If D-day failed....

It would have been a disaster. If hitler and rommel got their panzers to the beach on the time of the landings it would have been a total disaster. I have a feeling we would group up any remaining soldiers still alive or wounded on the beaches and retreat across the channel back to england. All paratroopers that went in would become POWs or MIA (except for several that would manage to hide with the resistance) and we would be extremely weak. The germans might have tried to launch their own little d-day againts the island of Britain and both sides would probably encounter heavey losses, but I think we would be able to push them out of the island. Then both sides would be extremely weak and at eachothers throats, watching eachother accross the channel. Then once we got more replacements and gathered more equipment we would try another d-day, but this time rommel would have his panzers and more fortifications and whatnot. I don't know, but lets just say if d-day failed it would be really, really bad.

Even if D-day failed, Germany could have still been defeated although the war could have been prolonged a little bit (at the cost of more lives). With Germany's defeat to the Russians (who was starting to grow stronger as the war went on) in the Eastern Front and Germany's dwindling war resources...Germany could have found it very difficult to sustain the war or much so win it.

If D-day has failed...it could only mean one thing. That Germany had allocated much of its war resources in stopping the allies in Normandy. Much resources that Germany could have probably lost in doing so. Much resources that Germany, in its position at the time, could only hope to replinish. The allies on the other hand are still in a good position to rebuild its force pool and stage another invasion.

And yes, the A-bomb could have been dropped in Berlin as one of the alternatives to reduce the casualties on the side of the allies.

Just my opinion.

Well...thank God it didn't!

Glenn

Yeah, I'm glad d-day succeeded.

if dday would have failed the consequenses would have be disastorous for the allies. fortress europe would have been strengthened by hitler seeing the weakness the allies tried to exploit, russia would have fought on alone i am sure but with heavier losses than anyone could ever expect. the new equipment that hitlers scientists had been working on would have become operational. possibly even to the extent of chemical weapons, v-weapons would have played more of a role in the cross channel attacks. the allies would have tried again to crack fortress europe and would have accumulated many many casualties. the war would have been extended by years.

the results of a failure of dday would have been far reaching and you can be sure the casualties would have multiplied.

joe

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dwight Ta-ala Even if D-day failed, Germany could have still been defeated although the war could have been prolonged a little bit (at the cost of more lives). With Germany's defeat to the Russians (who was starting to grow stronger as the war went on) in the Eastern Front and Germany's dwindling war resources...Germany could have found it very difficult to sustain the war or much so win it. If D-day has failed...it could only mean one thing. That Germany had allocated much of its war resources in stopping the allies in Normandy. Much resources that Germany could have probably lost in doing so. Much resources that Germany, in its position at the time, could only hope to replinish. The allies on the other hand are still in a good position to rebuild its force pool and stage another invasion. And yes, the A-bomb could have been dropped in Berlin as one of the alternatives to reduce the casualties on the side of the allies. Just my opinion.

I agree with Dwight. Even though if D-Day failed, the Nazi would still lose the war. Indeed, the Allied would suffered have casualties, setback in morale, or even disagreement amount Allied nations( especially Charles de Gaulle would be******off); indeed this would buy more time for the Nazi to bulid more jets, V-bombs and super tanks(Panzer Mk whatsoever ), I think the out come would still be same, only it would be delayed. It is because Nazi had a big problem - oil. The Russian were advancing from the east overruning Romania and the Africa Korp lost North Africa. This cutoff of oil lines seriously impaired German industries. Furthermore, the Allied could still advance into France or Germany from Italy. This is just my humble opinion.

Of course, I do not mean D-Day is unnecessary(it is utmostly necessary). All Allied troops whether in combat, supply, backup, medic or intellegence unit deserve our great respect. BTW, lets not forget the French resistance.

One thing I truely admire is that Ike wrote a note for himself to read to the public that if the operation failed, he would take full reposibility alone(i.e. he himself one person). Now that took LOTS of courage to do that. That also showed that the Allied had the right supreme command.

I would be saying this in German...

We know the germans were developing an A-bomb them self, and they nearly did it. They also had plans for a long distance rocket to deliver the weapon.

Perhaps they would have been able to bomb New york, Wasington and Moscow. Then they would have won the war.

I have seen alot of these what if's, but the fact is D-day was a success and thank god for that.

QUOTE: Originally posted by ArmorMaster The germans might have tried to launch their own little d-day againts the island of Britain and both sides would probably encounter heavey losses, but I think we would be able to push them out of the island.

Sorry, I totally disagree with that statement. In 1944, the Germans didn't have the resources to even come close to invading England. There chances were much greater in 1940. The Allied airpower would have sunk every ship in sight. Also there were probably 3-4 million combat ready men there. Also think of all the naval strength available to the Allies.

Indeed the war would have gone on longer and the Russians would have probably swallowed all of Germany up, even going against the Yalta agreements. We would be forced to drop atomic bombs perhaps on Berlin, but dropping a few on the Ruhr, would have had far more damaging prospects on the material capabilities of the Germans. Berlin would be more of a political statement. By the way from all I've heard about the German A-bomb development, they weren't even close to building one.

From my understanding if hitler gave his fieldcommanders control of the 30 panzer units instead of hitler himself Thing would not have turned out as they did and possiably all of the prototype tanks and terror weapons would have very well been in use. I do think that the allies would of still over come.

Simply put, the Russian advance could probably not have been stopped by the summer of 1944. The war would have still ended in the same manor, but add quite a few more Eastern Block nations to the list and a very different cold war.

Just for argument sake though, let’s say the Germans did stop the Russian advance. We would have dropped the bomb on Germany. The US nuclear program had one purpose in 1944: beat Germany to the punch. We fully intended to drop the bomb on Germany and force surrender. We were scared to death that the Germans would get the A-bomb first, but we did not realize that Germany practically abandoned their program. I am not going to go into the evidence now, but I am quite sure this is what would have happened.

While I don’t think D-day was the deciding factor, I do marvel at all of the misfortune that the Germans had and all of the good luck that the Allies had. I am not a very religious man, but I think it was quite possible that a greater power could have been at work.

just my $0.02

Some WWII analysts pointed out that the defeat of the Germans started when they were not able to take Moscow and the resources that could have been available to them. Also the capture of Moscow would have been a very good psychological victory. Their failure to do so clearly showed the fact that Germany has over extended itself beyond its capability to supply its forces. One analyst even put it that Germany's first defeat in the road to Moscow were caused more by exhaustion of the troops and the lack of supplies rather than counter action by the Russians who were at that time still trying to regroup.

The success of D-Day IMHO shortened the war by causing the Germans to further stretch their resources to meet the threats in both directions.

I'd have to agree with Dwight, e-dog & Tigerman. I don't think that the allied invasion was
the decisive factor in the war against Hitler. That role was played by the eastern front, which turned out to be the mass grave of the Wehrmacht. The Soviet advance had built up such momentum by june of 44 that the Red Army would have overrun all of Germany
anyway sometime in 1945. By far the bulk of German resources were devoted to the
Russian front compared to the men & materiel that occupied western Europe. What is
really historically significant, I think, is that the Anglo-American advance into Germany
prevented Stalin from occupying & communizing Europe west of the Elbe. A red Europe
would have been a historical disaster of the first magnitude for the entire world. All the
same, The allied advance into western Europe shortened the war & saved many thousands of lives, especially those of the surviving inmates of the westernmost concentration camps. What do the rest of you guys think?

Let's not forget the Allies ruled the skies, the war would have just been prolonged. We would have continued to bomb and soften up the coast. Then tried it again. Airpower is the key to victory...and the Allies ruled the skies.

Then the History Channel wouldn't have 5000 shows on the subject.

By June 1944, Germany had little hope of winning anything. The Generals wanted to sue for peace, but The High Command as well as the Allies wouldn't have it. Hitler knew he couldn't end the war based on what was going on with the Attrocities that were transpiring. The Allies wanted Unconditional Surrender.
D-Day was necessary to end the war and if it failed the war would have lasted much longer with higher costs in lives. But Germany was finished, Russia and Allied Bombing saw to that. Bombing not because of destruction, production actually increased until the very end, but because it exhausted the Luftwaffe and gave the Allies Air superiority.

As far as the Bomb...The Germans scientists involved, after the war, claimed they weren't trying to succeed on principle, but final analysis shows they weren't even close and going in the wrong direction.
As far as Truman dropping the Bomb on Europe...Germans were too much like us and too close for something of that magnitude, remember Japan was considered a lot different and that they would not surrender at any cost AND halfway around the world.
Besides, the Bomb was more a message to Communist Russia than it was a strategic weapon.
Monrad is right about the Vengence weapons though. They were the first ballistic missiles and a priority to silence.

I'd have to agree, if you want to take over Russia you have to do it before Winter. the two reasons that Hitler wasnt able to do this were: 1) Mussolini failed to take Greece and the rest of that peninsula, so Hitler had to divert troops to take it. 2) Hitler changed the direction of his advance to conquer Stalingred and the oil rich Causcaus.

if d-day failed, it would be a second Dieppe. Dieppe was an amphibious invaision in france before the US joined. canadian, british and a few american camandos invaded the port town of Dieppe and were mostly killed or taken prisoner, a small amount were able to retreat. Alot of the lessons learned from Dieppe made d-day a success.

Hitler was plannign to take England. the battle of britian was when germany was trying to soften up the allied forces for when the germans came. the plan was canceled when the allies won the air battle, and the war with russia took too long.

casualties on d-day could have been reduced if htey had sent the tanks first. they would have used thier HE shells to take out the mg positions to help the troops get ashore.

if D-day fail the allies probaly would have given up the idea of an amphibious landing and tried somthing diferent. maybe they would have fought along side the russians?

I agree with ausf.. By 6/44 Germany was cooked. The allies had complete air superiority and would have pounded the Nazi's into submission. I do believe that DDay"s success did have much influence on just how much USSR got in the long run.
It put the Allies on a common tread with the land invasion of Germany. I do believe if Rommel did unleash his Panzers on the Normandy Beachs Allied airpower would of had a field day. the skys over Normandy were completely controlled by shortrange and longrange aircraft.operating out of GB.. Anything that moved and was not dug in on those beaches was an easy target for Allied fighters... The Panzers would not have made it close enough to the beaches to be effective.. The German failure to do so did in fact result in the prolonging of the war because these panzer divisions were not sacrificed at Normandy...
I don't think the Allies would have Nuked Germany.. In the American mindset of that time Japan was an easier target to justify for a Nuke strike...

QUOTE: Originally posted by t3488g if d-day failed, it would be a second Dieppe. Dieppe was an amphibious invaision in france before the US joined. canadian, british and a few american camandos invaded the port town of Dieppe and were mostly killed or taken prisoner, a small amount were able to retreat. Alot of the lessons learned from Dieppe made d-day a success.

I just hear about Dieppe for the first time in a scale modeling forum last week. I had no idea what it was other than the Canadians took a huge loss durring the battle.

Over the weekend, the History Channel did all day broadcasts of D-Day related documentaries. One mentioned Dieppe and how it gave good reason for the Canadians and Churchill to worry about the Normandy invasion. 5000 Canadian troops attacked the port city of Dieppe in Spring of 1942. Not only were they unable to take Dieppe but only 2000 survived. I alway's knew that Canada had made siginificant contibutions to the war but I never reallyt knew the extent.

This new found knowledge has raised my interest in Canadian involvment with the Second World War. Does any one know of any good websites/books that gives information on Canada's World War II history?

Speaking of Dieppe, to this day I still don't understand the logic behind it. Too few troops to have any impact. Of course many Canadians paid an awful price for that raid.

Had Germany attacked Russia back in Spring of 41 instead of June and had they not diverted their troops South to envelop 660,000 troops, they in my and the German Generals opinion........would have taken Moscow in 1941. The weather more than the Russians stopped the advance.

Germany being the number one priority designated by the Allies, still could have been a nuke target if the invasion failed. I don't think the US brass would have allowed the Russians to take all of Europe over. The Russians could have encircled and bypassed Berlin and taken all of Germany in a blink.

My thinking is that if the Allies had a toe hold anywhere, be it on Utah, Gold, Juno or where ever (seeing that Omaha did almost fail), the casualties would have been removed from the 'failed' beachheads and assaults would have been made to enlarge the one or two successful ones. Battleships would be firing sixteen miles inland and the strategic bomber forces would have been turned temporarily into tactical air forces to carpet bomb the area.
Germany had its hands full in the east and Italy. It couldn't send too many reinforcements. Heck, maybe Hitler would evan have been awake for the next assaults!

Even if they'd evacuated all of the beaches, I don't think the battle would have stopped. The Allies had soooo much equipment in England and so much logistical momentum that they'd have picked the least unsuccessful assault beach, bombed the daylights out of it and tried again very quickly, perhaps the following day or at least within a week, tides and moon or not...

I also think Berlin would have been on the nuclear target list if it came to that... it's good that it didn't.

Ron

Hats off to all the young men and women of every D-Day in every theater of war.

QUOTE: Originally posted by tigerman Speaking of Dieppe, to this day I still don't understand the logic behind it. Too few troops to have any impact. Of course many Canadians paid an awful price for that raid.

Dieppe was intended as a commando style raid, only on a larger scale. The troops were to land, move into Dieppe and capture a few strategic locations (radar instilations being one of the big goals I believe), loot them for useful tid-bits, then fall back to the beaches where they would be evacuated. The idea was to hit the Germans quickly then pull out before a significant counter-attack could be launched. Of course with the multiple layers of failures in the planning of the raid it didn't work as intended.

As for lessons learned for the eventual D-Day landings...it's debatable how significant they were.

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

Turning back to the question of what would have happened if D-Day had failed, I agree with the overall trend in the thread so far. Germany would have still lost the war, even if the Western Allies never tried to land again. The Red Army would have still crushed Germany. The significance of D-Day lies in shaping post-war Europe, things would have been very different had Russian controlled the bulk of mainland Europe.

well if D-DAY had failed , if the germans had invaded the UK , my mums , mums side of the family would have been sent to the death camps there where part jewish !!!!! and i wouldn't be here doing this post

I'm with Ron on this one. But I think they could have also pulled back and concentrated on a southern front as we were liberating Rome during Overlord and could have still made it a two front war that would have drained Germany's resources or taken a more northern advance and gone through Norway. We still had air superiority and it would have been prolonged but with the same result.

As for a-bomb usage I honestly doubt that, though planned, it would have been used on Berlin. Too many cultural ties and not the racial bias we had against Japan then. It was still mainland Europe and not an isolated geographic region (an island) like Japan was. I belive that Germany would have sought a conditional or even an unconditional surrender to the US and Allies if for no other reason than to escape the Russians. Much like Japan tried to do with the Russians just prior to the U.S. dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Eastern mind set is considerably different than western so it is a case of apples and oranges when it comes to a die to the last man mentality. Just look at the differences between pow mortality rates in the ETO and the PTO. The west feels that if you surrender, the war is over for you. The east belives that you have nothing and no honor can be salvaged from defeat without a fight. Not to mention having to get the Russians to pull their front back, which by the time we were ready to deploy the a-bomb would have been on the edge of Berlin, far enough to be able to make a drop without inciting the Russians.