Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the spring of 1944, the German field commanders in Normandy – essentially Rommel and von Schweppenburg – held two basic but conflicting points of view on how to defeat the invasion. Rommel believed that since the Allies had control of the air it would be difficult, if not impossible, to bring up adequate reserves and drive the Allies out once they were firmly established ashore. Rommel therefore believed that the Allies must be defeated on the beaches and ordered his troops to prepare for battle on the day of the landings – the ‘longest day’, as he called it. His men were to dig-in along the shore and be supplied with all the support he could muster – mines, wire, artillery, machine-guns and tanks – and fight the enemy on the tide line. In Rommel’s view, the first day would be vital. According to Major Hans von Luck of 21 Panzer: ‘Rommel told me that if the Allies will land and we cannot throw them back into the sea in twenty-four hours, it is the beginning of the end.’
Other opinions held that with 1,200 miles of coast to defend and inadequate resources available, an Allied landing could not be prevented, even in the two most likely areas, which in themselves covered many miles of coast. This being so, it would be as well to let the Allies land, establish exactly where they were and only then hurl all the available reserves, especially a quantity of armour, against the bridgehead and drive the invaders into the sea. The main proponent of this view was Geyr von Schweppenburg but he was supported by von Rundstedt. Von Rundstedt’s strategy also depended on hanging on to the major ports – ‘fortress positions’ in the German plan – thereby denying the Allies the opportunity to swiftly build up their forces while German reserves were mustered in quantity to smite the Allies hard. This aspect of the plan had its less beneficial side for the defence of these fortress ports tied up many troops in garrison and employed a quantity of artillery in static defence.
- Neillands, Robin. The Battle of Normandy 1944
Von Rundstedt did not know the allies would take their own ports.
One chronic problem facing the commanders in Normandy was the steady seepage of their best units to the Eastern Front. These tended to be the armoured divisions, especially SS Panzer divisions and other first-class formations, which were only replaced, if at all, by troops of lesser quality, inadequately trained and without the latest equipment.
- Neillands, Robin. The Battle of Normandy 1944
The Soviets launched Operation Bagration on 21/22 June 1944, one of the largest Allied operations of WWII with 2.3 million troops. It hit the Wehrmacht with no warning taking 450,000 German casualties. It ran out of steam at the time of Falaise severely weakening the German army. It eliminated three Axis armies with the liberation of Soviet land reaching Warsaw.
In September the Red Army smashed through Romania and Bulgaria into Yugoslavia and Hungary.
Churchill may have had the big say on that. The A-Bomb was made to drop on Germany.
One has precisely nada to do with the other, and if you think Churchill had any say in whether or not to use a nuclear weapon against Germany - beyond whether or not to permit the use of a base on the island of Britain (which he would have done, in a heartbeat) - then you're beyond delusional. At any rate, since Churchill was in office for all of a mere 10 days after the first atomic test and was out of office before the second bomb was assembled, then your absurd claim doesn't even match the historical timeline.
If Germany had split its forces 50/50 between the Western and Eastern fronts, D-day would have never even been contemplated. It was only because 95% of the Germany army was fighting on the Soviet front that the Allies had such an viable beachhead and limited resistance all the way to Berlin. D-day was a blessing for the Germans. Had they been aware of it, they would have been wise to let it proceed. By that time, the loss on the Soviet front was inevitable and Soviet occupation was not an attractive option.
One has precisely nada to do with the other, and if you think Churchill had any say in whether or not to use a nuclear weapon against Germany - beyond whether or not to permit the use of a base on the island of Britain (which he would have done, in a heartbeat) - then you're beyond delusional. At any rate, since Churchill was in office for all of a mere 10 days after the first atomic test and was out of office before the second bomb was assembled, then your absurd claim doesn't even match the historical timeline.
The British would have the final say on that without doubt, as Germany is in Britain's back yard. If the USA wanted to drop one on Germany, and the British said "no", it would not be dropped. I do not know of any A-bomb test in May 1940. FYI, the British MAUD committee figured out how to make the bomb. The British A-Bomb project started in 1939.
If Germany had split its forces 50/50 between the Western and Eastern fronts, D-day would have never even been contemplated.
The Americans insisted on a cross Channel invasion. The British were cool on it. Churchill said of the soft underbelly of Europe. Operation Dragoon was supposed to be an invasion of Brittany after Normandy. It was deemed unnecessary. An invasion of Northern Italy was considered then Southern France. Churchill protested, saying it should have been at Trieste and through the Ljubljana gap via Vienna right into Germany. The US Commander in Italy agreed. Instead the US 7th Army with a French army ended up spread thin melting into Eisenhower's broad front strategy in France making little progress or impact.
I saw a video last night on the superiority of the Panzer over the Sherman. Later that year the Battle of the Bulge was going well for the Germans until the skies cleared. Taking those two facts into account, it was air power that would have saved the day on the beaches of Normandy.
I would say that every fighter and bomber in England had the range to knock out everything that the Germans had in Northern France. One year later we could have A-bombed Berlin.
They only could have repulsed it if they abandoned the Russian front.
In that case, they probably could have - temporarily. The reasoning is this - Americans and Allies were not willing to sacrifice more than X in men and material. We are not "last man standing" types....it is not a smart way to wage war when you are on the side with the advantages.
So, we'd have pulled out with an unsuccessful landing and lived to invade another day. Every month more Germans were being slaughtered by the Ruskies, so they were becoming less and less capable.
History would have been changed - but not really that much. Instead of D-Day we'd be talking about them landing in Denmark or the like...perhaps in a smaller force. But Germany would have been beaten one way or another.
Heck, we could have waited 6 months to a year and dropped a nuke or two on them....no invasion needed.
We do have to remember that the Russians were the #1 reason for the end of the war...when it did happen. If Hitler would have taken the main Russian cities, the Allies would have had to regroup and likely no end would be near until after many A-Bombs were made...even then, we'd have to figure on how long it would have taken Hitler, in combo with the conquered Russia, to do both a bomb and the rockets to deliver them.
IMHO, the taking of Russia would have altered the entire equation...maybe for the long run. It could have caused us to sue for peace, as there is only so much that can be done when the largest country in the world is occupied.
Joee5 imagines:
"Who cares. They lost.
Can't Monday morning quarterback now, after the fact."
We can learn from experience. Our aviation assets would have been more effective in Iraq if the crews had been taught the history of Vietnam. We pilots who flew back in Vietnam were tearing our hair out over the unnecessary losses.
"German Americans in the US were American first and German about 111th. You're looking at 1945 (as do some revisionist historians) through today's identity politics lens."
I was born before WWII, but was too young to serve. However, back here at home, the German-American Bund was burning wheat fields in our wheat producing states. Look it up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
