So what would have changed if the Normandy landings failed? i.e. Germany was able to find out where the real landings were to be somehow or something.
keep in mind that everything else about WWII up to this point is completely the same and events that were to happen independent of D-Day will still happen uninterrupted.
Eisenhower resigns.
U.S.S.R. still wins.
>>478185
the Eastern Bloc becomes Continental Bloc and the line between east vs. west becomes more defined by the Pyrenees and Alps rather than east and west germany
>>478219
USSR fights to the Rhine.
Doesn't give PCF and PCd'I and KKE "go" orders.
ffs.
And extra 7 SS panzer divisions on the eastern front blunts bagraton.
>>478236
I'm not sure if two corps are really going to stop the collapse of AGC. Look at the Budapest offensive
There is a chance "Red Army D-Day" probably doesn't happen. Stalin was informed of the general timeline of Overlord. It was a two head attack. First in the west and then the Red Army would hit shortly after.
Who knows. Eisenhower had a letter ready accepting blame for the failure but there was no Plan B.
>>479611
Dragoon was only to be implemented after Overlord's success; they realized they didn't have enough LSTs to do both simultaneously.
Well it simply could not have failed because by june 1944 the germans had already totally collapsed due to Russia. They had no manpower left and where in full retreat from the pre-war borders of Russia, didnt have enough men to hold on there and had almost nothing in France. If the normandy landings had failed France would be communist about 2 years later.
>>479755
Dragoon was in the planning works before Overlord was launched, and there's little reason to assume that it would suddenly be abandoned just because the Normandy landings went badly, especially if the reason for the disaster would be some sort of intelligence leak a la what OP is suggesting.
>>479773
>Well it simply could not have failed because by june 1944 the germans had already totally collapsed due to Russia.
You shouldn't comment in threads you know nothing about unless to ask questions.
In the west you had:
Army Group B (Rommel)
Army Group D (von Rundstedt)
Army Group G (Blaskowitz)
7th Army (Dollmann)
So, almost a million troops in the West; now fuck off and go learn about history.
>>479796
They were actually planned together (original codenames were Sledgehammer and Anvil). As I said, logistically they couldn't be pulled off at the same time.
Probably not abandoned but it wouldn't have been approved in July, 1944 when the Allied force was nearly 1.5 million strong in northern France.
>>479848
Eh, I fucked that up. What I was trying to say was that it wouldn't have been approved because the Allied force in northern France wouldn't have been there to support it.
I mean, as it was, if that's all Blaskowitz is facing (after a failed landing)? You have to imagine Army Group G is reinforced or at least re-mobilized to fight the invasion. After all, they wouldn't have the bulk of the Allied force to their rear.
>>479813
t. le american bear
1,000,000 children, 1870 war veterans, and eastern front cripples Vs. 5 and half million fresh troops.
If you had read my post or knew what you were talking about you might have surmised that I stated the Germans had completely collapsed on the eastern front and were going to be crushed either way, normandy or no normandy.
>>479861
They also would still have had the enormous Allied interdiction efforts that were ongoing before, during, and after Overlord, wrecking the shit out of the rail network and hampering mobility.
And it's quite doubtful that even if the landings fail, they fail in a day. Look at say, the Salerno landings; which very easily could have had the Germans driving the Americans into the sea there, it still took a week before the crisis point was reached, and Normandy is a much bigger operation, is likely to take longer.
Add in any delays to lick wounds suffered even in victory, and I think it's very unlikely that you'd get significant reallocation of resources, especially since 1944 German intelligence thought such an attack was unlikely: if they were going to reinforce anywhere, it would probably be around Lublanja (sp?) or in Greece, which they thought were higher likelihood targets for any springboarding from Italy.
Germany would have still fallen, even without Normandy. It just would have taken longer.
I wonder if the Russians would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon faster as a result.
>>479882
>1870 war veterans
doubt.jpg
>>479907
>I wonder if the Russians would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon faster as a result.
Unlikely: the Soviets got their nuclear technology historically through espionage, they were focused far more on refinement of existing weapons than the development of new ones in general during the war, and they had an air strategy focused around small bombers delivering precise CAS rather than big strategic bombers anyway, so a nuclear weapon would be hard to deliver; not likely a high priority.
>>479918
True. Did the Nazis have any kind of credible nuclear program?
>>479882
Was there literally veterans from the 1870-war fighting?
>>479935
Let me put it this way: They never reached the point the Americans were at by the end of 1942.
>>479938
I have exactly zero knowledge of the subject.
Yet simple math seems to suggest that is highly unlikely.
Even if we assume boys as young as 16 years of age to have fought in the 1870 war, being deployed in Normandy 1944 would make them 90 years old.
An experienced, veteran, yet ultimately fragile, force.
>>479882
Please, enlighten me which of the aforementioned armies had Volksstrum units.
Never mind, I'll do your homework for you since I know already: none of them. The Volksstrum wasn't created until October, 1944.
You should research those armies and their makeup. They weren't pushovers by any means. Well, unless Patton was fighting them.
USSR gets to have fun with the Luftwaffe. Begs for more lend-lease vehicles from the eternal anglo
>>479907
Highly, highly doubtful. If Normandy fails the Soviets would have acquired much more land by the time it was all said and done.
>>479611
If you had read my post more closely you would have identified it as a conditional.
"The USSR fights to the Rhine in your scenario, and yet, the Western communist parties are not triggered for revolution?"
>>478191
No.
>>478226
No
>>478185
Warsaw pact stretches all the way to France. USSR wins the Cold War early on. World economy collapses into nuclear dark ages due to communistic mismanagement.
The war in the East lasts roughly a half year longer. Soviets occupy all of Germany and Austria as opposed to parts of it. Western Allied Armies in Italy block Soviets from moving past Austria. France, Low Countries, and Nordic Countries situation largely stay the same as in real life, even if Western Allies never made it their, Political dealings still make sure pro-west governments are back in power.
Possibility of a nuke or two dropped.
>>482487
So in a condition where the Western Allies have betrayed their commitments stalin won't activate the armed sections of the major Western communist parties?
Care to explain why?
If the Iron Curtain were farther west, what difference would there have been in the Cold War?
>>478185
If Germany had repulsed the invasion they'd likely seek a separate peace not unlike what they had hoped to do with the Ardennes Counteroffensive.
The Western allies had air supremacy by that time and many still clung to the idea that strategic bombing could potentially win the war by itself. Germany would have had more time to build its jet force but the US would have responded by shipping B29s to Europe instead of the pacific. They flew fast and at 40,000 ft, an altitude even Me 262's struggled to perform at. Fuel consumption also limited 262's to within 25 miles of their bases.
A prolonged air war would have seen atomic bombing of Germany, as the bomb was initially intended, along with planned M-69 napalm bombing of cities by fleets of Superfortresses.
>>479935
>True. Did the Nazis have any kind of credible nuclear program?
They did but they never got further than where the US was in about 1940, which was pretty much just the idea. They were closer to the A-10 "New York Rocket", the first ICBM - essentially a V-2 that could hit New York, but it wouldnt have been ready until late 1947.
>>481344
And if you understood mine, you'd realize that it makes no sense; Dragoon would have put the Wallies on the continent and seen them expand at a little, but not much slower speeds. The Western Front would still exist, and you'd still have a Western presence in Germany before the Soviets roll all the way to the Rhine.
>>483514
And since it's fashionable to downplay the role of the Western allies in Europe, here are some statistics achieved by strategic bombing alone:
>The oil war had been won. Synthetic plants were down to 6 percent of normal output and production of aviation gasoline had stopped altogether. The oil campaign clipped the wings of the Luftwaffe and impaired the Wehrmacht’s mobility, preventing it from protecting coal resources that powered the synthetic plants. In February 1945, the Wehrmacht had amassed up to 1,500 tanks to stop the Red Army’s drive into the Silesian coalfields, but could not properly deploy them because of fuel shortages.
>Germany’s river and canal network had been disabled and its rail system was in ruins, and with it, the coal industry that powered the economy. Allied airpower’s slow strangulation of rail and river systems was probably the greatest single cause of Germany’s economic collapse. No nation today can prevail in a total war without an industrial economy, and Germany did not have one in early 1945. It had almost no oil, and although it had plenty of coal, Allied airpower made it impossible for Germany to move it. “Even a first-class military power—rugged and resilient as Germany was—cannot live long under the full-scale and free exploitation of air weapons over the heart of its territory.” For the first time in modern history the economy of a world power had been utterly destroyed, and along with it, all of that country’s major cities.
>Although the economy did not completely collapse until Allied armies were on German soil, prepared to deliver the deathblow, unrecoverable disruptions had begun much earlier. German officials from Speer’s Ministry of Armaments assessed what might have been produced the previous year without Allied bombing. They concluded that German industry had made roughly 36 percent fewer tanks, 31 percent fewer military aircraft, and 42 percent fewer trucks.
>>483536
Overlord fails. Dragoon is stalled or non op.
PCF PCd'I and KKE. GO OR NO GO.
>>483617
Move those goalposts harder. Why not wave a magic wand and make England sink into the sea?
>>483648
Yes, OVERLORD failing is highly improbable. Not ASB but up there. And in those circumstances, no go is a joke.
>>483682
And if Overlord fails, the operation that was planned and resourced separately also magically failing for no reason so you can wank about total Soviet victory IS ASB.
Stalin isn't going to give the go order on the basis of an Allied counter thrust in Southern France as opposed to Northern France.
Reminder that Marshall and Montgomery believed that they could achieve total victory by the end of 1944 if Eisenhower stepped the fuck back (Source: The Last 100 Days, 1st edition, pages 26-27).
This Russian hand jobbing needs to stop. The Allies could have steam rolled the Germans in the West and took Berlin well before the Russians if they wanted to.
Overlord could have taken place in mid 1943 if Churchill wasn't so gay for the invasion of Italy. Overlord actually has a greater chance of success because the defenses of Normandy are not yet fully complete.
>>479882
>1,000,000 children, 1870 war veterans, and eastern front cripples Vs. 5 and half million fresh troops.
>because nothing says children and old men like two full SS Panzer Corps and elements of the 2nd Panzer division (in caen alone).
Berlin gets nuked
>>485430
this pretty much
germany losing quickly was for the better
>>484627
>took Berlin well before the Russians
That part is a big maybe. Some of the most advance units were within hours advance of the city, but casualties would have been atrocious. There wouldn't have even been a point to the bloodshed since The Allies had already ceded the territory around Berlin and half the city to the USSR at Yalta.
>>485479
This preceded Yalta and Malta. As I said, Marshall wanted Overlord in 1943.
Even after Yalta, Stalin did not trust Eisenhower or his word (this was covered extensively in Cornelius Ryan's "The Last Battle); he didn't think the Americans were really going to let Berlin go. And he thought, legitimately, that the western Allies had a good chance to still take it even with the Soviets advancing over the Oder and the Americans stopped at the Elbe.
Fact remains, if Eisenhower wasn't a military statesman and more a field commander then the western Allies would have taken complete control of Berlin long before the Soviet's.
Pic related - those M4s in Berlin are Soviet operated. The Soviet war machine's superiority propagated on this board and /pol/ are ludicrous. /k/ has it right - they essentially zerg rushed along the entire Eastern front using a shit ton of M3/M4 tanks, armored trucks, and Jeeps.
>>485603
I never really did much research on Lend-Lease. Did it really have that big of an impact on the Soviet military?
Also, is that a captured StuG following the Shermans?
>>485634
The popular belief is that it did not but that was based off of Soviet reports shortly after the war. Writers took their word and ran with it so it became an accepted fact for decades.
Only after the collapse of the USSR did we realize how important it was. The British were the big players early on, the Americans later. Lend-lease didn't save the Russians or win them the war but it played a vital role in their ability to push back.
>Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised.
>>485634
Oh, and yes, I believe that is a StuG III.
>>485634
>I never really did much research on Lend-Lease. Did it really have that big of an impact on the Soviet military?
Hundreds of thousands of lend lease trucks were the biggest benefit, as the early Soviet trucks were a licensed Ford design from the 1910's. Telephone cable and radios were also significant, as were raw materials.
Lend Lease Shermans didn't arrive until after Stalingrad in '42 or Kursk in '43, but they were generally well liked by the Red Army, and were used by several elite 'Guard' units.
>>485706
>>485603
>Pic related - those M4s in Berlin are Soviet operated.
I have that photo captioned as being in Vienna. Either way, Soviets seemed to have preferred using M4's in urban fighting. The rubber tracks and the M4's clutch were significantly quieter than the T34's steel tracks and engine. Also the 50 cal, used rarely by American tankers, was loved by the Red Army as the troops riding on the tanks could take it when dismounting.
>>485634
Couple books if youre interested.
https://infotomb.com/ovtil.pdf
>>485634
https://infotomb.com/zndvw
>>485984
Thanks friend. Doesn't look too long so I'll read it soon.
>>478185
Allies would have tried again elsewhere. Too much coastline to defend.
>>479813
I like it when people on this board actually use evidence to back up a claim, like you.
Actually feels like this board is almost a serious History board then.
France becomes communist and Franco's Spain joins NATO
"Stalin considered "Overlord" was of great strategic value, "Dragoon" on the other hand simply had "political significance", it was irrelevant, as it had not tied up any troops that could be used else where. The advantage of "Dragoon" to Stalin was the tying down American and French troops in France, which combined with the armies in Italy still bogged down, had left him with a free hand to move the Balkans into the communist sphere of influence."
This is on the wikipedia for Operation Dragoon, but to what extent is it true? Was it just a 'politically significant' move or was it actually vital to ending the war?
What's with all these people saying "France would become communist"?
>>486048
I consider it significant. You go from 1 front in the West (Italy) to 3 in the span of 3 months. The other two being northeast France (Overlord) and the other being south France (Dragoon).
It pushed Army Group G completely back into Germany and that helped the western Allies push through France in about a month.
>>486048
It's complete bollocks. Dragoon netted more German PoWs than Stalingrad.
>>485603
>>484627
I would recommend The Path to Victory, by Douglas Porch.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Path-Victory-Mediterranean-Theater/dp/0374529760
He goes into great detail about the various ins and outs of a 1943 invasion of France vs what was historically done and comes to the opposite conclusion; bear in mind, in the 3 months after Husky, Hitler transferred about 50 divisions to either Italy, Yugoslavia, or Greece (fearing successive invasions that never materialized)
If you go for France in 1943, all those 50ish divisions hit you in much less defensible terrain, and when your air power isn't as overwhelming, meaning they haven't torn down the railroads yet, and can actually move. Maybe it'll work, but it's far from certain, and you're gambling a hell of a lot if you're wrong.
Saying a 1943 Overlord=Western Allies in Berlin is both incredibly optimistic and extremely reductionist.
>>486063
There was bit of a divide in the French Resistance movement between communists and others, and if I remember coorectly the only reason communist cells started working with the Allied planning was when Stalin told them to cooperate.
>>486063
They're starting with the assumption that if Overlord failed, the Western Allies aren't making it onto the European continent outside of Italy.
Therefore, when Germany is defeated, maybe a year later than historically, they're the only people with significant forces north of the Alps and south of the Channel.
I don't agree myself, but that's what they're saying.
>>486180
And where were those divisions.
Full disclosure, I know where they were. I'm just having you put it out for all to analyze and learn.
>>483688
>Stalin isn't going to give the go order on the basis of an Allied counter thrust in Southern France as opposed to Northern France.
He looked askance at OVERLORD already. He is going to look at DRAGOON as if the allies invaded Greece.
The Western parties will be activated over this betrayal.
>>487225
I hope you don't think that the activation of the Western Parties means that they succeed.
It means a lot of dead communists before allied control over France and Italy, and before Soviet control over Greece.
It means a lot of dead communists after allied control over France and Italy, and after Soviet control over Greece.
>>478185
GERMANS KNEW
There was only so much they could do in response.
Fun fact. A fair number of the landing craft landed in the wrong beaches, which was good for them because they weren't expected there.
>>487107
Most of them (About 2/3, IIRC) were transfered from various sectors in the Eastern Front, mostly up in the north where things were relatively quiet.
Almost all of the rest were either brand-new formations, or from formations were rotated back out of frontline service while they accumulated replacements. And I believe there was one divisiion transferred from occupying Norway. (As a total aside, I think sending 14 divisions to guard fucking Norway was Hitler's single dumbest decision, at least on a "what the hell were you thinking?" basis as opposed to overall impact)
>>487225
And historically, DeGaulle purged the communist parties within France after the Allies controlled most of France. If Stalin doesn't reinforce those western parties with real troops, they're going to get squished.
The Soviets made bigger gains during time span of the initial Normandy landings did.
The ensuing French revolt is what made Normandy into the freeing all French action it was.
>>488819
whoops forgot pic
>>488819
>The ensuing French revolt is what made Normandy into the freeing all French action it was.
Are you retarded? The "ensuing French revolt" did fuck-all as an independent action and was only effective insofar as how it supported, mostly through intelligence, the conventional actions from Normandy and Toulon. It was neither necessary nor sufficient for the liberation of France.
>>483602
To be honest, that just paints the Western Allies as pants on head retarded. They could have accomplished that shit in 1943 or 1944 if they had just focused on targets that made sense from a military standpoint.
>>489202
Not that guy, but if you're interested in the air war, I'd recommend Bomber Command by Max Hastings.
>>488821
No shit, Normandy was to establish a beachhead. The Soviets already had a frontline hundreds of miles wide, so when they push it forward they will obviously take a lot more territory.
>>488863
i think he means that the french resistance actions were what spurred the allies into a general and faster liberation of the country (a bit like "oh jeez they are shooting over there better get there ourselves")
and he has a point, at least in case of the capital paris this is in fact the case
>>489267
>i think he means that the french resistance actions were what spurred the allies into a general and faster liberation of the country
Did it really? The Western Allies wanted France liberated on purely strategic grounds. And I think the French resistance becoming more active near D-Day is caused by the invasion, not the other way around; less chance of retribution, and more of a chance of actually doing something significant.
>and he has a point, at least in case of the capital paris this is in fact the case
And had the Allies not been landing in France and mauling the hell out of the German forces stationed there, how many hours do you think the Paris uprising would have lasted?
Patton was still kicking ass down in Italy throughout this time, right?
Why wouldn't the allies just send the troops and ships there?
>>489498
Patton got sidelined after Sicily.
>>489498
1) Patton was hardly "Kicking ass" his record in Husky is decidedly mediocre.
2) Italy is hampered by it's narrow length. Throughout most of the campaign in Italy, the Allies had about 22 divisions committed; the narrow confines make it hard to get more out of the theater, there's just no space to maneuver.
Twice, they did try to hop by sea around the German defenses; the first attempt, early in 1944, became the Anzio debacle, and the second attempt was Dragoon, which turned out quite well.
furthermore, as >>489581 alluded to, Patton was in some personal career trouble after Sicily. The infamous slapping incidents put grave doubts as to his fitness of command, and in late 43, there was a very real possibility of him being forced to resign.
>>489596
My blind patriotism and selective American memory had blinded me.
Thanks for the reply
>>485634
its a su85
>>484627
Ike probably knew about "the device" and wanted to limited the shedding of North American blood as much as possible because victory was never in doubt.
>>488220
yep....Utah.
>>488791
>If Stalin doesn't reinforce those western parties with real troops, they're going to get squished.
KKE would be successful, but would be "relieved" like the Yugoslavs were in a "DRAGOON" only / "DRAGOON" stalled scenario.
PCF are fucked, proper fucked.
PCd'I stand a reasonable chance, but it'd be like Korea.
>>489202
>To be honest, that just paints the Western Allies as pants on head retarded. They could have accomplished that shit in 1943 or 1944 if they had just focused on targets that made sense from a military standpoint.
You're right. But understand that no one had done strategic bombing before. That's part of what made the air war so tragic, a lot of men died as guinea pigs. Some of the costliest raids would turn out to be the least effective; ball bearings factories and u-boat pens.
It wasn't until they started hitting the synthetic oil and chemical plants that they were able to see results in decoded ultra reports. Most industrial factories could be dispersed and hidden throughout the country, the chemical plants were specialized and vulnerable. And the tragic part is that we should have known, American companies had helped build them.
>>489237
>Not that guy, but if you're interested in the air war, I'd recommend Bomber Command by Max Hastings.
'Masters of the Air' is good too. It's the source material they're using to make the third installment of the 'Band of Brothers'/'The Pacific' HBO miniseries. Won't be out till like 2017 though.
>>478236
>blunts bagraton.
Germans didn't even knew where bagraton is going to happen, their intel on the eastern front was completely dysfunctional.
Remember that they've didn't noticed 2500 tanks and 2 millions people in the Kursk area. It's like they've didn't even do aerial reconnaissance or when analysing photos they thought Red Army suffers from chronic, few months long diarrhoea epidemic.
>>492076
>their intel was completely dysfunctional.
ftfy
>or when analysing photos they thought Red Army suffers from chronic, few months long diarrhoea epidemic.
Well we are talking about the red army here.
>>492058
Also to add, the Eighth and Fifteenth air forces also flew ground support mission. In OP's scenario we can assume bombing would have been even more effective without having to allocate resources for ground actions.
>>479813
All those armies weren't worth a dime.
First of all at least one army group would have to stay in France. I mean do you seriously think USA didn't had resources to launch another attack somewhere else(southern France for instance) then you have no clue, secondly...
Let me put it like that.
On the other side of Europe, few millions Germans and allies were fighting and loosing ground to the Red Army.
What kind of soldiers are going to be there in(still relatively peaceful) France? The best of the best or the bottom of the barrel?
They've had several good units, but the good stock went on the eastern front.
Also mind you that by the time D-Day was on, Allies entered Rome. Southern front needed reinforcements ASAP.
The war would took 2 years, 10 million Russians and majority of Europe in USSR hands more. Nothing else would change.
>>492076
Having a reserve of 7 panzer divisions would enable a counter attack to relieve Minsk
>>492112
And leave entire France open to another, this time much "lower effort" allied attack?
Genius.
>>484627
Reminder that Monty thought Market Garden would end the war by Christmas.
>>492110
>All those armies weren't worth a dime.
Sorry to butt in, but how well were those troops equipped? I'd assume junk troops = poorly equipped.
>>478185
The US would try again in a few months. Germany would have even less oil to fight back.
>>492058
It wasn't restricted to strategic bombing. Air power enthusiasts from everywhere in WW2 consistently overstated their impact and underestimated the resilience of their enemies. Chennault claimed that with 500 heavy bombers and fighters to protect them, he could drive the entire Japanese army out of China with no offensive need from the Chinese, Goerring thought he could stop the Dunkirk evacuation, and keep the 6th army in supply through purely luftwaffe actions, and everyone hugely overstated how much damage their tactical air support did.
Dehousing and similar programs were embarked upon the assumption that it would be easy to blow up entire cities and render them inhabitable; and it stuck around because it's very promising to a commander of this newfangled air force thing, if it works, you'd have won the war on your own and obviated the land forces entirely.
Don't forget, a lot of the interwar literature on the projected role of air power, (I'm especially looking at you, Fuller) described air war the way we envision nuclear war today. Fleets of bombers, hard to intercept, certainly in time, blowing up each other's cities until one side crumbles.
>>492217
It might have. Too bad it failed
