Imagine in an alternet scenario where Nazi Germany was much better prepared for D-Day and the Allied Naval Assult was defeated and driven into the sea. It would take at least several mounts perhaps even a year for the Allies to prepare a new invasion. By then the Soviets would be in more advanced positions. By the time Germany surrenders I think the Soviets could push all the way up to the Rhine. In this scenario I could see the USSR offering to retreat from most of West Germany in return for recognizing some parts of West Germany as part of East Germany. The USSR might want Hamburg and Schlesinger-Holstein or Bavaria. Both of these areas had more Communist supporters than most of OTL East Germany. Of perhapse Stalin just refues to withdraw from the Rhine or only withdraws from small parts of the east bank.
Would a failed D-Day effect the inter-German border.
- Thread starter ChadMachine999
- Start date
The occupation zones had not been agreed on yet as that took place during the 1945 Potsdam Conference, if I remember correctly. I imagine the inner German border could change in the (admittedly unlikely) event that D-Day is a failure. The change might not be that big as we think though. A failure of D-Day would enable Hitler to transfer large amounts of forces towards the Eastern Front to slow down the Red Army as the earliest next attempt at a landing in northern France would be no earlier than spring 1945. It's likely that atomic bombs will be needed to force Germany to surrender.
Last edited:
Thing is given the scenario has Germnay with more forces than OTL in the west those extra would have to come from somewhere and if it's the eastern front that weakens Germany in the east and depending on how long it takes D-Day to fail that might favour Bagration.
I.e unless you we can create wholly new German forces the overall total will remain the same (maybe Italy doesn't happen that could do it, but then you have extra wallie forces about as well)
Either way I don't think the German can stop the red army but I agree if they not fighting the wallies in teh west it will take longer. I do agree it's very likely nuclear bombs will end up being uses and that will help the red army advance into Germany (although I guess increased rates of cancer in red army vetrens will follow)
Ultimately the occupation zones will be decided by boots on the ground, and if the wallies don't land those boots will be soviet even if they are somewhat irradiated, and Stalin was not a man to hand back stuff he had in his possession.
Good timing - I was just about to write far too much and say the same thing but worse.
If enough German forces head east, Dragoon should still work and Italy can be pushed a bit harder - replace Mark Clarke, and send more bombers over.
I'm not sure. Originally it was to take place at the same time as D-Day, but when that was enlarged, there weren't enough resources to do both.
Now in these threads it's always the question why did D-Day fail? I think OTL D-Day is very hard to fail, given the total air and naval supremacy the allies had. Maybe they didn't enlarge D-Day, but still went with Dragoon, maybe not in conjuction but a few days after. Due to this D-Day fails after a week or so. By then Dragoon already started, and the Germans see that as a ruse of the ruse (still expecting the main landings in Calais). Dragoon succeeds in so far that they gain a foothold and harbours in southern France, but it's obviously not the success it was in OTL.
But if it's OTL planning for Overlord, after its failing there will be pressure to land in France. So maybe they decide to do this, at approximimately the same time as OTL. This might be possible, because the Germans think they've beaten off the landings and relocate divisions to the eastern front.
If D-Day fails there's no way they're doing Dragoon any time soon it would just risk "good money after bad", once an inherent lack of capability or misunderstanding of the operational situation had been laid bare
but
yes I agree 100% how D-Day fails and other changes is very relevent to all these questions
But leaving aside everything else the issue for Dragoon is without any landings in the north is it's just the wrong end of France anf Germany has just demonstrated itself capable of ejecting the wallies when running landing from much closer to home bases
Problem is if Overlord fails despite all the planning that went into it there will have to be serious evaluations by the wallies about what went wrong, their understanding of their enemies' capabilities and how to do it right, that will take time and will halt any other landing that were planned under the same flawed operational assumptions.
Last edited:
Well, the issue is how does D-Day fail, because OTL D-Day didn't fail, and it wasn't even particularly close to failing*, so you're going to need some pretty big POD(s) for it to fail. Which is why I suggested they do their original plan Sledgehammer (instead of Overlord) and Anvil (instead of Dragoon), either simultanously or shortly after each other. Even then I'd expect one of them not to be repelled.
Given that none of the invasions in Italy or France where repelled, it seems to me it's quite hard for D-Day to fail. There have been numerous threads about that.
* except Omaha where they came close to pulling out, but that still leaves the other 4 beachheads.
Yep I agree, I think if somehow the Germans et al are perfect or near perfect in their overall response* and also accepting of very high casualties while doing it, they could maybe repel it but even then they have a very short window of opportunity
Also massive does of luck / bad luck and so on
*I.e not just local
Last edited:
im wondering in this scenario if the western Ally’s actually end up in a better situation. If Dday fails it’ll probably slow the eastern front down. US tests atomic bomb in July, nukes Nuremberg and Dresden. If Germany surrenders after that and Soviets let’s say haven’t even entered Germany, it could lead to WAllies getting a more favorable position. But this is under the assumption that
1. Germany actually surrenders after two nukes.
2. The US is able to nuke Germany without getting shot down.
This scenario also might have the US be less likely to negotiate with the Soviets since they may no longer feel they need Soviet participation against Japan.
1. Germany actually surrenders after two nukes.
2. The US is able to nuke Germany without getting shot down.
This scenario also might have the US be less likely to negotiate with the Soviets since they may no longer feel they need Soviet participation against Japan.
I can't see Germany surrendering to two nukes not while Hitler is alive
For all that we think of Japan over Germany when it comes to continuing to fight way past the point of common sense and to the last man
The difference between Japan in it's final days of WW2 and Germany in it's final day of WW2, is that Japan at a least had a plan to try and get to the negotiating table (but events overtook the plan), Germany doesn't even have that while Hitler is alive
Last edited:
AFAIK at Anzio the allies bungled up, the Germans had luck, and it still didn't get repelled.
Now if the allies did D-Day like they did Torch or Dieppe, then there's a good chance for the Germans. But by 1944 the allies learned from their mistakes and in D-Day they had a massive overkill (at least at sea and in the air, which meant the Germans got into trouble if they wanted to move their forces).
Which is why you need to scale down the landings for the Germans to make a chance.
Operation Dragoon will continue on. Couple with some Allied troops moving from Italy which was just recently liberated.
If failed includes not lauched as planned called off due to the marginal weather (forecaster error or risk aversion, as changing the weather is ASB) then the trops etc are still aroind.
Maybe a series of decoy raids to keep the German troops off balance and keep them shifting troops around while a team of specialists keep Churchill from mentioning Greece, and others try to make Dragoon and a boosted Italian campaign work.
Maybe a series of decoy raids to keep the German troops off balance and keep them shifting troops around while a team of specialists keep Churchill from mentioning Greece, and others try to make Dragoon and a boosted Italian campaign work.
Honestly, the only way I see D-Day failing is if due to risk aversion or an error in the weather forecast Eisenhower gets told June 6 is a no-go. This forces the Allies to wait for two weeks until the next spring tide. If they do that, the entire operation gets hit by the largest storming in living memory a few days later. Without enemy air supremacy, the Germans have a good chance of eliminating the Normandy beachhead.
I don't think that in this scenario Dragoon would still go ahead, so those forces could be poured into the Italian Campaign before Churchill comes up with another harebrained scheme to land in Greece or anywhere else in the Balkans. This would allow the Wehrmacht to transfer significant forces, like the II SS Panzer Corps, east in an attempt to stymy Bagration and prevent Army Group Centre from being crippled.
Last edited:
Actually I think they have to go ahead with Dragoon or they end up surrendering Western Europe to the Soviets in 1945/6.
This, the issue is that the Germans dont really want to defend western France most they want to defend Germany and especially Berlin, so they will just move forces (or rather more importantly send new reinforcements and supplies only one way) until both disasters collapse at equal rates. The end is always likely to be in the middle in Berlin therefore so long as both allied sides keep trying.