Would an invasion in the South of france been quicker?

Erwin Rommel was quoted as to saying that if he had been in command of the Allied Armies he could have landed his main forces in the south of France and driven right into Germany winning the war in 3 weeks along with diversionary landings by Patton in the Pas De Calais Area..?

An invasion of southern france over normandy?
If that had happened it m ight have been quicker, though it would have taken place farther away from most of the major cities. Besides, Italy was also being invaded at the time and it would have allowed to the Germans to concerntrate their troops around one area, their defences thickier en masse. The Panzers would also have moved down there instead of being held back while Normandy was being attacked. Also, with Normandy being attacked and Italy, the Germans had to divide their forces up between the two areas, making it easier for a flanking attack as France has some of those lowlands, that are flat. Yes...it may have been quicker depending on the Germans move, or maybe slower and more costly if the panzer's were involved.

------------------
Mussolini
[QUOTEl' anima da solo sposta la rotella di storia[/quote] ~ Benito Mussolini~

"What the proletariat needs is a bath of blood." Benito Mussolini, speech in Milan, July 22, 1919

"Liberty is a duty, not a right"
--Benito Mussolini

Ya but they think that Pattons Phantom army he was controlling for propaganda issues in England actually had been made and landed in Pas De Calais would have sent the Germans split into two. They would have known one of the attacks was a diversion but which one. Also the Landings in Southern France could occur simotaniouly with some in North Italy and possibly even Greece to further split German forces and add to the confusion.

That is also true but an attack from Greece could easily have been bottle necked as it is a mountainous, isolated region. It also wouldnt take to the Germans to long to realize which attack was the bluf and they would pour reinforcements into the most important areas of defense.

That is also true but an attack from Greece could easily have been bottle necked as it is a mountainous, isolated region. It also wouldnt take to the Germans to long to realize which attack was the bluf and they would pour reinforcements into the most important areas of defense.

------------------
Mussolini
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>' anima da solo sposta la rotella di storia<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ~ Benito Mussolini~

"What the proletariat needs is a bath of blood." Benito Mussolini, speech in Milan, July 22, 1919

"Liberty is a duty, not a right"
--Benito Mussolini

I dont know..Hitler still wouldnt commit the 14th armee (?) from the Pas de calais until August cause he still couldnt beleive that the allies would attack there. And bytime the germans would have reacted the war would have been over assuming all had hone to plan and we would have been able to shoot right through france and into the industrial heart of Germany.

------------------

It wouldnt be that easy. If you can recall, supply plays a large factor in the whole thing. Rommel could have driven straight to Dunkirk or Paris, forcing the French to surrender in a week or less...but with all his long drives and all, he kept getting cut off my retreating French who he had overtaken and small pockets of defenses when crossing rivers etc.

This would have been the same situation if the allies had landed in souther france. The tanks would out distance the Infantry and supply would be in chaos. Once the Germans figured out what was happening and reacted, all they had to do is easily bloack the Allied Inf from catching up with the allied tanks, using the lutwaffe on the tanks who would be deep in German territory along with the superior Panzer tanks. Casualties would be high for both sides, but the allied invasion would be a complete diasaster.

------------------
Mussolini
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>' anima da solo sposta la rotella di storia<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ~ Benito Mussolini~

"What the proletariat needs is a bath of blood." Benito Mussolini, speech in Milan, July 22, 1919

"Liberty is a duty, not a right"
--Benito Mussolini

I don't know i think the Allies would have been shooting for a complete German break down because the counterattack your talking about woul require alot of rallying. After the Allied broke out of Normandy in July the German Army collapsed and it took Whalter Model till mid September to whip it back into shape and bring it back from the virge of collapse (unfortunetly just in time for Market Garden)

Sounds like more Rommel BS to me. The Dday invasion forces were assembled in England, so how were they supposed to get to Southern France in landing craft?

The same way the Americans invaded north Africa. Long voyages to invasion beaches were not uncommon. As a matter of fact the Germans were decieved by a clever allied ruse. (they dropped a corpe of the coast of Spain with false invasion plans), that the next invasion would not be France but Greece instead. The Germans bought it. An invasion into Greece is even farther than southern France. If the farther one is possible, (Greece), then it is possible for the shorter one as well, (France).

By the way even on DDay the soldiers did not cross the channel in landing craft. Troops would board the craft just prior to invasion, ofter by climbing down the rigging on the side of the boats into their respective landing craft.

Man you really don't like Rommel do you?

Does it make you feel any better that he did not hold nazi beliefs, nor was he a member of the nazi party. He was also informed of the July 20 assasination attampt on Hitler and did not warn Hitler, meaning he wanted Hitler dead.

Rommel..you are mistaken about him wanting Hitler dead. The conspirators asked him if he would take over if Hitler was "forced" out of power. He was against taking power by assinating a leader. After all, he was one of Hitlers closet friends. He agreed because he saw the war was at an end before D-Day and was talking with other Generals about surrendering.

Mussolini.

Rommel always wanted two things, what was best for Germany and what was best for himself, (he was a shameless self promoter). When the conspirators approached him he knew that Hitler's death was a possibility.

In Stephen Abrose's book Citizen Soldiers he recounts an episode where Rommel is speaking to an associate prior to the bomb plot, he says' something like:

"Who nows, we may be in Paris on the 20th"

He was referring to the attempt on Hitler's life and the possibility of negotiating peace in Paris. I think if Rommel could have chosen, he would have preferred to has Hitler peacfully removed, but he knew that Hitler had to be removed. If he wasn't going peacefully, Rommel still wanted him out, dead if necesary.

This in Romel's eyes would open peace negotiations, (good for Germany), and make him Fuhrer or at least close, (Good for Rommel).

Rommel was thought to have lost all confidence in Hitler at his last meeting with Hitler and When Hitler went off on Rommel cause Rommel wanted Peronnel control of his Panzers (thank God he didnt our the Channel would have run red with the blood of Allied soldiers) but Hitler refused and still beleived the attack would be in Pas De Calais.

And the Allied soldiers would simply embark for Southern France from Tripoli (South of Souther France) North Africa.
They would never go through the Straits of Gibrailtor loaded with Allied soldiers.

And Rommel was a good man just on the wrong side. Rommel didnt really want to kill Hitler but like mussolini said he just wanted him out of power.

------------------
Out side is America!

Yankee, as you would be aware, there was an invasion in southern France post Normanby from Naples. But I can't imagine that any invasion could have been mounted from Tunisia. Even if logistically possible, it probably was'nt, moving all the invasion infrastructure to Tunisia would have telegraphed the general invasion area to the Germans. On the other hand, an invasion fron England, as we have seen, kept the Germans guessing as to the invasion destination.

Ya but the Viche in souther france were more likely to surrender then too fight. And the Germans would have needed to move exposing them to air attack assuming Hitler would have allowed them too move.


And the landings in Souther France were rather small consistin of the 3rd infantry division.

------------------
Out side is America!

Back to an invasion of Southern france:
Not to sure how that could have gone...however...fooling the german's as to where the Allies would land would have been tough. In order to make a landing at the scale that Normandy was. If they assembled in Britian the force would have to leave much earlier than a force making a cross channel invasion. This MASSIVE movement would have allerted all forces in france i bet by the time they were halfway to southern france. Thus Rommel would have been brought back. Forces would have been on full alert. Invasions in Normandy would have been even more bloody, and if small would have a tough time surviving.
By the time the invasion forces made it to Southern france it would be obvious that this was the main body and Hitler would have been able to make the correct strategic decisions. Like as to where the panzers should be and wether to hold the pas de cale. In any event...i doubt surprise would have been achieved and the invasion would have been even more costly.
If there was a build up in north africa or southern italy. It would no doubt be noticed so that would be just as negative.

You're all missing an important point: Normandy is rather flat while southern France is not. There is really few way to the north from Provence, and they are easy to defend.
Normandy or le Pas de Calais are close to England, that makes all air mission easier: reconnaissance, air to ground fire support, interdiction against germans strategic movements and supply lines... The Channel was also easier to close to incoming Kriegsmarine units.

It was something about the Germans being split or having the souther flank exposed. I cant remember i read the acount of the invasion awhile ago but moving the German army from Northern france to Southern France wouldnt have been easy, look how longi t took the Panzer to reach Normandy and they were closer then Souther france.

------------------
Out side is America!

That may be true, but you would also have to remeber how many units were concerntrated in that area - the french army and the british expendionary army among others. The Germans kept out running the retreating allies and found themselves cut off every now and tehn and had to wait for the Inf and everyone else to catch up.


Mussolini

Hm, pretty quiet here.

Anyways, if "The Great Escape" and other jailbrakes made by Allied POW's hadnt happened around/before D-Day/Battle of the bulge, the Germans would have had 70,000 (or was it 7,000) more trrops/police to send to the battle front. Could this have stopped the Allies or delayed them long enough for more German forces to be moved from possible landing places to the actual battle zones?


------------------
Mussolini

"Blood alone moves the Wheels of history." Benito Mussolini.

"What the proletariat needs is a bath of blood." Benito Mussolini, speech in Milan, July 22, 1919

"Liberty is a duty, not a right"
--Benito Mussolini

Well i doubt it would have had a very big effect on the front...i think it was prob 7000 men diverted. Also i think the only time a jailbreak diverted troops that i know of was with the events that the "Great Escape" is based on.
However i don't think an extra 7000 men could have stemmed the tide in the battle of the bulge...(which is when i think the breakout happened)

"Police operations" and hunting escaped POW takes foot soldiers. But the real effective armies are made of panzer, half track, and anti aircraft guns. If you don't have all that modern equipements, you just have soon-to-be POWs in a mobile war.
I really doubt the soldiers sent after the escaped POWs were front line units with their heavy gear. Mostly reservists and untrained troops, hitler youngs... Won't make much difference if they're on the main battlefield or not, IMHO.

impossible.simply impossible

From the south of France u can not go to germany unless you turn left at the french Alps, go around them via Paris area and then towards strassbourg / metz area. The Alps would have been an untakeable defensive position. The threat of german troops in North Italy (and thus in the allied flank) was too big. Germany could easily keep sending reinforcements over austria/hungary into italy, which would have meant enormous pressure on the allied right flank (North Italy was still occupied and allied advances got stuck there.)

Allied supply lines would have needed to go from england via Gibraltar to Marseille, making them vulnarable. supply lines from southern france to Germany were long and subjected to the Italian threat.

Patton could never have landed at Calais, since the fortifications there were extreme. besides that a single army would have been crushed there by the panzer divisions which were stationed in the calais area, by Hitlers orders.

The shortest route to germany would have been to land in Holland. From Dutch coast to Ruhr area is a mere 260 kms and with Berlin at some 750kms. Rivers would cause problems, but with airborne attacks in the "hinterland" this could have been overcome. Rotterdam, being the largest port in the world would have been perfect for supplying the advance into germany.
Reinforcements do not have to travel long from uk to holland (app. 7-`14 hrs).