D-Day WI

I'm sure something along the lines of this thread has been asked before and this is probably a noobish topic but I shall ask anyway.

What is the plausibility that D-Day does not take place at Normandy, France but instead in the Balkans somewhere? Would it be possible for the staff of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force or (SHAEF), particularly Lieutenant General Sir Frederick E. Morgan, to shy away from the idea of an invasion of France after the failure of the Dieppe Raid and wanting to prevent a possible Dunkirk evacuation scenario but on a larger scale for both situations?

Morgan was appointed chief of staff to the supreme Allied Commander in mid-March 1943 and he began planning for the invasion of Europe before Eisenhower's appointment in December 1943.

I believe that this is possible because the Allies had control of the Med. Sea, the invasion of Italy would begin in September 1943 and on 19 Nov. 1943 the line stalled at the Gor River and Cassino effectively giving control of the southern half of Italy to the Allies.
The SHAEF would have to rely on the Italian campaign to at least succeed as much as it did in OTL and assuming the Balkan invasion outline is accepted at the same time the Normandy invasion outline was in OTL troops, equipment, supplies ect. could begin moving into Allied North Africa and Southern Italy. This could allow for a two pronged attack into the Balkans by going into Greece from Africa and to Albania by Italy.

So is this plausible or ASB? Take it away.
 
I read a scenerio on this titled "The Soft Underbelly"

In it, the allies use the cross channel crossing as a ruse to tie German divisions North while they make a series of landings in Greece, the Balkans, Italy,and Southern France. Turkey eventally comes to the allied side.

The advantage of this is that more allied forces and resources are used sooner in 1943 and into 1944.

Post war Europe is changed as Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Hungary are more friendly or neutral instead of being 100% in Stalins camp.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The only way the Balkans happens is if FDR, Marshall, King, and every other American officer over the rank of Major is struck down by a sudden fever.

Even getting Italy past the U.S. leadership, which wanted nothing to do with the whole region was a great "victory" for Churchill and company & only happened because their was no way that the Allies could sit on the sidelines for a full year after Sicily, not with the Soviets losing a couple thousand KIA on a GOOD day day in & day out in the East.

Given the disaster that the whole "Soft Underbelly" strategy turned into it is more likely that the U.S. would wash its hands of the ETO altogether before it would land in the Balkans.
 
The biggest problem I see with this is supply lines and logistics. Focusing the brunt of Anglo-American efforts on France minimized this issue.

In terms of invading Germany itself, an approach from the south is far more difficult than coming in from the west. It's easy to see an offensive getting bogged down in the mountainous terrain of southern Germany. The North German Plain is a far more attractive route into Berlin.
 
As others have already commented, there is little logical reason to commend this. Especially in the time frame you are giving.
In an ATL when the Allies were more commited to a Med strategy before the D-Day landing in France, such an eventuality might have been possible - but still only as a subsidary to the liberation of France.

In OTL there were differences of opinion between the British & Americans, but then again sometimes the military agreed and the politicians didn't!

While Marshall advocated a cross-channel invasion in '42, and the British didn't - well most of the troops would be British & Comm. Moreover, they seem to appreciate the capacity of the Germans to reinforce the target area quickly.
Rather than have US troops doing 'not a lot' in '42, they went to North-West Africa. Though, they optimistic about landing in France, yet the Americans were wary about the Germans going through Spain - so were initially against landings east of the 'Straits'.
So, while the US feft they were led up the 'garden path' with the distractions of the Med. strategy - it had the effect of dispersing German divisions from France. And it gave the Americans combat training e.g. Kasserine.
If decisions had been taken earlier, Germans withdrawal from Sicilly would've been prevented. Yet British enthusiasm was misplaced - the south may have been a 'soft underbelly' from a military & political point of view but not geographical. The only target worth having IMO was the Foggia airbases!
 

Markus

Banned
I´m mostly with CalBear. The USA was so committed to the invasion of northern France at the earliest possible date that they had to be restrained by the Brits for their own good. Replacing Overlord with some invasion of the Balkans could not happen short of ASB-intervention or an entirely different WW2 like the one from my TL.

I disagree with CalBear on one thing, that the whole "Soft Underbelly" strategy turned into a disaster. If it was one, it was one for Germany. Italy tied down a lot of really fine divisions that were badly needed on the Eastern Front and in France. Remember the trouble the 352nd gave the US at Omaha? Imagine not one but several such divisions in Normandy. While it also tied down allied units, the Allies could afford it as their numbers kept growing.
 

Rubicon

Banned
I disagree with CalBear on one thing, that the whole "Soft Underbelly" strategy turned into a disaster. If it was one, it was one for Germany. Italy tied down a lot of really fine divisions that were badly needed on the Eastern Front and in France. Remember the trouble the 352nd gave the US at Omaha? Imagine not one but several such divisions in Normandy. While it also tied down allied units, the Allies could afford it as their numbers kept growing.
Not only that, but it completely knocked out Italy from the war. Forcing Nazi-Germany to use german troops for garrison everywhere.
 
The march up the Balkans would be like the OTL march up Italy - only worse. What WOULD make sense would be if more leapfrogging up Italy could happen. Maybe Sardinia and Corsica are taken, and the invasion of Italian mainland happens north of Rome. An earlier success there could allow Dragoon (into southern France) to happen BEFORE Normandy, as was the original plan. Similarly, the Allies could then better support Tito, and maybe move into Slovenia.

But marching north through Greece then Bulgaria and Yugoslavia would have been a disaster.
 
Top