an event were to occur, then the Soviets take entire Germany and meet the Yanks in Metz. This would make a interesting TL.
 

BlackWave

shillinger said:
Supposed the Germans knew where they were going to land, made better preparations, etc.

But if such an event were to occur, then the Soviets take entire Germany and meet the Yanks in Metz. This would make a interesting TL.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder what Patton would make of it.
 

MUC

I believe that the Germans did have the chance of stopping the Allies in Normandy in 1944, but in order to pull that off, they would have to make several changes in their overall defensive posture and units stationed in France.
With more armour closer to shore, which can be rushed to the beaches before the night falls, with more artillery to hammer the beachheads and with a better effort to destroy the paratroopers, thus allowing the German forces to get to the shore faster they do stand a chance.

Many of you have discussed the issue of total Allied air supremacy, which is truly a problem for the Germans, still armoured reinforcements did get chopped up before reaching the front in OTL.
However with the aid of bad weather, the contribution of Allied airpower can be heavily reduced in an ATL. One of main reasons why the Germans were initially successfull in the Ardennes offensive, was that the Allied airforces were grounded due to bad weather. Surely that was winter and this is summer, but back in 1944 bad weather could ruin your chances for air support.
Firing by battleships and cruisers can be a pain in the ass, but the Allies did not have infinite numbers of ships or ammo to cover the invasion force. Furthermore, the closer the Germans would get to beaches, the heavier it would be for the Allies to stop them.

A total failure in Normandy is probably very difficult, the Allies would be able to take some beachheads, the Germans cannot hold all sectors. However, if the Germans gave the Allies a very bloody nose and stopped them from gaining access to a port or bringing in their mobile ports, they may stand a chance that the Allies decide after 3-4 days to quit the whole operation, when they see that a breakthrough is becoming impossible.
It's difficult, but it's not impossible. The Germans have to be a lot smarter, they need more forces, the weather has to play along and the Allied hopes have to shaken by mounting casualties, for example through a total disaster in Omaha beach with several thousand dead GIs.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
shillinger said:
As others have stated, D-Day failing is ASB.
Click to expand...

ASB is something so incredibly unlikely that it requires what amounts to supernatural intervention for it to happen. I do not think a failure of the D-Day invasion ranks that high.

IOTL, the Allies basically made the right decisions and had a lot of good luck, while the Germans made basically wrong decisions and had a fair amount of bad luck. Flip these over, and you have a chance of a German victory.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Anaxagoras said:
ASB is something so incredibly unlikely that it requires what amounts to supernatural intervention for it to happen. I do not think a failure of the D-Day invasion ranks that high.

IOTL, the Allies basically made the right decisions and had a lot of good luck, while the Germans made basically wrong decisions and had a fair amount of bad luck. Flip these over, and you have a chance of a German victory.
Click to expand...
You may be right that it's not quite ASB. And you're certainly right that the Germans could have done a lot better, and made the fight a lot harder. But, realistically, once the allies have landed, how do they kick them off again?

I really suspect the only way to get D-day to fail is to have the storm continue that day. (Yes, the Met guys predicted good weather, so it went ahead, but what if they were wrong. It's not like weather prediction was infallible then. Or now.)
 

zoomar

Despite the prevailing wisdom on this board, I happen to believe that a "total failure" of the Normandy landings would have had a decisive effect on the war - or at least the Wallies' war effort and willingness to continue with the second front strategy. Let's define "total failure" as near 100% loss of all troops committed to the initial invasion, either casualties or captured. Also assume considerable materiel losses. Such an outcome is not ASB, especially if one allows for the very likely possibility of unanticipated weather problems grounding allied airpower during critical phases after the initial landings were made.

Personally, I believe the political and morale effects of such a defeat would be catastrophic and unpredictable. It would be the first instance of an invasion being completely crushed by the Axis powers. Depending on the performance of the US and Commonwealth forces assigned to their respective beacheads it could lead to recriminations between the British and Americans, as well as complete shake up the allied high command. I suspect the landings in Southern France would be postponed, and eventually cancelled as the Wallies debated subsequent strategy. Having suffered through a 3 year war by themselves, would the British people and military leadership be willing to go along with another US-led invasion of Europe? Faced with such a defeat, would they continue to keep Churchill's govt in office, especially if the Nazis proposed some creative armistice terms similar to what they offered in 1940? How would the American people react to such a defeat an a theatre that many of them still considered secondary to the war they wanted to fight? If Stalin detected even an iota of Wallie wavering, would the USSR consider a separate armistice with Germany on his terms. What would Hitler do? By June 1944, all reasonable Germans fully understood they would eventually lose a war against the USSR, UK, and USA. Could Hitler be prevailed upon to make a temporary peace of some sort with one or all allied powers? If not, as Tsourkas' D-Day speculation has it, might the Army stage a coup to negotiate with the Wallies?

I'm not prepared to predict any particular outcome, but I believe the effects would be significant...and not particularly good for the west or to the victms of Nazi persecution in Europe.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

zoomar said:
Despite the prevailing wisdom on this board, I happen to believe that a "total failure" of the Normandy landings would have had a decisive effect on the war - or at least the Wallies' war effort and willingness to continue with the second front strategy. Let's define "total failure" as near 100% loss of all troops committed to the initial invasion, either casualties or captured. Also assume considerable materiel losses. Such an outcome is not ASB, especially if one allows for the very likely possibility of unanticipated weather problems grounding allied airpower during critical phases after the initial landings were made.
Click to expand...
Ja, but. How do you make a "total failure"? THAT'S the hard part.
 

merlin

Kevin Renner said:
But looking at the map of Normandy I have to wonder, just how tempted were the planners for Overlord to stage the landings to the east of Le Harve. That would of put them right next to a major port. And on the east bank of the Seine. Or are the beaches there not conducive to a landing.
Click to expand...

But the D-day planners would have known that east of that port would put it in the midst of the (7th) Army assigned to the Pas de Calias area, thus not now needing Hitler's permission to intervene, and it would compremise the 'Double-cross' disinformation about the invasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top