DBWI: Allies landed at Normandy on D-Day?

Huh, unique question, most people ask if they would have further east. Well, firstly, the Germans weren't expecting a landing in Normandy, anything more than a mock invasion to distract them from Calais, so if the actual D-Day was in Normandy, the allies would probably have much gotten farther than IRL. I doubt they would have won back all of France, though, the Soviets were way too fast for that. By the time they got to Paris, while definitely having taken some more land than OTL, I'm sure that most of Germany proper would already still be under Soviet occupation.

But that would mean, possibly, that the Allies could have France reunited as a Western ally, as opposed to the north-capitalist south-communist split we have today.

It could also mean a faster German surrender in general, which means there'd be less time for the Soviets to invade Manchuria and Korea before the allies got to them. Who knows, maybe the USA would unveil its atom bomb in the Japanese, and the Empire might surrender to America instead of Stalin.

Of course, it's possible that the Germans would successfully beat back D-Day like they almost did IRL, except I'd say less likely, as Normandy was far less defended.
 
Huh, unique question, most people ask if they would have further east. Well, firstly, the Germans weren't expecting a landing in Normandy, anything more than a mock invasion to distract them from Calais, so if the actual D-Day was in Normandy, the allies would probably have much gotten farther than IRL. I doubt they would have won back all of France, though, the Soviets were way too fast for that. By the time they got to Paris, while definitely having taken some more land than OTL, I'm sure that most of Germany proper would already still be under Soviet occupation.

But that would mean, possibly, that the Allies could have France reunited as a Western ally, as opposed to the north-capitalist south-communist split we have today.

It could also mean a faster German surrender in general, which means there'd be less time for the Soviets to invade Manchuria and Korea before the allies got to them. Who knows, maybe the USA would unveil its atom bomb in the Japanese, and the Empire might surrender to America instead of Stalin.
.

Well, Japan may have surrender to Russia, but the Japanese rush into American arms as soon as they could. Stalin couldn't really invade them.

The US would have gotten a lot more Scientists and work out of Germany, might even stop the USSR ealry tech advantage they had over the West. (The US did get the good stuff from the German scientists , just not enough/the real good stuff.)
 
Huh, unique question, most people ask if they would have further east. Well, firstly, the Germans weren't expecting a landing in Normandy, anything more than a mock invasion to distract them from Calais, so if the actual D-Day was in Normandy, the allies would probably have much gotten farther than IRL. I doubt they would have won back all of France, though, the Soviets were way too fast for that. By the time they got to Paris, while definitely having taken some more land than OTL, I'm sure that most of Germany proper would already still be under Soviet occupation.

You ever been through Northern France? One word: Hedgerows. Perfect hiding spot for German Panzers to turn the advance into a living hell. The west in this scenario is even worse off because they have to slug there way through about twice as much hedgecountry as they did in OTL. Even then, logistics is a nightmare: Normandy has practically no ports unless you want to commit half your forces to taking Cherbourg. The U-boat's would have a field day even then. The lighter defenses don't compensate for the nightmare you'd have once the troops were ashore.
 
The Battle of Calais was already one of the bloodiest for the Western Allies. I think a Normandy landing would be less bloody initially, but, as sevarak said, it would quickly became stalled in hedgecountry and fighting against Panzers.
Not to mention logistics and the lack of ports would make any invasion short lived. I'm not sure how it would compare to Calais though... it's not hard to be more sucessful than that...
Overall, I think it they would have failed or eventually met with the Soviets, but maybe Normandy would go to South France instead of the People's Commune.
 
Well attacking where your enemy expects you to attack is a bad move. I went over the files - the Germans did not have a significant force in Normady.

So instead of getting a bloody nose at Calais an invasion of Normandy gets you a good foothold without much opposition.

Add a landing in South France (well it would make sense - landing in Greece was a bloodbath) and the Wallies are in Paris (likely) at the end of July...

Well Panzers can use hedgerows only if they are there. The only - and really only - outfit that has a good chance to oppose a Landing in Normandy was the Panzer Lehr, but only if it was moved early in the invasion - that means moving through the first (or second) night. Later it would have to move by day - a bad move considering the Wallied Air supremacy...

NO Normandy would be a good place to land...
 
Well attacking where your enemy expects you to attack is a bad move. I went over the files - the Germans did not have a significant force in Normady.

So instead of getting a bloody nose at Calais an invasion of Normandy gets you a good foothold without much opposition.

Add a landing in South France (well it would make sense - landing in Greece was a bloodbath) and the Wallies are in Paris (likely) at the end of July...

Well Panzers can use hedgerows only if they are there. The only - and really only - outfit that has a good chance to oppose a Landing in Normandy was the Panzer Lehr, but only if it was moved early in the invasion - that means moving through the first (or second) night. Later it would have to move by day - a bad move considering the Wallied Air supremacy...

NO Normandy would be a good place to land...


A good place to land, not to break out of. The southern france landing seems like a pretty good idea. Another one would be land in Italy somewhere and knock the Italians out of the war. Removing the Italian refugees and soldiers from southern France (along with their Commie sympathies) would at least slow down the creation of the People's Commune.
 
A good place to land, not to break out of. The southern france landing seems like a pretty good idea. Another one would be land in Italy somewhere and knock the Italians out of the war. Removing the Italian refugees and soldiers from southern France (along with their Commie sympathies) would at least slow down the creation of the People's Commune.

I'd rather have a tough breakout then a tough landing.
 
Honestly, I think we might be looking at the wrong landing. Think back a year farther. In 1943, land in Italy instead of Greece. The Italian peninsula hated the Germans just as much as the Balkans did, as evidenced by the uprising against Mussolini that kicked off after Athens fell. Allied success in the Balkans caused the Italians to try for a seperate peace (that would have succeeded if Benny hadn't escaped to Milan and riled up his supporters to fight on); success on their own penninsula might have gotten them on our side. That means no Mussolini loyalists in southern France by the time D-Day roles around: they'd be fighting against the Royalists. The Germans might be a problem in this scenario, but not much bigger of one than they were when the Yugoslav Offensive was underway. Heck, the rest of Hitler's puppets (Hungarians, Slovaks, etc) wouldn't be able to help out in Italy; by 1943, they were all tied down against the Soviets.
 

Archibald

Banned
as opposed to the north-capitalist south-communist split we have today.

Surely, France had been a shithole since 1944 and the boneheaded decision by the wallies to land on Calais (and that was really boneheaded, thanks Montgomery and Patton for that !)

Southern France Republic ( Republic, my ass !) is a far-right, paranoid country led by the Le Pen dynasty (there was the Le Pen father, then daughter Le Pen with the Le Pen niece now coming on their heels - the horror will never end, it self-perpetuate itself).
The Le Pen kleptocracy held a government in Vichy since the 60's after they overthrown Pierre Poujade, who had taken the helm from senile Pétain when he died in 1952, after Pierre Laval was assassinated in 1951 in mysterious circumstances).
Father Le Pen is one hell of an asshole - he overthrown Pierre Poujade, a man who did all the dirty work in the first place after Pétain died. You have to see French people hearing Poujade on the radio - he was a populist in league with George Wallace.
It shows no sign of democratization even in the 21th century. Think of South Korea in the 60's, but far worse, and lasting until this day.

But the Northern, DPRF Democratic Popular Republic (my ass !) of France - is not much better, unfortunately. I don't think Great Leader Jean Luc Melenchon is much better than Marine Le Pen - that crazy cult of personnality made Paris a hell hole, with Melenchon posters and statues at every corner of the former capital. What a shame. Melenchon made clear from the start that his model was Staline.

I'm writting this on hidding, from exile in Quebec, vive la belle province, thanks to our Canadian brothers for their welcome !!)
 
Last edited:
Top