# D-Day fails. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597 "2011-06-15T20:02:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/41 "2011-06-17T20:13:49Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > It is perhaps difficult for us to conceptualize the enormous scale of _Bagration_. The Soviets no only had large numbers of men, tanks, planes, and artillery shells, but the tanks and artillery (at least) were pretty high-quality, _and_ Soviet doctrine was well-suited to a set-piece offensive, _and_ they were motivated by intense ideological hatred. The results were one-sided. What-what-which? šŸ˜• Since when was Russian gear well-made? Rubbish. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/42 "2011-06-17T20:16:35Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > What-what-which? šŸ˜• > > Since when was Russian gear well-made? > > Rubbish. It was usually ā€œrobustā€, which is what I thought he meant. The T-34 is described as having been built with cruder manufacturing techniques and quality controls, but it was robust enough to be reliable even with the spotty maintenance it could expect to receive out in the field. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/43 "2011-06-17T20:32:19Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > Since when was Russian gear well-made? > > Rubbish. Well, the Russian T-34 series of tanks was certainly better than the German equivalents. Probably as good as the US tanks ā€“ not as sophisticated, but more easily maintained/repaired in the field. And much of the fighting in this was tank warfare. Probably the largest tank battle in history, had been the year before, there at Kursk. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/44 "2011-06-17T20:38:03Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Well, the Russian T-34 series of tanks was certainly better than the German equivalents. Probably as good as the US tanks ā€“ not as sophisticated, but more easily maintained/repaired in the field. And much of the fighting in this was tank warfare. Probably the largest tank battle in history, had been the year before, there at Kursk. US Tanks in WW2 stunk. Period. Gun too small, armor too thin. Easy to fix, plenty of parts, lots of them. But they still stunk. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/45 "2011-06-17T23:05:53Z")
Would Hitler have stayed in Berlin in this scenario? If his western border was still the coast of France, would he have withdrawn west and consolidated his forces? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/46 "2011-06-18T00:02:21Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#): > > Would it have been so bad? U.K. and U.S. would have been economically even stronger into present day. No Marshal planā€¦Western Europe would have been like Eastern Europe economically. > > Europe (Outside of England) would be much more eclipsed instead of the powerhouse it is now Heck, I can imagine massive immigration from western Europe to the U.S. and Canada in that circumstance, comparable to earlier waves of economic refugees fleeing potato famines and whatnot. Perhaps the U.S. couldnā€™t be affected significantly, but I can imagine Canadaā€™s population dramatically increasing, with who-knows-what outcome. French refugees settling in Quebec in large numbers by itself could have brought about significant changes in the subsequent culture wars, possibly leading to breakup of Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/47 "2011-06-18T00:16:27Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > What-what-which? šŸ˜• > > Since when was Russian gear well-made? > > Rubbish. As others have pointed out the Red Army had the best tank units in the war. Some German tanks may have been individually better but Germany was never able to get its best tanks into mass production and keep them in the field. (The Tiger, for example, was a better tank than the T-34. But the Soviet Union built 57000 T-34ā€™s during the war and Germany only built 1300 Tigers.) American tanks were good and they were plentiful but I donā€™t think anyone can objectively argue they were the best. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/48 "2011-06-20T01:27:04Z")
I think that depending on the extent of the failure, Germany buys itself time and is able to cause a stalemate with Russia somewhere in Poland or possibly on the eastern border of Germany. Taking Germany even WITH the allied invasion of Western Europe and the pressure the allies were putting on Germany from the west was ruinously costly for the Soviets. Without any of that? I donā€™t think that Russia could have pushed through with a German defense totally focused on the East. Of course, with Hitler in charge he might have tried some sort of stupid offensive against the Soviets that managed to throw away a few more army groups, but assuming Germany is able to focus on the eastern front and that they arenā€™t having to worry about a new invasion in the west for at least a few more years (as the US and allies rebuilt their invasion force for another try), I think folks in this thread are overestimating what the Red Army was capable of at the time. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/49 "2011-06-20T04:06:17Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Taking Germany even WITH the allied invasion of Western Europe and the pressure the allies were putting on Germany from the west was ruinously costly for the Soviets. I strongly disagree with that assessment. The USSR came out of ww2 much stronger than it was going in. In terms of relative strength, it leapfrogged all of the other stronger economies, except USA. Not only could USSR have conquered Germany alone by the time of D-Day, it could (and would) have also completely evicted Japan from the mainland at the same time. The Western world would look very different now if D-Day had failed. WW2 might not have ended with the defeat of the Axis powers. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/50 "2011-06-20T04:17:17Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think that depending on the extent of the failure, Germany buys itself time and is able to cause a stalemate with Russia somewhere in Poland or possibly on the eastern border of Germany. Taking Germany even WITH the allied invasion of Western Europe and the pressure the allies were putting on Germany from the west was ruinously costly for the Soviets. Without any of that? I donā€™t think that Russia could have pushed through with a German defense totally focused on the East. > > Of course, with Hitler in charge he might have tried some sort of stupid offensive against the Soviets that managed to throw away a few more army groups, but assuming Germany is able to focus on the eastern front and that they arenā€™t having to worry about a new invasion in the west for at least a few more years (as the US and allies rebuilt their invasion force for another try), I think folks in this thread are overestimating what the Red Army was capable of at the time. > > -XT I think the answer is somewhere in between the opposing views here. Aside from the technological and industrial capacity of the sides, there was the attitude factor. The naziā€™s inability to take Leningrad, the cost of their siege and eventual withdrawal made Germany fearful of the Soviets, and gave the Soviets a new optimism, and made the idea of revenge look feasible. This might have doomed German military more than the quality and number of tanks. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/51 "2011-06-20T05:05:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think that depending on the extent of the failure, Germany buys itself time and is able to cause a stalemate with Russia somewhere in Poland or possibly on the eastern border of Germany. Taking Germany even WITH the allied invasion of Western Europe and the pressure the allies were putting on Germany from the west was ruinously costly for the Soviets. Without any of that? I donā€™t think that Russia could have pushed through with a German defense totally focused on the East. Even with Allied pressure from the west, and Italy, and the strategic bombing campaign, the substantial majority of the German military continued to face the USSR until the end of the war. They had no problem pushing through German defenses. Even granting an utter Allied defeat at Normandy, which is completely implausible and unrealistic, Germany was still facing the Western Allies in Italy, in a strategic bombing campaign that had already demolished the Luftwaffe as an effective force, and [Operation Dragoon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragoon) which was to land in southern France on August 15th. The pause of Bagration in central Poland was caused by the rapid extension of the distance of the Soviet supply lines, not effective German resistance. From wiki: > [@](#): > > Over the next few days, the pocket east of Minsk was reduced: only a fraction of the 100,000 troops in it escaped. Minsk had been liberated, and Army Group Centre utterly destroyed, in possibly the greatest single defeat suffered by the Wehrmacht in the whole war. Between 22 June and 4 July 1944, Army Group Centre lost 25 divisions and 300,000 men. In the few subsequent weeks, the Germans lost another 100,000 men. > > Figures for total German losses along the Eastern Front from 1 Juneā€“29 August 1944 were 71,685 killed, 503,564 wounded and 325,381 missing, for a total of 900,630. It also soon left the substantial part of Army Group North; subsequently renamed Army Group Courland cut off and trapped in Latvia. The Soviets shifted their attention to the south just as Bagration came to a close, launching another major offensive in the [Jassyā€“Kishinev Offensive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jassy%E2%80%93Kishinev_Offensive_(August_1944)) which as can be seen on [this map](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/RedArmy19Aug31Dec44.jpg) overran Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, all of whom capitulated to the Soviets and switched sides by declaring war on Germany by mid-October. The possibility of a stalemate in the East was nothing more than a fantastical pipedream of Hitlerā€™s, and would have remained so even if the landings at Normandy were somehow miraculously defeated. > [@](#): > > Of course, with Hitler in charge he might have tried some sort of stupid offensive against the Soviets that managed to throw away a few more army groups, You mean like the futile and pointless [Lake Balaton Offensive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fr%C3%BChlingserwachen)? Germany didnā€™t have any Army Groups to throw away. > [@](#): > > but assuming Germany is able to focus on the eastern front and that they arenā€™t having to worry about a new invasion in the west for at least a few more years (as the US and allies rebuilt their invasion force for another try) Not a good assumption, forces would still have to be maintained in the West to face the next invasion, the strategic bombing would continue, and Italy was still an active front with Southern France set to become another active front by mid-August. It wouldnā€™t take a few years to prepare another invasion, another cross channel assault would be ready by next year at the latest, or more likely the forces could be shipped into Southern France turning it into the main Allied Front in France rather than the secondary one. > [@](#): > > I think folks in this thread are overestimating what the Red Army was capable of at the time. With due respect, I know that you are vastly underestimating what the Red Army was capable of at the time. Germany had no hope of stalemating in the East, even with a successful repulse of the Normandy landings. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/52 "2011-06-20T05:23:12Z")
A question about the plans to use the atom bomb against Germany. The air force (I know it wasnā€™t really the air force yet) was given instructions at some point to put some Japanese cities on a non-bombing list. The idea was that some cities should be reserved as targets for the atom bomb and the War Department didnā€™t want them to be all bombed out by regular bombing. Does anyone know when these orders were issued? And was there ever an equivalent order to put some German cities on a reserve list as potential atom-bomb targets? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/53 "2011-06-20T05:26:37Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The pause of Bagration in central Poland was caused by the rapid extension of the distance of the Soviet supply lines, not effective German resistance. The Soviets also had post-war political reasons for stopping. ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/54 "2011-06-23T22:00:48Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > Stalin apparently quipped ā€œTsar Alexander reached Parisā€ Which Alexander is he referring to? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/55 "2011-06-23T23:55:20Z")
> [@brocks](#): > > Which Alexander is he referring to? Tsar Alexander I. [This, in particular.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Paris_%281814%29) ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597/56 "2011-07-06T14:17:56Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > The Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, even the Ukrainians or Belarusians donā€™t speak Russian. Why would a Red Germany or France do so? Reality check: [Ukrainians do speak Russian.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language_in_Ukraine) > [@](#): > > Russian language and culture dominates (parts of) Ukraineā€™s public sphere > [@](#): > > According to a 2004 public opinion poll by the Kiev International Sociology Institute, the number of people using Russian language at their homes considerably exceeds the number of those who declared Russian as their native language in the census. According to the survey, Russian is used at home by 43ā€“46% of the population of the country (in other words a similar proportion to Ukrainian) and Russophones make a majority of the population in Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine > [@](#): > > Russian language dominates in informal communication in the capital of Ukraine, Kiev. > [@](#): > > According to data obtained by the ā€œPublic opinionā€ foundation (2002), the population of the oblast centres prefers to use Russian (75%). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-day-fails/585597.md?page=2)