What if D-day happened

Hawkerace · #1 (**permalink**) August 21st, 2007, 11:13 PM

on its actual day June 4th and the weather was indeed quite nice. Or a month earlier? Or maybe late '44? or it didn't happen at all!

Carl W Schwamberger · #2 (**permalink**) August 21st, 2007, 11:26 PM

The possiblilties are endless just for a 4 June landing. The tides would have been different by a part of a hour, the cross currents near the beaches different and thrown the guide boats off in different directions. Different German officers and senior sergeants would have been on the midnight watch in the HQs and made different decisions as the reports of aircraft, paratroops, and ships came in.

Change to a few weeks earlier and there are different German regiments defending several beaches. The defense of Omanha beach was quite weak in May. Roll back ten or eleven months to the summer of 1943 and the entire thing becomes very different.

Sloniksp · #3 (**permalink**) August 22nd, 2007, 12:51 AM

Lets not forget the possibility of Rommel being there

Joe · #4 (**permalink**) August 22nd, 2007, 10:29 AM

If it didn't happen at all...The war still could have been won, but all those divisions guarding the beaches could go to Italy or Russia. The war would just take a few more years to end, but the map of post-war europe would have been Very different.

Sloniksp · #5 (**permalink**) August 22nd, 2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

the map of post-war europe would have been Very different.

Yes indeed, more like the color red

FramerT · #6 (**permalink**) August 22nd, 2007, 02:52 PM

I don't think a late '44 version would've worked. It would have been hard keeping everything "hidden" from German spies.

~~Roddoss72~~ · #7 (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 03:50 AM

If the last senario didn't happen then France would be speaking Russian now.

Sloniksp · #8 (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddoss72

If the last senario didn't happen then France would be speaking Russian now, bring it on Za Rodinu.

If by the last scenario you mean D-Day I am going to say that you are correct. France would have been liberated by the Soviets.

But speaking Russian? Not all communist countries speak Russian. China, Vietnam, North Korea, neither did Germany, get the drift?

Za Rodinu · #9 (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddoss72

If the last senario didn't happen then France would be speaking Russian now, bring it on Za Rodinu.

Thank you for your personal touch, but I hadn't even taken part in this thread.

john1761 · #10 (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 08:51 PM

If the d day landings had not happened I doubt that the Soviets would have reached the French border let alone the coast. Without the invasion all those troops that were used on the western front from the invasion to the final colapse of the reich would have been available to the eastern front. No Caen, no Cobra, no Achen , no Wahct aiem Rhine. The germans would have the resources to follow Guderian's idea of reinforceing the eastern front and stablizing it.

Sloniksp · #11 (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john1761

If the d day landings had not happened I doubt that the Soviets would have reached the French border let alone the coast. Without the invasion all those troops that were used on the western front from the invasion to the final colapse of the reich would have been available to the eastern front. No Caen, no Cobra, no Achen , no Wahct aiem Rhine. The germans would have the resources to follow Guderian's idea of reinforceing the eastern front and stablizing it.

The US landing did not play any role in the final stages of the war and the Soviet troops would have reached any border of any country in Europe with US landing or with out it.

The fact of the landing speaks for itself, as the US and British Govts. both acknowledged the fact that Germany lost and the whole of Europe was about to be occupied by the Red Army soon. Landing ( second front ) was the last attempt to save what was left of Europe from the inevitable Soviet occupation.

lwd · #12 (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

The US landing did not play any role in the final stages of the war and the Soviet troops would have reached any border of any country in Europe with US landing or with out it.

You do like gross exagerations don't you. The allied landings clearly played a role in the final stages of the war. Saying they didn't is demonstrating either incredible delusion, massive ignorance, or an under bridge habitat.

Quote:

The fact of the landing speaks for itself, as the US and British Govts. both acknowledged the fact that Germany lost and the whole of Europe was about to be occupied by the Red Army soon. Landing ( second front ) was the last attempt to save what was left of Europe from the inevitable Soviet occupation.

There was very little danger of the Red Army occupying all of Europe. If it was as certain as you make out why did Stalin keep pressing for the invasion?

Za Rodinu · #13 (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

The US landing did not play any role in the final stages of the war and the Soviet troops would have reached any border of any country in Europe with US landing or with out it.

The fact of the landing speaks for itself, as the US and British Govts. both acknowledged the fact that Germany lost and the whole of Europe was about to be occupied by the Red Army soon. Landing ( second front ) was the last attempt to save what was left of Europe from the inevitable Soviet occupation.

Come on, Slo, you have to be exagerating. Of course the Allied landings in D-Day (not only US, but UK, Canada, etc.) were extremely important to guarantee final victory. If nothing else, to distract sizable forces from appearing in the Eastern Front. Otherwise why was Stalin always clamouring for a Second Front, while unsatisfied with the Italian Front which numerically meant peanuts for him?

Quote:

Landing ( second front ) was the last attempt to save what was left of Europe from the inevitable Soviet occupation.

This is complete BS. At the time of D-Day the Red Army was still operating in BieloRussia and Ukraine, and there were still Geman troops in the region of Leningrad. The Western Allies did the landings in order to defeat the Reich, not to preempt a Red Army conquest of Europe. Or are you trying to fight the Cold War before it's time?

~~Roddoss72~~ · #14 (**permalink**) August 25th, 2007, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Come on, Slo, you have to be exagerating. Of course the Allied landings in D-Day (not only US, but UK, Canada, etc.) were extremely important to guarantee final victory. If nothing else, to distract sizable forces from appearing in the Eastern Front. Otherwise why was Stalin always clamouring for a Second Front, while unsatisfied with the Italian Front which numerically meant peanuts for him?

This is complete BS. At the time of D-Day the Red Army was still operating in BieloRussia and Ukraine, and there were still Geman troops in the region of Leningrad. The Western Allies did the landings in order to defeat the Reich, not to preempt a Red Army conquest of Europe. Or are you trying to fight the Cold War before it's time?

I agree with you on this one, the Soviets needed a true second front and Stalin was complaining (rightly so) that it seemed to be taking forever to get around to it, had the western allies decided that it was not worth a second landing such as D-Day then the Germans might have been able to stabalise the Eastern Front as mention above and in Italy, this might have extended the war in Europe for an unknown period. But if the western allies did not do a D-Day landing and it was up to the Soviets to liberated Europe, Stalin in his opinion would never give up Europe while he was in charge (and again he would be absolutely correct to do so).

Carl W Schwamberger · #15 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2007, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FramerT

I don't think a late '44 version would've worked. It would have been hard keeping everything "hidden" from German spies.

What German spies? The British worked very hard to elminate them. From examining German records of the Abwehr, the Gestapo, ect... after the war historians have found virtually every spy Germany sent to Britian was found out and either 'turned' or hanged.

Even back in 1942 German intellegence agencys were routinely being fooled by the Allies. Deception operations such as Mincemeat in the Mediterranian or the maskrikovia that preceded the Soviet offensives were notably sucessfull vs the Germans. The Germans were less sucessfull than the Allies at breaking radio codes, and their air reconissance steadily reduced from 1942.

Sloniksp · #16 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2007, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwd

There was very little danger of the Red Army occupying all of Europe.

Fair enough, that is after all your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Come on, Slo, you have to be exagerating. Of course the Allied landings in D-Day (not only US, but UK, Canada, etc.) were extremely important to guarantee final victory.

Very well, I deserve this. I should have been more careful in choosing words

While yes the ALLIED landings played a role in helping put an end to the war sooner. Germany's fate had been sealed in late 1943 and there was no stopping the Red Army advance.

Quote:

The Western Allies did the landings in order to defeat the Reich, not to preempt a Red Army conquest of Europe. Or are you trying to fight the Cold War before it's time?

Churchill's worry was exactly that....... He was very well aware of the consequences if a second front had not been opened up. He even expressed his concern to Roosevelt about the matter. I will try to locate this source.
Sure defeating the 3rd Reich was the priority ( I should have made this clear )
But there were those who were very well aware of the Soviet threat as well. Communism afterall was a threat to democracy.

chocapic · #17 (**permalink**) September 5th, 2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

If by the last scenario you mean D-Day I am going to say that you are correct. France would have been liberated by the Soviets.

If you mean free France from Germany, I'm wonderning how could the Red army liberate France, before beating Germany on its way.

Za Rodinu · #18 (**permalink**) September 5th, 2007, 02:54 PM

Comrade, are you doubting the Soviet Engineers ability in digging tunnels any length the Party deems necessary?

minute 1:10

Sloniksp · #19 (**permalink**) September 5th, 2007, 03:57 PM

good one!!

Good point Chocapic, maybe go around?

Afterall Ukraine was liberated before Leningrad was.....

chocapic · #20 (**permalink**) September 6th, 2007, 09:47 AM

OK, I forgot the secret mole-tanks !