WI the D-Day invasion failed

What if the Allies were pushed back into the beach on June 6th and the Allies did not open a second front in June of 1944? Would the Allies try again? When will they and where? What would Stalin do? Could he accept truce offer from Nazis. Would it enhance the Nazi's chances?

First. I'll dig into the premise. The success of the Normandy invasion was not necessarily to break through to the Seine river, though everybody hoped for it, it was even retaining a foothold in Normandy and attracting there enough German panzer divisions (facing the air and artillery superiority, German tanks and self-propelled guns very the only forces capable to stop the allies, the towed ones were usually very vulnerable to allied artillery). The breakthrough itself was not needed.

With that happening, the situation would be resolved by the southern France invasion, perhaps strengthened by 3-4 more divisions brought in from Britain, rather than used in congested Normandy. In OTL the southern France was, by August 1944, left without panzer divisions. Both 9th wehrmacht and 2nd SS, as well the 17th panzer grenadiers were withdrawn to Normandy and if this scenario was repeated in the ATL, there would be nothing to stop the southern French invasion.

By October 1944 the German army would have to withdraw at least to the Seine line anyway.

The conclusion is that even a very modest success of Normandy landings, e.g. in the form of only 3 our of 5 invasion beaches secured, would do the job. With the naval artillery advantage, the loads of tanks and anti tank towed guns and carpet bombing I don't think Germans could do much afterwards.


But now back to your premise, i.e. complete defeat in Normandy. The allies would have a problem.

The August southern France invasion would probably be opposed by at least two panzer divisions. However, the Germans would not be able to send much reinforcement to the south because they would have to face a possible repeat of a cross-channel invasion. If the roughly 12 allied divisions (there were eight of them in the Dragoon operation, however, with the southern France invasion now being so vital they would likely be reinforced from Britain by a few more) managed to keep a foothold in the south of France, they could be reinforced by some 4-8 divisions arriving monthly from Britain and the US. Whether or not they would themselves manage to cause Germans to withdraw from to the Seine line or even further or whether another cross-channel invasion would have to be carried out (this time better prepared and against much weaker opposition) I can't say, but Germans would eventually have to withdraw from France anyway, probably before the end of 1944.

Or possibly any other scenario:D
 
Last edited:
First. I'll dig into the premise. The success of the Normandy invasion was not necessarily to break through to the Seine river, though everybody hoped for it, it was even retaining a foothold in Normandy and attracting there enough German panzer divisions (facing the air and artillery superiority, German tanks and self-propelled guns very the only forces capable to stop the allies, the towed ones were usually very vulnerable to allied artillery). The breakthrough itself was not needed.

On a strictly operational basis, your argument is actually quite sound, and one that I've never seen before, or at least presented so cogently.:):cool:

That said, it ignores the massive political consequences of a failed invasion. First, a complete purge of the Allied high command; Not just of army commanders but naval and air as well.

It was no secret that much of the problem for the navy was the insistence of Admiral King in sending his z-class officers to support Overlord, (1) while every admiral who could tie his own shoelaces went to either the Pacific or were off sinking the ever shrinking number of U-Boats.

1) The American admiral Kirk was referred to by Eisenhower as "...absolutely the worst admiral I had ever met in my life!":mad:

No complaints about the strategic air forces of the US or the tactical air forces of the RAF in Normandy, but Bomber Harris' obsession with terror bombing and the USAAF fighter pilots with thinking that WWII could be won by shooting down the most Luftwaffe fighters...:(

Another consequence would be the probably fall of the Churchill Government and the leadership vacuum he would leave behind. There really isn't anyone to effectively replace him as a war leader except the socialist Ernest Bevin, and he would represent a member of a minority party, albeit in a national government.

Note: Despite what others have suggested in countless threads, FDR has no chance of losing in 1944, short of a stroke, and he had a cerebral hemorrhage, not the same thing. Whenever FDR goes, he goes. His brain is a ticking time bomb, but with a set timer, not as you might see with a stroke caused by stress.

Stalin OTOH will be furious. Whether he delays Bagration is anybody's guess, but he did order it when it best suited him. So even a failed Overlord is likely not to see any German forces sent east again anytime soon. But you could see ITTL at the very least the Soviets overrunning all of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany up to the Elbe, parts of Central Germany and even Denmark!:eek: Unless Hitler sends more forces east than OTL, easing the western front. Butterflies, butterflies, butterflies.

With that happening, the situation would be resolved by the southern France invasion, perhaps strengthened by 3-4 more divisions brought in from Britain, rather than used in congested Normandy. In OTL the southern France was, by August 1944, left without panzer divisions. Both 9th wehrmacht and 2nd SS, as well the 17th panzer grenadiers were withdrawn to Normandy and if this scenario was repeated in the ATL, there would be nothing to stop the southern French invasion.

But if Overlord is defeated, what is to prevent the Germans from redeploying to the South of France? Besides, the terrain of that region is the worst in all of France, leaving only one advance route to the north free of rough terrain. If I were in command of a mostly motorized infantry force, I would not be sanguine at the prospects of fighting my way out of there. You don't really break out into open terrain in Southern France until you are all the way up to Vichy, by which time the front will have become so large and the German supply lines so extended and vulnerable that the Germans will have been forced to evacuate to Alsace-Lorraine anyway.:(

By October 1944 the German army would have to withdraw at least to the Seine line anyway.

I'm confused.:confused: You seem to be describing not an out-an-out Overlord defeat, but some kind of extended period of front isolation as might have been expected in a 1943 Roundup invasion...?

The conclusion is that even a very modest success of Normandy landings, e.g. in the form of only 3 our of 5 invasion beaches secured, would do the job. With the naval artillery advantage, the loads of tanks and anti tank towed guns and carpet bombing I don't think Germans could do much afterwards.

Failure of 2 out of 5 landings is still likely to cost Ike and Monty their jobs.

But now back to your premise, i.e. complete defeat in Normandy. The allies would have a problem.

The August southern France invasion would probably be opposed by at least two panzer divisions. However, the Germans would not be able to send much reinforcement to the south because they would have to face a possible repeat of a cross-channel invasion. If the roughly 12 allied divisions (there were eight of them in the Dragoon operation, however, with the southern France invasion now being so vital they would likely be reinforced from Britain by a few more) managed to keep a foothold in the south of France, they could be reinforced by some 4-8 divisions arriving monthly from Britain and the US.

Problems for the Allies:

Much longer supply lines and LOCs to Dragoon. Greater redeployment time. Little in the way of air support compared to Overlord. Rough terrain.

Pluses for the Allies:

New Supreme Commander, likely to be Alexander. Brooke's negative opinions of the man will hold little weight now. Devers is likely to be the commander of an expanded Dragoon, and Ike's negative opinion of him will hold little weight now.

Whether or not they would themselves manage to cause Germans to withdraw from to the Seine line or even further or whether another cross-channel invasion would have to be carried out (this time better prepared and against much weaker opposition) I can't say, but Germans would eventually have to withdraw from France anyway, probably before the end of 1944.

The probable massive loss in landing craft will cripple any further landing operations in Europe in 1944, and could even hurt Dragoon. And Hitler once again is the problem. He had a very bullying personality. Sending frex an entire SS panzer division (2nd/Das Reich) off for weeks haring about to-and-fro through Southern and Central France hunting down a few hundred marquis and slaughtering hundreds more civilians all in the name of installing fear in the civilian populace and avenging the assassinations of less senior SS officers than you could count on the fingers of one hand!

Consider Hitler's reaction to the news of an escape by some 50+ Allied PoWs, or any uprisings by any civilians in areas of German control.

Christ, even as the US Army was closing in on Munich in 1945 from three different directions, and the city was hit by a small anti-Nazi uprising by a few Wehrmacht units, the local SS and pro-Nazi Wehrmacht units abandoned the front to concentrate their forces in attempts to "crush the traitorous rebels". You saw the comical sight of loyal nazi troops attacking Wehrmacht barracks even as US troops were attacking them from the rear!

Something similar happened at Dachau, where the SS guards opened up with machine guns on the prisoners AFTER the US troops arrived on scene. Funny thing was, after the SS guards surrendered, they all tried to escape!:D:p Apparently they didn't realize that the Americans were crack shots!:rolleyes::eek:

IOW, the lesson was: Nazis like to fight the battles that they can win, not the battles that they must fight regardless of "victory".
Or possibly any other scenario:D

How about a scenario where Hitler abandons the entirety of Nazi-occupied Europe and sends everything down to the last guard dog, luger, and army pastry chef to either Yugoslavia (to fight Tito), Italy, the South of France, and the beaches of Normandy, Brittany, and the Pas-de-Calais?:D What are Overlord's and Dragoon's chances then?:(
 

tristanjay

Banned
I surmise that Eisenhower will make his speech taking blame for the debacle.

The Fuehrer would probably use it for propoganda purposes. He would no doubt use it to demonstrate his 'genius'. It might effect the timeline of the July 20th plot against His life.

The Western Allies would probably just switch the resources from Northern France to Southern France and Italy where they've already landed.

War would probably be extended several months. The borders of Europe had already been decided in Malta in '43. Similar results.
 
I surmise that Eisenhower will make his speech taking blame for the debacle.

The Fuehrer would probably use it for propoganda purposes. He would no doubt use it to demonstrate his 'genius'. It might effect the timeline of the July 20th plot against His life.

The Western Allies would probably just switch the resources from Northern France to Southern France and Italy where they've already landed.

War would probably be extended several months. The borders of Europe had already been decided in Malta in '43. Similar results.

"Decided" is a relative word. BTW, Germany's critical shortage of tungsten and especially chrome mean that their continued resistance is extremely limited regardless of the front line situation.

Based on Speer's memoirs (and this is a case where it is NOT self-serving), with the rate of chrome exhaustion in Germany with the slowed down effect of Allied strategic upon German war production, the German war effort would have completely collapsed no later than January 1st, 1946.

If not a single bomb had been dropped on a German factory or resource center in all of WWII, then the date drops all the way back to the end of Spring or very early Summer of 1944! Not even Speer could claim that he could divine an exact date for that scenario, since he lacked the data in such an ATL.

IOW, with the amount of strategic minerals available to Germany in occupied Europe and reachable trade partners (Spain, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey), there was X amount of German war production available for Y amount of German military needs. This was seen in the German usage of inferior metals because they were just flat running out of irreplaceable materials.
 
I think we need some context around use of interdiction and NGS

5 Battleships (Arkansas, Nevada and Texas + Ramillies and Warspite) and 2 Monitors

How many Cruisers? (20)

How many destroyers? (65)

A single destroyer is mounting 5 - 8 guns in the 114mm - 127mm calibre range

That makes it more powerful than a medium artillery battery

And there was 65 of them

The Cruisers are mounting between 6 and 12 x 6" and 8" guns in addition to secondary weapons

This makes a single Cruiser far more powerful than a heavy battery

Basically its more firepower than an entire Army group - and this to counter the extremely well known enemy dispositions that included a single Pz Div (21 Pz) in the area of operation

Add more Pz Divs - then expect a change to the allied plan

Directing NGS onto a moving formation is no more difficult than directing Artillery battery fire onto a moving formation - not for the Wallies in 1944





Absolutely agree with all you said, including the role of fighter bombers. Add to that many of the smaller calibre guns on destroyers, cruisers and battleships were designed as multipurpose - also for attacking airplanes. That meant they had much higher rate of fire than field artillery (10-20 rounds per minute versus 2-8). That effectively multiplied the number of naval artillery pieces available. See for comparison of rate of fire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4_inch_Mk_XVI_naval_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4.7_inch_Mark_XI_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M114_155_mm_howitzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_25-pounder

Also, I remember that the allies had created an extremely detailed photographic map of the area right behind the beaches which along with the permanent aerial guidance of the artillery gave the gunfire extreme accuracy.

Third, by June 1944 there have been instances of naval artillery completely disrupting attempted German counterattacks against allied landings, e.g. Salerno landings in September 43.
 
On a strictly operational basis, your argument is actually quite sound, and one that I've never seen before, or at least presented so cogently.:):cool:

Thanks.

That said, it ignores the massive political consequences of a failed invasion. First, a complete purge of the Allied high command; Not just of army commanders but naval and air as well.

It depends. I basically worked with two scenarios of "failure". The first one, when allies are bogged down in Normandy but still succeed in attracting panzer divisions from other battlefields so that a relief invasion, such as Dragoon, will achieve breakthrough. The second one was the, and necessary to stress that in my opinion rather unlikely, complete failure of Normandy landings.

However, taking into consideration the ability of allied governments to survive defeats in France, north Africa, Singapore, Pearl Harbour, Philippines, Guam, Wake etc., I don't think anything but an Armageddon in Normandy would necessarily have to lead to the governments' collapse. In fact what else the governments could do? Sit, wait and see (the then much more respected) Soviet ally shed all the blood with the wallies sitting with hands in their laps?

If there was a complete failure (second scenario), Eisenhower would probably be a victim but other than that he and Monty would have good chances to continue. As for politicians, even if there was a complete failure in Normandy, the war was by June 44 nearly won, so why would there be any major reason for a serious political change of course? There wasn't any even after loss of France in 1940.

Stalin OTOH will be furious. Whether he delays Bagration is anybody's guess, but he did order it when it best suited him. So even a failed Overlord is likely not to see any German forces sent east again anytime soon. But you could see ITTL at the very least the Soviets overrunning all of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany up to the Elbe, parts of Central Germany and even Denmark!:eek: Unless Hitler sends more forces east than OTL, easing the western front. Butterflies, butterflies, butterflies.

We are getting really far here but at least a few remarks.

I agree with you on that there is very few transfers of German units between east and west and vice versa. In fact, in OTL the only panzer divisions sent west were the 9th and 10th SS divisions in mid June, shortly before Bagration. That was about it. Very few infantry divisions transferred.

As for the progress on other fronts, we often neglect one assumption. It is not possible to isolate events on one front from the others. Had there been for example a major success on the eastern front, it would effect the western one too. Even if any wallied attempts to invade France failed while Soviets reached the Oder-Neisse line (reached in OTL by end of January 45), it would probably mean a collapse of German defenses in the west and a quick withdrawal from France and Belgium towards Germany, followed by little opposed allied landings and pursuing of German forces. With Soviets being 100 km from Berlin, Hitler would hardly be able to afford to defend southern France or Normandy. And any withdrawal of mobile anti tank weapons from France to help the eastern front would make invasion chances much better. So I still think that France and Benelux would be occupied by wallies. In fact they would still have a good chance to grab a big chunk of western Germany while the not excessively mobile Soviet units fight desperate Germans in Berlin.

But if Overlord is defeated, what is to prevent the Germans from redeploying to the South of France?


Exactly the same reasons that prevented them from having there more than two panzer divisions (9th wehrmacht and 2nd SS) in June 44. The threat of an allied invasion in the north as well as devastated communications between north and south.

Even of Normandy completely failed, this would concern land units, less likely the naval capacity (What would destroy the ships? Nonexistent Luftwaffe? Harmless uboats? The few E-boats? Or insane repeated running into German minefields?). Yes, the allies had half of their LST's run aground by the 19-22th June storm, but that would happen when the beaches were secured after 6 June invasion.

As for the postponed invasion running into the 19th June storm scenario, that is a fantasy. I remember reading the allied weather service predicting on 4 June (Sunday) weather reliably until Friday 9 June. The 5 June landing was canceled on 3 June and the 6 June invasion went ahead with information from 4 June, two days ahead. Therefore even if the invasion was planned for as early as 18th of June, the storm coming on 19th would surely be known about by the 17th (and keep in mind that the storm would be even more visible for the weather men than the bad weather predicted for the 5th of June). So with information about a storm on 19th available even as late as on 17th June, the paratroopers carrying planes would not even take off the ground and the fleet already at sea would have two days to return to ports.

Also, because of damaged railway communications and chronic lack of fuel, it was immensely hard for Germans to move forces over France. I read that it took the 9th wehrmacht panzer division three weeks to make it from the south of France to Normandy.

Besides, the terrain of that region is the worst in all of France, leaving only one advance route to the north free of rough terrain. If I were in command of a mostly motorized infantry force, I would not be sanguine at the prospects of fighting my way out of there. You don't really break out into open terrain in Southern France until you are all the way up to Vichy, by which time the front will have become so large and the German supply lines so extended and vulnerable that the Germans will have been forced to evacuate to Alsace-Lorraine anyway.:(

Agree, the terrain north of Dragoon beaches was hilly but not as much as the one in Italy. But the point again was not to necessarily break out from the south. The general point of invading France was to stretch German defenses in one place of France by attracting there panzer divisions and then attack a different, weakened, position in France with another invasion. In the other order that is exactly what was planned to be done in Normandy and then in the south of France. So with Germans having all the same reasons to defend the north as they had in June 44 (fear of repeated invasion) and with the divisions needing weeks to make it from north to south and vice versa, Germans would not be able to move their defenses south without fatally weakening their northern French beaches. All the allied needed was to repeat their intent from Normandy, i.e. to secure 10-20 km deep and 100 km wide foothold in France, attracting there Germans and then attacking weakened Germans elsewhere.

As for possible success of another invasion, I add this. Even with Normandy completely defeated, Germans still would have to defend the whole of France, not just south. The Luftwaffe would probably be gradually even weaker, the allied air force even stronger, the French communication system even more damaged and with priority of the European battlefield over the Pacific one (and over 1100 LST's built before the end of the war), the allies would be able to replace those lost of the roughly 220 LST's used in Normandy. Also, take into consideration the much better weather in the Mediterranean area (the Anzio invasion was carried out in January), giving allies more time to attack there. In the end, I think that another invasion, perhaps in southern France, would have very good chances to do its job, even if it was not necessarily a breakthrough into France.


To summarize, even if the impossible (complete defeat in Normandy) happened, for the reasons above I think that another invasions elsewhere would have a good chance to create a foothold, which would suffice to draw German defense forces from other parts of France later to be attacked, if not achieve a direct break through on its own.

I don't see why a failure of Normandy should change wallied attitude to defeat of Germany. Germany was by then on the verge of a defeat anyway and the allies had more ways to finish them off.

Second, even if the allies failed even with any subsequent invasions, Soviets' approaching of German eastern border would probably weaken German positions in France substantially, if they were not abandoned completely in favour of the more defendable Siegfried line. Germans would need any spare tank and anti tank gun to face Soviets near Berlin, they would at certain point have to stop defending Marseille or Brest. With that happening, the allies would in 1945, this time much stronger than in summer of 1944, invade substantially weakened German defenses of France, if they were not abandoned at all and with their mobility they could reach German borders in a matter of weeks. Also, taking into consideration German reluctance to surrender to Russians, parts of western Germany would likely fall into wallied hands anyway.
 
Top