Would the Nazies have been able to repell the invasion forces of of D-Day if they acted quickly and with panzers? or was the allied air supremacy too much to bear???
I believe that the naval and air supremacy would have allowed the allies to successfully assault the beaches.
I think the question should be more like what if all beaches had been fortified like the one the american landed on. Like Rommel advised. Most probably D-Day would have failed even with all the air and naval support.
Now the other question is:was D-Day necessary? Other then making sure the Russian wouldn’t control all Continental Europe. In June 44 was Germany in any kind of position where they could hold the Russian and Italian offensive much longuer. Would funnelling all these troops via the med and attack Germany by the south while slower leaded to less casualty on the allied side.
If they had moved the tanks at the earliest time possible, yes, the Allied invasion would have failed. It almost failed anyway, but air power kept it alive.
The operation wasn’t necessary –- it did shorten the war, however. But, if they don’t take back France, I’m willing to bet Russia doesn’t stop with conquering Germany…
NUB exactly my point, sometimes I wonder if the whole D-Day operation was more political than strategic.
The only difference it would really makes is that the people who died on those beaches, did it to defeat the Communist instead of the Fashist not big of a difference at that time if you ask me.
Even with a quick reaction, I think the allies would have pulled off a successful invasion. Heavy panzers were no match against air superiority. And I think the operation was worth it, to win WWII and to keep the Russians at bay…
" It almost failed anyway, but air power kept it alive. "
It didnt even come close to failing, they expected to win with around 60% casualties, but ended up with only 10-20%.
anyone got the exact numbers?
FDR and esp. Truman’s treatment of Manchuria, where Stalin was invited in do not support that Russia was considered a threat… Maybe Rus influence was only a concern in the West. They must have known that the Japanese steel industries there would have been key in the civil war to follow in China.
The history books show that Stalin opened the Russian controlled Manchurian territory only to Mao and the red China commies. Stalin also gave the Maoists heavy weapons from the Japs that surrendered. Enough to hold off Chiang Kai Shek and the KMT until they weakened under corruptive forces. The industrial advantage was then used to build up arms for the military victories that collapsed the KMT.
I voted Dunkirk 2 with the stipulation that Rommel had a free hand during the landings. I think he could have pushed us back into the sea. Now, the question is would it be a dunkirk 2? Only if we were lucky. Merely stopping an invasion was not the sole goal of Germany, more not allowing another dunkirk to happen. IF (and only if) the bulk of the landing forces was either taken prisoner or destroyed there is a chance it could have altered the outcome of the war. I don’t believe that Britian and the US would have made a seperate peace, but I do think that for quite a long time there would be virtualy no threat on the western front. Thus, troops get transfered to the eastern front. The new influx of troops may have stabalized the front. I think this would only have been possible if Generals like Rommel, Kesserling, Manstien, and Guadarian had a free hand instead of having to answer to corpral Hitler.
Even a longer war could have had drastic changes in the outcome. Imagine fleets of ME262s stopping the air war over Germany while Britian gets battered senseless from V-2 rockets. The type 9 subs that were equipped with snorkels were a harrasment to the allies. Imagine if they would have come out in force? Would have been like 1940 all over again. Not to mention the Germans were very close to having surface to air missles. And, it can be speculated that the manhattan project would not have recieved as much financing if the allies lost huge on D-day (resources would have been needed to replace losses).
I think D-day was vital I have heard from somewhere that the Germans were actually very close to being able to use nuclear weapons, if there was no D-day the war may have lasted long enough for a possible nuclear war (BAD)
But then again im not sure i have my facts straight.
The Germans were somewhat close in getting nuclear tech, but they were using heavy water and didn’t have enough of it at the time in to actually create one. At the same time, there was lots of sabatoge going on and once the Allies found out about the possibliity of a German Nuke, they realized the Nazis were years away from actually developing one. For more info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons, then scroll down to Nazi Germany.
The Russian steamroller would have ground Germany to pieces by 1946 at the latest. Having said that, if the Germans had unleashed the Panzers it may have been a different story in Normandy… the key is that the political pressures of the day (Stalin REALLY wanted that second front opened and not just against Italy) dictated the policy. Allied air supremacy towards the end of the war was just too much for Germany.
If anyone has not yet read Third Reich Victorious, it’s a highly entertaining collection of scenarios. Some are rather far-fetched (such as the scenario where Hitler becomes enamored with the Navy during WWI), but there are also scenarios such as an armistice following a D-Day disaster, and an invasion through the Turkish Caucasus.
I have all his books! I think thats Peter Tsonkas (sp?) Its ok to speculate about these things… I think they gave different authors a seperate section if i remember.
Is the book Hitler Victorious in the same line? It sounds like it would be…
I found D-Day to be necessary. Strategically and politically.
