# Why did D-day even happen?



## 102first_hussars (Feb 14, 2007)

Like the Allies could have easily taken Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Hungary through Italy, and been very close to Berlin, they could have spearheaded through to Berlin, and if they wanted to take France so bad why nt take them from behind by invading Vichey France, instead of breaking through a heavily defended Atlantic wall, like there is probably details that im not aware of, but yeah, if the Allies had of taken Berlin by invading Slovakia first and moving forward from there, maybe the USSR would never have made it to Germany meaning the Cold War would have went differently


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 14, 2007)

Why do you want to land and fight in mountainous regions?

A repeat of the italian invasion.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 14, 2007)

Italy saw some very bitter fighting - and is unfortunately a widely unrecognized theater. Sys is right - tough mountain warfare, which is what italy was. Then continuing up north through austria into germany through tyrol alps??? Even passing to the east and launching an attack from slovakia/poland would have been an impractical scenario. Think of supply lines through mountains, arching around throughout half of europe...


----------



## Maestro (Feb 14, 2007)

Plus the fact that many war criminals could have escaped due to the fact that there was nobody to block their retreat in the West.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2007)

It's *all* a matter of supply. The biggest supply depot was Great Britain, an invasion from anywhere else would have ran out of supply very quickly.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 15, 2007)

plan_D said:


> It's *all* a matter of supply. The biggest supply depot was Great Britain, an invasion from anywhere else would have ran out of supply very quickly.



Yep, Britain was the base and once in France you have the easiest and quickest route to Berlin with the shortest sea journey. Also if you read about the war in Italy you will see it is much harder going than you suppose with the Germans have multiple Sigfried line style defences (Gothic line etc).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2007)

There were 2 main reasons why they did not try an major push through Italy. 

One as plan_D pointed out was supply. It would have been more difficult to supply through Italy.

Two was the terrain. It would have actually prolonged the war to go through the Alps. Besides as history has allready proven the allies were bogged down for quite some time because of the fierce and well placed German defenses there.


----------



## trackend (Feb 15, 2007)

Britain was (as D Adler have said) a bloody great depot, aircraft carrier, docks and barracks with just a thin strip of water seperating it from the enemy. The skies to all intense and purposes where ruled by the allies as where the seas the possible landing sites streached along most of the French coast which in turn streached the defending German forces, even Norway was perceived as a possible invasion point and caused forces to be retained there just incase.
I think this was why the only feasable second front with the maximum chance of success was launched from the UK


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2007)

It would have been hell trying to go through the alps with hundreds of thousands of troops and equipment and the Germans would have had the terrain on there side. 

Trying going up those mountains with the Germans shooting down on you.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 15, 2007)

I think it's worth also considering that ending the war earlier through significantly increased efforts would probably result in a weaker US/Britain and a stronger USSR. Why not let the Germans and the Russians grind each other down while we continue to mass resources for a concentrated assault along a easier to manage western front.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Trying going up those mountains with the Germans shooting down on you.



Yeah, the terrain in the Alps practically defends itself.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There were 2 main reasons why they did not try an major push through Italy.
> 
> One as plan_D pointed out was supply. It would have been more difficult to supply through Italy.
> 
> Two was the terrain. It would have actually prolonged the war to go through the Alps. Besides as history has allready proven the allies were bogged down for quite some time because of the fierce and well placed German defenses there.



Excuse me sir! I believe I pointed out supply issues first! Give it up


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2007)

A Balkan invasion was considered at one time in the war. And FDR and the JCS rejected it outright as being an "adventure" for political reasons and few if any military advantages.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

Plus you would have to go through the same kind of terrain as you did in the Alps to get to Germany. Would have taken even longer.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 17, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> A Balkan invasion was considered at one time in the war. And FDR and the JCS rejected it outright as being an "adventure" for political reasons and few if any military advantages.



Yes Sys but Allies didn't want another Gallipoli style invasion as it failed in WW1. But by going through Greece into the Balkans but the Allies were smart to they fooled German Military Intelligence into believing a front invasion would go through the Balkans via Greece etc or Norway or even by France itself by Calais etc. The Italian campaign the Tough Old Gut of Europe was bad enough but Greece would have been just as bad going to the Balkans etc. The Germans had a hell of a time taking Greece in 1941. It wasn't a walk over as they first thought with Greek British and Commonwealth Troops defending every pass and mountain top in a fighting withdrawal. Second Battle of Thermopyle were Australian 6th Division men were defending the pass gave the German Army hell. Only thing the Aussies lacked was air cover of their own and the Germans had air superiority which they used to dislodge the Aussies, but it cost the Germans dearly for every foot of ground won in Greece as it did for Allies in Italy. So Greece via Balkans was out of the question. Good only to keep the Germans guessing and tie down extra divisions that could be used elsewhere


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 17, 2007)

Well, i do see how it would have been harder, but wasnt there mountain infantry units specifacly trained for that kind of warfare.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Well, i do see how it would have been harder, but wasnt there mountain infantry units specifacly trained for that kind of warfare.


But they could not of been as effective as a ground assault, especially conquering Germany. The quickest and most cost effective way to defeat Germany as far as equipment and men was through France.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 17, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Well, i do see how it would have been harder, but wasnt there mountain infantry units specifacly trained for that kind of warfare.



Gebirgsjaeger have always been among the finest mountain troops. Not to mention that mountainous terrain is always a defenders dream.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 17, 2007)

What is the terrain like in Denmark, because they could have also mounted an assault on Denmark from Norway to go staright into Germany


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> What is the terrain like in Denmark, because they could have also mounted an assault on Denmark from Norway to go staright into Germany



Some mountains but COLD...

Also Norway was very well fortified, maybe just as good as France. Also think about the distance getting supplies to Norway from England. Again logistically France was the closest....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 17, 2007)

but i thought the British had already invaded Norway before the invasion of France


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

They did, but a good portion of Norway was still occupied right up till the end of the war...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 17, 2007)

plan_D said:


> It's *all* a matter of supply. The biggest supply depot was Great Britain, an invasion from anywhere else would have ran out of supply very quickly.



there was the Suez Canal, which maybe could have seen supplies come from South Africa straight to Venice or Ports in Greece or Albania , maybe it wouldnt have been worthwile, but then again GB depended on supplies from across the Atlantic Ocean, U-boats wouldnt have been nearly as bad at this point of the war in the mediterranian


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2007)

S Africa was not exactly an industrial powerhouse.

All manufactured war material came from the US and Britain.

And again, why do you want to land and then support 1,000,000 men so far away from the Germany's borders and having to fight through mountainous terrain?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Well, i do see how it would have been harder, but wasnt there mountain infantry units specifacly trained for that kind of warfare.



The German Gebirgsjaeger were first rate. Very well trained and they knew the terrain better than anyone. (I give credit to mkloby for bringing up this thought first ). Today they are even considered first rate of there kind, infact the US military still trains with them at the German Mountain Schools. We would fly everyonce in awhile down to the school and use our helicopters to assist with the training fo the German and US forces there.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> S Africa was not exactly an industrial powerhouse.
> 
> All manufactured war material came from the US and Britain.
> 
> And again, why do you want to land and then support 1,000,000 men so far away from the Germany's borders and having to fight through mountainous terrain?



That hits the nail on the head. 

It is quite obvous and anyone with understanding of military operations understands this why it was not chosen to go through Italy into Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> there was the Suez Canal, which maybe could have seen supplies come from South Africa straight to Venice or Ports in Greece or Albania , maybe it wouldnt have been worthwile, but then again GB depended on supplies from across the Atlantic Ocean, U-boats wouldnt have been nearly as bad at this point of the war in the mediterranian



Why would you use Venice anyhow. It is in Northern Italy. The ground troops would have to get there first. If they invaded that high up then they would have the mountains to there north full of Germans and Germans and Italians to there south. They would have been completly circled in. Pointless.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 17, 2007)

An invasion anywhere other than the short distance to Northern France means capturing a port or ports(usualy well defended). Even with the Mulberry Harbours the Allies effort was logistically stretched. 

Also the allies tactical airforce is less effective in mountainess regions.

The anglo/americian allies were a democrocy and in order to appease public opinion they needed to finish the war quickly(This means landing in France). Unlike Stalins who could halt advancement and make massive land grabs.

The more important question is shouldn't Eisenhower have dismissed a broad front campaign for a narrow front given the logistics and the need to get the job done quickly. Also should have stopped the sweep south and headed straight for Berlin before the Russians(debatable whether the Germans would have put up such a stiff defence against the allies).


----------



## Maestro (Feb 18, 2007)

bigZ said:


> The more important question is shouldn't Eisenhower have dismissed a broad front campaign for a narrow front given the logistics and the need to get the job done quickly. Also should have stopped the sweep south and headed straight for Berlin before the Russians(debatable whether the Germans would have put up such a stiff defence against the allies).



I'm not sure about that... Imagine all of them landing at Omaha Beach or all of them being stuck in front of Caen for a full month like the British/Canadians did. It would have been a real blood bath.

May be the Germans in Berlin would have put a less stiff resistance against us, but the German war criminals would have surrendered to the Russians... Who would have took care of them quickly... So no Nuremberg trial for the @ssholes, and _may be_ we would never had heard of the Haulocost. That's why I say let the Russians go in first and pick up the prisoners.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> All manufactured war material came from the US and Britain.


If by "Britain" you're including Canada, then pretty much.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2007)

Nonskimmer said:


> If by "Britain" you're including Canada, then pretty much.



Yes, I included Canada with Britain.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why would you use Venice anyhow. It is in Northern Italy. The ground troops would have to get there first. If they invaded that high up then they would have the mountains to there north full of Germans and Germans and Italians to there south. They would have been completly circled in. Pointless.



oh yeah that was assuming they made it up there, they would have used the porst in Taranto, or Rome maybe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2007)

There was just no point in making the main invasion of Fortress Europe in Italy. It would have taken longer and the logisitics would have been a nightmare.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 21, 2007)

I have a different question but don't want to start a new thread about it:

What would have been the allied next step had Overlord failed? 

Let's assume that they invade Normandy but more things start going wrong, more German opposition than expected, more bad weather, whatever. The allies manage to evacuate most of the invading forces. Both sides suffered big losses but nothing which cannot be quickly replaced/rebuild. 
So what would have been the next allied step? Invasion in the south of France? Everything for Italy? A Balkan invasion? Waiting for 1945 to give it another go?

Not asking what YOU would have done. I'm curious about what you think the allies' next step would have been. I also wonder if they had taken this into account and had plans ready for this event.
Kris


----------



## timshatz (Mar 21, 2007)

Good question Cive. Off the top of my head, I would guess they go with Southern France. Gets them into France, thins out the Germans even more. But it is not the main act. More like a strong diversion. 

At some point, they have to go back across the Channel into North Western Europe and stay there. Some time in early 1945 is my guess. May? But by that time, they are going to be wondering if they can get to the Rhine before the Russians. 

One thing is for sure, if Overlord fails, the war ends later. Maybe even as late as 1946. But late 45 looks like a better bet.


----------



## Cojimar 1945 (Mar 21, 2007)

I don't see how the Germans would have been a problem if the allies had maintained a strong military force in Germany following World War I. This seems like a far better strategy than invading France in the 1940s.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 21, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Good question Cive. Off the top of my head, I would guess they go with Southern France. Gets them into France, thins out the Germans even more. But it is not the main act. More like a strong diversion.
> 
> At some point, they have to go back across the Channel into North Western Europe and stay there. Some time in early 1945 is my guess. May? But by that time, they are going to be wondering if they can get to the Rhine before the Russians.
> 
> One thing is for sure, if Overlord fails, the war ends later. Maybe even as late as 1946. But late 45 looks like a better bet.




I think the Allies would have still taken France after a failure, but chances are the Russians would have engulfed Germany before the Allies reached Antwerp, if it was 1945 or early 46


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 22, 2007)

Maybe the Russians would have taken half of Paris instead of half of Berlin by 1946. We would have arrived a bit late to take the other half. No big victory for us marching through all Paris.


What would "Old Blood and Guts" have said?


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 22, 2007)

I think BigZ and Soundbreaker Welch are closest. Ever since Dunkirk, the French government in exile was wailing for the "Second Front" to be opened, and they weren't buying the Allied air offensive in the west as an official front. So the Allied leaders had to balance the French whining, the strength of the Nazi forces, the readiness of Allied forces to invade, and the Russian advances and determine when and where the second front would be opened.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

I agree as well. Either way it was much better that Overlord succeded because it not, Western Europe would have been under the Red Flag.

The only thing I would have done differently is told Germany as punishment for what they did they had to keep France!


----------



## Civettone (Mar 22, 2007)

Thanks for the replies guys but it seems the subject has drifted off a bit to "what would have happened if D-Day had failed". My original question was what the next (western) allied step would have been...



Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

I think the only possible answer was an invasion through Northern France just in a different location. Maybe farther West or maybe even through Denmark. Going through Italy or Southern France would just have given more time to the Russians to eventually take all of Germany and parts of France even.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 22, 2007)

Yeah, agree with Adler. Sooner or later, the Allies had to go into Northwestern Europe. Dieppe didn't stop Overlord. And an Overlord failure would not've stopped another try. But the Allies would've learned and probably thrown more firepower at it. What they failed to do with finesse, they would just attempt to bludgeon.

Although I think the Allies would've gone for Southern France too. They had the people and the mobility. Being stronger than Germany at that point (in terms of mobility, logistics and moving firepower) they had the ability to go where they wanted to on the periphery and be strong there. Germany, because it was weaker, had to be strong everywhere. It is a paradox of strategy but there it is. 

One question does pop up if the Allies had failed with Overlord. Would the US drop the Atomic Bomb on Germany? Given that it would've probably been ready in time (Germany not surrendering until the fall of 45 at the earliest)?

Another question presents itself. If Overlord fails and the Germans figure the Allies can't get it together before 1945 for an invasion attempt again, do the Germans ship 90% of their available armour (using interior lines of communication, a big advantage) to the East and have a second battle like Kursk to turn the Soviets back?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 22, 2007)

bit rash dont you think


----------



## plan_D (Mar 23, 2007)

The next Allied step would depend on when Operation _Overlord_ was repulsed. I have not heard of any contingency plans in case of _Overlord_ failure but there were other Allied invasion plans knocking around High Command. An invasion of the Balkans might have been taken more seriously or more effort could have been sent into Italy. 

In my opinion the Allies, if repulsed on the beaches, would have pulled back to lick their wounds and try again another time. I don't think they saw Norway as a viable entrance to Europe, and if they had continued with Operation _Dragoon_ it would have been a disaster. 
_Dragoon_ on August 15th, 1944, met with little resistance compared to _Overlord_. There was comparatively so little resistance that _Dragoon_ was nicknamed the "Champagne Campaign" (also due to fighting through Champagne). 
If we turn the tables and have a German victory on the Normandy beaches, the Wehrmacht would be free to divert resources to the south to repulse any invasion attempt there. It would be months before the Allies would be ready to have another go at the northern French coast and Germany would know this. 

If repulsed on the beach the only option in 1944, I believe, would be to divert a lot of resource from Italy and invade southern France as soon as possible. This would hopefully surprise the, what would be, exhausted German garrison but does have the potential for disaster. If the Germans aren't caught unawares, they would have armour rolling over the beaches or if the German command realised there'd been a massive shift of forces from Italy they could attempt a counter-attack there. 

Otherwise, the Allies would have to wait until 1945 to try another attack on the French northern coast. 

From the German side, they would have appreciated the massive respite and most certainly would have diverted Panzer divisions to the East as soon as possible.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 23, 2007)

Excellent post! 

I read that Dragoon was uncertain until after D-Day. Apparently there were two events that triggered its actual deployment: the capture of Corsica (Free French) and the capture of Rome (selfish Clark). 
When looking at the terrain of Southern France I see a big resemblance to the one in Italy: rivers and mountains. In principle the allies could have been contained there like in Italy. The allies would also have considerably less air power. This would also split up and thus weaken the allies. 

An invasion of the Balkans could have had bigger consequences for the Germans. Either by landing in Greece or by liberating Yugoslavia, Bulgaria would probably have pulled back from the war, which would have lead to Rumania doing the same, and the Germans having to pull back from the Balkans all together. 
Of course this happened in August 1944 anyway. But had the invasion of Normandy failed, it's quite possible that the Balkans (and Rumanian oil) had remained in German hands a few months longer. An allied invasion in the Balkans would have thwarted those plans.

PS. Champagne area is in the north of France.
Ch





Kris


----------



## pgm1962a (Mar 23, 2007)

By 1944 the Soviet army was unstoppable. Nothing the Germans could have done, no victory in any battle would have changed the outcome. The best the German army could have done was to prolong the war. The outcome was inevitable.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 26, 2007)

Well, if the British and Americans would have decided to go home - unrealistic for sure - then I think the Russians could have been stopped and pushed back. Just look at the German war production in 1944. 
If lend-lease would have been stopped, then German production would have outmatched the Russian production. And given the fact that Russians usually lost more than Germans (even when succesful) the war of attrition would have been won by the Germans. 

So sure, the Russians were unstoppable ... but only because their industry and army were supported by the western allies, and because these western allies were directly and indirectly attacking and weakening the German armed forces.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2007)

I agree and if you look at the stuff that was provided by the Lend Lease (there is link and thread dedicated to it here somewhere (I think syscom posted the link) but I can not find it) to Russia, it really did keep them alive. It is insane what the Russians recieved from trucks, jeeps to planes and rations.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 27, 2007)

Without a doubt, Lend Lease was huge to the Soviet war effort. They did most of the fighting, but logistically, the US was #1 in that war. 

If the US stops supplying the Soviets...interesting question. I could see the road traffic becoming less efficient but the Soviets were always big on Rail Traffic for their logistics. Into the 1970s (and probably beyond), Rail was the main method of transit for the Soviet Armed Forces. They would've lost Rail, Wire, some Aircraft. It would've slowed them down.

To stop them, I think the US would've had to have left the war completely. Same with Britian. If the Western Front essentially ends, then the possibility of a stalemate in the East becomes real. Not so sure about a victory. Two totalitarian regimes going at it hammer and tongs means one must be wiped out. Not sure either had that power. 

Interesting question.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 29, 2007)

Thanks Civettone, I guess I'll have to brush up on French geography. 

Any defeat on the Western Front in mid-1944 would have halted the Red Army. However with continious pressure from all sides Germany would have folded eventually. I believe an invasion in 1945 would have had a more pronounced effect on Germany than in 1944. 

Imagine the Ardennes Offensive being mounted on the Eastern front. The Germans throw all they have into a Soviet assault, the Germans have a lot more armour and the dreaded Tiger II. While the winter would be extremely cold, it would not be dramtically colder than that in Bastogne. 
The air power given to the Allied airforces of the West would not be there for the VVS. The Luftwaffe would be able to hold up the VVS over this offensive, and even prove an effective striking force against the Soviet ground forces. 

The Wehrmacht fought the Red Army with every dying breath, and with great resilience all the way up until the surrender. Even in 1945 Soviet assaults were surrounded and destroyed, Soviet troops were still routed easily in the face of what seemed to be over-whelming odds. 

The Ardennes Offensive scattered a lot of the U.S 1st Army and Bodenplatte was a shock for the Western Allies. I can't help but imagine that a German attack on that scale against the Soviets would have scattered Soviet Army Groups, and a Bodenplatte style attack wouldn't have shocked but rather shattered a lot of the VVS in the area of attack.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 29, 2007)

Good point on the Ardennes Offensive D. The Western version was fought over lousy terrain, going against the grain. An Eastern version would've had more going for it. Not sure how much it would've helped the Germans, but it would've been of some help.

If there was a counterattack in the East after Overlord fails, I think it would happen earlier. Some time around October-November. And it would've been in response to the Red Army offensive of that time.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 29, 2007)

The major points for the Germans on an Eastern Front counter-offensive would; 

Improved aerial support. The Luftwaffe were still able to gain local air superiority in the East and up until the dying day went on with CAS operations. Stukas were still able to operate over the Eastern Front in 1945, for example. 
In the real Ardennes Offensive, the Luftwaffe only achieved a suprise assault which was a shock but did not turn any trend of complete Allied supremecy of the air. 

More reserves. In the Ardennes Offensive, the Wehrmacht had taken units from the East to spear-head the assault. The major problem was the fact there were no reserves to form the rear echelons of the assault; the attack was doomed from the start. 
In any Eastern offensive, the Germans at least had the reserves to follow up and leap frog the initial assault after the breakthrough had been achieved and fill in any gaps behind the spearhead. 

Since the Soviets were on the offensive at this time they would have had no chance to build concentrated defensive works like at Kursk. They would have been caught in a mobile war, where the Germans fought best. 

In my opinion, the Red Army would be shocked and shattered. They would be in the firm belief that victory was at their feet while charging toward Germany. This euphoria would have been turned to fear when the Germans threw everything into the Reds liquid line, the lines would have been parted, surrounded and destroyed. The reserves (which didn't exist in the West) would have been able to pour through the gaps and run riot in the Red rear area. 
As the Soviets were concentrating so much on the offence, they would have no seen this and would most likely rout in the area. Giving the Germans a great respite to either prepare stronger defences or continue the offensive to push the Soviet army further back. 

The latter, in my opinion, would have over-stretched the German lines and allowed a Soviet counter-attack. I think they should have shattered the Soviet offensive then set-up greater defensive networks. The Soviet Union would have a broken nose, and wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that victory was right beneath their noses.

This, of course, all relies on the Allies failing with Operation _Neptune_.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2007)

Good assessment there and very interesting. I agree with it as well.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 3, 2007)

Yes, good post!

It especially made me think of what happened on Baranov bridgehead at the Vistula In February and March of 1945. The Germans massed the incredible number of 1,200 tanks but because there was hardly anymore gasoline for them they couldn't manoeuvre as they were trained to do. They were immobilized and completely overrun. Just imagine what 1200 tanks could have achieved!

Kris


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 22, 2007)

What happened more was there was a secret pact at the end with Germany by the United States that prevented its forces moving in until the Russians had moved in. Also there was another treaty which allowed the Russians to go into Berlin first. In reality though it would have been more humane for Germany had the US got there first. This is why the Germans fought the Russians, because they wanted to surrender to the Americans and they were hoping that if the Soviets were successfully repulsed that they would have the chance to do so. Therefore the Germans were sold out by the US leadership at the very end, thus giving the impertus for the Cold War...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 23, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> What happened more was there was a secret pact at the end with Germany by the United States that prevented its forces moving in until the Russians had moved in. Also there was another treaty which allowed the Russians to go into Berlin first. In reality though it would have been more humane for Germany had the US got there first. This is why the Germans fought the Russians, because they wanted to surrender to the Americans and they were hoping that if the Soviets were successfully repulsed that they would have the chance to do so. Therefore the Germans were sold out by the US leadership at the very end, thus giving the impertus for the Cold War...



Huh? The US was at War with Germany. And since the Cold War had not happened yet (being in the future, it was yet to occur and, as such, unknowable), the war the US was in was the thing that was the focus of the time, the declared war with Germany. The Nazi forces (who had just caused up to 80,000 casualties to the American forces in the Ardenne whereas the Soviet Union had caused none and we actually fighting the same enemy) were going to be totally defeated. The Allied leadership in Europe remembered the end of WW1 where the German Army was allowed to retreat back to the fatherland intact, a point that was instrumental in the creation of the "Stab in the Back" legend. 

The Allied leaders in the West considered Berlin a prestige target. As such, they were not going to waste men and materials running for a part of the German Riech that was going to be given back to the Russians anyway. "The Russians want it, they can have it" was pretty much the perspective of the leadership. Germany was going to be absolutely defeated on all fronts. No place would the regime be intact. 

Further, the Allies were concerned about a "Final Redoubt" in the Bavarian Alps. Turned out to be nothing more than a figment of the Nazi immagination but it did create a focus for at least one Allied Army.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Some mountains but COLD...
> 
> Also Norway was very well fortified, maybe just as good as France. Also think about the distance getting supplies to Norway from England. Again logistically France was the closest....



Denmark is flatter than France.....


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I have a different question but don't want to start a new thread about it:
> 
> What would have been the allied next step had Overlord failed?
> 
> ...



Same here fellas....I know, SORRY!  What if the Germans had won at Kursk in 1943 and moved on further? Not having the problems that they had with the Panthers or winter equipment? 
How would that have affected the Russians and Operation Bagration? Would they have digged down somewhere or retreated further? And how would it have affected the Americans and the British?


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 30, 2007)

I am saying that later in 1944-1945 there was a Pact made which allowed Russia to get to Germany and Berlin first. D-Day had to happen as otherwise the Germans would have focused everything on Russia and there was no real way Russia could sustain that sort of pressure for long. I know Russia was throwing in army after army but the Germans were still far from being a shattered army even in 1945 fighting tooth and nail for Berlin...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2007)

Um somebody please chime in on this...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2007)

So you think that those fighting on the westernfront would reached Berlin first if there hadn't been a pact?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2007)

No what I am getting at is the Western Allies did not invade because of a Pact. Russia wanted the western allies to invade northern France as early as 1941 and pressured England to do so.

At the Tehran Conference the Western Allies agreed among other things that the Second Front would be in May 1944. The conference also redefined the borders of Poland and gave Russia sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. This conference however stated only the obvious. The Western powers were going to invade, but only when they thought the time was right, now when the Soviets wanted them to.

The next conference was the Yalta Conference. Among other things it devided Post War Germany into 4 different occupied zones and Berlin as well into 4 zones.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2007)

Aaah.....


----------



## HealzDevo (May 1, 2007)

Which was a bad decision but just goes to show how blind Roosevelt really was to Stalin...


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 2, 2007)

He was a little too eagre to make friends, but at the same time we needed Russia


----------



## HealzDevo (May 8, 2007)

Did we? Russia would have fought on anyway, whether the US and Britain were friendly to her or not. Stalin doesn't seem the type to have let a little thing like the US or Britain not giving her aid stand in the way of revenge. Stalin would still have continued on to crush Germany but the end position may have changed with Russia being in a less strong position to threaten Europe...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Did we? Russia would have fought on anyway, whether the US and Britain were friendly to her or not. Stalin doesn't seem the type to have let a little thing like the US or Britain not giving her aid stand in the way of revenge. Stalin would still have continued on to crush Germany but the end position may have changed with Russia being in a less strong position to threaten Europe...



That was not the point of being friendly to Russia. The point was to end the war and not having to fight Russia after Germany was gone.


----------



## syscom3 (May 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No what I am getting at is the Western Allies did not invade because of a Pact. Russia wanted the western allies to invade northern France as early as 1941 and pressured England to do so.



1941? Is that a typo? 

Dont you mean 1942?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2007)

No that was not a typo. Russia began pressuring England and the other nations (Free French, Free Polish, Canada, etc. that were in England) to open up a Western Front in 1941.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 13, 2007)

Did it actually work? No, it didn't. The Cold War actually proves it didn't quite work that way. By being a bit more cold shouldery to Russia, it is doubtful that Russia would have been in such a strong position as it was. The saviour of the Allies at that time was that they were the only ones with atomic weapons. Therefore the US and England never had to face up to their mistakes. It is sad though that it took so long for the Allies to face the Russians after WWII. Especially when they had so many trained men and materials which could have been used to stop the Russians sweeping the majority of Eastern Europe into their grasp. It was a war with Russia by another name. The fact that it never became hot was due more to the lack of a Russian atomic bomb in the early part, rather than any skill on the Allies part. By the Cuban Missile Crisis it was clear that Russia in any war would have to resort to nuclear weapons to be able to compete with Allied technology at that time. It was more due to the fear by Russian leaders that if they pressed the button, they wouldn't survive it, that stopped the Cold War becoming hot than anything else...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 13, 2007)

Neither side was in a realistic position to fight each other in 1945....


----------



## HealzDevo (May 13, 2007)

Actually the Soviets were in quite a reasonable position to fight with how much territory they gained. Stalin I reckon would have given the order but for the threat of atomic weapons. Stalin doesn't seem the type of person that would let a mere imbalance of conventional weapons stop him, however, the threat of what the atomic bomb did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been the only thing pausing him...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 14, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Actually the Soviets were in quite a reasonable position to fight with how much territory they gained. Stalin I reckon would have given the order but for the threat of atomic weapons. Stalin doesn't seem the type of person that would let a mere imbalance of conventional weapons stop him, however, the threat of what the atomic bomb did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been the only thing pausing him...



Oh boy, there is more to fighing a war then territory gained....


----------

