Rommel, 12th SS and Normandy

Well its really a small peanut of accounting for the deployment of one Panzer division as “Rommels” strategic wish.

He clearly wanted the 15th army reorganized and parted out a bit along the entire coast, and secondly the Panzer reserve consisted of more than a few divisions of which he wanted control. One division would not have decided the day, He would need a bit more control to begin with to have a chance to throw the buggers off the beach.

But of course Hitler could not be waken from sleep, Rommel was giving shoes to his wife, Most of the field commanders were on a simulation of proposed allied invasion points….under the assumption that the allies only invade in perfect landing conditions.

So to sum up it was not one thing that would have prevented the success of the allies, but a combination of choices and personality that decided the fate.

I think it would have been a harder time for the allies but I don’t think that they would have been pushed back to the sea.  My reason for thinking this is b/c most of the Germans were on the radio asking for orders and not getting any answers.  Very few German units acted on the own.

Not only that the farther into France they went the less likely the Germans were to even know the allies were even there.  As you can see depicted in “Band of Brothers” when they stormed a farm house and the Germans were sittng down to breakfast.

The US on the other hand were throughly trained on what their unit was to do and also what other units objectives were.  This played a critical role with the paratrooper miss-placments.  They could find out where they were and assist the elements of the unit that was supposed to be there to acomplish their objectives.

So as you can see there were very diffrent schools of thought between the two sides during the Normandy invasion.

LT

Speaking of books ever read Sven Hassel - Der Fordometes Legion (The Legion of The Damned) and following books?

I think Rommel had a lot of ideas that would have made things harder, but of the five beach heads all were successful, that has to tell you something.  If the odds were even enough to be shifted the other way by the move ment of one division, you’d think at least one of the landings would have failed.  Hitlerjugend has a tough division but they weren’t that tough.

Romulus: Hell yeah, those Sven Hassel books are awesome.  I was a Corporal in the army for a couple years and used to call myself the fuhrers finest Corporal… no one realy got it…

btw I’m moving this to the History forum

The beacheads themselves were garrisioned by many non-german units, such as Ukranians, and other nationalities, even Kossacks made a counter-attack on horseback!
My point is that the best troops that germany had, were not anywhere near the beaches, but what if they had been? Another Panzer Division of crack veterans could certainly made a big difference. they could have cleared one or two beachead breakouts per day. In 10 days, the allies could well have been pulling back off the beaches in a momumental defeat, especially if the luftwaffe had thrown all their reserves into it. The germans losses would have been decimating to say the least, but I believe that they could have done it.
Confusion, due to communication disruptions by the allies and the french underground played a big role in giving the allies precious time to get ashore and inland to where vital artillery could get safe emplacements. The artillery was crucial in supporting the infantry from the german counter-attacks, especialy when the bad storms struck shortly after the landings, grounding all air support for the allies.
So, if the panzers had been there to push the invaders back to the beaches, where the casualties could have been unbearable, I believe that the allies would have had no choice but to pull what troops they could off the beaches, one at a time, as the panzers showed up. such a defeat for the allies would have been catastrafic, and would most likely led to a peace accord between the combatants. Ending WWII in Europe, with the Axis holding all of europe uncontested. I believe that old Joseph Stalin would probibly eaten a bullet instead of Hitler, to avoid capture, because Russia would have been on its’ own, no peace could have been brokered between those two.
Japan too would have been on its’ own, and the USA and Great Briton would have beaten them eventually.

……such a defeat for the allies would have been catastrafic, and would most likely led to a peace accord between the combatants. Ending WWII in Europe, with the Axis holding all of europe uncontested. I believe that old Joseph Stalin would probibly eaten a bullet instead of Hitler, to avoid capture, because Russia would have been on its’ own, no peace could have been brokered between those two.

This sounds alot like the prologue to Fatherland movie broadcast on TV about 15 years ago.

It would not lead to the Allies ‘losing the war’ they would just land in south france and do it all over again.

:|
I never saw that progam on TV, but at the least, if the allies did continue the war in Europe and redirected the offensive to South France it certainly would not have been in 44, posibly would have been in 45 but most likely 46. By then, Russia could have been pushed back to the Urals!

@Crazy:

I believe that old Joseph Stalin would probibly eaten a bullet instead of Hitler, to avoid capture, because Russia would have been on its’ own, no peace could have been brokered between those two.

Russia would have beat the Germans on their own even without a western front.  It is true that the Husky landings caused Hitler to falter on Cittedelle etc etc but given another year or two Russia would have come out on top.

What a difference that would have made in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QPDoHpxsnU&feature=related

@Audacity:

@Crazy:

I believe that old Joseph Stalin would probibly eaten a bullet instead of Hitler, to avoid capture, because Russia would have been on its’ own, no peace could have been brokered between those two.

Russia would have beat the Germans on their own even without a western front.  It is true that the Husky landings caused Hitler to falter on Cittedelle etc etc but given another year or two Russia would have come out on top.

What a difference that would have made in the world.

Exactly. Stalin would have overrun even more of Europe. Millions more people would have suffered under communism. Many people in the Brittish and American governments understood that reality at the time.

Whatever Rommel got, in 44 it was way to late. Germany could kill more allied soldiers on the beaches, or a few miles on shore, but it would only prolong the inevitable.

WW2 ended in 43, if not before, then it was absolutely done deal.

@ABWorsham:

This is a question my father posed to me several years ago. Although I don’t support his thoughts that the Allies would be pushed back into the English Channel, I do agree that it could have proved fatal for Omaha beach.

What’s your thoughts?

i also happen to agree with you guys…only higher casualties would have occured at Normandy…
Maybe a push back but i doubt it

you all saying that they would have done damage (Axis) but wouldn’t be able to stop the inevitable…not that I wanna proof you wrong but it seems to me that you forgot under wich circumstances and risks this whole Operation was running?!..and in all that chaos the Allies remained in their Beachheads and broke out into the open…a lot of things went wrong and not according to plan,but still freed France…It would take either a Tank ,a Brigade or a Division to show up somewhere ,where you at least would have expected it and things would have changed…so there was the possibility that the allies would have failed!!!..and that they would try it again in a short time of period?..I doubt it!!..it was a close call and now we are all glad that it went down that road but for a very high cost!!!..
A quater million Allied soldiers lost their lives during the 13 Phases of D-Day, the number wich The Staff of United States Army figured they would have as casulties from Normandy to Berlin!!!..

Add up all the posibilities to prevent the Landing or kill the beachheads and maybe you will change your mind!..just think for a minute Gen.May.  Bayerlein would insist of doing what it wanted to do and so on, or the Luftwaffe would have been not sent to russia…

The Soviets were already advancing on the Germans before D-Day.  With their war industry tucked away into the Urals and Siberia, Germany could not effectively conduct operations to slow down these factories besides attempts at closing off Lend Lease.  The Soviets were out producing the Germans at a pretty substantial margine by now. The only change would be the Soviets beating the other allies to Berlin by a larger margin and possiblly having covered and taken more control of Germany and Berlin in its entirety.

FDR said that if the invasion failed, they would try again.
I thought it was a general consensus that the Normandy invasion didn’t change much for WW2, it helped make it shorter, but mostly, it prevented Stalin taking over most of Western Europe. The Normandy invasion had a bigger impact on the cold war than WW2.