PDA

View Full Version : If we would have failed ...



woofiedog
06-01-2005, 02:02 AM
A fictional story about what might have happened if the D-Day Invasion had failed.

Written by Stephen Abbott,

If we would have failed on Omaha Beach and on the other beaches on the 6th of June in 1944, the struggle for Europe would have been a struggle between Hitler and Stalin, and we would have been out of it."

link: http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/AH1944b.htm

woofiedog
06-01-2005, 02:02 AM
A fictional story about what might have happened if the D-Day Invasion had failed.

Written by Stephen Abbott,

If we would have failed on Omaha Beach and on the other beaches on the 6th of June in 1944, the struggle for Europe would have been a struggle between Hitler and Stalin, and we would have been out of it."

link: http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/AH1944b.htm

tigertalon
06-01-2005, 02:34 AM
Nice read, thnx. Scarry...

woofiedog
06-01-2005, 02:40 AM
I agree that it would be Very Scary outcome to WW2. Maybe not quite the way the Author writes it. But still with a different and possible Sad ending to the war.

HotelBushranger
06-01-2005, 02:53 AM
I think we should all be happy with the outcome as it is. I shudder to think of the million's of other possibilities that could have happened, with D-Day failing, Stalin the new Hitler etc.

Big_Bad_Wulf
06-01-2005, 02:59 AM
ROFL: Impossible!
In 1944 Germany had enough troops to conquer Moscow? Never! Germany was already beaten. They hadn´t the man power to fight even a single front war. Do you remember kids and grandpas? No well trained new pilots. The best planes(Me 262) are useless with noobs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
DOn`t forget the nuclear bomb.
The british people never capitulate!
After BOB Germany was no real threat.
No free nation would allow, that concentration camps exists.
I think the author made a strange scenario. He forgot many aspects.

Thank god, that Germany lost the war!

I am german, sorry for misspelling.

arcadeace
06-01-2005, 03:04 AM
There are too many what-ifs for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually I've always thought if the Allies were stopped on the first assault wave we would've regrouped, with much increased sea and air bombardment, and gone at it again, and again if necessary. We had amassed too much men, weaponry and supplies to call it quits. And I can't imagine the Germans sending thousands of ships and planes to their graves even if they knew where we were coming.

But there's no question fate was on our side. If a number of events occured in which Germany played it smarter, this could be a different world now.

flakwagen
06-01-2005, 03:37 AM
The Germans doomed themselves to failure when they decided to attack Russia. Some people think Russia would've attacked Germany first if Hitler hadn't gone ahead and initiated the fight. They might be right. Today it is chiefly a matter of concern to the 'what-if' day dreamers.

Years ago I read a neat murder mystery novel, The Fatherland by Robert Harris. It suggests that the Germans might have won if Hitler had been incapacitated by a severe injury in 1942. This, according to Harris' book, would've allowed OKW to run the war the 'proper' way while their inept "no retreat at any cost" leader was doped up in a hospital bed.

It isn't a typical fluffy-summer-reading murder mystery novel. Harris put a lot of effort into conjecturing what a post-war victorious Germany might be like for the average Reich citizen.

Flak

tigertalon
06-01-2005, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
The Germans doomed themselves to failure when they decided to attack Russia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before they defeated Great Britain and after Yugoslavia turned back on him (thus delaying him for more than a month), agreed.

Anyway, if Germans won BOB (and they would if they used drop tanks on 109Es IMO), and if Yugoslavia stayed progerman, Hitler would most likely defeat Russia - he would have been fighting only one front, plus he would start in the middle of May, not June 22, so having more than one month more than what he actualy had till autumn mud and winter cold.

I know many ifs again...

Hofer_
06-01-2005, 04:12 AM
Alternate histories are always an interesting read, this is no exception.

I think the author makes a couple of big assumptions though.
I agree with Arcadeace - I don't think the Western Allies would of quit so easily, plus the Allied bomber offensive would of continued to be a major factor imo.

Also, I can't believe Hitler could of beaten the Soviet Union as he decribes, even in a single front war.

By the way, Flakwagen....I've read 'Fatherland' by Robert Harris. Agree it's an excellent book, portrays a very 'realistic' vision of what it might of been like.

JamesBlonde888
06-01-2005, 04:41 AM
Well their still would have been an Eighth AF and the Ploesti raids and those on Leuna which crippled German fuel production and lost them the war IMO. The Russki's would have had a slightly harder time perhaps but I can't see a reverse in 1944. No way...

John_Stag
06-01-2005, 05:14 AM
The first atomic bombs were intended for Germany; If there'd been any real delay in the Allied victory, say six months, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would just be other cites on a map. I doubt Hitler would have lasted long if the bloody loonie insisted on fighting on after Berlin, Hamburg or Dresden became a big glass puddle.

Hastatus
06-01-2005, 05:31 AM
The Allied bombing offensive (USAAF and RAF)would not have stopped Germany by itself, but it would have continued to play a role in Germanys defeat even after a failed Normandy invasion.

Had Normandy failed, the Soviets still would have defeated Germany (your talking mid 1944 here), and perhaps the Allies would have "tried again", maybe at Pas De Calais, or the Balkans,or even Norway, but it would have been in the spring of 1945 at the earliest (weather), by which time the Russians would be in Germany proper.

Germany could not just "ignore the west" after a failed Normandy invasion, and the Allies still possessed powerfull military forces (especially naval and air) so it still would have been a "two front war". I also dont see Italy mentioned, which the Allies were gradually advancing up through.

Germany was in no condition to beat the Russians in the summer of 1944, or afterwards. They were doomed, sooner or later, despite their fighting skill and tenacity.

Total war with the USSR, the USA, Britain and the Commonwealth on two fronts was not a winnable proposition for Germany (or Japan) after 1943.

Imho the end result would have been the same, but Russia would have had all of Germany occupied at wars end.

As for the Atomic bomb, it might have been used, but again, it might also have not. It wasnt ready untill the summer of 1945.


********************************************

As for the story in the link, it completely ignores the strategic situation in the East, both in terms of military units and manpower, and industrial output. Suggesting that the Allies accept a truce with a Germany they know will lose the war anyways is bizarre. The entire thing is more amusing than serious. Its not written by somebody with a grasp of the second world war.

Case in point, it presumes that the Allies have a crystal ball that sees a year ahead of time to Japans surrender in August of 1945. Thats total bunk. The US was very mindfull that it would very likely have to invade Japan with ground forces and take huge casualties doing so. The US wanted the Russians help in the war on Japan for that reason. I wonder how the Russains would have taken that request if the Allies told them "we just made a seperate peace with Germany....so have a nice day"? Its ludicrous.

major_setback
06-01-2005, 06:40 AM
This is about the BoB really, but I think that it's still appropriate:

... "if we fail, the whole world, including the Unites States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science"... (Churchill in his speech on June 18, 1940)

Von_Zero
06-01-2005, 06:57 AM
In the mid 1944 the war was already lost, no matter what would have happened.
IMHO, Germany l;ost the war the moment they diverted from the objectives that could have forced btritain to surender or atleast ask for peace. Even without invading britain (the preaprations for SeeLowe, were superficial anyway, the german didn't think about the landing on the british islands to be more difficult than forcing a river crossing), constant aerial attacks might have forced Churchill to be more open to negotiations. Having Britain neutralised, let's say until mid 1941 the most, Invading the Soviet Unian wouldn't have been SUCH a difficult issue. Aldough, if Hitler would have continued to be stubborn and ignore his HQ, the possible failure in russia would be more than a possibility.
just my .02c, we can waste all day writing stories, thinking about "what if", but nothing will change......

Hastatus
06-01-2005, 07:16 AM
Its true, any battle in history can be "what iffed" to death (see the endless posts on the BoB)...it really doesnt mean anything.

...I do think however that some western authors tend to over emphasise Normandy and downplay the Eastern Front. WW2 victory did not hinge on Omaha beach solely. That being said I take nothing away from the Allied efforts on that day, or in any other endevour. It did matter, and it did shorten the war.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-01-2005, 07:27 AM
I read a thrilling scenario once, with Germany being successfull in the BattleOfBritain and the following invasion. The US never joined the war with Germany, so the Hitler was able to concentrate on the Eastern front from 1943 on.

If the landing in '44 hadn't been successfull, it would just have lengthened the war, maybe becoming a nuclear war, but I doubt the Nazis would have succeeded with their plans considering the situation on all fronts in '44. That's very theoretical, IMHO.

VW-IceFire
06-01-2005, 08:03 AM
My feeling is that if D-Day failed...the Allies would have to regroup and try it again. OR focus on the Italian front or possibly continue the invasion of southern France to break the Germans in that way. The Allies had a number of routes of opening up a second front against the German army and I doubt Germany had the werewithall to stop all of those efforts.

If things got really bad...as suggested, the B-29 and possibly the atomic bomb would come into play. Unlike the B-17, I feel the B-29 would have broken the Luftwaffes capability to intercept bombers...not without loss, but by stretching it to its absolute maximum.

jensenpark
06-01-2005, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
The Germans doomed themselves to failure when they decided to attack Russia. Some people think Russia would've attacked Germany first if Hitler hadn't gone ahead and initiated the fight. They might be right. Today it is chiefly a matter of concern to the 'what-if' day dreamers.

Flakwagen: this is an excellent book. Read it a while back. Highly recommended.

I always love the whole 'what if' scenerio.
My favourite is what if Britain/France hadn't declared war on Sept 3 - and Germany had taken Poland and eventually only invaded east - leaving the western democracies alone.

Thoughts anyone?

Years ago I read a neat murder mystery novel, The Fatherland by Robert Harris. It suggests that the Germans might have won if Hitler had been incapacitated by a severe injury in 1942. This, according to Harris' book, would've allowed OKW to run the war the 'proper' way while their inept "no retreat at any cost" leader was doped up in a hospital bed.

It isn't a typical fluffy-summer-reading murder mystery novel. Harris put a lot of effort into conjecturing what a post-war victorious Germany might be like for the average Reich citizen.

Flak </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aimosika
06-01-2005, 02:38 PM
What do you mean? We DID fail because we could not stop the allies at Normandy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt._Tenneal
06-01-2005, 02:44 PM
I know the "failed D-day" is a popular what-if topic, but let's look at it another way. Instead of a failed D-day, what if the Dieppe landings succeeded and the Western Allies had been on the continent in 1942 -- well before the Soviets entered German territory ?

John_Stag
06-01-2005, 04:49 PM
Dieppe was not intended to be a real invasion, but it was supposed to examine the possibilites of a full-scale effort. After achieving their objectives the Dieppe force was supposed to withdraw in good order back to the beaches and the UK.

But what if the landings at Dieppe, which were made without the assistance of specialised armour or preperation by special forces were successful?

Hitler's forces would have been given a shock, which would have been dissected, and shortcomings rectified.

On the other side the Allies may have been emboldened by their success, and just gone ahead and planned "Dieppe II" as their invasion strategy.

Consider the probable outcome.

blakduk
06-01-2005, 07:07 PM
Interesting read, but the old problem of "what if's" rises yet again. Each change creates a multitude of alternate outcomes so the end result is entirely unpredictable.
The good thing about them is they help illustrate that victory wasn't preordained, that it was a very hard, dangerous, costly war that could have been lost.
Even to the very end soldiers, sailors, pilots, and civilians were being killed (and a lot died after the war officially ended as well)

JunkoIfurita
06-01-2005, 07:16 PM
Phillip K ****'s 'Man in the High Castle' is still the best alternate post-WWII history out there.

If you haven't read it yet, pick up a copy.

----

HotelBushranger
06-02-2005, 05:38 AM
Years ago I read a neat murder mystery novel, The Fatherland by Robert Harris. It suggests that the Germans might have won if Hitler had been incapacitated by a severe injury in 1942. This, according to Harris' book, would've allowed OKW to run the war the 'proper' way while their inept "no retreat at any cost" leader was doped up in a hospital bed.

Yes! I've read that!

One of my most favourite books of all time, along with Archangel by Harris yet again. This time, Archangel involves a hidden son of Stalin...

But the scenario for Fatherland is very beleivable and was enjoying to read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HoldSteady641
06-02-2005, 10:13 AM
I think it's a load of ****.. The assumptions are preposterous. 1st of all, DDay was NOT THE pivotal point of the war. That where the successive hits Germany got in Russia: 1st the winter offensive following the siege of moscow, it severley hit the german wehrmacht and luftwaffe, hollowing out a lot of hardy, willing veterans. 2nd, Stalingrad, THE MOST IMPORTANT pivotal moment if there is one. Perhaps not only Stalingrad itself, but the complete surrender of Army group south, decisive losses which could not beundone by counteroffensives like operation blue (Kursk). The germans had allready lost, they just didn't knew it. This, together with 2 fronts in africa, bleeding away recources, a standing war/thread from England and the airwar, bitzing away in Germany was a whole lot ON TOP OF WHICH DDay was A pivotal point, a blow which was actually the execution of Germany as a militaitry might in Europe. Do not get me wrong. It was of the upmost importance and Europe and the world owe a lot of gratitude to these efforts and offers, I'm merely commenting on the article, practically stating Germany was still winning when dday began. Which is not true. It was not defeated, but still slowly losing, from january 1943 on (and not from june '44!).

What is more, the article waves away the air superiority by stating it could be countered by the amassing of AAA in the area. LOL
What is that supposed to mean? Apart from that it is a total piece of ****: Every cannon was accounted for and others needed at the eastern front! Every transport of anything heavy had to be done in nighttime, or they were strafed off the road. Dont be ridiculous. There had to be 10 times more allied airplanes than german AAA, not counting rocks. And they were certainly not hindered by AAA.

No, sorry, I like fiction, but this is fantasy.

Vipez-
06-03-2005, 01:35 AM
"16 July 1945 Leningrad falls to German and Finnish forces. "


That is interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Finns capturing leningrad..

AerialTarget
06-03-2005, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big_Bad_Wulf:
No free nation would allow, that concentration camps exists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Israel states that Churchill was aware of the concentration camps, but when begged to bomb them by German Jews who had escaped, refused because they were not military targets.

Three years after the war was over, Britain was aiding the Arabic enemies of the newly reformed Israel.

Free nations did allow concentration camps to exist.

JunkoIfurita
06-03-2005, 02:49 AM
Uh, I don't know if it's occurred to you - but whether or not the Allies knew about the concentration camps or not is irrelevant.

Bombing the concentration camps would have killed many, many more interred Jews than would have been at all justifiable - not to mention not too many soldiers (they didn't need large staffs), and they didn't have such exclusive facilities that they couldn't be easily built again elsewhere.

After all, an oven isn't a high tech device http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

----

Hastatus
06-03-2005, 09:48 AM
A touchy subject, as always.

No nation went to war with Germany over the plight of the jews, that is a fact. That being said, the Allies were mindfull that only unconditional surrender of Germany would bring about an end to their plight.

As for bombing the camps, well, I think in the final analysis bombing the camps could have saved many jews from being killed. The arguement over collateral damage needs to be compared to the scale of the killing in those camps. It would have taken some effort to rebuild the camps (they dont just pop up overnight), and bombing them would also have signalled to Germany the Allied awareness for what was happening there. You can make a case for bombing, that in hindsight does not seem unreasonable.

As for Churchill, he knew about them, as did Roosovelt, and Stalin, and the leadership of the Allied militaries. As for the true extent of the Final Solution, I dont know that that was really uncovered fully untill war's end.

In the end it was decided that the best course of action was to bring the war to a swift close. The same decision was made regarding the starving Dutch civilians in 1945, but in the end the military objectives were maintained over the humanitarian ones, for the same reason: a swift end to the war would bring it all to an end.

Decisions of this kind will be debated for years, no doubt. I wont continue a debate about it in this thread as its really off topic anyways.

fordfan25
06-03-2005, 09:54 AM
id D-day had faild we would have just tried again. worse case is we would have had to wait till we stomped japan the we would have has our carriers + there air power ect to throw at them.