DU Historians- What Would Have Happened If The Allies Were Stopped At Normandy?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

The only thing I liked about McBastard was his story about Ike writing two letters; one if the Allies failed and one if they succeded...

[Captain Hilts]

1. George C. Marshall would have resigned, not Eisenhower.

Marshall had a streak of integrity a mile long. Eisenhower was acting on Marshall's orders. Marshall had supported the invasion of France at all summit meatings.

It's interesting to read about the political lead up to the invasion. Washington got very tense. FDR went to Charlottsville to spend a night at the house of his military aide-Gen. Watson. Eleanor just wore out the carpet running around in circles back at the White House fretting about it.

The night of the invasion FDR went to bed and fell asleep - amazing - so, when the first reports came in at 3am, Marshall called the White House and was put through to Eleanor, who the operator knew was up. She went and woke FDR and the rest is history.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Know The Canadians Tried To Mount An Invasion At Dieppe And Were Slaughtered

But would being repelled at Normandy have done to the war effort...

[Captain Hilts]

8. That was Churchill's idea. He'd fight down to the last North American...

as the joke goes. And it was Canadians that were captured in huge numbers in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Churchill was batshit crazy.

FDR was an egotistical bastard, but at least he knew it was a good idea to trust Marshall.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. It's Funny

I had two friends from Northern Ireland, both Catholic; one had no problem with the British, traveled widely through England , and saw the conflict as a misunderstanding with both sides to blame...He gave me the most unbiased account of Bloody Sunday...My other friend hated the British with a passion and used the disaster at Dieppe as further proof of their perfidy...

[Ikonoklast]

40. Churchill also was the impetus behind Gallipoli

Another disaster.

Getting Colonials slaughtered was never a problem for Churchill.

[Oak2004]

39. A raid, not an invasion.

A horrible, badly thought out, should-never-have-been-done, raid.

[martymar64]

2. The war would've gone on for a few more years

We would still win, but it would take longer. By that time, the Red Army already had the momentum and with the relief of pressure of a Western Front, Hitler could've turned more forces towards the Soviets, slowing them down. But in the end, with US industrial power, we'd attempt another invasion and would've likely succeeded.

[Captain Hilts]

3. It was only a matter of time. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

5. The Russians would have liberated Paris.

The Soviet Army was handily crushing the German Army from the east, rolling back decimated remnents of entire armies on the eastern front at the time we launched our invasion in the west.

[Rageneau]

6. IMHO, had the allies failed on D-Day, it would have taken the Russians another year to win the war.

With our cash and materials help, Russia would eventually have captured Berlin just as they actually did. but without the allies keeping almost a third of the German Army busy, it would have taken them about a year longer.

[Captain Hilts]

10. I think we would have directed units destined for the Pacific to Europe...

Japan was on the run after Midway after all and folks in DC knew it.

[baldguy]

7. Then Prescott Bush would have got his wish 60 yrs earlier.

[CitizenLeft]

9. I think I read an AP factcheck (or was it yahoo?) stating that...

...Ike never wrote a "resign" letter. Can't prove that without a link... I'll try to find it.

As to the "what if" question - it was such a massive invasion that it's hard to imagine... but I'd think they'd regroup, and try again, possibly up the boot of Italy, from North Africa (be hard to hide that one, LOL), or maybe further north, like Antwerp or Rotterdam, though I don't know how friendly that terrain would be for an invasion. Since Russia was advancing from the East, eventually it would've succeeded.

Before anybody skewers me, I'm only an amateur historian, at best! :)

[Captain Hilts]

11. No, I don't think he offered to resign, just to take blame. It wasn't up to him to make that ....

decision.

Hell, George C. Marshall wouldn't let him divorce Mamie either!

[CitizenLeft]

13. I'm sorry, whoever replied to me, I have you on "ignore"

Since I'm sure we can discuss this without any primary-like wedges mucking up the discussion :), I'd like to know what you said. Who posted to me? :hi:

[Captain Hilts]

17. Sorry! I don't deal with close-minded folks!

I have no one on ignore.

[CitizenLeft]

25. I didn't have you on ignore because I'm close-minded...

I had you on ignore because you can't resist insulting people. :) Apparently.

Nevertheless... I agree with you. I posted that link below.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Maybe You Should Take That Person Off Ignore Since We Are All On The Same Side Now

We are all Democrats today...

[FrenchieCat]

21. Yep....here's the thread about it!

McCains Huge Military History Debate Flub
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7217087&mesg_id=7217087

[CitizenLeft]

27. oh, I hadn't read that thread...

Thanks Frenchie! :hi:

[hlthe2b]

12. I believe KO pointed out that the part about Ike resigning was a

LIE!

[CitizenLeft]

19. found it... here's the link & text:

LINK

MCCAIN: Said the country has lost the sense of accountability exemplified by Allied commander Dwight Eisenhower on the eve of D-Day. He said Eisenhower wrote one letter to be released in the event of victory, which praised the troops, "and he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy."

THE FACTS: Eisenhower prepared to take responsibility in the note to be delivered in the event of D-Day disaster but did not offer to resign.

The full text:

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Le Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."

[sniffa]

14. I don't think too much

The war may have lasted longer, but not years as some suggest. Germany was running low on manpower, weapons, and oil.

The invasion of France was the foolish route to go (guaranteeing massive loss of life for the Allies) as the, "soft under-belly strategy" would have led to less casualties and possibly ended the war quicker.

[JustAnotherGen]

15. Maybe we would have

Pushed up from the South. While soldiers landed at Normandy - they were also pushing in from the South. It's fairly well repaired there today so you don't see as much when your in those towns. But from a boat going along the coastline you can see the pockmarks left on the landscape. Probably would have taken much longer. . . but I think we still would have been able to push up from the South with the help of the Resistance in Operation Anvil and the ;-) "Champagne Campaign".

[Coexist]

16. you might want to read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7217087&mesg_id=7217087

[JustAnotherGen]

23. Thanks

I missed that . . .

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. McCain's point was a lie...

big surprise. Ike wrote a letter accepting all responsibility for failure.

Think about it for a moment. At a time like that to have the Supreme Allied Commander resign? It would have been a friggin' disaster heaping upon a disaster.

[Captain Hilts]

24. And George C. Marshall would not have permitted him to resign. nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. And Roosevelt wouldn't have accepted it.

McCain, as usual, takes the wrong lesson from his mis-remembered history.

For Ike to have resigned in embarrassment would have been an incredibly wrong-headed decision. But McCain takes that has him model for leadership.

Leaders don't panic. They don't throw temper tantrums. They don't fire everybody in the room.

McCain's shoot-first-ask-questions-later style is exactly the type of leadership we DON'T NEED.

[Captain Hilts]

32. That's exactly right, JiM. McCain is to erratic and unpredictable.

FDR, Eisenhower, Marshall and Obama are not.

[RagAss]

22. Interesting question, Comrade.

;-)

[Captain Hilts]

26. The Red Army would have killed 80% of all Germans killed rather than 75%. nt

[x-g.o.p.er]

29. Germany would have been able to

divert forces from France over to the Eastern Front, and with the infusion of airplanes, tanks, and men, would have slowed the Russian advance. That extra time might have allowed the Germans to develop some super-weapons (ME-262) in greater numbers that could have brought the war to a stalemate.

A war weary public in both England and the US might have said enough and decided to sue for peace, because by early 1945 America was ready for the war to end. Had there been no end in sight...

Tough to say, though.

[gypsylud]

30. Well I think we were already pushing up through Italy

but the war would have taken longer. Russia would have swallowed some more territory.

[Bucky]

33. Following a failure at Normandy, Ike would've been canned (he didn't actually offer to resign)

A more intensive bombing campaign in France and Germany would have been needed, something close to Vietnam War level bombing. Then, almost certainly, another amphibeous assault would take place under a different Saceur (Montgomery or Bradley). My guess is they'd have it in place before October--and therefor have to land further east (perhaps between Friesland and Denmark on the German coast) or in the south of France (an invasion that was already in the works).

If they'd waited long enough, Stalin's advances in the East would eventually force Hitler to shift more troops to that front and subsequent invasions would meet less organized resistance.

One thing Ike is fairly criticized for is moving too slowly across France in late 1944--his so called "wide front" strategy that almost reinacted WW1 rather than use the blitzkrieg tactics that Patton and Montgomery wanted. The Germans were stunned by D-Day's success and only regrouped in July '44 because Ike slowed down so as not to be seen favoring either British or American commanders. It's very possible that a second D-Day would have gone with a more blitzy assault and put Allied troops in Germany sooner than what historically happened. But the Germans would've been more prepared for such an assault and the death toll would have been much higher.

[Captain Hilts]

36. FDR just about NEVER fired anybody.

US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt is the exception, and that was for personal reasons.

One of his valets fell asleep on duty and had to be fired. He had Eleanor do it and told her to wait until he was out of town to do so.

Being a total egotist, FDR saw attacks on his cabinet, subordinates and Eleanor as attacks on himself. Firing Eisenhower would have been an admission of failure, which was not part of FDR's vocabulary, even when he failed.

I hadn't thought of the analogy with WWI with our widespread attack in late '44.

I just found my grandfather's WWI diary from combat in France in 1916.

[Okie4Obama]

34. All of Germany would have been behind the Iron Curtain.

I doubt Stalin would have been able to claim France, even if the Soviets liberated Paris, because of de Gaulle and the Free French Forces. Germany however would have been completely a Soviet satellite. We didn't lose anything to Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam, we were just acknowledging what the Red Army had already won.

[rainbow4321]

35. Too bad for Mclame that military historians are already saying he was wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7219775&mesg_id=7219775

[krispos42]

37. We would have nuked Berlin 14 months later.

We would have pushed up the Italian Peninsula.

We probably would have regrouped and re-armed for a 2nd attempt in August or whatever. The buildup in England for the invasion was not about getting a beach-holding force in place, it was getting the troops and logistics set up for the invasion and occupation of the European continent. Those resources would still be in place and waiting while the attacking force was re-assembled.

It would be hard, though. The 101st and 82nd would have been decimated and a lot of transport would have been destroyed.

But the strategic air campaign by the 8th Air Force would have continued unabated.

However, with more troops and air support to send to the Eastern Front against the Russians, and with all of France to draw supplies and labor from, Hitler might have been able to grind the Russians to a halt. A stalemate on the Eastern Front while the US and UK rebuilt an invasion force on the Western Front would have given Hitler time to play politics and public opinion to his advantage.



By the time our atomic bombs were ready, though, the war would not be resolved. If we had to wait a year (until 1945) to invade Europe, we probably would have launched the invasion hours after dropping Little Boy on Berlin or Frankfurt or on the German High Command. With strategic coordination lost and the Germans reeling from use absolute destruction of Berlin (or whatever) both the Russians and the US/UK would have swept inwards quickly. And if Germany did not surrender immediately, we would have dropped another bomb. And another. I believe we had three ready to go in August of 1945.


The post-WWII world would be different, though. Likely Western Europe would be a lot smaller simply because the Russians would have wound up occupying much more of Europe when the war ended and the borders stabilized.

[RollWithIt]

38. In the long run, it would have delayed the inevitable by 1 year tops....

Germany at that point was a shell of its former self. They'd already lost North Africa, struggling in Italy, and being overwhelmed on the Eastern front by the Russians.