D-Day what if

[EmperorSolo51]

With the sucessful invasion of Normandy by the Allies in June 1944 and the Liberation of Paris in July, the war In europe seemed won. The only thing left to do was to invade Germany itself and defeat the Japanese in the pacific. Roosevelt and the Democrats coasted in november to another landslide victory over the Republican candidate and the Texas Regulars.

Now suppose that the Germans via good luck, bad weather, and more decisive action on the part of Hitler, had manged to push the Allies back into the sea, what political fallout would there be in the Churchill and Roosevelt governments. Would a defeat at D-day have given Dewey a chance at victory on Election day? Would the Allies Make peace with the Germans? How would the Societs React? Would Hitler's Generals still plot to have him murdered?

[MKSheppard]

What happens is B-29s start basing from Northern Ireland and
flying against germany, leading up to the day a single B-29 appears
over Berlin

[Montcalm]

What happens is B-29s start basing from Northern Ireland and
flying against germany, leading up to the day a single B-29 appears
over Berlin

Or maybe the Germans control all of Europe including England,the Americans then concentrate on Japan,then the world is split between the USA and whatever name is given to the new Europe.

[EmperorSolo51]

What happens is B-29s start basing from Northern Ireland and
flying against germany, leading up to the day a single B-29 appears
over Berlin

True, but that is still over a year away and the Presidential elections are just around the corner. Plus the British have just gambled away most of thier resources in manpower in this failed gamble to have a beachead in Europe. Churchill will take apounding from both members of his own party and the Labour opposition. There might be even a remote question that Churchill will be forced to call a snap election. If That happens, there could be a chance that the war weary British Public will want an end to the conflict. This may include sacking the Tory government and give the Labour Party a chance to end the conflict.

[MKSheppard]

This may include sacking the Tory government and give the Labour Party a chance to end the conflict.

Then the B-36 gets pushed to front end production, since the B-29
can no longer reach Germany

[Ma Deuce]

I'm not sure if people would blame Churchill and Roosevelt for this failure, or the military officers. It certainly wouldn't have hurt Churchill's political career much in the near term: he lost the '45 election to Clement Atlee (Labour) anyway. Also, Roosevelt was so enormously popular, I doubt even an event like that would cut into his approval rating enough to cost him the '44 election to Dewey.

As for making peace with the Germans, I don't think so: Since your scenario occurs after the Second Battle of France (which effectivly cost the Germans 40 divisions), even if by some fantastic miracle they managed to drive the Allies back after the liberation of Paris, the Red Army would still steamroller them from the east, especially since their military-industrial complex is being systematically bombed to rubble day and night by American and British bombers. It might take a little longer, but I doubt the Germans could last to '46.

Bear in mind of course, that after the France was liberated there is no way in hell the Germans could have pushed the Western allies off the continent again, no matter how skilled and well-led they were. The Second Battle of France was simply too costly for them (catostrophic might be a better term).

[EmperorSolo51]

Actually my scenario takes place where D-day fails not Allies driven out of France after Paris liberated.

[Ma Deuce]

Actually my scenario takes place where D-day fails not Allies driven out of France after Paris liberated.

Hmm, Yes. I misread your opening post.

[EmperorSolo51]

Actually my scenario takes place where D-day fails not Allies driven out of France after Paris liberated.

Hmm, Yes. I misread your opening post.

So, does that change your opinion of my scenario? Can Germans force the allies to the negotiating table? Even If it includes a withdrawl from France or some other concessions?

[Pablo Sanchez]

There wouldn't any peace, the war would continue. It's very possible that there might be a change of government in the USA and UK, and the US might change it's focus towards the Pacific. This wouldn't necessarily make the war there end any faster than it did, however.

Stalin would be most unimpressed by the allied failure, but since Operation Bagration would be opening in the wake of the allied failure and because that plan's success was an inevitability, he wouldn't make a separate peace, either. More likely he would put severe pressure on the Allies diplomatically to give him more concessions, and if Churchill and Roosevelt were replaced then their successor would most likely not be cut from the same cloth and Stalin would find them easier to manipulate.

Eventually the allies would land in France. Whether they would reach a Rhine whose East bank was held by the Soviets is the real question.

[constantine]

There wouldn't any peace, the war would continue. It's very possible that there might be a change of government in the USA and UK, and the US might change it's focus towards the Pacific. This wouldn't necessarily make the war there end any faster than it did, however.

Stalin would be most unimpressed by the allied failure, but since Operation Bagration would be opening in the wake of the allied failure and because that plan's success was an inevitability, he wouldn't make a separate peace, either. More likely he would put severe pressure on the Allies diplomatically to give him more concessions, and if Churchill and Roosevelt were replaced then their successor would most likely not be cut from the same cloth and Stalin would find them easier to manipulate.

Eventually the allies would land in France. Whether they would reach a Rhine whose East bank was held by the Soviets is the real question.

Do you mean, Operation Barbarossa?

[constantine]

What happens is B-29s start basing from Northern Ireland and
flying against germany, leading up to the day a single B-29 appears
over Berlin

Or maybe the Germans control all of Europe including England,the Americans then concentrate on Japan,then the world is split between the USA and whatever name is given to the new Europe.

I'm not convinced the Germans ever really had a chance of ever defeating England. Most especially with aid of U.S. resources and I don't think the U.S. would back away from England in this scenario no matter what the political situation in the U.S. was.

[Skelron]

It's unlikely Churchill would have been overly effected politically, remember that while he was voted out later that was when the War had been won and people where thinking of the future, and of a new direction for Britain.

In fact at this time there is no Labor opposition party it is a coalition government and Atlee is a vital part of the Coalition and a member of the cabinet meaning any fallout from such a hypothetical disaster is shared by both Labour and the Conservatives.

A few Generals would have resigned and there would be a major upheavel in the upper chains of the Military campaign but it is unlikely that peace would be sought, by now it was a do or die situation... The government of the UK would stay in place, maybe a few lesser ministers would be shuffled out of the Cabinet to take the blame or similar but...

[EmperorSolo51]

What happens is B-29s start basing from Northern Ireland and
flying against germany, leading up to the day a single B-29 appears
over Berlin

Or maybe the Germans control all of Europe including England,the Americans then concentrate on Japan,then the world is split between the USA and whatever name is given to the new Europe.

I'm not convinced the Germans ever really had a chance of ever defeating England. Most especially with aid of U.S. resources and I don't think the U.S. would back away from England in this scenario no matter what the political situation in the U.S. was.

It's not so much the US's political situation. It's Britain's I'm far more interested. Britain's military manpower is now spent with D-day failing. The British are tired of the war. This is now the second time that a failed military mission has forced the British to rescue thier comrades in France. "Dunkirk II" Will stick in the minds in the British people and they will demand an end to the war. Churchill will be faced with a serious problems in Parliament and he make be forced to call a snap election. Wether he survives a round of elections held after Dunkrk II, I can not say. But, It will put Pressure on him. Eitherway the allies won't be conducting an invasion anytime soon.

Meanwhile In Germany Hitler can now send forces west to fights the Soviets. Without the Second front in Europe, The Germans could concentrate on a defense against Operation Bagaration and even stop the offensive from Suceeding. I would put it past Hitler to begin using his WunderWaffen (V-1 and V-2) against the Soviet forces in the defemse of German ground in Beylorussia and Lithuania and the Ukraine.

[Skelron]

Why do you think the British people would be hunting for an end to the War or would have been sick of it by then? Even assuming a loss in France for the second time Britain is very different than it was at the start of the war. It's completly dedicated itself now to the War, and has already made huge lasting sacrifaces for the war effort, people will be more likely to want to see those sacrifaces pay off.

Added to that is that the war is still looking very different, in Russia Germany has been stopped, Britain itself is secure, it's invasion may have failed, but is still going to be obvious that the war is winnable and will be won, people will be against another Invasion of France, but may be convinced of taking a different route in, perhaps prompting an earlier assult on Italy and using that back door in.

Overall the D-Day landings where always going to be a risk, and if it where as big a risk politically and to the future of the war effort the attack would not have occured, military it was a risk politically it is unlikely, I cannot imagine Churchill or any General taking a Gamble with the entire War effort!

[Skelron]

Also I may have to check this but I believe that Elections had been cancelled for the Duration of the war effort. This was achieved if I am correct by creating a National Coalition and bringing over the parties. After VE day the emergency was viewed as having been passed and Elections where held. THATS when Churchil was voted out, but on domestic issues never the War.

[Sea Skimmer]

Overlord couldn't fail in a remotely realistic scenario. But letting that go, without question it's going to soak up all available German forces in France and a great deal of supplies. But what people here doesn't seem to be aware of is Operation Anvil, the invasion of Southern France scheduled for August 15th. That date could be moved up if necessary, and a great many forces could be shifted from the Channel to the Mediterranean in that time anyway.

Meanwhile the entire south of France had just eight defending divisions, only one a first class unit. The rest of the German army is going to be busy trying to find a way out of Normandy as about six thousand medium and heavy bombers make a habit out of trapping it via destroying every bridge in the area. Such efforts before the invasion had to be limited in scope, because of the need to keep the area of the invasion secret (twice as many sorties where flown over the area around and behind Calais pre invasion)

The exploitation of the Anvil attack will be much slower then historical and then the drive across France, but the ports of the Atlantic coast can be rolled up given some time and the fall of Germany in 1945 is still quite assured. The Soviets alone will see to that.

The political fallout will be immense, but you can't call off a war over something like this. Allied losses by there very nature will have to be on the low side compared to the scale of the operation, if a really large number of troops get ashore then the invasion will succeed. Really it would need to be a "the first wave is all dead because six panzer divisions showed up magically" fuck the invasion senario.

[Skelron]

Actually Overlord was seen as a Gamble, Eisenhower had his resignation letter pre-Written if it failed. Churchill noted how much of a Gamble it was, it could all have gone pear shaped. What won it was the mis-directing they had done, and likely those Mulberry Harbours and other specially invented tools and weapons...

But it was never inevitable it was a Gamble from the start but one that paid dividends.

[Howedar]

By all means, present evidence for this assertion.

[Patrick Degan]

Overlord could quite conceivably have failed if VonRunstedt had been able to rush the Panzers into action at his discretion instead of having to wait for Hitler's approval. However, the only difference it would have made in the long run was the exact date Germany would fall and to whom. They did not have the resources or the manpower to fight a war on two fronts and time for developing the Wonder Weapons had largely run out.

Nor would the British have given up the war simply because of Overlord's failure —too many had died and the British were out for blood. It would not have stopped the American war effort nor endangered FDR politically. As has been pointed out, Operation Anvil was already in progress and the Soviets would still have invaded, and the Nazis still have their same problems with limited manpower and logistics.

[phongn]

Even if Runstedt could get his tanks up, I'm not so sure if they could stop the invasion -- they'd face the guns of the Allied fleet performing shore bombardment and the German experience at Salerno wasn't too good, either -- and there were far fewer ships there.

Otherwise, assuming that D-Day somehow fails, I mostly agree with the above poins.

[Skelron]

By all means, present evidence for this assertion.

Well I would hate to spend to long on it, so all I will say is that a carefgul watching of oh about ten minutes of TV over the past few days. (All I have actually really managed to get due to my Sisters wedding) would show the BBC, and SKY news making these assertions.

Then of course there was my complementary Paper Sunday Morning (The Observer) which also made the same observations about Eisenhower and his pre-Written letter of resignation. If you like I will later on today go get the Paper from my bag, unfortunatly at the MOMENT people are sleeping where the bag is, but when they awaken I shall go and get the paper and quote the entire article to you.

[Sea Skimmer]

Overlord could quite conceivably have failed if VonRunstedt had been able to rush the Panzers into action at his discretion instead of having to wait for Hitler's approval.

It still pretty unlikely that most of the divisions could arrive in time, and Salerno and the later historical armored counter attacks at Normandy showed with naval gunfire does to tanks. Heck the attacks at Salerno where mostly broken up by a couple six inch cruisers, there's only about fifteen of those off Normandy besides the other cruisers and relays of battleships ( operating without nearly the same danger from air attacks). The airborne forces would be very badly cut up though.