Disaster at D-Day

[Mr. Right]

A while ago, I read "Disaster at D-Day" by Peter G. Tsouras.

The premise is that Rommel beats the US/UK invasion of France, then goes on to defeat Zhukov in western Poland.

The Soviets, already at the bottom of their manpower pool, combined with large losses of armor are stopped and both go on to negotiate a treaty to end the war with a border similar to the 1939 Soviet/German border.

For peace in the west, Rommel pledges to evacuate southern and western Europe. The pre-war governments are returned, allied troops are not allowed within 50 miles of the German border and allied troops only allowed if requested by the governments of the evacuated countries.

I am not questioning the plausibility of this scenario, but assuming this somehow happened, I have a few questions.

- Would there be a NATO alliance?
- Assuming the UN is created, is Germany a member?
- In Asia, might we see a more aggressive Soviet Union attempting to compensate for their loss in Europe?
- What about America? With the Soviets being seen as less of a threat, how will politics be impacted.
- What about the post war governments of Germany, USSR...Europe?
- What is American foreign policy going to be like?
- What about the Middle East?
- What about Tito?
- What about Nukes?


- My thoughts are that NATO would still exist albeit in a reduced form, perhaps consisting of US, UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands.
- I think the Soviets would be more assertive in Asia being that they lost out in Europe. More focus on China, Korea, Japan?
- It was stated that Henry Wallace succeed FDR. Wallace was defeated by Thomas Dewey. I would assume that with the Soviets as less of a threat, any sort of "Red Scare" would be reduced in scale.
- With Rommel leading Germany, and the NAZI leadership dead, Germany is led by an overall decent person. Who succeeds Rommel?
- What about the Soviets? Is Khrushchev still Stalin's successor? Who else has the chance to grab the reigns of power?
- What about France? Does De Gaulle still become President?
- In terms of American foreign policy, I see America channeling Bismarck. I think America would play the Germans and Soviets off each other depending on what the situation is. For Example - America supporting Germany as a buffer against the USSR, while supporting the Soviets as a way of keeping Germany in line.
- It was stated that Rommel supported the creation of Israel. Might we see some areas of German/US cooperation in terms of supporting Israel and keeping Iran from drifting into the Soviet camp. If the Germans support Israel, would the Soviets support the Arabs?
- If Tito still comes to power, would he still be a communist? or would he follow more of an independent, albeit Socialist path like India?
- I assume that since America will have nukes, the Soviets will want nukes. Since the Soviets want nukes, the Germans will want them too.

I think this would make an interesting HOI/Darkest Hour Mod.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I am not questioning the plausibility of this scenario,

A pity, because it is horrendously implausible. The WAllies are going to be as disinclined to negotiate with Rommel as they would be with Hitler. The Soviets are not, in fact, at the bottom of their manpower pool*. And the Germans do not have the ability to even halt major Soviet offensives (well, not at least until said offensives have run through their strength) at this point in the war, much less reverse and drive them back to the '39 border.

*Their somewhere near it but at this point in the war their replacement capacity has outstripped their loss rates by a modest margin. This functionally means they will never hit it.

 

[aktarian]

A pity, because it is horrendously implausible. The WAllies are going to be as disinclined to negotiate with Rommel as they would be with Hitler. The Soviets are not, in fact, at the bottom of their manpower pool*. And the Germans do not have the ability to even halt major Soviet offensives (well, not at least until said offensives have run through their strength) at this point in the war, much less reverse and drive them back to the '39 border.

*Their somewhere near it but at this point in the war their replacement capacity has outstripped their loss rates by a modest margin. This functionally means they will never hit it.

Didn't Bagration end on roughly 1939 border? Considering OP talks about Soviet/German border one has to assume it's post invasion of Poland border.

 

[nastle]

The premise is that Rommel beats the US/UK invasion of France, then goes on to defeat Zhukov in western Poland.

unless Rommel has some imaginary forces at his disposal how is that possible ?
please explain which units of Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe will be used to pull this off

It was stated that Rommel supported the creation of Israel. Might we see some areas of German/US cooperation in terms of supporting Israel and keeping Iran from drifting into the Soviet camp. If the Germans support Israel, would the Soviets support the Arabs?

Many anti-Semitic europeans would have loved to see the jews pack up from Europe and settle in the middle east

Us support of Israel came much late remember in 1956 US is neutral while Britain/france indirectly support Israel

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Didn't Bagration end on roughly 1939 border? Considering OP talks about Soviet/German border one has to assume it's post invasion of Poland border.

It actually ended on the Vistula. That is nearly 100 miles west of the 1941 border.

 

[Mr. Right]

I guess I should have made it clear when I said "I am not questioning the plausibility of this scenario."

I know the scenario is not plausible.

I should have said "I am not questioning the plausibility of this scenario because it is utterly implausible."

These were just some thoughts/ideas that I had after finishing the book.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I guess I should have made it clear when I said "I am not questioning the plausibility of this scenario."

I know the scenario is not plausible.

I should have said "I am not questioning the plausibility of this scenario because it is utterly implausible."

These were just some thoughts/ideas that I had after finishing the book.

But if the scenario is so implausible, then this discussion should go in ASB, or perhaps NP Chat.

 

[Lost Freeway]

But if the scenario is so implausible, then this discussion should go in ASB, or perhaps NP Chat.

ASB is only for scenarios that explicitly involve intervention from supernatural or sci-fi sources.

 

[Hammerbolt]

For peace in the west, Rommel pledges to evacuate southern and western Europe.

So... Hitler is dead?...

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

ASB is only for scenarios that explicitly involve intervention from supernatural or sci-fi sources.

1) no, that is simply incorrect.
2) this forum isn't the place to post stuff that's this implausible. Not without a WHOLE lot of explanation as to how it might happen.
3) Given that D-Day was a slam-dunk (only a single beach had any worries and that for a couple of hours), the probability of OTL's D-Day failing is miniscule. Couple that with the Nazis pushing the Soviets back - in 1944 - and holding them? That's really, really, really unlikely. Now, consider that if the Nazis were to have ANY chance of beating the WAllies in Normany, they'd have to pull massive forces from the East, which makes the Soviet advance even more inexorable and faster.
4) So, ja 'astronomically small chance' (which is my best litmus test for ASB) seems to cover it pretty well.

 

[aktarian]

It actually ended on the Vistula. That is nearly 100 miles west of the 1941 border.

Oh well......

 

[Saphroneth]

One could postulate that every battleship in the world had a magazine explosion the first time it fired its guns after September 1 1914.
That would not require divine intervention or magic, just incredible and sustained bad luck.
...but it would be ASB.

This is the same kind of thing. For the Germans to achieve this kind of success over OTL would require everything to go about as well as physically possible for the Germans in some cases. It would require the largest naval gunfire operation ever to fail, the largest land campaign ever to not merely fail but actually lose ground in the short term, and for the Allies to accept a negotiated peace when they had signalled their aim for a total crushing of Nazism for the last two or three years.

 

[aktarian]

One could postulate that every battleship in the world had a magazine explosion the first time it fired its guns after September 1 1914.
That would not require divine intervention or magic, just incredible and sustained bad luck.
...but it would be ASB.

This is the same kind of thing. For the Germans to achieve this kind of success over OTL would require everything to go about as well as physically possible for the Germans in some cases. It would require the largest naval gunfire operation ever to fail, the largest land campaign ever to not merely fail but actually lose ground in the short term, and for the Allies to accept a negotiated peace when they had signalled their aim for a total crushing of Nazism for the last two or three years.

[nitpick]Barbarossa was largest land campaign[/nitpick]

 

[Saphroneth]

[nitpick]Barbarossa was largest land campaign[/nitpick]

My apologies - I wonder if there's a way to phrase what I actually meant... (Barbarossa was one codename for several semi-independent thrusts- or maybe Bagration was too.)

 

[kodak]

1) no, that is simply incorrect.
2) this forum isn't the place to post stuff that's this implausible. Not without a WHOLE lot of explanation as to how it might happen.

ASB does only refer to events involving magic/divine intervention/time travel or other science fiction concepts. It does not refer to ridiculously implausible alt-history.

ASBs would be the only proper justification for this, though, so I'd recommend moving it there.

 

[shiftygiant]

If Eisenhower is unable to gain a satisfactory foothold and has to retreat, this will result in a massive blow to allies moral, although it won't rule out further, smaller attempts. This can happen if, say, German Meteorologists aren't a load of wank and predict that the 6th is a dry spell. Now let's say that Rommel is in Normandy. He mobilizes the Panzers despite Hitler not ordering him too, and is able to disorganize the landing forces and prevent them fortifying their positions. This would likely lead to Rommel being sidelined for disobedience, and further him deeper into the Resistance. Perhaps he is able to pull a successful coup against Hitler, but that would end in infinite misery for all parties. A knock on effect of this however would be Hitler ordering more troops along the Atlantic Wall to resist another invasion attempt. These troops would likely be sapped from reinforcements to the East, meaning that the Russians will be able to grind a bit faster. Further on, the WAllies would probably nuke Frankfurt.

Now this is all a big if- if Rommel is able to get control of his divisions, then he could potentially disorganize the landing force. It's not ASB for D-Day to fail, it's just unlikely, given the sheer volume of bodies being pushed into it.

 

[fscott]

I think the main thing that you left out was the reaction of the US and the UK. The US people would be pissed and want revenge. In 14 months give or take the Atomic bomb and B29 would be ready. Plus even Rommel could not make his Allie Japan surrender and there would be no peace treaty with them. The men and supplies lost on D-day can be replaced and we would still send LL to Russia and GB. Basically in a month or so everything is back to June 5th. That does give Germany a slight relief until Armageddon. The UK may use anthrax. What ever happens the occupation of Germany is going to be much much worse then it is in ITOL. Thing biggest problem that Germany faces is they can't force GB out of the war. The US has lost what little restraint they were using while setting safely between 2 oceans making equipment and growing food. If FDR does lose the election no President would dare suggest anything but total victory.

 

[Garrison]

ASB is only for scenarios that explicitly involve intervention from supernatural or sci-fi sources.

The Op has offered no POD or scenario for how this is supposed to happen, if they want to skip that part then they should just say 'ASBs cause the Aliies to fail on D-Day' and be done with.

 

[aktarian]

My apologies - I wonder if there's a way to phrase what I actually meant... (Barbarossa was one codename for several semi-independent thrusts- or maybe Bagration was too.)

One of largest Soviet offensives?
One of largest offensives overall?

 

[aktarian]

If Eisenhower is unable to gain a satisfactory foothold and has to retreat, this will result in a massive blow to allies moral, although it won't rule out further, smaller attempts. This can happen if, say, German Meteorologists aren't a load of wank and predict that the 6th is a dry spell. Now let's say that Rommel is in Normandy. He mobilizes the Panzers despite Hitler not ordering him too, and is able to disorganize the landing forces and prevent them fortifying their positions. This would likely lead to Rommel being sidelined for disobedience, and further him deeper into the Resistance. Perhaps he is able to pull a successful coup against Hitler, but that would end in infinite misery for all parties. A knock on effect of this however would be Hitler ordering more troops along the Atlantic Wall to resist another invasion attempt. These troops would likely be sapped from reinforcements to the East, meaning that the Russians will be able to grind a bit faster. Further on, the WAllies would probably nuke Frankfurt.

Now this is all a big if- if Rommel is able to get control of his divisions, then he could potentially disorganize the landing force. It's not ASB for D-Day to fail, it's just unlikely, given the sheer volume of bodies being pushed into it.

If Rommel starts moving his armour around it will run into largest naval bombardment world has seen. Under hostile skies. So Germans are rpetty much screwed.

Let's face it, without much earleir POD Germans can't defeat Overlord. and with earlier POD Wallies will adapt to that.