Alt History thread: WI D-Day fails

[RedRalph]

The invasion of France is repulsed by the Nazis. How do things end up? I'll do my own speculation later

 

[Lone Wolf]

The USSR takes over all the Western Europe, suffering more losses.

 

[Patroklos]

The Allies wait a year, then pull it off next spring. Soviets occupy all of Germany.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Poland Revolts and claims all of germany, central europe and parts of eastern (Minsk,vilnuis) and a treaty is signed with russia to stop future invasiuon of Moscow.

 

[mr_lewington]

I would assume the Western Allies would continue with Italy and try again a year or so later. Wouldn't the Russians be really slowed down because the Germans aren't truly fighting a 2 front war?

 

[Sui Generis]

The A-Bomb gets dropped on Berlin on July 1, 1945 by the US. Ending the war. No allies have entered Germany yet. Surprised nobody has said this.

 

[RalofTyr]

When Russia finally got to the the gates of Berlin, the Western Front would start to dissolve. The fanatics will go to fight the Russians and die, whereas the more sane Germans would pray for another allied invasion so they could surrender. You might have another mass evacuation and Dunkirk, except this time, it's the Germans fleeing the Red Army.

If they failed at D-Day, The whole continent of Europe would be Soviet satellite states.

 

[RedRalph]

I think one way or another the Soviets would have benefitted hugely. they would have taken all Germany/Austria, possibly got Yugoslavia in the Warsaw Pact, and I wouldnt even rule out some or all of Italy. How this would have changed US, French and UK politics post war is interesting... the balance would have been far more into the red than in OTL.

 

[Verbose]

The Brits get things their way and the Allies next land in the south of France, as they did historically.

Other than that, the delay is real, the Soviet Union pushes deeper west than it did historically, and possibly Berlin gets nuked before it is all over.

 

[Dachs]

Woo for Truscott, who was awesome, and Operation Dragoon.

I wouldnt even rule out some or all of Italy.

I disagree with you, unless you're referring to Istria and the Dalmatian territories what were already surrendered to Yugoslavia in OTL.

 

[Shekwan]

Soviets take over Western Europe and the UK and US decide that they have to take advantage of their nuclear weapons before the Soviets have them and mass produce them for an offensive on the USSR and her satellites in 1947. The allies make it as far as the Don where a static front develops, however allied air superiority and atomic bombs allow them to cripple Soviet production and this coupled with famine in the USSR leads to their capitulation.

Obviously.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Soviets take over Western Europe and the UK and US decide that they have to take advantage of their nuclear weapons before the Soviets have them and mass produce them for an offensive on the USSR and her satellites in 1947. The allies make it as far as the Don where a static front develops, however allied air superiority and atomic bombs allow them to cripple Soviet production and this coupled with famine in the USSR leads to their capitulation.

Obviously.

I wouldn't say capitulation, but the allies would get somewhere to the real east/west germany borders anyhow before the soviets surrendered. Do you think any further is possible? as in Going all the way to the Wisla?

Would russia capitulate? (i don't think so), will there still be a cold war?

 

[Sui Generis]

Mine is the best.

 

[RedRalph]

I disagree with you, unless you're referring to Istria and the Dalmatian territories what were already surrendered to Yugoslavia in OTL.

I dont neccesarily think they would create a North/South Italy a la Germany or Korea, but I think they would have had a lot more influence in Italy... how far advanced into Italy were the western allies when D-Day happened?

 

[Dachs]

I dont neccesarily think they would create a North/South Italy a la Germany or Korea, but I think they would have had a lot more influence in Italy... how far advanced into Italy were the western allies when D-Day happened?

About halfway between Rome and Genoa, with Operation Dragoon basically forcing the disintegration of the Nazi Armeegruppe G a few weeks after D-Day.

 

[RedRalph]

About halfway between Rome and Genoa, with Operation Dragoon basically forcing the disintegration of the Nazi Armeegruppe G a few weeks after D-Day.

OK, I didnt know they were that far up the leg... probably no seperate red Italy then, but I would imagien they would have been a lot more influential in Italian politics had they liberated part of the country. you never know though, didnt work out that way in Austria

 

[Sharwood]

If D-Day, failed, Russia wouldn't miraculously gain all the same territory they did in OTL, then more. The whole point of opening a second front was to force Germany to spread its resources thinner. Sure, Russia was already winning in the East, but it's not like they were strolling through the German lines like Darth Vader through sand People. There was strong resistance.

After the D-Day landing, Hitler sent a large force West to fight the Allies, resulting in weakening Germany's Eastern Front - stupidly, I might add. During Operation: Market Garden, Hitler actually ordered such a large counterattack on Allied forces in Holland that he put Germany's own security at immediate risk. An Allied attack on Germany itself, ignoring their own bogged down troops in the Netherlands and Belgium, would have taken large swathes of Germany. It was successful, but stupid, action by Hitler. And it took even more troops from the Eastern Front, as did the Battle of the Bulge.

If the Normandy Invasion failed, Roosevelt would likely remove his head from his buttocks and follow Churchill's plan to attack via the Balkans. However, this would take a lot of time, and many new troops to be shipped from the US. In short, it would be a logistical nightmare, never mind the morale boost to the Germans, and simultaneous slump among the Allies. You could also expect British-American violence to increase amogn the rank and file, with both sides blaming the other for the loss, compounding the difficulties. Then there's De Gaulle's Free French, who would be, shall we say, less than impressed with America and Britain, as if Charles needed more reasons to dislike them.

Meanwhile, in France, the many resistance fighters who rose up and began sabotage operations and open revolt against the Germans would quite quickly end up dead. Also likely would be a massive crackdown by the occupying army, leading to even more deaths among the civilian population.

In the East, Russia's progress would go more slowly. Also, since a new landing in Normandy would be completely ruled out - no-one attacks a seemingly impregnable position twice, especially when there's an easier option available - they'd probably concentrate more in the North than the Balkans themselves. After all, Stalin was no idiot, and he already had an agreement with Britain to split Eastern Europe. Why fight for the Balkans, if the Western Allies are going to take them for you?

The question is essentially how long it would take the US and Britain to mount another invasion, this time of the Balkans. They'd likely take more of Italy by the end of the war than they actually had, and the war would take longer, regadless of how long the new operation took to mount. But the extra time would also allow the Germans to create more of their new technologically superior weapons, such as new jet fighters/bombers and long-range rocket systems. it would also bring the US closer to completing the A-bomb.

I don't see the US dropping said A-bomb on Germany without sufficient reason. After all, let's not forget there's a huge difference between Germans and Japanese: They're not Asian. German-Americans weren't put in internment camps for the duration of the war. There were considerably less German women raped by Americans than Japanese (particularly Okinawan) women during and after the war. Unless the Germans were putting up an ungodly fight, or the Russians were gaining a significant enough advantage to warrant a 'demonstration' in Europe, I don't see America usuing nukes on German civilians. Purley military or scientific targets... Now that's a possibility.

All-in-all, I don't see the Russians gaining too much of an extra advantage. Let's remember, Russia never once overstepped the bounds of their previous agreements as regards to territory. While they were happy to steal German territory both for themselves and Poland, all of that territory was inside the sphere of influence which Stalin and Churchill had already agreed upon.

If anything, a prolonged war would have resulted in a weaker Russia, although the US and Britain would also be weaker than OTL, and France would be devastated. On the plus side, the slaughter of resistance groups in France might keep Socialists from coming to power in that country, and De Gaulle would almost certainly do a better job of rebuilding than they did. That's a pretty piss-weak positive though. Honestly, I don't see much difference, except in the casualty numbers.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Now that's a more likely scenerio, but i have a question, after the allies get to somewhere in Croatia/Slovenia, where to next? To austria sounds ridiculous to me considering the terrein, so it would've likely have been through the Hungarian Plain.

From Hungary, the easiest option i could imagine is grouping up with the Soviet forces and enter central europe, then towards Germany, any other suggestions?

 

[Sharwood]

From what I remember of Churchill's plan (and bear in mind this was never actually official) the plan was to go through Hungary and liberate Poland, then West into Germany itself. De Gaulle was less than impressed with this. I don't know how the Soviets fit into the plan. I doubt Anglo-Saxons would take orders from Russians, or vice versa.

You also have to realise, that despite his later claims, Churchill's plan had nothing to do with keeping Eastern Europe out of Russian control. He actually wanted to consolidate Greece, Italy, and other Mediterranean areas because he believed the British Empire would survive the war, and wanted to control the sea routes to it. He may very well have not thought about anything after taking Greece and Yugoslavia.

 

[frekk]

I dont neccesarily think they would create a North/South Italy a la Germany or Korea, but I think they would have had a lot more influence in Italy... how far advanced into Italy were the western allies when D-Day happened?

Close to Rome ... the German defense was collapsing, they were just hoping to buy time by building defensive lines further north (which, eventually, also collapsed). Italy was already lost, that was pretty much a foregone conclusion - it was just a question of how much time could be bought.