We could have still won, but it would take longer. After Dunkirk, the UK had to wait for its armed forces to recover since they had lost most of thier equipment and weapons. The same thing would have to happen if D-Day failed. It would mean going on the defensive again for a couple more years. Germany could then invade Britain, but it was probably more interested in the Russains, and the RAF would still prevent an invasion from taking place. However, the allies would then have to invade the continent through another country, possibly Norway, since Germany's Atlantic Wall would be strengthened.
During the war, Commando raids in Norway made Hitler fear a large scale assault there and an allied advance into Germany. Therefore he sent over 200,000 men there to counter the threat. Consequently, these men couldnt be used against the allied invasion. That would probably not happen for a second time. At the timeof D-Day, Hitler was asleep and therefore he could not release his Panzer divisions held back in reserve, because they were under his direct command. Again, this would have not happened again.
However, if an invasion couldnt take place for a year or so, Hitler would still be in firm controll of Europe when the US gained atomic capability. Berlin would have then inevitably been A-bombed, forcing Hitler so surrender.
Share This Page:
D-day
-
josephwells
- Guest
dday/war
It was won by the brave thats for sure both my grandad and my stepdad were in it, my stepdad was a rupert on a navy landing craft in the first wave at omagah beach, he was invited to watch the first screening of Saving Private Ryan through the landing craft association - which he did. During the opening scenes he and several other vets got up and left, I asked him why, he answered that he had no wish to re live such a traumatice few hours and wanted to try and leave it in the past, he is 80 now and still sleeps with the light on and hates fireworks night. My grandad was in 6th airborne and was also one of churchills original commandos, he jumped over normandy and landed in flooded plainland, he and colleagues re grouped and fought on, I asked him if he killed anyone once - I know its sad but I did - he said he had "silenced as many people as he had to in order to get the job done".
lest the new generation would forget........................
lest the new generation would forget........................
-
the_alias
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar, 2004 10:26 am
- Location: Germany (but I'm 100% English)
Most of my dads side of the family were involved in the war..Great grandad a Royal marine, other Great Grandad fireman during the blitz,Grandfather Merchant Nazy amazingly all made it out alive. Ulitmatley D-Day sped up the whole proccess but it was only inevitable tht the germans would lose.
Anyone heard about how the beeb is gonna run a special D-day anniversary this year???
We should never forget those who died to protect our freedoms salute them.
Anyone heard about how the beeb is gonna run a special D-day anniversary this year???
We should never forget those who died to protect our freedoms salute them.
"If the British Empire lasts a thousand years. Men will still say this was their finest hour"
Churchill
Churchill
I believe a stalemate would have ensued if D-Day had failed. Rommel knew this, and thats why he proposed to put panzers on the landing beaches as the infantry assaults came in, had they done that, D-Day=Game Over. But it was Von Runstedt who insisted on holding the panzers back in and wait to counterattack, hitler went with that.
Someone else mentioned it though...Germany was already finished from it's exhausting battles in Russia. There were only a handful of crack troops defending the beaches...the rest were known as 'stomach battallions' or they were greens.
This is actually such an incredibly convoluted approach on how or how not would the war of ended.
Say for instance that D-Day was still succesfull but in this case Hitler pulled out battle hardened vets from Russia en-masse instead of penny packet like he was prone to do. Again the allies would of been pushed right back into the water.
Someone else mentioned it though...Germany was already finished from it's exhausting battles in Russia. There were only a handful of crack troops defending the beaches...the rest were known as 'stomach battallions' or they were greens.
This is actually such an incredibly convoluted approach on how or how not would the war of ended.
Say for instance that D-Day was still succesfull but in this case Hitler pulled out battle hardened vets from Russia en-masse instead of penny packet like he was prone to do. Again the allies would of been pushed right back into the water.
Unfortunatly Northern Italy has some horrible terrain, As the primary means of advance it would have been much more difficult then Western France, it would have made the invasion of Southren France that much more difficult too.owdun wrote:Don't forget the D Day dodgers lads, fighting their way up through Italy and the Balkans, they would have kept the old bastard busy, some of the most battle hardened soldiers in the allied forces were involved in this punch-up.
Aye Owdun.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would have been quite a slugging match.
Aint No Rocket Scientists In The Firehall
Had a second front not opened up in the West i think that its possible the Germans may have won the war.
Operation Overlord thwarted then the Germans could put all of their resources into possibly a renewed offensive against the Russians. Granted the sixth army was no longer existent, being wiped out at Stalingrad, but without the Allies constantly bombing German citys and halting their tank/aircraft/arms production then resources could have been gathered effectively.
If the Germans could then go on to defeat the Russians (pretty unlikely) i think the Allies would go on to offer an armistice. Surely if they were strong enough to defeat the Russians then they're is little hope for us defeating them.
Recently someone sent me this link to a website with large amounts of photographs of Stalingrad. Seen as its been mentioned so much in this topic i think some of you would enjoy it as much as i have.
http://www.privates-antiquariat.de/0stalingrad.htm
Its in German but you can use babelfish to get a general idea of what the captions are saying.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
Cheers.
Operation Overlord thwarted then the Germans could put all of their resources into possibly a renewed offensive against the Russians. Granted the sixth army was no longer existent, being wiped out at Stalingrad, but without the Allies constantly bombing German citys and halting their tank/aircraft/arms production then resources could have been gathered effectively.
If the Germans could then go on to defeat the Russians (pretty unlikely) i think the Allies would go on to offer an armistice. Surely if they were strong enough to defeat the Russians then they're is little hope for us defeating them.
Recently someone sent me this link to a website with large amounts of photographs of Stalingrad. Seen as its been mentioned so much in this topic i think some of you would enjoy it as much as i have.
http://www.privates-antiquariat.de/0stalingrad.htm
Its in German but you can use babelfish to get a general idea of what the captions are saying.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
Cheers.
Ghostbear, the question asked if D Day had failed, not if a second front was not opened, for that reason I would have to disagree with you, in the long run it would have ot made a lot of difference. It would have prolonged the war no doubt, and meant more casualties, probably on both sides. But by the summer of 44 Germany's goose was basically cooked.
The allies enjoyed complete naval and air superiority, so the bombing of German factories would have continued unabated. Patton's Army would still have been available, as would the troops that were dsetined to land in Southren France. I also could not see the Germans totally destroying the Troops that landed on D Day, in my opinion even in failure a sizeable portion of those troops could have been salvaged.
As you say the Germans were unlikely to have been able to defeat th Russians by the mid 44 period anyhow.
The failure of D Day would have been a large blow to the allies moral, but not an insurmountable one.
The allies enjoyed complete naval and air superiority, so the bombing of German factories would have continued unabated. Patton's Army would still have been available, as would the troops that were dsetined to land in Southren France. I also could not see the Germans totally destroying the Troops that landed on D Day, in my opinion even in failure a sizeable portion of those troops could have been salvaged.
As you say the Germans were unlikely to have been able to defeat th Russians by the mid 44 period anyhow.
The failure of D Day would have been a large blow to the allies moral, but not an insurmountable one.
Aint No Rocket Scientists In The Firehall
D-Day
Has any historian/military analyst actually considered what would have become of the Italian campaign if the Normandy landings had been repulsed? Would the Allies have simply landed more men and materiel in Italian ports instead? I never thought of this for a second, we're so conditioned to believe that the Normandy landings were the big critical moment when in reality, they had all happened a year before, it would seem.
Read Wartime by Paul Fussell, it mentions that there was an invasion of an island taking place in the Pacific theatre on 6 June 1944 that was completely forgotten. The men that took part in that always felt short-changed.
What about when Russia and Germany were waging aggressive war against Poland simultaneously in 1939, never mind the Russo-Finnish war? Why wasn't Russia considered as aggressive as Germany?
Was it because Churchill was so cynical he knew Germany and Russia would ultimately slug it out?
Read Wartime by Paul Fussell, it mentions that there was an invasion of an island taking place in the Pacific theatre on 6 June 1944 that was completely forgotten. The men that took part in that always felt short-changed.
What about when Russia and Germany were waging aggressive war against Poland simultaneously in 1939, never mind the Russo-Finnish war? Why wasn't Russia considered as aggressive as Germany?
Was it because Churchill was so cynical he knew Germany and Russia would ultimately slug it out?
"Poor Ike, it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating. He'll sit here and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen."
Harry Truman
Harry Truman
Good Heavens no, but Russia's conquests in 1939-40 and the reactions of Britiain and France to them are rarely mentioned. I take it that it was a non-issue at the time?are you suggesting that we should have fought Germany, Russia, Itlay and Japan all at the same time and expect to win
Germany's attack on Poland in 1939 led to a declaration of war. Russia's subsequent invasion of eastern Poland led to ??? I've often wondered what Chamberlain and Deladier (?)were thinking at the time.
I asked my uncle in the Foreign Office (not a history professor) about it once and he said that both Britain and France knew Russia and Germany would be clashing shortly, so there was no point. Makes sense. When I posed the question to the War Studies Dept at Sandhurst I can't remember the response, to be honest.
"Poor Ike, it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating. He'll sit here and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen."
Harry Truman
Harry Truman
-
Mr Grimsdale
- Member
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Wed 07 Jan, 2004 2:18 pm
- Location: Kingston
Apparently he did this expecting Japan to declare war on Russia in a reciprocal move thus forcing the Russians to leave their Siberian reserves to defend against possible Japanese action.spike wrote:Hitler mad many mistakes including;
a) Declaring war on the USA
He probably got quite a shock when he realised the Japanese weren't going to bite.
