D-Day 1945 speculation

[varyar]

I don't know what put the idea in my brain, but it's been bouncing around inside there for the last half hour or so.

1) How do we contrive a situation where the Western Allies hold off on invading NW Europe until 1945? Do the Germans do better in the East (say the Sixth Army manages to extract a large part of its men from Stalingrad, and the Wehrmacht goes for a defensive plan instead of Kursk) - they're still losing, but they're able to gamble and send, I don't know, an extra field army to reinforce northern France. It's all pretty unlikely, I admit, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. Near the border, maybe, but not beyond.

2) If D-Day is delayed a year or so, what does it look like when it does go off? How much larger would the invasion force be? Would they have enough amphibious capacity to land in Normandy and Provence simultaneously? Would you see a more diverse landing force as far as nationalities go - would there be a Brazilian division, and/or more Commonwealth and Empire forces? Would the landing zone be larger - six or seven beaches instead of OTL's five?

Any thoughts on the scenario?

 

[Coiler]

Eh, by 1944 the Allies would have either doubled down on Italy (instead of treating it as a backwater sideshow like in OTL) or gone straight to a Dragoon-style landing from the south if Normandy was somehow unviable. Besides Stalin constantly screaming for a second front, they'd have wanted to reeinvade themselves sooner rather than later.

 

[Charles EP M.]

You need a reason that the Red Army aren't doing well but also a reason the Allies haven't either committed or just kept going through Italy (Churchill's "soft underbelly" idea might catch on if the USSR's bogged down and you're in Italy anyway). If Germany does better in the East and they send the field army to push the Allies out of Italy, maybe, and D-Day has to be postponed so the gains already made are lost.

Or wild card idea, the "soft underbelly" was chosen due to mumble-mumble and the invasion of NW Europe happens in 1945 because the Western allies want to get in there and into France & Germany so the USSR doesn't walk all the way to the Rhine.

 

[frustrated progressive]

(Churchill's "soft underbelly" idea might catch on if the USSR's bogged down and you're in Italy anyway).

Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

You need a reason that the Red Army aren't doing well but also a reason the Allies haven't either committed or just kept going through Italy (Churchill's "soft underbelly" idea might catch on if the USSR's bogged down and you're in Italy anyway). If Germany does better in the East and they send the field army to push the Allies out of Italy, maybe, and D-Day has to be postponed so the gains already made are lost.

Or wild card idea, the "soft underbelly" was chosen due to mumble-mumble and the invasion of NW Europe happens in 1945 because the Western allies want to get in there and into France & Germany so the USSR doesn't walk all the way to the Rhine.

I think the terrain in northern Italy would be a pain for an invasion through Italy.

Alternate idea - Operation Torch goes off BETTER than OTL, because Hitler decides to cut his losses and abandon North Africa. As Dale Cozort argued, this makes Germany stronger in Russia and Stalingrad isn't so bad for them. This makes them seem stronger than OTL, which makes an invasion more of a gamble.

OR - Midway goes the other way. The Pacific gets more US combat power than OTL.

Chris

 

[Charles EP M.]

A different Pacific Theatre could delay things (a lot less US Navy available to Europe for a start) though that's also going to have backlash with the Soviets, who'll want to know "where's the bloody new front?" There might have to be something to show willing, and to show to Western European nations that the US and UK will turn up instead of the Red Army, but what?

 

[ChrisNuttall]

A different Pacific Theatre could delay things (a lot less US Navy available to Europe for a start) though that's also going to have backlash with the Soviets, who'll want to know "where's the bloody new front?" There might have to be something to show willing, and to show to Western European nations that the US and UK will turn up instead of the Red Army, but what?

I'm not sure it's hyper-important - Stalin was unlikely to make any sort of peace with Hitler, either because he knew better than to let himself be fooled again or through Hitler demanding more than Stalin could reasonably concede.

Hum - Midway is a US defeat. The Japanese look unstoppable. US naval power flows to the Pacific (probably along with a UK carrier or two.) The German u-boats do more damage, not enough to starve Britain but enough to weaken the UK and render a major build-up impossible. Hitler looks stronger, and there are fewer distractions, so Stalingrad isn't quite so bad for him. By 1944, the US has returned to the Pacific in force and started to push the Japanese back, but D-Day will probably have to be postponed until 1945 because the battle against the u-boats hasn't been won.

By this point, the US knows nukes are possible. Berlin may be spared - Hitler was the only one who could surrender, at the time - but another germen city will be destroyed. At that point, who knows ...?

 

[History Learner]

I'm not sure it's hyper-important - Stalin was unlikely to make any sort of peace with Hitler, either because he knew better than to let himself be fooled again or through Hitler demanding more than Stalin could reasonably concede.

Stalin definitely was open to a separate peace, maintaining contacts into late 1944 even. In 1943, there was serious consideration of it. In the event of either scenario you've proposed, either Hitler writing off Africa to save 6th Army or Midway forcing a Pacific First focus, there's going to be serious consideration of it. Hitler presents an issue, but by 1943 that can be dealt with if need be. In such a case of separate peace, however, the war in Europe ends.

Simplest way to get a 1945 D-Day in my estimation is Cozart's PoD of Ike cancelling the 6th in favor of the 18th which results in the Channel Storm wrecking the invasion fleet. It's too late to get anything out of Italy at that point and landings in Southern France are out of the question, both due to the changed strategic situation but also because of the shipping losses in the Channel. Soviets probably take an extremely bloody nose in Poland in August-September while Romania's defection is prevented. ETO probably lasts into 1946, depending upon Stalin and the 1944 Elections in the United States.

By this point, the US knows nukes are possible. Berlin may be spared - Hitler was the only one who could surrender, at the time - but another germen city will be destroyed. At that point, who knows ...?

There was never any planning done to use atomic weapons against Germany, the one planning conference done before 1945 was in 1943 and solely focused on Japan. Groves Post-War directly stated the target was always Germany for a variety of reasons; in particular, until late 1944 they thought the Germans were at least neck and neck with them for the bomb. Same principle there as why neither side broke out the chemical weapons.