With the Allies in Italy, was D-day nesessary? Italy had been very hard to take and there were tons of casualties, but they were so far by D-day that they might as well have just taken advantage of what they had accomplished instead of letting all those troops in Italy go to waste.
Yes well i think it was needed as it helped win the war and created another front for the germans to defend and helped break the germans however it wasnt the mayjor battle that decided the war it was important
First of all hi,Im new in here! I think that with D-Day,Allies also opened a very important front on the western europe. Germany had to fight with huge russian army,and particulally the western front was empty.The defence there were minimum. If the allies would came all the way trough Italy,the germans could had some time to replace their army. I think that thanks to D-Day we can live in pure democraci!
Did you watch all the information over last weekend !! yes d day was inportant to win the war ! This is really a question you need to ask an old war vetran <_< They shall not grow old ,as we that are left grow old : age shall not weary them , nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning WE WILL REMEMBER THEM ....
No invasion or a failed invasion of Normandy would have been a disaster for the Allies. The Germans would have been able to free up vast quantities of troops to hold the lines in Italy (a fairly easy feat) and Russia (a less easy feat), which in turn would have given the German scientists and Albert Speer the time they needed to get their weapons and economic houses in order. The Germans would probably have been able to perfect their wunderwaffen, and possibly develop an atomic bomb, which they would certainly use on Britain, with horrible effect. The lack of an invasion of Europe would also have a harsh impact on the morale of the occupied nations, broken the will of resistance forces, and empowered collaborationist groups and fence-sitting neutrals. And millions more people would die in the concentration camps.
Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Aug 21 2004, 02:46 AM No invasion or a failed invasion of Normandy would have been a disaster for the Allies. The Germans would have been able to free up vast quantities of troops to hold the lines in Italy (a fairly easy feat) and Russia (a less easy feat), which in turn would have given the German scientists and Albert Speer the time they needed to get their weapons and economic houses in order. The Germans would probably have been able to perfect their wunderwaffen, and possibly develop an atomic bomb, which they would certainly use on Britain, with horrible effect. The lack of an invasion of Europe would also have a harsh impact on the morale of the occupied nations, broken the will of resistance forces, and empowered collaborationist groups and fence-sitting neutrals. And millions more people would die in the concentration camps. [post=27472]Quoted post[/post] First, Germany produced more weapons in 1944 than at any other time, Their problem was petrol and Adolf Hitler, thank God. Second, Post War analysis said that Germany was not at all close to acheiving a nuclear weapon, they were on the on the wrong track. Joe
Originally posted by JoeRoman@Sep 27 2004, 02:48 AM Second, Post War analysis said that Germany was not at all close to acheiving a nuclear weapon, they were on the on the wrong track. [post=28399]Quoted post[/post] Quite right of course, but the allies did not know this at the time, not that too many of the commanders would have appreciated the issue, as it was not widely discussed.
D-day was necessary because the russians demanded a second front (although this was actually the third front because of Italy). It releaved some of the pressure on the russians and shortened the war by some years, it also stopped all of continental Europe becoming communist.
Originally posted by angie999+Sep 29 2004, 02:08 PM-->(angie999 @ Sep 29 2004, 02:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-JoeRoman@Sep 27 2004, 02:48 AM Second, Post War analysis said that Germany was not at all close to acheiving a nuclear weapon, they were on the on the wrong track. [post=28399]Quoted post[/post] Quite right of course, but the allies did not know this at the time, not that too many of the commanders would have appreciated the issue, as it was not widely discussed. [post=28486]Quoted post[/post] [/b] The Germans were on the wrong track in 1944. However, if they were given leeway to go on fighting into 1946, they might have got back on the right track. They had Heisenberg and Peenemunde on their side, which are good trump cards in the scientific game.
Originally posted by Kiwiwriter+Oct 11 2004, 10:21 PM-->(Kiwiwriter @ Oct 11 2004, 10:21 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by angie999@Sep 29 2004, 02:08 PM <!--QuoteBegin-JoeRoman@Sep 27 2004, 02:48 AM Second, Post War analysis said that Germany was not at all close to acheiving a nuclear weapon, they were on the on the wrong track. [post=28399]Quoted post[/post] Quite right of course, but the allies did not know this at the time, not that too many of the commanders would have appreciated the issue, as it was not widely discussed. [post=28486]Quoted post[/post] The Germans were on the wrong track in 1944. However, if they were given leeway to go on fighting into 1946, they might have got back on the right track. They had Heisenberg and Peenemunde on their side, which are good trump cards in the scientific game. [post=28668]Quoted post[/post] [/b] Speculation and hindsight is always our way of changing history to the way 'we' would have fought a conflict. Since the Germans were no where near an active nuclear weapon and would have to start from zero should they eventually had realized that, I don't see how Heisenberg and Peenemunde would have changed the final outcome. Now, maybe large scale 1942 ME262 fighter production might have caused the war to have lasted much longer, which would have probably negated the vast allied air fleets. But then I would have made "ALL' the right decisions had I been the Germans(HA,HA). Have a good evening. Just funnin boys. Joe
ME262 fighter production might have caused the war to have lasted much longer, which would have probably negated the vast allied air fleets. The ME262 for all that it was a brillant aircraft, suffered from the fact the turbine blades in the engine normally failed very quickly. this was caused by the fact the nickel required for the alloy was given to the Navy and so a alterrnative had to be found, but the resultant alloy stil did not work at the right tempreture. Also, the Furher Decsion to tuen the ME262 into a blitzbomber would still have been in place and would have vcancelled any advantages of better engines. :ph34r: :ph34r:
Dpalme01, long before D-Day (a few days after the walk-in at Rome), the British/Churchill plan to make the main strike at Germany from the south through Austria was unsupported by the Americans which meant it wasn’t going to happen. The Italian theatre was being stripped of assets after the Allied landings on the mainland, and left with a sketchy strategy of not much more than to keep plugging away. The Americans were adamant their war machine was to be concentrated in landing in western Europe and driving to Germany - the shortest route. If no invasions of western Europe took place - hence no new front opened up - it would have put a greater emphasis on the Soviet war. Italy could not have been speeded up without massed landings in the north. The geography of Italy shows it a ‘Horatio’s Bridge’ scenario which greatly favours the defender. Italy is narrow with central mountains hence, irrespective of how many men you pile in, you soon hit the limit of how many can be combatant at any one time. Per Churchill’s plan, Britain had contingencies for entering western Europe if the Austrian plan went ahead. If the German’s retained control there would have been a secondary invasion. One possibility envisaged was that German control of western Europe could collapse, so there were plans to limit anarchy, establish control and utilise indigenous resources. However, the West had to show Stalin it was fighting seriously on all possible fronts and taking their share of losses. If Stalin was content to watch Italy boil away while he waged war from the East, very likely the war would have lasted longer, (Bomber Harris would probably have disagreed if he could have had his way), and, would have resulted in the Soviets ending up with a lot more of Europe than they did. No.9
By invading France the allies had the shortest route to the Ruhr therefore they could shut down the production of numerous factories. The invasion deprived Germany of Divisions which it needed on the Western Front and it destroyed morale not to mention the cost in German lives. Peenemunde had already been bombeed by the RAF we knew of it's existence therefore we could bomb it further if we thought the Germans were close to creating an atomic bomb. The SOE operation at the Norsk Hydro plant near Vermok destroyed their 'heavy water' making facility and their stockpiles. I firmly believe no atomic bomb could have been produced in Germany during the war or in the years following had the war continued.
Originally posted by Thomas McCall@Oct 14 2004, 05:06 PM The invasion deprived Germany of Divisions which it needed on the Western Front and it destroyed morale not to mention the cost in German lives. Do u not mean the Eastern Front against Russia, the Western front was France.
Just my own thoughts. If Germany had created the nuclear bomb, it would be at a much later stage than the Americans (which achieved a nuclear bomb by May 1945). Regardless if Germany was about to create a nuclear bomb, America would have used theirs against Nazi Germany, and it would've swfitly ended the war. The nuclear bomb was actually intended for the war in europe, but by the time it was created, the war was over.
Apologies it was a mistake I meant the Eastern Front against Russia not the Western Front. Thanks for pointing it Gnoemy
It found was found at the end of the war that the Germans where a long way off producing a nuclear bomb of their at least 2 to 3 years by some estimates. They were also hampered by allied bombing at the destruction of their supply of heavy water (D2O) in 1943 by SOE agents in Norway.
No invasion or a failed invasion of Normandy would have been a disaster for the Allies. The Germans would have been able to free up vast quantities of troops to hold the lines in Italy (a fairly easy feat) and Russia (a less easy feat), 40 more German divisions to annihilate in 'Bagration' or the Berlin offensive… which in turn would have given the German scientists and Albert Speer the time they needed to get their weapons and economic houses in order. The Germans would probably have been able to perfect their wunderwaffen, and possibly develop an atomic bomb, which they would certainly use on Britain, with horrible effect. The Germans were on the wrong track in 1944. However, if they were given leeway to go on fighting into 1946, they might have got back on the right track. They had Heisenberg and Peenemunde on their side, which are good trump cards in the scientific game. Do you really think V-2s and jets would have made such a big difference? Not even electrical submarines could have done something in the long term. The Allies had an overwhelming technological, economical and industrial superiority over the Germans. The wonder weapons could have been overcome with their own wonder weapons much more quickly than we can even imagine, as indeed happened with 'V' weaponry, jets which did see service, super tanks, radars and codes. And of course, the infraestructure and economical power to develop an atomic weapon was as far from Hitler as was a moon rocket for Napoléon. Not to mention that there were mediocre physicists and scientists in Nazi Germany; there were not enough brains to develop such a weapon, thanks to nazi 'ideology' and their likeness to expell all their talents and destroy their culture. The ME262 for all that it was a brillant aircraft, suffered from the fact the turbine blades in the engine normally failed very quickly. this was caused by the fact the nickel required for the alloy was given to the Navy and so a alterrnative had to be found, but the resultant alloy stil did not work at the right tempreture. Also, the Furher Decsion to tuen the ME262 into a blitzbomber would still have been in place and would have vcancelled any advantages of better engines. What about the thousands of tons of oil necessary to fuel this planes up? Ploesti had its limits, you know? Italy could not have been speeded up without massed landings in the north. The geography of Italy shows it a ‘Horatio’s Bridge’ scenario which greatly favours the defender. Italy is narrow with central mountains hence, irrespective of how many men you pile in, you soon hit the limit of how many can be combatant at any one time. Specially if you put Mark Clark in command. Sorry, couldn't resist. (Very glad to 'see' you, 9! ) It found was found at the end of the war that the Germans where a long way off producing a nuclear bomb of their at least 2 to 3 years by some estimates. They were also hampered by allied bombing at the destruction of their supply of heavy water (D2O) in 1943 by SOE agents in Norway. I don't think so. Nazi Germany, with its own resources would have had its bomb by the late 1950s… It took four years to the USSR to develop its own bomb, and by that time the USSR's industry was thrice the German and they had 50% of the information and genious needed to build it, thanks to its spies. Germany, without brains, without the industrial capacity and without the knowledge, building an A-bomb in 46? Yeah…
