|
|
Post by Kwik Kash on Nov 24, 2008 20:06:53 GMT -5
Since my first topic is doing well, though it took a while, I figured I'd offer a second alternative: D-Day, Operation Overlord.
Imagine that the June 6, 1944 landings have failed, and little to no Allied forces managed to penetrate the beach heads. Do you think the war would have continued much longer? If so, how long? Do you think the Allies would have tried another massive landing elsewhere, or given up on the idea entirely?
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colt .45 on Nov 26, 2008 17:34:54 GMT -5
Sorry i didnt see this earlier kwik. I think if it would have failed the Allies that landed on Omaha, Juno, Gold, etc...would have been so demoralized. Just another victory to feed the Nazi propaganda machine. In my opinion, i dont think there should have been an amphibious assault in normandy. They should have left it for Naval and air bombardment and sent in the 101st and/or the 82nd. But the 29th did just aswell.  I dont remember, Rommel didnt get his panzer divisions there in time? Just think, If this invasion failed we would have never been able to liberate Caen, or invade Bocage.This quote from Eisenhower has allways sent chills down my spine. "You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world." |
|
|
|
Post by Kwik Kash on Nov 26, 2008 20:08:50 GMT -5
It's fine. Not many people seem to look in the All Non-Horror Talk! section as much as the other threads, so it's understandable.
Good calls, Colt. I believe that if D-Day had failed, the Allies would have focused more on the weakest part of the Axis: the underbelly, which was North Africa and Italy.
Also about Rommel, that was part of the reason. But the primary culprit was, the German High Command was arguing over the best way to approach the possible landings. Rommel wanted to be as close to the shore as possible, to prevent any landings, while several other officers wanted to allow the Allies to begin landing, then attack them. Hitler was torn so he decided to split up the forces, giving some to Rommel for his idea and the others to try their idea. The reinforcements Rommel sent for were stalled because Hitler and the High Command believed Normandy was just a diversion, and he didn't want to pull away from the main invasion force.
Yeah, that quote was a good one. It really sets you in the mood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colt .45 on Nov 26, 2008 20:49:57 GMT -5
Wasn't the Africa campaign finished in late '42-early '43?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kwik Kash on Nov 26, 2008 21:36:46 GMT -5
Wasn't the Africa campaign finished in late '42-early '43? About that time, yes. But I believe, since they had a strong foothold in Italy, they would have landed there and pushed upwards into Germany, leaving France under Axis occupation for a longer period of time. It would have been interesting if the Allies decided to land in Eastern Europe and link up with the Soviets and just push west towards Germany, talk about a slugfest. |
|
