d- day

nebbe

New Member
what would have happened if the allied forces didn't do as well as they did on d-day were would Europe and rest of the world be i dear not even imagine it although there are other very important and decisive battles in europe this one overshadows them all.and i think that in the end the nazi's downfall were there battlemoral, malnourished, and hitler concentrating on the eastern front eventually broke them down and of course the allies having master tacticians and strategics as ike and churchill thank god for that !
 
if D-day hadnt been successful, we would probably have been fighting for the next 10 years trying to land on the European mainland, and it would have been a long, bloody, drawn-out war, even more than what it was.
 
If we hadn't won at D-Day we would have given a boost to German morale. But the Soviets would have soldiered on.

By 1944 Germany had lost. The Soviets had built up a huge amount of momentum and the German army was incapable of stopping them. United States troops would have continued to advance up through Italy, and Churchill would probably have got the invasion of Yugoslavia he was hoping for.

In all likelyhood the Soviets would have taken Berlin before the first atomic bomb was ready. And even if they hadn't Germany would have been so battered that it's reasonable to believe that the first atomic bomb would have been used om Japan anyway.

The fate of the invasion force also depends on what you mean by the landings failed. Do you mean that the fighting lasted into June 7th before stopping? Or that the allies were forced out of France after a month of fighting. The latter, while far more damaging to the Allies, is far less likely then the beach landings simply being defeated. If the beach landings had failed then there would have far more then 3,000 casaulties. But despite the loss of the entire airborne invasion force, the Allies still would have had a huge stockpile of supplies in Europe.

There would have been another landing, but if that landing came too late then there is the very real possibility that France, or parts of it, would have been liberated by the Soviets. With the result of an entirely Soviet Germany, and France becoming either a split or communist state.

Edit: Thanks "The Other Guy"
 
PershingOfLSU said:
If we hadn't won at D-Day we would have given a boost to German morale. But the Soviets would have soldiered on.

By 1944 Germany had lost. The Soviets had built up a huge amount of momentum and the German army was incapable of stopping them. United States troops would have continued to advance up through Italy, and Churchill would probably have got the invasion of Yugoslavia he was hoping for.

In all likelyhood the Soviets would have taken Moscow before the first atomic bomb was ready. And even if they hadn't Germany would have been so battered that it's reasonable to believe that the first atomic bomb would have been used om Japan anyway.

The fate of the invasion force also depends on what you mean by the landings failed. Do you mean that the fighting lasted into June 7th before stopping? Or that the allies were forced out of France after a month of fighting. The latter, while far more damaging to the Allies, is far less likely then the beach landings simply being defeated. If the beach landings had failed then there would have far more then 3,000 casaulties. But despite the loss of the entire airborne invasion force, the Allies still would have had a huge stockpile of supplies in Europe.

There would have been another landing, but if that landing came too late then there is the very real possibility that France, or parts of it, would have been liberated by the Soviets. With the result of an entirely Soviet Germany, and France becoming either a split or communist state.

Last I checket the soviets have never lost control of moscow. :)

TO NEBBE: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5380&highlight=d+2004

You'll like it.
 
PershingOfLSU said:
If we hadn't won at D-Day we would have given a boost to German morale. But the Soviets would have soldiered on.

By 1944 Germany had lost. The Soviets had built up a huge amount of momentum and the German army was incapable of stopping them. United States troops would have continued to advance up through Italy, and Churchill would probably have got the invasion of Yugoslavia he was hoping for.

In all likelyhood the Soviets would have taken Moscow before the first atomic bomb was ready. And even if they hadn't Germany would have been so battered that it's reasonable to believe that the first atomic bomb would have been used om Japan anyway.

I agree but only because by 1944, Hitler's Parkinson's condition had really gotten a grip on him and he was really incapable of running Germany in any kind of sensible way.

If the D-Day landings had been repulsed/had never happened it would still have been possible for Germany to check the Red Army advance in Poland. The combination of a much shorter defensive line for the Wehrmacht and ever lengthening lines of communication and supply for the Red Army would have made the taking of the Polish corridor, and therefore the most direct route into Germany proper, very difficult for the Soviets. But only if Hitler had left the management of the Ostfront to Guderian in his capacity as Chief of Staff to the OKH. In reality, this never would have happened though and so I agree that the Red Army would have marched into Berlin, probably several months later than historically.
 
If D Day had gone badly then we would have come into Germany via Italy or Vichy France, but in the finish the weight of numbers would have overwhelmed the Germans
 
yeah i wouldnt say i love it but very interesting day ,i can only imagine the courage involved running up a beach under motor,machine gun,rifle,sniper ansd artillery fire.
 
If they had failed to land in France, the assets would have been moved to Italy and Russia.

Germany was doomed.

And the Germans told the Japanese there was no way to stop an American amphibious landing - that it was impossible.
 
OK, let's look at the strategic situation: The Russians are advancing all across something like a 3000 mile front, and the Germans know very well that they cannot stop them. The Americans, British and Canadians are advancing north through Italy, and again, the Germans know that they cannot be stopped. If the D-Day landings had failed none of this would have changed a whit, and the Allies would have had three Armies worth of supplies, the ships to move them, the airpower to support their use, and they could have been sent, and arrived anywhere within 5 weeks.

I think that a failure of D-Day would indeed have meant that the war would have been lengthened, but not by that long. If the extra men and supplies had been sent to Italy, It would have allowed the Allies to bypass many of the tough defence lines that were there, and I believe that the Germans would not have been able to hold the Alps if the Allies had even 1 more army in Italy. The invasions of France would have come from the south, probably by spring, 1946.

The better bet would have been to re-route all of those men and supplies to Russia. The addition of one or two fully equipped Allied armies on the Eastern Front would definitely have sped up the German collapse. I think the Russians would definitly have been in Berlin by about Spring 1946, probably earlier.

Either way, Nazi Germany never had a chance.

Dean.
 
If we hadn't done so well on D-Day, I don't think it would be as easy for us to win the war. D-Day was a very important operation in World War 2. It was definately a clutch to our win. Without the success of D-Day, we probably would have been fighting for a few more years.
 
Well, if D-Day failed, as many people have said, The Soviets would keep on going, The Allies would have gone into Yugoslavia, and advanced through Italy, and even mounted an attack on Vichy France.
So yeah, even if the Invasion had failed Germany was still gonna be defeated.
 
Back
Top