What if Germany had found out about the allies plan to land on the beaches of Normandy and had successfully crushed the attack, I think the allies would have just tried it again later, but this could have added to the length of the war. Plus the Japanese could use this time for other things...
D-Day
- Thread starter Chingo360
- Start date
I think the Japanese would have invaded more into Asia, making it harder for the Russians to take the land back, this way the war could have been up to a year longer. As for Germany, i suspect since they know that the allies could attempt another beach invasion they would beef up soldiers along the atlantic. I also think that the allies wouldn't do another western beach invasion because it would seem to likely, they would have to try something else. I would still think that the Allies win the war though.
I would agree with all of that, except I think Churchill would have pushed for another beach landing, maybe farther north in the rocky cliffs of Belgium. I deem this changes nothing with the Manhattan porject though.
I think if this was put off enough, Japan would've been able to invade siberia and that would spell doom for Russia.
There are some rocky cliffs in Belgium, not alot though and yes I have been there.
By 1944, Japan wasn't concerned with the mainland; the Pacific theatre was much more important, since that directly threatened the home islands.Nicksplace27 said:
The Allies wouldn't risk another opposed landing; they'd try to go through Italy or Greece, where they don't need to take any more beachheads. The major effect on the European theatre would be to let the Soviets take all of Germany, as the Americans tried to force their way north through the Alps; there'd probably be hope that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan would prompt capitulation, but unless Hitler was dead that'd be a non-starter.
This would have been possible, if Hitler didn't sleep late that day.
If D-Day failed, the Allies would find a way or other to retake France, but the Germans would only fortify their positions in France an even more. I think the Allies would try again in November/December 1944, but the invasion would likely fail. The United States would detonate an atomic bomb as early as March/April 1945 and use it against Germany. But again, I do not know...
If D-Day failed, the Allies would find a way or other to retake France, but the Germans would only fortify their positions in France an even more. I think the Allies would try again in November/December 1944, but the invasion would likely fail. The United States would detonate an atomic bomb as early as March/April 1945 and use it against Germany. But again, I do not know...
The Japanese and Germans had originally planned to drop a dirty bomb on San Francisco on August 17th, so this could just possibly give them the additional time needed to do so. The Germans had launched a U-boat containing uranium oxide as part of its cargo and had planned to ship it to two Japanese submarines stationed in the Pacific, which were large enough to carry aircraft. The aircraft would then be loaded with the uranium oxide and would proceed to fly over San Francisco, where they would dump it on the unfortunate city.
Last edited:
Stalker
Banned
Well, how do you imagine allied armies advance across the Alps?Codeman said:
My guess that in case of "Overlord"'s failure Great Britain would have naighboured with Socialist Republic of France, People's Union of Netherlands etc.
It would have been more German and Russian blood spilled but the war in Europe would hardly last more than 2-3 more months than in OTL. Since summer 1944 Red Army had already been unstoppable. 22 june 1944 within 2 weeks from OTL "Overlord" start, Several Soviet Fronts began a grandious offensive that entered history as the Belorussian Offensive Operation "Bagration". It was such a mighty blow that in a few days German group of armies "Center" was simply annihilated, group of armies "North" were trapped in the Baltic peninsula and, later were defeated and mainly surrendered. During summer of 1944 - unprecendentedly for the earlier war - the total casualties of Wehrmacht which was defending (KIA, wounded, POWs) reahced almost 1 million soldiers and officers, and those of the attacking Red Army were only about 100 000 - 10 times less!
The operation was planned by a genious - marshall Konstantin Rokossovsky and coordinated by marshall Georgy Zhukov.Could any army on Earth stop that army in 1944?
George Carty
Banned
Agree with Stalker. Failed D-day means Soviet Empire from Bay of Biscay to Bering Strait. That would have been an ultra-nasty Cold War
There were plans to land troops in Southern France also on the table at the time of D-Day. Had the landing failed, it would seem logical to implement the invasion of southern France and use that as the focal point.
Even if the allied landing had failed, it would be a bitter-sweet victory for the Germans. They would have lost substantial amounts of material and manpower that would be hard to replace, given losses on the Eastern Front at the same time.
Logistics is the name of the game. Who ever can get the most toys to the battlefield wins - and in this case the Axis was on the short end of the stick.
Also, a D-Day landing failure does nothing to change the situation of round the clock bombing of cities & resources in Europe.
A failed invasion would have delayed the inevitable - but only for a short while.
Even if the allied landing had failed, it would be a bitter-sweet victory for the Germans. They would have lost substantial amounts of material and manpower that would be hard to replace, given losses on the Eastern Front at the same time.
Logistics is the name of the game. Who ever can get the most toys to the battlefield wins - and in this case the Axis was on the short end of the stick.
Also, a D-Day landing failure does nothing to change the situation of round the clock bombing of cities & resources in Europe.
A failed invasion would have delayed the inevitable - but only for a short while.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Stalker said:
Even with the bulk of German forces in the West transferred to fight in the East? Even with Rommel now available for command against the Russians? I agree that the Soviets would almost certainly still have won, but I think I would give the Germans more than 2-3 additional months.
Could there be any Allied landings in southern France, along the Mediterranean coast? The Allies are bound to have sewn up any Axis navies ever since the invasion of Italy, so it shouldn't be that much of a problem to send in more guys.
Japan is broken, a failed D-day will not help it one bit and continued pressure and defeats on all sides shall continue.
Germany? It rather depends on how D-day is crushed. If the initial landing forces fail to capture the beaches and a driven into the sea, its a tragic but hardly catastrophic loss. The continued threat of other operations (weather permitting) would keep the substantial german forces in place, implying that the Red Army would accomplish much the same as it did in OTL. Another assault across the channel shall likely liberate France before the red army can cover the distance.
Anyone playing the odds would have to bet on the allies. On the other hand however nothing is out and out predictable in war.
If however D-day is a reasonable success for the first couple of weeks, ensuring substantial allied forces are in france when a German counter attack appears. If such an attack was a crushing success which drove to the coast, somehow bringing about the loss of every man, gun or other peice of equipment for the Allies then things are suddenly quite different.
Well.. not that different really, but it gives Germany probably one last major attack to use on the Russians. This might ensure that Bagration isn't such a crushing success but in reality it is unlikely to allow Germany to take the iniative. All of Germany eventually falls to the USSR, however France is liberated by a fresh assault across the channel later that year.
While dreams of a red Europe are amusing to contemplate, they are quite unlikely. In the time taken for the Red army to travel across Germany the western allies should atleast be able to liberate France, Belgium and you would have thought the Netherlands from whatever rag-tag german resistance remains. (Unless you reason a failed D-day causes a significantly faster Russian advance.. there shouldn't be any reason why there wouldn't be another attempt across the channel the next year)
Germany? It rather depends on how D-day is crushed. If the initial landing forces fail to capture the beaches and a driven into the sea, its a tragic but hardly catastrophic loss. The continued threat of other operations (weather permitting) would keep the substantial german forces in place, implying that the Red Army would accomplish much the same as it did in OTL. Another assault across the channel shall likely liberate France before the red army can cover the distance.
Anyone playing the odds would have to bet on the allies. On the other hand however nothing is out and out predictable in war.
If however D-day is a reasonable success for the first couple of weeks, ensuring substantial allied forces are in france when a German counter attack appears. If such an attack was a crushing success which drove to the coast, somehow bringing about the loss of every man, gun or other peice of equipment for the Allies then things are suddenly quite different.
Well.. not that different really, but it gives Germany probably one last major attack to use on the Russians. This might ensure that Bagration isn't such a crushing success but in reality it is unlikely to allow Germany to take the iniative. All of Germany eventually falls to the USSR, however France is liberated by a fresh assault across the channel later that year.
While dreams of a red Europe are amusing to contemplate, they are quite unlikely. In the time taken for the Red army to travel across Germany the western allies should atleast be able to liberate France, Belgium and you would have thought the Netherlands from whatever rag-tag german resistance remains. (Unless you reason a failed D-day causes a significantly faster Russian advance.. there shouldn't be any reason why there wouldn't be another attempt across the channel the next year)
The Soviets are going to steam roll the Nazis anyway. Hell, the Soviets could have taken Berlin by the end if 1944 or early 1945, but the Warsaw Rising prompted Stalin to halt offensives through Poland and instead take the Balkans.
The only reason the Rising was launched was because of the Allied response to the liberation of Paris by the French Resistence. With no Rising, the USSR might simply continue to blow through the utterly destroyed Ninth Army which had no serious capabilities from late July through mid-August. Ninth Army was the last serious formation in the area, and if Rokossovsky destroys them, then you could see the entire Eastern Front collapse.....
The only reason the Rising was launched was because of the Allied response to the liberation of Paris by the French Resistence. With no Rising, the USSR might simply continue to blow through the utterly destroyed Ninth Army which had no serious capabilities from late July through mid-August. Ninth Army was the last serious formation in the area, and if Rokossovsky destroys them, then you could see the entire Eastern Front collapse.....
Well, with a PoD as late as Summer 44, Axis Victory would be quite ASB territory. In Italy the Allies already advanced to Rome, at the eastern front the Soviets were already closing in on Romania (and the oil fields there).
At best, the Allies might refrain from their demand of unconditional surrender, and even that would be quite unlikely (though maybe not completely ASB, depending on what ATL someone might create)
At best, the Allies might refrain from their demand of unconditional surrender, and even that would be quite unlikely (though maybe not completely ASB, depending on what ATL someone might create)