D-Day didn´t save Europa from the nazis

[w_mullender]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: D-Day didn´t save Europa from the nazis

Originally posted by webbrave
that's what I am saying. If no one is approaching why speed up? Jews and Slavs come cheap, but there is only a fixed number of them. Why kill them before their time when they can serve the Reich?

Well that is basically what they did, they killed anyone not fit to work and the rest either held out or died during work.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

D-Day etc.

1. The death rate in the concentration camps soared due to to starvation and thyphoid as the Third Reich broke down while a lot of prisoners were murdered as they were marched away from the front.

2. The threat of invasion created a "Second front" from the autumn of 1943. The Germans starved the East Front of reinforcements in order to build up the defences in the West. No D-Day in the summer of 1944 would have enabled the Germans to at least contain the Soviets through the winter of 44-45.

3. It is unlikely that the Soviets would have acted as boldly as they historically did in the summer of 1944 without the Western Allies securely lodgded in Normandy.

 

[unmerged(469)]

I have no strong opinion on this, but it seems reasonable to consider the possibility of Stalin negotiating a compromise peace with Hitler absent a second front.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
I have no strong opinion on this, but it seems reasonable to consider the possibility of Stalin negotiating a compromise peace with Hitler absent a second front.

not before the Germans were expelled from the Soviet Union territory. If at that moment UK and US would suddently leave Stalin to fight alone he might consider a peace treaty.

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by webbrave
not before the Germans were expelled from the Soviet Union territory. If at that moment UK and US would suddently leave Stalin to fight alone he might consider a peace treaty.

Or more probably a cease-fire

 

[unmerged(7924)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
I have no strong opinion on this, but it seems reasonable to consider the possibility of Stalin negotiating a compromise peace with Hitler absent a second front.

After Hitler had braked the first one, I don't think he would've done that.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

After Soviet territory had been cleared of Germans (and probably earlier, with the succes of Bagration) there was no need for Stalin to sue for peace. Even without D-day, offensively the Wehrmacht wasn't a threat anymore to the Red Army.

It would have taken more time and lives, but at this stage a Soviet victory was already inevitable. No need for negotiations of any kind.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

if germany knew there would be no d-day or if d-day had totaly failed, the extra troops and reinforcements that the germans would have available would have made a battle for germany twice as bloody, not to mention the german army no matter how poor in situation it was would keep fighting until all of germany were lost since they would know no treaty would come.

so if the allies had waited until berlin fell and almost nothing was in france, while they could have saved france and the low countries from the soviets, all germany, denmark and probably the entire balkans and central europe would be soviet controled. however italy would still have been allied controlled.
i dont see the ussr taking over france and the low countries simply becuase an attempt at such would result in a western assult on the soviets.

 

[unmerged(10416)]

twice as bloody? hardly.

had d-day failed, the troops would still need time to replace their losses and then move to the east front. The Soviets would have accelerated their buildup and attacked earlier than they did historically. The Wehrmacht reinforcements from the west would have arrived just in time for the big finale... perhaps the Russians would not have won as brilliantly as they did (utterly smashing Army Group Center, destroying over 20 divisions in three weeks) but they would still have outnumbered the Germans 3:1 and would have broken the back of the Wehrmacht.

Also remember, Hitler (and part of the OKW) assumed that the Russians would attack in the western Ukraine and aim to cut off all of AG center and AG north. Hitler placed most of the armored reserve there... it's likely that the additional reinforcements would also have been sent mostly there.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

actualy if D-day failed or was ruled out it would only take 10 divisions to hold france, all infantry, maybe an armored brigade also.

that frees up quite a lot of forces to add to the eastern front. also all reinforcements that went westward after it, go east instead. that will add up fast and very much increase the deaths the soviets suffer trying to fight into germany. and if those forces keep the balken nations in longer then there are more deaths to add. it has a mounting effect that wont be seen instently.

 

[unmerged(11008)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: D-Day didn´t save Europa from the nazis

Originally posted by webbrave
that's what I am saying. If no one is approaching why speed up? Jews and Slavs come cheap, but there is only a fixed number of them. Why kill them before their time when they can serve the Reich?

And what vital services were these emaciated walking corpses performing? ...oh yeah building stiarcases that led to nowhere in the Death camps and digging their own graves

"Guest workers", who you are thinking of, were not killed en masse as the Allies apporached.

Soviet records state they were on their last legs regarding manpower by 1945...exactly how do they walk to the Atlantic Ocean if the Germans are able to field more than the historical 55-60% of their forces on the Eastern Front after D-Day?

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: D-Day didn´t save Europa from the nazis

Originally posted by Zeppelin
Soviet records state they were on their last legs regarding manpower by 1945...exactly how do they walk to the Atlantic Ocean if the Germans are able to field more than the historical 55-60% of their forces on the Eastern Front after D-Day?

Maybe the Soviets were on the last legs, but not sending 15-year old boys and 60-year old men to the front like the Germans were forced to do, so they had more reserves than the Germans. Also, there still was a rather large army in the East (some 1 million men) which could have been used if the situation would have become really troublesome.

Just the threat of D-day would have been help enough, since Hitler didn't make any clear strategic choices about which front was to be held at all costs. He just wanted to defend everything.

 

[unmerged(15579)]

I believe that the Germans could have at least PROTRACTED the war a number of years if they could send all their western garrisons to the Ostfront. The war would have been much bloodier and most likely would have been drawn out till 46-47.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by Fuhrerdammerung
I believe that the Germans could have at least PROTRACTED the war a number of years if they could send all their western garrisons to the Ostfront. The war would have been much bloodier and most likely would have been drawn out till 46-47.

Except Patton and Third Army was stomping their way towards Berlin, and were nearly there. Assuming that the Germans had resisted frantically on the Eastern Front, and hardly at all on the Western Front, then the war is over by December 1944, since in the absence of significant opposition, Operation Market Garden just might have worked.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Originally posted by Neil
Except Patton and Third Army was stomping their way towards Berlin, and were nearly there. Assuming that the Germans had resisted frantically on the Eastern Front, and hardly at all on the Western Front, then the war is over by December 1944, since in the absence of significant opposition, Operation Market Garden just might have worked.

Granted. But I think he means that Germany could have lengthened the war by moving the western front garrisions to the east... if D-Day didn't/wouldn't/couldn't happen, they would be free to do so.

Steele

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by Steele
Granted. But I think he means that Germany could have lengthened the war by moving the western front garrisions to the east... if D-Day didn't/wouldn't/couldn't happen, they would be free to do so.

Perhaps, but if the Germans did totally strip their West Wall, I can't believe that the Allies would do nothing. While there might not be a D-Day style mass landing, I could easily see the Allies making large scale paradrops into Northern France.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

I see somebody's been reading those 1950s Soviet textbooks again...

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
I see somebody's been reading those 1950s Soviet textbooks again...

At about the same time the Allies landed in Normandy, the Red Army totally destroyed German Army Group Center, the strongest of the three Army Groups operating on the Eastern Front where most of the German forces were concentrated. I really don't see how anyone can call D-day decisive in the war against Germany. Stalingrad? Maybe. Kursk? Also a good turning point. But D-day? No way. The Soviets were already well under way by then. The war would have taken longer, but as things stood on June 5th 1944, the Germans would have lost anyway. Sorry, but those 1950s Soviet textbooks are right on this point.

 

[unmerged(16470)]

UK/US cannot sue for peace for no good reason without attempting to liberate Europe. If they do, the possibility of the fall of their sitting government would most probably be high. ie. how do you explain to your people that after all those deaths of their citizens over 4-5years, you suddenly decided to sue for peace with no gains and yet have tons of men, tanks, planes, ships.

So even if UK/US decide not to conduct D-Day, they would prob still not/cannot seek separate peace with Germany.

If there is no peace with UK/US, I doubt if many of the divs on the Atlantic Wall would be transfered to the East. Fear of invasion is a big preoccupation with Hilter. For example, Norway and all those divs stuck up there. Perhaps one or two Pz Divs would be transfered to the East and some would be rotated with burnt-out units. But 1-2 Pz may not prolong the Eastern Front much longer than historically.

Therefore IMHO, no D-Day will not prevent total occupation of mainland Europe by SU, only delay it.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

also as we seem to have totaly forgotten, germans may move a few divisions to italy