Why did D-day even happen?

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

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.

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?

bit rash dont you think

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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....

Click to expand...

Denmark is flatter than France.....

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?

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

Click to expand...

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?

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...