Failure at Normandy

[leibowde84]

I am aware. Thus my pointing out that the British fired on a part of it. My point is that the French scuttled it in 1942, they would be equally willing to scuttle it in 1940.

That is ludicrous, though. The French were not at all willing to scuttle their ships in 1940. The British were begging them to scuttle them to avoid German capture, but the French continually refused. That is the only reason why the British fired upon them killing French soldiers. They refused to be realistic and refused to scuttle their fleet.

 

[Nietzsche]

That is ludicrous, though. The French were not at all willing to scuttle their ships in 1940. The British were begging them to scuttle them to avoid German capture, but the French continually refused. That is the only reason why the British fired upon them killing French soldiers. They refused to be realistic and refused to scuttle their fleet.

This is because the French were pretty certain the Germans weren't going to attempt a seizure(I mean, the Germans were on the opposite side of this in 1918, and when it became apparent the Entente were going to split the Kaiserliche Marine between them they tried to scuttle as much of it as they could). If they were convinced of that, either the Fleet is being scuttled or it's going to steam to to somewhere that isn't Europe, as there'd be no way for the Germans to follow.

 

[leibowde84]

This is because the French were pretty certain the Germans weren't going to attempt a seizure(I mean, the Germans were on the opposite side of this in 1918, and when it became apparent the Entente were going to split the Kaiserliche Marine between them they tried to scuttle as much of it as they could). If they were convinced of that, either the Fleet is being scuttled or it's going to steam to to somewhere that isn't Europe, as there'd be no way for the Germans to follow.

This makes no sense. The British pleaded with them and ended up killing over a thousand French sailors because they refused to scuttle their ships. All evidence shows that the French were not going to do it themselves. Maybe they didn't realize how bad the Germans were at that point (far worse than they were during WWI), but nevertheless.

 

[Thief]

So. Popular perception of the D-Day Landings(73 years today) is that they were a foregone conclusion. Because they succeeded, the majority of people think that it was a done deal, and that it merely needed to be attempted and it would've worked.

This is not so.

Eisenhower was publicly extremely confident that the landings would succeed. Kind of had to be. Couldn't let the young men who were about to land on the shores of France think this was one massive gamble with pretty good odds of failure. But that's what it was. I've stated before that D-Day wasn't the tide-turning moment of the war. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't important.

Without the addition of a second front in the West the war would've dragged on at least until August 6th, 1945. The second front meant the Germans had to use precious manpower and equipment that would've otherwise been deployed against the Red Army.

How likely was D-Day to fail? Enough that Eisenhower wrote a speech to shoulder 100% of the blame and resign his commission as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces.

This is that speech;



Had the landings failed it would've arguably have been Germany's greatest victory in the war. Because the Soviets, the Germans and most of all the Western Allies themselves knew that they wouldn't be able to attempt another landing for at least another year, maybe more.

What would that have meant in the long run? The danger to the Germans in their western border would've effectively evaporated. Men and material that had up until then been set there specifically to combat any attempted invasion could've been redirected. To the Eastern Front.

The Germans were hemorrhaging on the Ostfront, and the influx of men means they likely would've been able to stabilize it. The Soviet's Operation Bagration still goes through, obviously, but the extra forces(including Luftwaffe) would've given the Germans a far better position, not to even mention the morale boost of having defeated the Allies on the shores of France. It would've also allowed the Germans to better reinforce the south of France and thus also probably fend off Operation Dragoon too.

So what's the long-term ramifications of this? Well, a longer war means a longer Holocaust. It also means that at least one nuclear weapon is going to be deposited on German soil, exactly where I'm not sure. There are a number of equally likely possibilities regarding what the European front would look like in this world's August, 1945. The Germans could somehow manage to achieve a serious lucky streak and the Eastern Front be significantly further from Berlin, or they could've collapsed and the Red Army would be knocking on the Fuehrerbunker's front door.

on top of all that.....I once heard Hitler had been distracted from the development of the V-2 rocket
too many primary fails ....and some general advised expending resources elsewhere

it flew 6months after Normandy.....so I heard

had the rocket been ready sooner......we might all be speaking German

 

[Thief]

So. Popular perception of the D-Day Landings(73 years today) is that they were a foregone conclusion. Because they succeeded, the majority of people think that it was a done deal, and that it merely needed to be attempted and it would've worked.

This is not so.

Eisenhower was publicly extremely confident that the landings would succeed. Kind of had to be. Couldn't let the young men who were about to land on the shores of France think this was one massive gamble with pretty good odds of failure. But that's what it was. I've stated before that D-Day wasn't the tide-turning moment of the war. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't important.

Without the addition of a second front in the West the war would've dragged on at least until August 6th, 1945. The second front meant the Germans had to use precious manpower and equipment that would've otherwise been deployed against the Red Army.

How likely was D-Day to fail? Enough that Eisenhower wrote a speech to shoulder 100% of the blame and resign his commission as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces.

This is that speech;



Had the landings failed it would've arguably have been Germany's greatest victory in the war. Because the Soviets, the Germans and most of all the Western Allies themselves knew that they wouldn't be able to attempt another landing for at least another year, maybe more.

What would that have meant in the long run? The danger to the Germans in their western border would've effectively evaporated. Men and material that had up until then been set there specifically to combat any attempted invasion could've been redirected. To the Eastern Front.

The Germans were hemorrhaging on the Ostfront, and the influx of men means they likely would've been able to stabilize it. The Soviet's Operation Bagration still goes through, obviously, but the extra forces(including Luftwaffe) would've given the Germans a far better position, not to even mention the morale boost of having defeated the Allies on the shores of France. It would've also allowed the Germans to better reinforce the south of France and thus also probably fend off Operation Dragoon too.

So what's the long-term ramifications of this? Well, a longer war means a longer Holocaust. It also means that at least one nuclear weapon is going to be deposited on German soil, exactly where I'm not sure. There are a number of equally likely possibilities regarding what the European front would look like in this world's August, 1945. The Germans could somehow manage to achieve a serious lucky streak and the Eastern Front be significantly further from Berlin, or they could've collapsed and the Red Army would be knocking on the Fuehrerbunker's front door.

on top of all that.....I once heard Hitler had been distracted from the development of the V-2 rocket
too many primary fails ....and some general advised expending resources elsewhere

it flew 6months after Normandy.....so I heard

had the rocket been ready at the landing party.....we might all be speaking German

 

[leibowde84]

on top of all that.....I once heard Hitler had been distracted from the development of the V-2 rocket
too many primary fails ....and some general advised expending resources elsewhere

it flew 6months after Normandy.....so I heard

had the rocket been ready sooner......we might all be speaking German

This disregards the fact that the Germans abandoned their atomic weapons program. If the US had developed an atomic bomb before Germany was defeated, they would have used them against them. They would have taken out Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels, and then the rest of the German army would have surrendered.

 

[Thief]

This disregards the fact that the Germans abandoned their atomic weapons program. If the US had developed an atomic bomb before Germany was defeated, they would have used them against them. They would have taken out Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels, and then the rest of the German army would have surrendered.

it all in the timing....of course.

I heard Normandy was a tough engagement

the V-2 rocket didn't fly till a few months later

 

[leibowde84]

it all in the timing....of course.

I heard Normandy was a tough engagement

the V-2 rocket didn't fly till a few months later

That's true. Even when it did, they didn't have nearly enough of them to make a real difference. They were extremely inaccurate and couldn't go that far.

 

[Thief]

That's true. Even when it did, they didn't have nearly enough of them to make a real difference. They were extremely inaccurate and couldn't go that far.

thank God for the problems they had

but later......the same vehicle crossed boundaries as never before
it opened the upper reaches of flight

seriously bad the motivation that prompted the invention

 

[leibowde84]

thank God for the problems they had

but later......the same vehicle crossed boundaries as never before
it opened the upper reaches of flight

seriously bad the motivation that prompted the invention

Well, I guess that was thanks to the US for saving the Nazi scientists who, otherwise, would have probably been punished for war crimes. It did lead to progress though for sure.