Discussion:
Interesting Quora - If D Day had failed.
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2019-06-08 23:50:41 UTC
Permalink
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?

(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)

Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.

The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.

Stalin’s wasn’t planning on taking on the remaining Axis all by himself.
He knew he didn't have the manpower to conquer and occupy all of Germany
on his own, so he wasn’t even going to try.

Had the Allies been forced to use nuclear weapons, the effects would
have been minimal. Western Cities couldn’t be compared to Japanese
cities (who used much more wood) and Germany’s air raid shelters were
very good.

Add to this that nuclear explosions don't cause firestorms and don’t
disrupt underground infrastructure when airbursted, and nuclear weapons
would have been considerably less effective than a major conventional raid.

Before the massive bombing raids on Germany took place, the Allies
estimated 200 nuclear weapons would be needed to bring Germany
economically to its knees. This was before the Germans moved their
factories underground.

Without successful Normandy Landings, the war would most likely have
ended in a negotiated truce.

Historically speaking, the Allies were at the end of their rope by 1945
while the Germans had run out of rope. The Soviets were conscripting
16-year-old boys. In Northwest Europe alone, the British had 45,000
deserters since the Normandy Landings, the Americans 200,000.

A negotiated peace in which Germany returns to its pre-war borders with
some minor adjustments is the most realistic scenario. At this point,
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, and the Low Countries would have been
bargaining chips at the negotiating table.

20.5k views · View Upvoters · View Sharers
Stepan Serdyuk
Stepan Serdyuk
‘Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been
ZZyXX
2019-06-09 00:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.
Stalin’s wasn’t planning on taking on the remaining Axis all by himself.
He knew he didn't have the manpower to conquer and occupy all of Germany
on his own, so he wasn’t even going to try.
Had the Allies been forced to use nuclear weapons, the effects would
have been minimal. Western Cities couldn’t be compared to Japanese
cities (who used much more wood) and Germany’s air raid shelters were
very good.
Add to this that nuclear explosions don't cause firestorms and don’t
disrupt underground infrastructure when airbursted, and nuclear weapons
would have been considerably less effective than a major conventional raid.
you really don't have to bomb the cities; destroy all the dams, destroy
the coal mines, destroy the ports and what's left but to watch them
starve to death
Post by a425couple
Before the massive bombing raids on Germany took place, the Allies
estimated 200 nuclear weapons would be needed to bring Germany
economically to its knees. This was before the Germans moved their
factories underground.
Without successful Normandy Landings, the war would most likely have
ended in a negotiated truce.
Historically speaking, the Allies were at the end of their rope by 1945
while the Germans had run out of rope. The Soviets were conscripting
16-year-old boys. In Northwest Europe alone, the British had 45,000
deserters since the Normandy Landings, the Americans 200,000.
A negotiated peace in which Germany returns to its pre-war borders with
some minor adjustments is the most realistic scenario. At this point,
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, and the Low Countries would have been
bargaining chips at the negotiating table.
20.5k views · View Upvoters · View Sharers
Stepan Serdyuk
Stepan Serdyuk
‘Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been
SolomonW
2019-06-09 08:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives
What Stalin private archives are these?
Post by a425couple
that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Allies would still be driving up through Italy and they would have
tried again soon enough.
Jim Wilkins
2019-06-09 10:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by a425couple
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin¢s private archives
What Stalin private archives are these?
Post by a425couple
that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Allies would still be driving up through Italy and they would have
tried again soon enough.
They did anyway.
https://history.army.mil/brochures/sfrance/sfrance.htm

Audie Murphy described fighting northward into Germany, including the
fierce battle of the Colmar Pocket.
https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Back-Audie-Murphy/dp/0805070869
Scott Kozel
2019-06-09 12:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?

As brutal as Omaha Beach was for the American infantry, the German infantry
knew that they were toast.
Jim Wilkins
2019-06-09 13:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what
possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
As brutal as Omaha Beach was for the American infantry, the German infantry
knew that they were toast.
German forces in Russia had been retreating since Kursk in July 1943.
If the western invasion(s) had failed Stalin could have eventually
fought his way to Paris if necessary, like Tsar Alexander chasing
Napoleon.
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Paris_1814.htm

https://www.historynet.com/interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-general-and-ace-pilot-adolf-galland.htm
"... I believe the 262 could have been made operational as a fighter
at least a year and a half earlier and built in large enough numbers
so that it could have changed the air war. It would most certainly not
have changed the final outcome of the war, for we had already lost
completely, but it would have probably delayed the end, since the
Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, would probably not have taken
place, at least not successfully if the 262 had been operational."
Scott Kozel
2019-06-09 18:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
As brutal as Omaha Beach was for the American infantry, the German
infantry knew that they were toast.
German forces in Russia had been retreating since Kursk in July 1943.
If the western invasion(s) had failed Stalin could have eventually
fought his way to Paris if necessary, like Tsar Alexander chasing
Napoleon.
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Paris_1814.htm
https://www.historynet.com/interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-general-and-ace-pilot-adolf-galland.htm
"... I believe the 262 could have been made operational as a fighter
at least a year and a half earlier and built in large enough numbers
so that it could have changed the air war. It would most certainly not
have changed the final outcome of the war, for we had already lost
completely, but it would have probably delayed the end, since the
Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, would probably not have taken
place, at least not successfully if the 262 had been operational."
If needed earlier the U.S. could have advanced the deployment of the
F-80 jet fighter and the B-45 jet bomber. The British could have
advanced the deployment of the Gloster Meteor jet fighter.

As the Luftwaffe turned out the U.S. and British advanced piston engine
fighters were sufficient for addressing it.
Jim Wilkins
2019-06-09 20:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day
wasn't
as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
As brutal as Omaha Beach was for the American infantry, the
German
infantry knew that they were toast.
German forces in Russia had been retreating since Kursk in July 1943.
If the western invasion(s) had failed Stalin could have eventually
fought his way to Paris if necessary, like Tsar Alexander chasing
Napoleon.
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Paris_1814.htm
https://www.historynet.com/interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-general-and-ace-pilot-adolf-galland.htm
"... I believe the 262 could have been made operational as a
fighter
at least a year and a half earlier and built in large enough
numbers
so that it could have changed the air war. It would most certainly not
have changed the final outcome of the war, for we had already lost
completely, but it would have probably delayed the end, since the
Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, would probably not have taken
place, at least not successfully if the 262 had been operational."
If needed earlier the U.S. could have advanced the deployment of the
F-80 jet fighter and the B-45 jet bomber. The British could have
advanced the deployment of the Gloster Meteor jet fighter.
As the Luftwaffe turned out the U.S. and British advanced piston engine
fighters were sufficient for addressing it.
Adolf Galland again:
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/interview.htm
"If everything had been done perfectly, we would have gained 4-5
months development. We would have gained 2-3 months production. We
could have had about 600-800 Me 262s ready for combat, on permanent
bases, by the end of 1943. This would have delayed the invasion, of
course, without question, and would have changed the air dominion of
the Allies, but the result would have been that the [Western] Allies
would have moved more slowly, and the Russians would have come
farther, certainly to the Rhine. There would have been more
destruction. And so ultimately, this order of Hitler's that was
completely wrong had a good result."
Scott Kozel
2019-06-10 00:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Scott Kozel
If needed earlier the U.S. could have advanced the deployment of the
F-80 jet fighter and the B-45 jet bomber. The British could have
advanced the deployment of the Gloster Meteor jet fighter.
As the Luftwaffe turned out the U.S. and British advanced piston engine
fighters were sufficient for addressing it.
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/interview.htm
"If everything had been done perfectly, we would have gained 4-5
months development. We would have gained 2-3 months production. We
could have had about 600-800 Me 262s ready for combat, on permanent
bases, by the end of 1943. This would have delayed the invasion, of
course, without question, and would have changed the air dominion of
the Allies, but the result would have been that the [Western] Allies
would have moved more slowly, and the Russians would have come
farther, certainly to the Rhine. There would have been more
destruction. And so ultimately, this order of Hitler's that was
completely wrong had a good result."
If that had happened, the U.S. and Britain could have had at least that
many F-80 and Meteor fighters deployed and combat ready. Intelligence had
already provided notice of the ME 262 developments.

"The impetus for development of the P-80 was the discovery by Allied
intelligence of the Me 262 in spring 1943, which had made only test
flights of its own first quartet "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star

As it was the ME 262 was vulnerable in portions of its flight envelope
to late-model Spitfire and P-51 fighters.
Stephen Harding
2019-06-09 21:00:00 UTC
Permalink
I find it difficult to believe that Stalin would have negotiated a peace
with Hitler. Even if the Germans had moved entirely to a defense in
depth posture (which Hitler wasn't interested in; he was an "attack
guy") making it even more costly for the Soviets.

Furthermore, Zhukov had abandoned the human wave tactics of the first
couple years of war and was far more nuanced in his offensives. The
Germans could only react to the Russians after Kursk.

If D-Day had failed, Russia would have owned up to the English Channel
with perhaps only Italy remaining independent although with such Soviet
control, the Italian Communists would have likely eventually controlled
Italy as well.

It would have cost a lot more Russian lives, but what did Stalin care?


SMH
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what
possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
As brutal as Omaha Beach was for the American infantry, the German infantry
knew that they were toast.
German forces in Russia had been retreating since Kursk in July 1943.
If the western invasion(s) had failed Stalin could have eventually
fought his way to Paris if necessary, like Tsar Alexander chasing
Napoleon.
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Paris_1814.htm
https://www.historynet.com/interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-general-and-ace-pilot-adolf-galland.htm
"... I believe the 262 could have been made operational as a fighter
at least a year and a half earlier and built in large enough numbers
so that it could have changed the air war. It would most certainly not
have changed the final outcome of the war, for we had already lost
completely, but it would have probably delayed the end, since the
Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, would probably not have taken
place, at least not successfully if the 262 had been operational."
SolomonW
2019-06-10 02:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
A big storm.
Scott Kozel
2019-06-10 03:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
A big storm.
I would hope that they scheduled the invasion when there would
be at least a week of no big storms.

No satellite weather back then but they did have plenty of aerial
reconnaissance.
SolomonW
2019-06-10 08:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by SolomonW
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
A big storm.
I would hope that they scheduled the invasion when there would
be at least a week of no big storms.
No satellite weather back then but they did have plenty of aerial
reconnaissance.
Mmmmmmm

It was close

https://medium.com/@wwnorton/the-weather-on-d-day-85ea0491a14f
Jim Wilkins
2019-06-10 11:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by SolomonW
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
A big storm.
I would hope that they scheduled the invasion when there would
be at least a week of no big storms.
No satellite weather back then but they did have plenty of aerial
reconnaissance.
https://www.history.com/news/d-day-hitler-germany-defenses-miscalculations
"When Hitler went to bed on the night of June 5, a terrible storm was
raging along the entire French coast, including the English Channel.
The weather was so bad that many of the Nazi's top military
commanders, including Rommel, abandoned their posts to visit wives and
mistresses in Germany and Paris. There was no way the Allies could
attempt an amphibious landing in such stormy seas."

If Germans couldn't do something then of course no one else could.
That attitude applied to strategic bombing, microwave radar, HF/DF and
cracking Enigma ciphers. They didn't realize Chain Home was a vital
early warning system because it wasn't like their radars.

This analysis of why they lost is notable for ignoring that the Allies
out-fought and out-thought them..
http://www.allworldwars.com/A-Reflection-on-the-Causes-of-the-German-Defeat-by-Rendulic.html
Scott Kozel
2019-06-10 15:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by SolomonW
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what
possibility would there have been of it not succeeding?
A big storm.
I would hope that they scheduled the invasion when there would
be at least a week of no big storms.
No satellite weather back then but they did have plenty of aerial
reconnaissance.
https://www.history.com/news/d-day-hitler-germany-defenses-miscalculations
"When Hitler went to bed on the night of June 5, a terrible storm was
raging along the entire French coast, including the English Channel.
The weather was so bad that many of the Nazi's top military
commanders, including Rommel, abandoned their posts to visit wives and
mistresses in Germany and Paris. There was no way the Allies could
attempt an amphibious landing in such stormy seas."
If Germans couldn't do something then of course no one else could.
That attitude applied to strategic bombing, microwave radar, HF/DF and
cracking Enigma ciphers. They didn't realize Chain Home was a vital
early warning system because it wasn't like their radars.
This analysis of why they lost is notable for ignoring that the Allies
out-fought and out-thought them..
http://www.allworldwars.com/A-Reflection-on-the-Causes-of-the-German-Defeat-by-Rendulic.html
I grew up in Florida so my definition of "big storm" is somewhat more than
something that causes foul weather and choppy seas that largely cease
12 hours later and look good going forward.

In any event, if the seas were high enough to swamp landing craft, I would
think that the Allies would have not have attempted an amphibious landing
that day.
Jim Wilkins
2019-06-10 16:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by SolomonW
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what
possibility would there have been of it not succeeding?
A big storm.
I would hope that they scheduled the invasion when there would
be at least a week of no big storms.
No satellite weather back then but they did have plenty of aerial
reconnaissance.
https://www.history.com/news/d-day-hitler-germany-defenses-miscalculations
"When Hitler went to bed on the night of June 5, a terrible storm was
raging along the entire French coast, including the English
Channel.
The weather was so bad that many of the Nazi's top military
commanders, including Rommel, abandoned their posts to visit wives and
mistresses in Germany and Paris. There was no way the Allies could
attempt an amphibious landing in such stormy seas."
If Germans couldn't do something then of course no one else could.
That attitude applied to strategic bombing, microwave radar, HF/DF and
cracking Enigma ciphers. They didn't realize Chain Home was a vital
early warning system because it wasn't like their radars.
This analysis of why they lost is notable for ignoring that the Allies
out-fought and out-thought them..
http://www.allworldwars.com/A-Reflection-on-the-Causes-of-the-German-Defeat-by-Rendulic.html
I grew up in Florida so my definition of "big storm" is somewhat more than
something that causes foul weather and choppy seas that largely cease
12 hours later and look good going forward.
In any event, if the seas were high enough to swamp landing craft, I would
think that the Allies would have not have attempted an amphibious landing
that day.
Being upwind they saw a gap in the storm coming and took the risk, on
the last day of June that the moon would be right for the extensive
night airdrops. As it was almost all the amphibious tanks that tried
to swim to Omaha Beach sank, the others unloaded onto the beach.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2016280.stm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD_tank
Byker
2019-06-09 15:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful
Had D-Day failed, the Russkies would have "liberated" the rest of Europe and
extended the Iron Curtain all the way to the English Channel...
Jim Wilkins
2019-06-09 16:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't
as successful
Had D-Day failed, the Russkies would have "liberated" the rest of
Europe and extended the Iron Curtain all the way to the English
Channel...
The negative Soviet experiences with Austria, Yugoslavia and Greece
suggest that they might have pulled out after plundering everything
that could be moved..

https://www.eurozine.com/the-soviet-occupation-of-austria-1945-1955/
"The Austrian Communists were unable to increase their political
support at the elections of 1949 and 1953. By then, Moscow must have
come close to the end of its illusion of a peaceful transition to
Socialism in Austria with the KPÖ as its vanguard."

"The question as to why the Soviets finally decided to abandon their
military presence in eastern Austria in the spring of 1955 and to
agree to a negotiated withdrawal has preoccupied historians ever
since."
Gernot Hassenpflug
2019-06-10 02:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Byker
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't
as successful
Had D-Day failed, the Russkies would have "liberated" the rest of
Europe and extended the Iron Curtain all the way to the English
Channel...
The negative Soviet experiences with Austria, Yugoslavia and Greece
suggest that they might have pulled out after plundering everything
that could be moved..
https://www.eurozine.com/the-soviet-occupation-of-austria-1945-1955/
"The Austrian Communists were unable to increase their political
support at the elections of 1949 and 1953. By then, Moscow must have
come close to the end of its illusion of a peaceful transition to
Socialism in Austria with the KPÖ as its vanguard."
"The question as to why the Soviets finally decided to abandon their
military presence in eastern Austria in the spring of 1955 and to
agree to a negotiated withdrawal has preoccupied historians ever
since."
My mom was there at the time, growing up under the Russian occupation
with its very charming open-door policy. I for one am very happy the
Soviets withdrew, and having such a relationship to the history it makes
me very curious too as to the hows and whys of this withdrawal. I get
the idea there where behind-the-scenes tit-for-tat negotiations with the
US perhaps...
--
NNTP on Emacs 25.2 from Windows 7
Gernot Hassenpflug
2019-06-10 02:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Yes, it is indeed interesting, and obviously most of us will have
different opinions, some shaped by our own reading, or by imagination
:-)
Post by a425couple
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.
That is interesting, but I would like to see the proof of this from
these "private archives"---I think Stalin's strangehold on the
Motherland depended on his leveraging the war, else he might have faced
an internal coup.
Post by a425couple
Stalin’s wasn’t planning on taking on the remaining Axis all by
himself. He knew he didn't have the manpower to conquer and occupy all
of Germany on his own, so he wasn’t even going to try.
I don't see how such a caring man as Stalin was going to come to such a
conclusion! Never let a crisis go to waste.
Post by a425couple
Had the Allies been forced to use nuclear weapons, the effects would
have been minimal. Western Cities couldn’t be compared to Japanese
cities (who used much more wood) and Germany’s air raid shelters were
very good.
Add to this that nuclear explosions don't cause firestorms and don’t
disrupt underground infrastructure when airbursted, and nuclear
weapons would have been considerably less effective than a major
conventional raid.
Before the massive bombing raids on Germany took place, the Allies
estimated 200 nuclear weapons would be needed to bring Germany
economically to its knees. This was before the Germans moved their
factories underground.
Without successful Normandy Landings, the war would most likely have
ended in a negotiated truce.
Wow. How the author comes to this conclusion... Probably he means the
remaining members of a starving population (through the blockade,
destruction of any infrastructure and agricultural assets the Allies
could reach from the air) will be crawling to the negotiation table
since nobody in their right minds will want to head into a radioactive
and deserted country for no reason.

What is even more likely is that there will be an internal coup in
Germany at some point, even more likely if the Soviets do indeed stop,
since the point of the war for many would be removed (the Bolsheviks
being the enemy, etc.)
Post by a425couple
Historically speaking, the Allies were at the end of their rope by
1945 while the Germans had run out of rope. The Soviets were
conscripting 16-year-old boys. In Northwest Europe alone, the British
had 45,000 deserters since the Normandy Landings, the Americans
200,000.
Wow. The arsenal of democracy was not going to get to the end of any
rope soon, that hasn't even happened by now in 2019, despite the budget
defecit.
Post by a425couple
A negotiated peace in which Germany returns to its pre-war borders
with some minor adjustments is the most realistic scenario. At this
point, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, and the Low Countries would
have been bargaining chips at the negotiating table.
It might a realistic scenario regardless of the outcome, as the present
shows. I think everyone agreed that in the long term countries are best
delineated on shared cultural lines.
--
NNTP on Emacs 25.2 from Windows 7
o***@gmail.com
2019-06-13 20:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
In Northwest Europe alone, the British had 45,000
deserters since the Normandy Landings, the Americans 200,000.
Interesting........do you have a citation ?
a425couple
2019-06-15 15:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by a425couple
In Northwest Europe alone, the British had 45,000
deserters since the Normandy Landings, the Americans 200,000.
Interesting........do you have a citation ?
I pretty clearly said it was an "Interesting Quora"
and that I was not alleging to it's 'facts'.
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by a425couple
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
I am believing the 'fact' you are questioning was
presented by Quora writer =
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty

I really have little idea what it means.
Keith Willshaw
2019-06-13 23:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.
With respect this seems implausible to say the least.

The Soviets had taken on the main weight of the German Army since
Operation Barbarossa and had stopped them dead at Stalingrad and Kursk
In June 1944 they inflicted in many ways an even greater defeat than
Normandy when they launched Operation Bagration which destroyed Army
Group Centre. In doing so they inflicted losses in terms of men and
materiel that Germany and its allies could not make good. There is
simply no way the Soviets would stop at the Vistula, they were out for
revenge. This was personal in a way no British or American citizen can
imagine. Additionally of course it was obvious to everyone that no peace
deal with Nazi Germany could ever be trusted. They would have paused on
the Vistula but the preparations for the 1945 offensive would have
continued.

Nor would the Anglo American war effort have simply halted. The invasion
of the South of France would have gone ahead as would hostilities in
Italy and the Balkans. The air war against the German oil industry and
Ruhr would have continued. The real risk was not that Nazi Germany would
have survived it was that the USSR would end uo controlling all of
mainland western Europe.

In reality the only D-Day Sector where there was a serious risk of
failure was Omaha beach and I know from old soldiers of the British Army
that late on 6th June contingency plans for a drive on Omaha from Gold
by British and Canadian forces were being reviewed. Similarly I am sure
that US forces from Utah would have have to pot their plans for
expanding into the Cotentin peninsula on hold while Omaha was stabilised.
a425couple
2019-06-15 16:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Willshaw
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.
With respect this seems implausible to say the least.
The Soviets had taken on the main weight of the German Army since
Operation Barbarossa and had stopped them dead at Stalingrad and Kursk
In June 1944 they inflicted in many ways an even greater defeat than
Normandy when they launched Operation Bagration which destroyed Army
Group Centre. In doing so they inflicted losses in terms of men and
materiel that Germany and its allies could not make good. There is
simply no way the Soviets would stop at the Vistula, they were out for
revenge. This was personal in a way no British or American citizen can
imagine. Additionally of course it was obvious to everyone that no peace
deal with Nazi Germany could ever be trusted. They would have paused on
the Vistula but the preparations for the 1945 offensive would have
continued.
Nor would the Anglo American war effort have simply halted. The invasion
of the South of France would have gone ahead as would hostilities in
Italy and the Balkans. The air war against the German oil industry and
Ruhr would have continued. The real risk was not that Nazi Germany would
have survived it was that the USSR would end uo controlling all of
mainland western Europe.
I'm agreeing with Keith on the above two paragraphs.
Yes, Stalin was now "out for revenge".

dott.Piergiorgio
2019-06-15 13:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
This author, as too many others, forgot that there was already an active
western front, in where in the very day of Normandy landing reap a major
success (the Liberation of Rome)

and with stalin on strategic defensive, the only active front will be
the hellish territory of central Italy. add to the mix the Italian
penchant towards bloody settling of divergences and go figure the hell
for the G.I. and the schutzen.

obviously, one can't use nuclear weapons on Italian territory without,
on one side, being royally backstabbed, and on the other, internal
front, side, getting the ires of every academia.

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...