Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    The Germans were already scrapping the bottom of the barrel as replacements for the East. Raw materials were becoming hard to come by, especially fuel. The jet fleets may have existed but the strategic bombing of the U.S. curtailed any long-term operations. It merely would have prolonged the inevitable. Germany was already losing. I believe it shot it's bolt after Kursk.

    ------------------
    Carpe Diem
     
  2. Ron

    Ron Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well i think had the operation failed...i think the allies would have tried again in about a year. Buy this time the allies had perfected anti submarine tactics and Hitlers subs wouldn't play a big part in starving Britian because they did little historicly at this time. Being later in the war Hitler could have used his jets but the me 262 wasn't all it was craked up to be. Aliied numbers in fighters were staggering and could have over wellmed the few jets produced...as well as make their airfields prime targets. Stalin was a mad man and would never have retreated back to '41 lines! he was a mad man and was willing to sacrifice men by the thousands just to make himself look good. Besides the reinforcements from france couldhave made a stalemate at most for a few months. However...the germans really needed those men in France to repell another invasion and also boost the defenses...so it is questionable to me how many reinforcments the eastern front would really get.
    I think that the airwar in the west would continue untilthe allies had resupplied themselves which prob. would take about a year. (subs wouldn't play much of a part) And the Russian fron would slow but the russians would continue to gain ground...i doubt they would loos much land if any at all.
     
  3. Yankee

    Yankee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stalin may have been a mad man but he did know how to stay in power. He was noterious for pushing the Russians to the breaking and turning point. But i think that anything further then that he couldnt justify and even he knew he would be gambling his own power for something the Russians wouldnt pursue. They wouldnt and couldnt find the war on their own. with out the Allies they were unarmed unclothes and even easier targets for German Machine gunners.

    The allies out of the wayi n the West would have given the Germans alot more elbow room. And i know for a fact that it couldn't have been for another two years a landing could be launched. Keeping in mind it would have to be larger seeing the first one was wiped out for whatever reason(s).
     
  4. Ron

    Ron Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well however long it would have taken i don't think it would have turned the tide of war on the eastern front. The Germans would need to bolster their own forces if they think the allies will come back with even more troops. So the reinforcements would not have been that numerous.
    Also i think it was a war the russian populace wanted...at least those loyal to Stalin...their land was devestated...they wanted revenged and wated to see the germans defeated.
    Also a defeat on D-day would not have cancelled shipping to Russia...but besides...the Russians made most of there goods...they prefered there own guns and tanks and planes and were making them all out of reach of german bombs... But no matter...shipping would have continued to Russia.
    I think in the 2 years or however long it takes for the allies to invade europe the war would continue...I think the Russian front would stop to a stalemate for awhile...but i still think the Russians would still make gains...even if they were small.
    Remember by this time the turning point had already occured on the eastern front to the Russians favor and all that happened before D-day.
    I believe the Russian front would slow but continue in the Russians favor...and then the allied invasion would come whenever they were ready.

    ------------------
    Admiral William "Bull" Halsey...

    There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are forced by circumstances to meet.
     
  5. Wittmann

    Wittmann Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the allies were beaten up in normandy and defeated there, they had in each case needed time to make up their losses and moral. This way, the atlanticwall could have been completed posing another threat to a new invasion. That's why i think that Hitler would have pulled it's troops out of the west eand to the east. These (elite) troops might have stopped te russian attack in poland. That way Stalin would have to wait for a new allied invasion and maybe even signed peace (or a truth). That way stalin would have created his protecting ring of countries and brought russia a great victory with it. If this new relationship with germany had been stable, then Hitler could have moved it's troops to the West to defead the allies in Italy and prevend a new invasion. He maybe even would have lanched his own invasion in Africa again, to get to oilfields that way.
     
  6. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Had D-Day failed, the allies would have just tried an invasion elsewhere or simply fed in an overwhelming amount of forces to Italy or had another "Anzio" type invasion somewhere else along the coast. They might have even tried to invade Norway again and then combine forces with the Russians in the east.
     
  7. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    I'll try this post again, the other disappeared.

    Had D-Day been a failure for the allies, I think they would have done at least one of the following:

    Sent an overwhelming amount of forces to Italy. But I dont think that would have mattered very much as the Germans would probably just shift several more divisions there.

    The allies might have tried another larger scale "Anzio" type of invasion elsewhere. But I doubt that also because they would still have the same problems as they did at Normandy and would have had the additional problems of the Germans already alert for such an event.

    Another thing probably could be considered would be for the allies to re-invade Norway and cause so much harm there that they could also eventually link forces with the Russians. This might have been hard to pull-off because od the distances invloved.

    I'm in both agreement and disagreement with all of this but since its a what if? im safe in posting this.
     
  8. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Please disregard one of these postings. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  9. Chris Ray

    Chris Ray Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2001
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    I once read a great short SF story called "Ubermensch" in which Superman landed in Germany rather than Kansas. It was the ultimate what if story, with Berlin being renamed "Metropolis" and linked to the famous silent SF film of the same name. In it Superman, complete with a black and brown uniform sporting a swastika, trefused to push back the Allied invasion of Normandy because he had found out about the final solution. I can't remember the author, perhaps someone out there knows it?

    Chris Ray
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page