D-Day 70 Years On

[xerxes]

If they'd failed, it would have been interesting to see whether we'd all be speaking Russian or German, but then again, it was impossible for Germany to win the war. Right from the get go there were too many blunders.

They had a pretty good go.

 

The Battle of Britain was won by a whisker, the Battle of the Atlantic only won by lend lease.

 

A peace pact after the rest of Europe had fallen as the Battle of retain raged might have happened. Far from German blunders it was pretty much a text book exercise in German efficiency for a long while.

[KopOut]

They had a pretty good go.

 

The Battle of Britain was won by a whisker, the Battle of the Atlantic only won by lend lease.

 

A peace pact after the rest of Europe had fallen as the Battle of retain raged might have happened. Far from German blunders it was pretty much a text book exercise in German efficiency for a long while.

By D-Day, the history of WW2 in Europe / Russia, had already shown Germany to be beaten. 

 

Some of the important events are :

 

1. Tactical blunder at Dunkirk. (Allowing the BEF to escape. Hitler already showed a distrust of his young brilliant tank commanders. Allowing them to enter Dunkirk and destroy the BEF would have ended Britain's fight well before the BOB)

2. Invasion of Russia mid 1941 (It was never going to be a short campaign as Hitler's generals told him at the time. The culmination of Barborrosa, was the destruction of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. From that point on, it was only a matter of time before the Russian Army got all the way to Berlin)

 

I did contradict myself, so sorry for that guys. I was thinking out loud and it gets me into trouble.

 

I'd argue on one level, D-Day was absolutely necessary, but not to win the war, but to shorten it, and stop Russia from dominating Europe.

[Dr Nowt]

Just reading about this, and it chimed with my oft measuring of those members of the Carling advert demographic who never miss a chance to show everyone how dead hard they are against those who went before, for whom part of their innate steel was the understatement they treated it with.

 

Jock Hutton, 89, decided he didn't want to merely watch 300 modern day paratroops descending towards the fields, so he buckled up and dropped from a plane with them, just as he had when people were trying to shoot at him upon landing. This is where it gets good.

 

Quoting directly from The Times, "...a short while later someone made the mistake of asking Mr Hutton, from Bridge of Weir, if he was terrified that night when, aged 19, he jumped out of an aircraft at 500ft to an uncertain fate below."

 

"Terrified?" he said. "During my lifetime, I have never been terrified. I'm just a vicious little Scotsman."

 

Trying to calculate in my head what I'd give to see Danny Dyer or one of his ilk shouting "You want some?" as he plunges from the sky towards a German machine gun nest, but it's essentially everything I do or have ever owned.

[cochyn]

Watched a programme on Eric 'Winkle' Brown - WW2 test pilot with the fleet air arm. He got to interview Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials: Goering was adamant the BOB was a draw and it was Germany's decision to use their planes to fight the Eastern Front that that saved Britain's day.

 

A common theme to a lot of these war stories is how close a shave many of our battles: After D-Day, it was mostly street-fighting by small pockets of infantry that secured the advance. Also, when the Allies finally captured Germany, they discovered the German's technology was years ahead of our own and included the world's first fully serviceble jet fighter, rocket-powered planes and a suite of tanks that made the Panzers look like tin cars.

[Dr Nowt]

Last of the Navajo code talkers died around the anniversary as well; Chester Nez.

 

The Japanese never broke his code based on the native language he was banned from and punished for speaking as a child.

[Rico1304]

Just reading about this, and it chimed with my oft measuring of those members of the Carling advert demographic who never miss a chance to show everyone how dead hard they are against those who went before, for whom part of their innate steel was the understatement they treated it with.

Jock Hutton, 89, decided he didn't want to merely watch 300 modern day paratroops descending towards the fields, so he buckled up and dropped from a plane with them, just as he had when people were trying to shoot at him upon landing. This is where it gets good.

Quoting directly from The Times, "...a short while later someone made the mistake of asking Mr Hutton, from Bridge of Weir, if he was terrified that night when, aged 19, he jumped out of an aircraft at 500ft to an uncertain fate below."

"Terrified?" he said. "During my lifetime, I have never been terrified. I'm just a vicious little Scotsman."

Trying to calculate in my head what I'd give to see Danny Dyer or one of his ilk shouting "You want some?" as he plunges from the sky towards a German machine gun nest, but it's essentially everything I do or have ever owned.

That's the bloke my mate jumped with, photo further up.

[magicrat]

By D-Day, the history of WW2 in Europe / Russia, had already shown Germany to be beaten. 

Some of the important events are :

 

1. Tactical blunder at Dunkirk. (Allowing the BEF to escape. Hitler already showed a distrust of his young brilliant tank commanders. Allowing them to enter Dunkirk and destroy the BEF would have ended Britain's fight well before the BOB)

2. Invasion of Russia mid 1941 (It was never going to be a short campaign as Hitler's generals told him at the time. The culmination of Barborrosa, was the destruction of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. From that point on, it was only a matter of time before the Russian Army got all the way to Berlin)

 

I did contradict myself, so sorry for that guys. I was thinking out loud and it gets me into trouble.

 

I'd argue on one level, D-Day was absolutely necessary, but not to win the war, but to shorten it, and stop Russia from dominating Europe.

Pretty much spot on

The end of the war turned into a land grab and had we not invaded the Russians would pretty much annexed the whole of Germany

[Dougie Do'ins]

 

Canadian troops rest under a hedge in the Normandy countryside following bitter close quarter combat with the Germans

 

Some great pictures in here.

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/lifestyle/nostalgia/d-day-landings-pictures-stunning-archive-7226055

[xerxes]

By D-Day, the history of WW2 in Europe / Russia, had already shown Germany to be beaten. 

 

Some of the important events are :

 

1. Tactical blunder at Dunkirk. (Allowing the BEF to escape. Hitler already showed a distrust of his young brilliant tank commanders. Allowing them to enter Dunkirk and destroy the BEF would have ended Britain's fight well before the BOB)

2. Invasion of Russia mid 1941 (It was never going to be a short campaign as Hitler's generals told him at the time. The culmination of Barborrosa, was the destruction of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. From that point on, it was only a matter of time before the Russian Army got all the way to Berlin)

 

I did contradict myself, so sorry for that guys. I was thinking out loud and it gets me into trouble.

 

I'd argue on one level, D-Day was absolutely necessary, but not to win the war, but to shorten it, and stop Russia from dominating Europe.

I thought that you meant that the German campaign was doomed from the start, it wasn’t.

 

As for blunders, no war is fought without mistakes and setbacks.

 

D Day was vital. Without allies on the ground on the Western Front, the possibility of a settlement with both the Allies and Russia existed. Once the bridgehead had been established, it was all over for Germany.

[xerxes]

The end of the war turned into a land grab and had we not invaded the Russians would pretty much annexed the whole of Germany

I agree that post invasion it was a contest to see which ally could benefit most.

 

I disagree that without an invasion, Russian victory was inevitable.

[chris71]

 

Canadian troops rest under a hedge in the Normandy countryside following bitter close quarter combat with the Germans

 

Some great pictures in here.

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/lifestyle/nostalgia/d-day-landings-pictures-stunning-archive-7226055

 

Jesus, they look like children.

[Neil G]

By D-Day, the history of WW2 in Europe / Russia, had already shown Germany to be beaten. 

 

Some of the important events are :

 

1. Tactical blunder at Dunkirk. (Allowing the BEF to escape. Hitler already showed a distrust of his young brilliant tank commanders. Allowing them to enter Dunkirk and destroy the BEF would have ended Britain's fight well before the BOB)

2. Invasion of Russia mid 1941 (It was never going to be a short campaign as Hitler's generals told him at the time. The culmination of Barborrosa, was the destruction of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. From that point on, it was only a matter of time before the Russian Army got all the way to Berlin)

 

I did contradict myself, so sorry for that guys. I was thinking out loud and it gets me into trouble.

 

I'd argue on one level, D-Day was absolutely necessary, but not to win the war, but to shorten it, and stop Russia from dominating Europe.

 

I don’t think it’s a given that Germany would definitely have lost even if D-Day had failed. There are too many possible permutations of what might have happened afterwards to say that with certainty.

 

If the invasion had failed it would have been a massive blow for the Allies’ morale and a huge boost for the Nazis’ after being on the back foot for so long. Depending on how quickly the invasion was repelled and how long it took the Allies to regroup and prepare for a second shot at it - if they'd even tried to at all - Germany could have redirected resources to the Eastern front and slowed the Russian advance. If they’d managed to fight the Russians to a standstill outside the borders of Germany they would then have had more time to develop their rocket, jet fighter and nuclear programmes, which would have swung the balance of power back their way.

 

If D-Day had gone really badly Roosevelt might have lost the election in November. A Republican administration might have viewed the communist Russians as a greater long-term threat than the Nazis, and been less inclined to throw their support behind them in the event of a stalemate on the Eastern front.

 

Unlikely perhaps, but not impossible.

[A Red]

Hitler did make so many mistakes. Thank god.

 

Didnt deploy enough u-boats quick enough to starve Britain

Didnt destroy the expeditionary force at Dunkirk

Wasted valuable pilots and planes on the Battle of Britain

Wasted time planning Operation Sealion that could never have worked

Bailed the Italians out in Greece/Balkans before launching barborossa

Waited too long in attacking Russia thinking it would be over too quickly

Declaring war on US after Pearl Harbour and making it easy for Roosevelt (many US politicians would have opposed fighting in Europe has they had their own war)

Not allowing the army to retreat from Stalingrad before it was surrounded

Didnt see the importance or need for huge investment in jet planes/secret weapons soon enough

Didnt foster agreements with the Arab states or make a grab via Turkey for their oilfields

 

I'm sure there were many more

[Section_31]

Really interesting wondering how the war would have gone, I genuinely can't make my mind up how it might have gone. The German troops in the West though were, by and large, inferior to the units on the Eastern front. It was treated as somewhere to catch some R&R after you'd been through the hell of Russia, even then, I think I remember reading that a British deception - Operation Mincemeat - made the Germans so unsure of where the invasion would come that they kept a lot of their powerful Panzer divisions closer to Dover rather than Normandy, so there was a lot in the mixer in terms of the calibre of units facing the Allies when they landed.

 

I just get the feeling that, at this stage, the Russians and Americans both had too much momentum, too many troops and weapons to have not been able to vanquish the Nazis. The Americans were churning out ships by the hundreds, the Russians tanks by the thousands, and both nations had a virtually inexhaustible reserve of manpower.

 

What the Nazis really did is wake two major powerhouses from their slumber. It's like throwing stones at a couple of lazy bears and, once they're up and about, they realise they're pretty fucking hard and that whoever wins is going to rule the forest.

 

For me the turning point probably came when the Germans declared war on the states. Even after Pearl Harbour, there was no call for them to do  that and there was plenty of call for the USA to merely fight the Japanese and not get involved in Europe. Hitler made the mistake of stopping his advance outside Moscow too and making the main thrust of his advance toward the oil fields, which sounded like the right thing to do, but when you consider the grip Stalin and Moscow had psychologically it was probably a major error - in the early days of the advance plenty of Russians switched sides and actively helped the Germans, such was their hatred for Stalin.

 

If D Day would have failed I reckon the main fallout would have been the Russians advancing all the way to France, that would have made the cold war pretty interesting, Paris under some kind of Stasi style rule? The only way this wouldn't have happened is if the Germans developed their miracle weapons, nukes, jet fighters, but I reckon that ship had sailed at this point, they just didn't have the industrial base left.

[Kevin D]

What is dead, may never die.

[Section_31]

 

 

 

 

[KopOut]

I don’t think it’s a given that Germany would definitely have lost even if D-Day had failed. There are too many possible permutations of what might have happened afterwards to say that with certainty.

 

If the invasion had failed it would have been a massive blow for the Allies’ morale and a huge boost for the Nazis’ after being on the back foot for so long. Depending on how quickly the invasion was repelled and how long it took the Allies to regroup and prepare for a second shot at it - if they'd even tried to at all - Germany could have redirected resources to the Eastern front and slowed the Russian advance. If they’d managed to fight the Russians to a standstill outside the borders of Germany they would then have had more time to develop their rocket, jet fighter and nuclear programmes, which would have swung the balance of power back their way.

 

If D-Day had gone really badly Roosevelt might have lost the election in November. A Republican administration might have viewed the communist Russians as a greater long-term threat than the Nazis, and been less inclined to throw their support behind them in the event of a stalemate on the Eastern front.

 

Unlikely perhaps, but not impossible.

Good points. I should perhaps own up to my original comment being somewhat light hearted:

 

Kopout: "If they'd failed, it would have been interesting to see whether we'd all be speaking Russian or German"

 

In effect, I didn't really believe that when I typed it, because I was already thinking that it would be Russian we would all be speaking, based on Germany's inability to supply it's own expansion; based on Hitler being a poor strategist, poor tactician and not the least problem - Hitler being a willful ignorant.

 

Your point about Roosevelt is solid, however, by 1944 the Russian supply run across to Murmansk/Archangel, if halted, wouldn't have affected Russia's situation, as the great Bear had been awakened and Stalingrad had totally depleted Germany's nerve force. Russia were going to get the Caucasus regardless, and Germany was in slow inevitable economic and military decline (thanks also to the tech improvements against the u-boats as well as the day and night bombing runs of RAF/USAF B17s and Lancasters smashing both military & economic targets and murdering civilians in the great cities of Hamburg, Berlin etc)

[xerxes]

because I was already thinking that it would be Russian we would all be speaking, based on Germany's inability to supply it's own expansion; based on Hitler being a poor strategist, poor tactician and not the least problem - Hitler being a willful ignorant.

 

Your point about Roosevelt is solid, however, by 1944 the Russian supply run across to Murmansk/Archangel, if halted, wouldn't have affected Russia's situation, as the great Bear had been awakened and Stalingrad had totally depleted Germany's nerve force. Russia were going to get the Caucasus regardless, and Germany was in slow inevitable economic and military decline (thanks also to the tech improvements against the u-boats as well as the day and night bombing runs of RAF/USAF B17s and Lancasters smashing both military & economic targets and murdering civilians in the great cities of Hamburg, Berlin etc)[/size][/size][/font][/color][/background]

Hitler did pretty well at over running Europe at very little cost. Your charges of him being a poor strategist and tactician don't stack.

 

Any "what if" discussion begs as many new questions as it offers answers.

 

Of course the declaration of war on the US and the alliance with the Japs was a mistake. But the Germans came very close to winning the Battle of Britain.

 

America's help to the Russians economically and materially was as important as the second front. Without both Russian victory was by no means a foregone conclusion.

[A Red]

Hitler did pretty well at over running Europe at very little cost. Your charges of him being a poor strategist and tactician don't stack.

 

Any "what if" discussion begs as many new questions as it offers answers.

 

Of course the declaration of war on the US and the alliance with the Japs was a mistake. But the Germans came very close to winning the Battle of Britain.

 

America's help to the Russians economically and materially was as important as the second front. Without both Russian victory was by no means a foregone conclusion.

 

Winning the battle of britain wouldnt have enabled an invasion of britain. The plan, if all the southern airfields were knocked out, was to pull back all squadrons to the north to assist repelling any invasion. Germany didnt have the equipment, planning, manpower or resources to get a beach head on british soil. 

 

Rhine barges even on a mill pond channel wouldnt have taken much capsizing

[M_B]

One thing is certain - D'day helped to preserve Western Europe from both Nazism and Stalinism. Had it failed, its arguable Germany could have fought to a stalemate on the Eastern Front and in Italy, although I think its not a strong argument. The Battle of the Atlantic was over by '44, German industry was being battered from the air and they still would have had to have divided their forces. In the end every German city would have been destroyed by nukes or otherwise.

 

The greatest mistake the Axis made was not working as a team. Had Mussolini not distracted Hitler in '41 and had the Japanese invaded Russia in '41 instead of China in '38 then things would have been very different. The next biggest was not invading Russia as an army of liberation from Stalin. Had the invaders come as the saviours of the Russian people then the russians may very well have surrendered, but instead they made them fight with their backs against the wall.

 

Respect to all who gave and risked their lives in that apocalypse.

[xerxes]

Winning the battle of britain wouldnt have enabled an invasion of britain. The plan, if all the southern airfields were knocked out, was to pull back all squadrons to the north to assist repelling any invasion. Germany didnt have the equipment, planning, manpower or resources to get a beach head on british soil. 

 

Rhine barges even on a mill pond channel wouldnt have taken much capsizing

The Battle of Britain was about air superiority. Without it, the odds would have been altered in Germany's favour.It was not a matter of airfields, but manpower and military materiel.

 

Whether that would have resulted in a military or diplomatic solution is another matter.

 

I don't agree that, pre the Russian front and US involvement, Germany didn't have the equipment, planning, manpower or resources to get a beach head on British soil. Invasions are always difficult and uncertain, but the capacity to do so was there, and that threat alone might have resulted in a settlement.

[KopOut]

.........

Respect to all who gave and risked their lives in that apocalypse.

We salute all of you.

 

[Neil G]

Good points. I should perhaps own up to my original comment being somewhat light hearted:

 

Kopout: "If they'd failed, it would have been interesting to see whether we'd all be speaking Russian or German"

 

In effect, I didn't really believe that when I typed it, because I was already thinking that it would be Russian we would all be speaking, based on Germany's inability to supply it's own expansion; based on Hitler being a poor strategist, poor tactician and not the least problem - Hitler being a willful ignorant.

 

Your point about Roosevelt is solid, however, by 1944 the Russian supply run across to Murmansk/Archangel, if halted, wouldn't have affected Russia's situation, as the great Bear had been awakened and Stalingrad had totally depleted Germany's nerve force. Russia were going to get the Caucasus regardless, and Germany was in slow inevitable economic and military decline (thanks also to the tech improvements against the u-boats as well as the day and night bombing runs of RAF/USAF B17s and Lancasters smashing both military & economic targets and murdering civilians in the great cities of Hamburg, Berlin etc)

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree that a Russian victory would still have been the most likely outcome even if D-Day had failed. I just don't think that it was nailed on. There was still almost a year's worth of fighting left, plenty of time for more game changers.

 

I wonder, if the western Allies had written off the chance of liberating western Europe and had seen the Russians advancing in the East, they'd have changed their calculations regarding the support they gave to Russia and the damage they inflicted on Germany. I suspect quite a few decision-makers in the US and the UK would have seen a weakened but surviving Reich as preferable to Russia conquering the whole of mainland Europe. That could potentially have had a big bearing on the outcome on the Eastern front.

[Section_31]

The Battle of Britain question is a fascinating one. Xerxes was right in that it was about maintaining air superiority. The German invasion force wouldn't have been able to cross the channel without control of the skies otherwise it would have been like shooting rats in a barrel. 

 

Once the Germans landed though we would have been annihilated. We were poorly equipped and organised on the ground. Right up until the end of the war we were always second best  to the German war machine on the ground, they had the best tanks,  the best weapons. Our tactics very often were guerrilla in nature, that's how the SAS came into their own, killing German officers in their sleep with barbed wire because our tank shells couldn't even penetrate their Tiger's armour. 

 

Would they have occupied us though or installed a friendly government? Churchill was the figurehead and up until he came onto the scene our attitude was one of appeasement and even sympathy with the Germans, had Churchill been exiled it's not hard to imagine him being vilified in the British press and a more German friendly figurehead arising in his place. 

 

There were stories of the police in Jersey helping to round up a jewish schoolgirl for deportation to the camps, and it had always been Hitler's plan to take over the British public school system because he felt it churned out leaders who'd be onboard with his right wing views. I don't think Britain would have been as hard to bend to his will as we like to think. Love him or loathe him, we really do owe Churchill everything.  

[xerxes]

Some interesting points Neil G.

 

Self-interest in politics is all. It was in the West's interests for Russia to weaken Germany, but not for it to become a superpower.