Of course if Normandy fails.. there will be a little voice in the background shouting... "I told you. Normandy would fail. You should have landed on the Friesian Islands instead!"
A Normandy WI
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
informationfan
Banned
Hello,
well you are just wrong
it is true that hitler feared the "true" invasion at calais, but we do not talk about a small defeat of the allies at normandy but a big clusterfuck.
the better part of the para-divisons destroyed and prisioned, around how many troops captured or killed at the beaches? 50k, 100k? 200k?
it depends how long the allies try to "win" after the storm...
with so many troops committed hitler will learn about the "victory"
also don´t forget that stalin will not start his large operation with a failed d-day... he wanted to be sure - cause in april 44 his run in the south was countered, because the germans drew troops from the west to the eastern conflict.
so, the chance of a big operation bagration with the same succsess is small, near nil.
why? because the germans can throw a lot troops (they have in the west or in germany) to the army group centre, they can throw their air force to counter the russian airforce - and, without the problem in the normandy - they will hold the russians on bay...
so the germans will suffer in russia, but not so big and the russian losses will be way higher...
but i doubt stalin will launch it so early in june, i bet he will wait till the western allies do something new, say a invasion in southern france (will they risk it? i doubt they do, but who will know?)
just remember, a failed d-day means for sure HUGE losses in landing crafts... crafts the allies need and have to replace...
sure they can continue their air war - but honestly, this will change nothing, cause they continued it after d-day... no - a new preparation for an invasion will cost ressources, will draw the USAAF away from strategic bombing...
it will slow down the war, how long? can´t say it, but without an invasion in france (no, not in frisia
) i bet germany buys 3-9 months... this means nukes in germany...You misunderstand Rommel at Normandy actually did negotiate with the Allies, but not on behalf of Hitler on behalf of himself as he talks about below. In fact if the negotations worked Hitler and much of the Nazi leadership like in the origional timeline would either kill themselves or be tried and hung.
Rommel wanted the Anglo-American Allies to occupy Germany not Stalin. Its something the Allied commanders like Eisenhower said after the war they supported.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...7511,1968529&dq=erwin+rommel+eisenhower&hl=en
You think its too far fetched that the Allied governments would decide to cut Stalin out of controlling central Europe. It would be a hard sell for FDR, but not for Churchill who was more then willing to use German troops after the war if necessary to fight the Soviet's. If things went really bad at Normandy it would be entirely possible for IKE and Monty to convince Churchill and FDR to toss Stalin under the bus with the argument if they don't all of Eastern and Central Europe will be Soviet controlled.
Even Stalin wasn't crazy enough to declare war on the US, UK as well as Germany at the same time.
Sorry but I find this idea ASB to the extreme. FDR, Churchill etc were not stupid. They would know that ANY attempt to cut Stalin out would cause the next war at the worst possible time.
First off, there is no evidence at all that Rommel would have been able to get enough support from the rest of germany to make any workable deal. The nazis still held power and control and the soliders in Rommels army (assuming they agreed to join him) would be terrified for what would happen to their familes back home.
Next, even if the initial landings are repulsed the allies would still have huge amounts of men and material available so it wouldnt be a crippling loss to them. Other forces could be brought to the front and while it would postpone a second attack I see no reason for them to try to call the whole thing off given the consequences and betrayals that such an act would bring.
The only way that a crippling loss would be had would be if huge amounts of troops etc made it across and they were then somehow cut off and destroyed by the nazis. But there is no way of that happening after the first day or so.
There really was no way for the allies to back down from their unconditional surrender demand. If they had then it would only serve to strengthen the resistance from the nazis as they could easily spin it to be a sign that they were winning. It would be an acknowledgement that the allies lacked the will or the means to push on as necessary to win.
Had the allies made different demands earlier and been willing to accept a negotiated peace from the outset then it MIGHT have been a different story. But even that would have caused trouble in the allied ranks as anything less than forcing the nazis to give back everything they took by force wouldnt be acceptable, and I strongly doubt that anyone on the nazi side would agree from the outset to give everything back. If you are going to lose everything anyway then why not fight?
And certainly once the truth about the death camps came out then I see no way for th public to support any negotiations with anyone from nazi germany as they would all be seen to be guilty of those crimes.
And while stalin may not have been crazy enough to declare war on everyone else (despite the obvious betrayal they had committed against him and the ussr) that swings both ways. How do you think people in the west would react when they find out that our brave soldiers have gone from trying to free western europe from the nazi threat to actively fighting with them in the defence of their homeland?? Sorry, but there is no way that you could get people to sign up for that one.
You are still distorting the reality of what I am talking about. Rommel would have no military control of the divisions in the East nor political control of Berlin. He wanted a situation where the WAllies occupied Germany so all he could do is effectively open up the gates for the Western Allies after receiving assurances they would conquer Germany not the USSR. In such a timeline WAllied forces would still have to fight an early Battle of the Bulge of divisions from the East that Hitler sends over to stop them.
Oh and Stalin broke all his promises regarding an independent Eastern Europe and and independent Poland. Do you really think if he took over all of Germany the Western Allies would be given occupation zones? That is laughable, within three years after the war he was trying to sweeze us out of Berlin.
Cook
Banned
In November 1941, when the Germans were at the outskirts of Moscow and could actually see the spires of the Kremlin, Stalin and Churchill agreed that East Prussia would be divided between Poland and the Soviet Union.
In May 1942 the Anglo-Soviet Treaty was signed, committing both parties to not making a separate peace treaty with the Germans.
In Tehran in November 1943, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed that Germany must be fully occupied and divided after defeat. Churchill was adamant that Prussia, the source of the contagion of Prussian Jaeger militarism, should be separated from the rest of Germany.
In October of 1944 Stalin and Churchill divided the Balkans up into separate Spheres of Influence in the Percentages Agreement.
When the Big Three met again at Yalta in February 1945 they were still intent on the long term occupation of Germany and its division into several smaller nations.
Churchill was adamant throughout the war that the mistakes of 1918 would not be repeated, there would be no half measures; Germany would be defeated and the power and influence of the Jaeger military would be crushed totally. He had no intention of letting the ashes smoulder, only to have them flare up again twenty years later and again threaten the security and freedom of all Europe.
In addition to which and most importantly, Churchill was not a dictator; he could not act without the approval of the Cabinet and there was never any way the cabinet would ever have agreed to a compromise Peace with Germany that betrayed the Soviet Union.
Negotiated Peace was a fantasy that had no existence outside of the delusions of the German Anti-Hitler conspirators
You are mistaken. Rommel may have planned to negotiate following a Coup to dispose of Hitler but he never undertook any negotiations.
Last edited:
This would not have been a 'compromise peace' this would be a military surrender on the Western Front and sold as such to the world and I am sure the announcement of any conditions would not be made. As for the betrayal of the Soviet Union once the WAllies got to Germany they could decide if they wanted to give the Soviet's an occupation zone or not. If they were smart they would give them one occupation zone disconnected from their armies in the East not half of Germany... which was far more then Stalin deserved for allying with Hitler and joinly invading Eastern Europe and giving Hitler the stright shot to take Paris. If two people deserve the credit for the horror the Soviet people were inflicted to during the war it was both Hitler and Stalin. In 1939 Germany could never have won a two front war against three major powers, but Stalin made it easy for them by the deal that was struck with Hitler if he didn't the Soviet Union wouldn't have had to have dealt with years of war in their territory after Hitler took out France.
Oh and as I said before Stalin broke his promises to the West of a free independent Poland before FDR had died. He died knowing Stalin had rolled him.
Last edited:
BlairWitch749
Banned
if overlord gets crushed by a storm, and the forces are compelled to withdraw due to inability to supply (with large numbers of supplies and prisoners surrendered to the germans) then things get interesting
this might butterfly away july 20 attack on hitler....and prior to july 20 hitler was micromanaging and making bad choices; but he could still sort of listen to people and absorb things and be kind of rationale here and there;
bagration still goes forward; and it's initial success was never in doubt, the force to space ratio was so favorable to the russians that they couldn't lose to say nothing of the vast improvement in the quality of their field army that had gone on the previous 12 months... however following a disaster overlord one could assume the germans would think they have at least 90 days before the allies can try again and would send at least part of the 10 mobile divisions in france/low countries to try and stem the tide on the center of the eastern front
could 2 additional panzer corps stop bagration... hell no; could they slow it down, inflict higher losses and force the offensive to run out of steam farther east than it it did in OTL, probably. could stalin's human bank account survive bagration not ending where it did and having to make a larger effort to slay germany... probably although subsequent offensives may not end up having the manpower we saw in otl
this might butterfly away july 20 attack on hitler....and prior to july 20 hitler was micromanaging and making bad choices; but he could still sort of listen to people and absorb things and be kind of rationale here and there;
bagration still goes forward; and it's initial success was never in doubt, the force to space ratio was so favorable to the russians that they couldn't lose to say nothing of the vast improvement in the quality of their field army that had gone on the previous 12 months... however following a disaster overlord one could assume the germans would think they have at least 90 days before the allies can try again and would send at least part of the 10 mobile divisions in france/low countries to try and stem the tide on the center of the eastern front
could 2 additional panzer corps stop bagration... hell no; could they slow it down, inflict higher losses and force the offensive to run out of steam farther east than it it did in OTL, probably. could stalin's human bank account survive bagration not ending where it did and having to make a larger effort to slay germany... probably although subsequent offensives may not end up having the manpower we saw in otl
informationfan
Banned
hi, bagration will not cause the same succsess with a crushed invasion...
the germans will have more troops to be send to the east, much more planes (so the russians cannot destroy the german artillery, this made it much easier for the russians to crush the german divisions) and also a german counterstrike will be much stronger... so basically it will be a victory for the russians but not the neckbreaker of the german eastern army... so everything will be slowed down in the east, the end will still the same, but later... later means nukes...
about 20th july - it will still happen, they planned long before june 6th and even a succsessfull counter of the d-day will not stop em. i think some have to understand that these groups tried to kill hitler from 1942 on... maybe some high ranking generals will not be part of it, but killing hitler will still be the plan
burmafrd
Banned
There were other weather posts that would have given warning of a storm soon enough to recall the para troops and the ships. Eisenhower would not have launched an invasion without being sure of at least 4 days of good weather.
One interesting possibility: if the invasion is delayed until early july, the weather is very good for a long period. One of the problems early in the OTL was weather wasnot very good and air support was not all that available and the lodgement did not expand as fast as it could have.
Also the destruction of the mulberries would not have happened; and more supplies would have been able to be transported to the beaches; the need for ports would have been decreased. More capability there would have meant more supplies after the breakout; one never knows.
One interesting possibility: if the invasion is delayed until early july, the weather is very good for a long period. One of the problems early in the OTL was weather wasnot very good and air support was not all that available and the lodgement did not expand as fast as it could have.
Also the destruction of the mulberries would not have happened; and more supplies would have been able to be transported to the beaches; the need for ports would have been decreased. More capability there would have meant more supplies after the breakout; one never knows.
An Overlord failure could actually be beneficial in Italy though as Clark lost 7 divisions for Operation Dragoon in OTL, and now preparations for Dragoon are delayed at least 1 month.
I bet the CCS would allow Clark to maintain the offensive in Italy, and I think they could have broken the Gothic Line and into the North Italian Plain by August or September 1944.
I bet the CCS would allow Clark to maintain the offensive in Italy, and I think they could have broken the Gothic Line and into the North Italian Plain by August or September 1944.
Hello,
well you are just wrong
it is true that hitler feared the "true" invasion at calais, but we do not talk about a small defeat of the allies at normandy but a big clusterfuck.
the better part of the para-divisons destroyed and prisioned, around how many troops captured or killed at the beaches? 50k, 100k? 200k?
it depends how long the allies try to "win" after the storm...
with so many troops committed hitler will learn about the "victory"
also don´t forget that stalin will not start his large operation with a failed d-day... he wanted to be sure - cause in april 44 his run in the south was countered, because the germans drew troops from the west to the eastern conflict.
so, the chance of a big operation bagration with the same succsess is small, near nil.
why? because the germans can throw a lot troops (they have in the west or in germany) to the army group centre, they can throw their air force to counter the russian airforce - and, without the problem in the normandy - they will hold the russians on bay...
so the germans will suffer in russia, but not so big and the russian losses will be way higher...
but i doubt stalin will launch it so early in june, i bet he will wait till the western allies do something new, say a invasion in southern france (will they risk it? i doubt they do, but who will know?)
just remember, a failed d-day means for sure HUGE losses in landing crafts... crafts the allies need and have to replace...
sure they can continue their air war - but honestly, this will change nothing, cause they continued it after d-day... no - a new preparation for an invasion will cost ressources, will draw the USAAF away from strategic bombing...
it will slow down the war, how long? can´t say it, but without an invasion in france (no, not in frisia
What sources do you ahve for your information? For mine I cite John Keegan's The Second World War and Martin Gilbert's The Second World War, along with Antony Beevor's D-Day. All of these sources generally agree that Hitler Was obsessed with the idea that Normandy was just a diversion, even WEEKS after the initial landing when hundreds of thousands of Allied troops had landed. During this entire time he was entirely sure that the landing was a diversion. Frankly Hitler was completely delusional at this point and had no understanding of land operations, much less amphibious ones; the number of boats captured or men killed/captured mean little to him.He'll simply see it as the "Anglo-American mongrel Jews sacrificing their men so as to attempt to fool the Reich into leaving the true landing zone defenseless" as he had utterly no idea the manpower or resources the Allies had. Indeed, more than likely he would simply adjust numbers to fit into his unrealistic views, which no one would really question, for obvious reasons.
On Bargration, the date was set for June 22nd no matter what. Stalin wasn't just going to change the date, as it was symbolically planned to coincide with the start of Barbarossa. On actual combat the German "reserves" and "air force" are going to be eaten alive by the Russian armies tearing through White Russia just as the other formations transferred from Heersgruppes Nord, Nord Ukraine, and Sud Ukraine were. The air force lacked the machines or the quality pilots to oppose the Red Air Force, particularly while also engaging a newly restarted Combined Bomber Offensive.
This is based off of actual literary sources by actual historians. Care to offer any sources that counter what i've said?
Last edited:
I suggest there's a third: landings delayed into July. With a trifle more time to think, can Eisenhower shift the axis of advance nearer the Channel very slightly? Can somebody recognize the need to clear the Scheldt Estuary? Can the airborne generals propose an early drop there, supported by LCs, & open Antwerp months earlier than OTL?
And by doing so, end the war earlier?Or, do things go much the same as OTL? Does the added strain kill FDR even a month sooner?
If it does, Truman is POTUS in April '45, when Japan starts looking for a way to surrender--& MAGIC reveals it. Maybe SecState Byrnes still wants to frighten the Sovs with the Bomb, so it makes no diff. Or maybe Truman realizes he can get Japan's surrender in April, without the Sovs coming in... Which means no Korean War, no Korean partition, & likely Chiang wins the Chinese Civil War. (Hazard of nuclear war over Berlin a few yrs later? Maybe.) Also, just possible, he persuades France to cut Vietnam loose peacefully...(Yes, I know, these aren't new ideas from me...
)Thinking of weather, two things: does this make the breakout easier? And does a delayed (not failed) Neptune push back the schedule for the Bulge? Which is to say, after the period of bad weather which helped make it a credible option?
LOOOL.
Last edited: