political effects of failed D-Day

I've seen threads that asked how a D-Day failure would impact the outcome of the war. This thread is more concerned with what the impact would be at home in the US?

From what I can tell, the US military was more accountable to public opinion than most others. If D-Day was ultimately a failure, with many men killed or captured, I imagine that there would have been calls to sack Eisenhower at the very least. What about Marshall, who mostly organized the whole thing? Let's not forget that Roosevelt is up for reelection, so a major defeat would have a huge impact on his campaign. Would it be enough to get Dewey elected?

Finally, what would public enthusiasm be like at home? Many young men (and their parents) would suddenly become disenchanted with joining the military now that it won't be as simple as hopping the pond and kicking some Nazi ass. Any thoughts?
 
Churchill's Government probably falls, although it's replacement is not liable to alter policy in regards to the war. Toss-up whether Roosevelt still wins in November, although I think it's more likely then not: he won with considerable margin and even if that margin is reduced I don't see . While there will be some demoralization, even without Normandy events are going to hugely favor the Allies during the summer/autumn of '44 with the Red Army still evicting the Germans from their soil, overrunning much of Eastern Europe, and WAllied progress in Italy as well as the strategic bombing campaign seeing Germany run through their oil reserves, so I don't see any serious desire to quit manifesting. The fact that the really big victories are still being almost entirely scored by the Russians, and that they'll pick up more territory with the WAllies delayed, is going to further enhance their wartime prestige and popularity in the west. Within Germany, your liable to see some buoying of morale and strengthening of the Nazis position but the oncoming months are liable to see that squandered as the WAllies refuse to seek peace and the Red Army continues to bore down on them from the East. Perhaps the most consequential German political result would be to make the already remote chances of the Valkyrie plot succeeding even more unlikely.

This video does give some thoughts as to the political consequences, although it is far from comprehensive:

 
Last edited:
As with so many of these radical divergent departures a lot depends on how or why the attack fails. In discussions of why folks generally end up with multiple PoD or very early PoD with dozens or hundreds of butterflies. In many scenarios the Allied leaders are different leading to very different decisions along the way.

Traditionally the US has been unkind to losing military leaders, so yes there would be some 'replacement' of generals, and civilians like the Secretary of War, ..Navy, & a President losing a election perhaps.
 
Wouldn't Eisenhower be butterflied away from ever becoming President then? since if I remember he opted to take responsibility for D-Day should it fail?.
 
D-Day failing miserably could have catastrophic consequences. While the American public had largely unlimited will for punishing the Japanese, it wasn't unlimited against Germany. There's a very real chance of a failure of will on the part of the Americans. I believe that the whole 'broad front' strategy that the Western Allies picked was primarily to keep the variance down and avoid the risk of blowing the 'casualty budget' in terms of what the American public would countenance.
 
An outright failure wouldn't be as bad as something like a Gallipoli or some utter catastrophe like the Germans taking their cues from this to surprise the landing zones once the troops are landed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_in_the_Battle_of_Messines_(1917).

The worst would be a meatgrinder slowly getting pushed back to the beaches where the war is clearly getting worse post-landings. That likely causes a suit for peace if they then get kicked all the way out.
 
D-Day failing miserably could have catastrophic consequences. While the American public had largely unlimited will for punishing the Japanese, it wasn't unlimited against Germany. There's a very real chance of a failure of will on the part of the Americans. I believe that the whole 'broad front' strategy that the Western Allies picked was primarily to keep the variance down and avoid the risk of blowing the 'casualty budget' in terms of what the American public would countenance.

It depends when D-Day fails, the initial invasion force if lost could be accepted. What I think would happen is that most of the Allied troops would be moved to Italy
 
Depends on various factors like how big a loss. In Disaster at D-Day which was a well researched story the British are really in dire straits with an entire Army on the ropes without real hope of evacuation.

After notes get passed between Montgomery, Ike and Rommel they meet and there is an armistice in the West. WAllied troops end up being given a free hand occupying Western Europe sans Germany.

Churchill is outmaneuvered back home and losses his chair, Hitler is eliminated as an impediment to the deal and a military junta takes over Germany for the duration of the war. FDR’s health declines more quickly and his VP takes over and Wallace and Congress end up fighting like cats and dogs.

The Germans and the Soviets spend the next year bleeding each other white.
 
Last edited:
Churchill's Government probably falls...

Why? There was no change of government after the Greece debacle or the fall of Tobruk.

D-Day failing would be painful, but it would be accompanied by victory in Italy.

What else? Churchill was hardly the great advocate of the cross-Channel invasion; everyone in the British high command knew he had to be talked into it at great length. Far from being the scapegoat, he would be in a stronger position: "I told you so!"

Also, "Churchill's government" was an all-party war coalition, with the leaders of Labour holding important ministries:
Attlee (Deputy PM, Lord President of the Council), Cripps (Lord Privy Seal), Morrison (Home Secretary), Bevin (Labour and National Service). The Conservatives held only Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Reconstruction, and War Production.

It also depends on how the invasion fails. If the "Great Storm" of OTL 19-22 June had occurred 12 days earlier (7-10 June), the forces on the beachheads would have been cut off from resupply and reinforcement, and deprived of air support, at a stage when the beachheads were still weak. German reinforcements would not have been stopped by the weather, and German counterattacks would have crushed the beachheads; at the very least, the shallow lodgement at OMAHA Beach would have been "pushed off the beach", leaving the Allies with two widely separated toeholds. Most analysts have agreed that if the OMAHA landings had failed, as they nearly did, the invasion would have failed.

In those circumstances, only a limited amount of blame could be placed on the Allied commanders and leaders for the defeat, as it would be largely due to bad luck in weather conditions.
 
Perhaps the fallout would be limited to just Eisenhower as he'd drafted a note accepting responsibility.

image.jpg


"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

*He accidentally dated the letter July 5. It should have been June 5.​
 
Depends on various factors like how big a loss. In Disaster at D-Day which was a well researched story the British are really in dire straits with an entire Army on the ropes without real hope of evacuation.

After notes get passed between Montgomery, Ike and Rommel they meet and there is an armistice in the West. WAllied troops end up being given a free hand occupying Western Europe sans Germany.

Churchill is outmaneuvered back home and losses his chair, Hitler is eliminated as an impediment to the deal and a military junta takes over Germany for the duration of the war. FDR’s health declines more quickly and his VP takes over and Wallace and Congress end up fighting like cats and dogs.

The politics of Disaster at D-Day is hardly plausible. Tsouras engages in a lot of wishful thinking in regards to Rommel (in fact, it's outright deification in this case), the prospects of a German military junta, or a negotiated settlement.

The Germans and the Soviets spend the next year bleeding each other white.

More like the Soviets overrun Germany. They aren’t the cartoons Tsouras thinks they are.
 
Last edited:
The politics of Disaster at D-Day is hardly plausible. Tsouras engages in a lot of wishful thinking in regards to Rommel, the prospects of a German military junta, or a negotiated settlement.



More like the Soviets overrun Germany. They aren’t the cartoons Tsouras thinks they are.

IF the Germans could have gotten a cease-fire in the West after a victory at Normandy, and IF Hitler could have been removed and replaced with someone with the common sense to let the military handle things...the full resources at Germany's disposal in June of 1944 could have held the Soviets off from overrunning the Reich, if wisely used.
 
IF the Germans could have gotten a cease-fire in the West after a victory at Normandy, and IF Hitler could have been removed and replaced with someone with the common sense to let the military handle things...the full resources at Germany's disposal in June of 1944 could have held the Soviets off from overrunning the Reich, if wisely used.

By mid-44, the Soviets are a military superpower capable of marshaling multi-million man mechanized offensives along multiple strategic axis near-simultaneously while Germany is beginning to crack under the strain of it’s own mobilization, never mind the manpower and resource shortages, and can’t even manage a successful offensive of a few hundred thousand men on a single-axis. Post-war German general sob stories notwithstanding, Germany’s resources are simply not up to that task.
 
Last edited:
IF the Germans could have gotten a cease-fire in the West after a victory at Normandy, and IF Hitler could have been removed and replaced with someone with the common sense to let the military handle things...the full resources at Germany's disposal in June of 1944 could have held the Soviets off from overrunning the Reich, if wisely used.

If as happens in the story the major Western capitals decide in early 1945 they would rather not see the Soviets overrun central Europe and start to tighten the screws on LL before cutting it off by the Spring when Stalin tells them to piss off then I would agree Stalin runs out of manpower first, but only if the Spring/Summer 1945 Soviet offenses do not manage a knock out blow.
 
Last edited:
If as happens in the story the major Western capitals decide in early 1945 they would rather not see the Soviets overrun central Europe and start to tighten the screws on LL before cutting it off by the Spring when Stalin tells them to piss off then I would agree Stalin runs out of manpower first, but only if the Spring/Summer 1945 Soviet offenses do not manage a knock out blow.
now that you bring it up didn't the Soviets start talks about conscripting 16-year-olds at some point in 1944-1945 to fill approaching manpower deficiencies?
 
now that you bring it up didn't the Soviets start talks about conscripting 16-year-olds at some point in 1944-1945 to fill approaching manpower deficiencies?

The Soviets were facing manpower problems even with LL full on towards the end.

With a one front war all those problems increase faster, especially if the West decides they would rather the Soviets don’t reach the Rhine and cut war support. It means large numbers of Soviet men will have to go back to the factories to make critical things they were being given beforehand.

Germany with no war in the West would likely be able to contest the skies with the Soviets in ‘45 and the opening of international markets would help in certain critical areas.

They would lose major access to French industry making war material, but I suspect there will be a period the French will be still putting out war material for debt and anything Germany can hand over.
 
If as happens in the story the major Western capitals decide in early 1945 they would rather not see the Soviets overrun central Europe and start to tighten the screws on LL before cutting it off by the Spring when Stalin tells them to piss off then I would agree Stalin runs out of manpower first, but only if the Spring/Summer 1945 Soviet offenses do not manage a knock out blow.

With a one front war all those problems increase faster, especially if the West decides they would rather the Soviets don’t reach the Rhine and cut war support. It means large numbers of Soviet men will have to go back to the factories to make critical things they were being given beforehand.

This strikes me as wishful thinking tinged by more then a hint of Nazi-esque "Soviets are untermenschen who can't stand up to the innately superior western Germans" the German generals liked to propagate after the war and which Tsouras bought hook-line-sinker. By summer of '44, the Soviets were running on their own steam, never mind let alone by the spring of '45 when they've overrun the Balkans and much of Germany's easternmost industrial regions and are busy repurposing it for their own warmachine. Cutting L-L would do pretty much nothing to actually stop the Soviets. As it was, the Soviets had ceased using L-L to sustain it's European war effort and was either using it for reconstruction purposes or in preparing to invade Manchuria, as the Americans wanted them too. It would take a solid year before the effects could be felt on the USSR itself and by then they'll already have all of Germany under it's control.

now that you bring it up didn't the Soviets start talks about conscripting 16-year-olds at some point in 1944-1945 to fill approaching manpower deficiencies?

The Soviets were facing manpower problems even with LL full on towards the end.

The Soviets never conscripted 16 year olds or considered conscripting them (they took on volunteers though, but then so did the Americans and British). 17 year olds had been undergoing conscription since 1943, but that was for training in preparation to enter combat and they didn't see the frontline until the end. The Soviets had around a million-and-a-half men in training when the war ended and their force size actually increased during the summer of '45 as a bunch of those men entered training. The Soviets had a manpower problem by '45, sure. But they were under no threat of outright running out of men with or without the WAllies.

Germany with no war in the West would likely be able to contest the skies with the Soviets in ‘45 and the opening of international markets would help in certain critical areas.

Talk about your delusions. As it was, the Soviets by '45 had a seventeenfold superiority in airpower to the Germans. And this is ignoring that their air force was made up of a solid core of veterans and aces whereas Germany's consisted of a declining quantity of aces (many of whom were already on the Eastern Front) and a overwhelming number of people who only have enough knowledge to land and take-off again. There is no chance of the Soviets losing air superiority. Germany was also flat out broke by '45, so it has nothing with which to buy stuff on international markets, and a industrial base which was collapsing under its own weight.

They would lose major access to French industry making war material, but I suspect there will be a period the French will be still putting out war material for debt and anything Germany can hand over.

The French, who have major pro-Soviet movements within their borders, would tell the Germans to get bent.
 
Last edited:
Without huge changes, DDay simply isn't going to fail.

Heck, even if they tried it in '43, they'd have succeeded, to the extent of a foothold on the mainland that would have expanded slowly.

If you go with Roundup in '42, well yes it will fail, and the fallout will be that the US will be told to shut up unless and until they provide the forces.
 
Talk about your delusions.

Contest the skies doesn’t mean dominate or even win the air it means exactly what it says. The Soviet’s in ‘45 would be fighting an actual air war again.
 
Contest the skies doesn’t mean dominate or even win the air it means exactly what it says. The Soviet’s in ‘45 would be fighting an actual air war again.

That they already had to do. In May of '44, when the Germans concentrated their fighters down to Romania and tried to seize back the airspace over Besserabia-Moldovia. The Soviets won handily, but throughout the war they still had to deal German air forces trying to contest the skies and deliver strikes against their spearheads. It particularly became an issue when Soviet armor outran their air cover, which tended to happen during the latter half of operations, but the Soviets had means to deal with it (decoys, deception... the whole roster of Maskirovka. And a lot of truck-mounted AAA). By the Spring of '45, the Soviets are even stronger and the Germans are weaker even with reinforcements from the western front, so it's doubtful the results would be any better for the Germans.
 
Last edited:
Top