@@1dcbly I disagree. Dragoon was a logical extension of the Italian Campaign and would have furthered the effort by forcing the Germans to weaken the Italian front. The UK wanted their assessment of the " soft underbelly" of Europe to be proved correct.
@@johannesvalterdivizzini1523 Please remember the English DID NOT WANT Dragoon! They saw it as an unnecessary diversion of force and actively fought against it. You can disagree but I think the forces earmarked for Dragoon would have been sent to England for a second try at Overlord. Remember Normandy was chosen because it was the second most direct route to central Germany. Dragoon was a secondary landing that was a long way from Germanys centers of gravity. Why would you think that Dragoon would be successful after Overlord, with much more forces available, failed? The forces the Germany used to repulse Overlord would be available to repulse Dragoon 2 month later. As an example of just how little the English thought of Dragoon, look at Dragoon’s command structure. There isn’t a single British or Empire commander in high level of command. They are all American or French.
The best parts of this video are when this panel discusses what actually happened on June 6, 1944. But this panel is in way over its head in the "what if" scenarios. Regardless of what might have happened on D-Day the Allies had overwhelming air and naval supremacy. And the D-Day June 6 landing force involved barely one percent of the men the Americans had under arms. But the biggest thing the Allies had going for them on June 6, 1944 was how unhinged Hitler had become by then. Hitler had surrounded himself with incompetent yes men like Jodl and Keitel while denying Generals who actually knew what they were doing any authority to act on their own. Generals like Max Pemsel and Erich Marcks knew before day break on June 6 that Normandy was the real invasion and not a diversion. They knew because of the sheer size and extent of the Allied pre-dawn raids, even if many more senior but more remote Generals were still deceived for days afterwards. In addition the German decision to schedule war games in Rennes for a date with optimal lunar and tidal phases for an amphibious invasion was absurd. Such war games might have made sense two weeks earlier or later but not on June 6. As a result of those war games dozens of essential German unit commanders were away when the invasion started. Ironically the marginal weather conditions on June 5 and 6 worked in the Allies' favor since the German weather forecasts had a sedative effect on the Germans. The German meteorologists missed the window of several hours of barely tolerable conditions that American and British forecasters had predicted with disastrous result for the Germans. The Normandy invasion would have been much more difficult in perfect weather but with marginal weather conditions the surprise of the invasion was near total. Lastly the mulberries (artificial portable ports) had an indispensable role in the success of the Normandy invasion making it possible to break through much sooner than would have been possible otherwise. And the mulberries were a concept the Germans had no idea about before the Normandy invasion. While they weren’t essential on day one they were essential for breaking out of Normandy as quickly as the Allies did. The Allies had learned as early as the disastrous mostly Canadian 1942 Dieppe raid than a channel invasion of France would not work at a port city and that they would have to bring artificial ports with them to adequately supply their forces.
1% of the troops the Americans had under arms..... I wonder how many troops of each nationality took part on the 6th of June. That's ground forces. We'll ignore naval and air forces unless you insist
@@SCWillson Yeah, I have it a thumbs up, too. Seems like long rants or comments are more acceptable on military videos than on anything else. Many of us read them all the way, and come back with our own lengthy take!
If D-Day failed. It would have meant that instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki going BOOM , Berlin and The Ruhr, would be turned into even more rubble, but glowing a bit more.
I think they would've hit Dresden. Sort of a salutary warning for the Soviets, something to provoke some thought among the Red Army top brass. "Oh, guys, you might want to avoid that for a bit. It's actually going to be quite dangerous for a while and we have a few more of these up our sleeves, so tread carefully."
I think that is true. I note that Oppenheimer commented after VE Day that he was sorry they couldn’t have used “the device” on the Nazis. Also agree, Evan. They would have made the “demonstration” well to the East to show “Uncle Joe” the capabilities of the atomic weapon.
That ignores the criteria for target selection. An important part of target selection was to demonstrate the destructive power of the bomb on cities that have not yet already been mostly leveled by other means and hence more clearly see the bombs' effect. That's also why Tokyo was not a top target either because it was already devastated by a much more severe fire bombing. In my opinion much more likely initial targets would have been cities like Munich or Nuremberg perhaps Hamburg. (although as I recall even Hamburg was hit hard by then)
The Ruhr area maybe (though as the other commenter noted, possibly not, due to it failing to meet the criteria), Berlin surely not. Completely destroying the capital city and the leaders in it might sound like a good idea, but makes future enemy actions unpredictable, especially as a lot of the Germans still thought they'd win or at least get a favourable peace agreement.
"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops," Eisenhower wrote. "My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone." -Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander. This was his other speech, D-Day was never a guarantee as perceived in American history
Another suggestion for 'What Ifs' The Jacobites win at Culloden and put Charles Stuart on the throne. This would have had massive repercussions not least for a future USA. No French Indian wars and no revolution?
Had the Stuarts regained the monarchy, it would probably have accelerated the American revolution because the Stuarts were roman Catholic, and some of the 13 colonies were founded on extreme protestantism
He would have been probably more autocratic than George III & the colonies would still have wanted independence. The Scots were actually going back home at Culloden but might have been successful had they marched to London or if they'd had more French support
Operation Dragoon (initially Operation Anvil) was the code name for the landing operation of the Allied invasion of Provence (Southern France) on 15 August 1944. Although initially designed to be executed in conjunction with Operation Overlord, the Allied landing in Normandy, a lack of available resources led to a cancellation of the second landing. By July 1944 the landing was reconsidered, as the clogged-up ports in Normandy did not have the capacity to adequately supply the Allied forces. Concurrently, the High Command of the French Liberation Army pushed for a revival of the operation that would include large numbers of French troops. As a result, the operation was finally approved in July to be executed in August.
I'd love to see this episode re-done but with experts who can adequately "play" along to show the "what if" of D-Day. I was frustrated by this episode because, while I thought the discussions were really illuminating, the experts weren't answering James Hansons' questions to role play D-Day from the German perspective and role play the "what if" scenario of how the Germans could have better responded which might have halted the allied advances past the beaches. James asked the experts to think hypothetically to role play how the Germans might have been able to stop the allies, and the experts just were never able to do that. They only kept answering James' hypothetical questions with what actually happened, not what could have happened. Furthermore, when the experts finally kind of sort of play along in the hypothetical in the last 8-9 minutes of the show, they only talk about what would have happened if the Germans learned about D-Day in advance. And they only came up with Eisenhower choosing to scrap the mission. Their information was very good and I learned some new things, but in no way was this "History Undone".
They are limited in their thinking, because they are historians - not military leaders. Military leaders undergo decades of study, discipline and ongoing training. They serve their apprenticeship under fire. Many are killed before they can reach the higher ranks. Monty nearly died on several occasions, and was badly wounded during WW1. Historians are students of history. - They didn't live it - or make it.
Author and "alternative history" writer Peter Tsouras gives a somewhat plausible version of a German victory in his book "Disaster at D-Day". I say "somewhat plausible" because, while his account is mostly accurate as to background factual information, he still leans very heavily on nearly everything going right and good decisions for the Germans, and things going terribly wrong with bad decisions for the Western Allies. Warning: SPOILERS!!! In his version: Rommel convinces Hitler to allow the movement of the 12th SS Panzer Division to a position midway between Utah and Omaha beaches, just a day or two before D-Day. Rommel delays his historical trip back to Germany to inspect the 12th SS in its new position. This means that both Rommel and a strong armored force are perfectly situated to immediately respond to the landings. The Omaha landing is wiped out by D+2, and Utah just barely holds on. To try to restore the situation, Montgomery is much more active on his side of the landings. He drops the 1st British Airborne Division and the Polish Parachute Brigade(which historically wasn't declared ready for combat till August) as part of an ambitious plan to advance, encircle, and capture Caen. The airborne troops land directly on top of other arriving German panzer reinforcements and are slaughtered. The British and Canadian ground forces are overextended, vulnerable, and driven back with heavy losses. All of this is enough to help convince an unusually compliant Hitler that Normandy is the one and only real invasion, and to order the mass movement of German units to Normandy. The Germans are able to match, and even surpass, the buildup of the Allies, giving them more opportunities for attacking the beachheads. In the end, even with all of the non historical advantages, the Germans are still not able to drive the Allies into the sea, but extremely heavy casualties on both sides, but especially for the British, turn the Normandy landings into something of a stalemate. Political events then conspire to remove Hitler and the Nazis from power, while Rommel negotiates an armistice with the Western Allies.
@@dongilleo9743 - Thanks. Very interesting. I don't have much sympathy for the nazis, however Rommel was an honourable man who treated his prisoners well. Tsouras's thesis is a dream outcome for Rommel. The war's second half was less than kind to him. A democratic society would have allowed him to live - despite his suspected trangressions - and would not have forced him to take his own life, after taking him from his wife and son.
@@dongilleo9743Just out of curiosity, did the RAF and USAAF dive bombers/ground attack aircraft respond at all to Rommel's new armor? Because they would have been targets during the initial bombardment, and priority targets the second they started moving. They wouldn't have been much of a surprise, after all: Enigma communications were being decrypted as quickly on Bletchley Park as they were in Berlin by this time.
I always correct people who describe the Normandy landings with the Germans being 'unprepared.' I correct them to mean 'under-prepared' but the heavy casualties especially at Omaha beach show the Germans definitely prepared.
Perhaps you should read about Operation Bagration - Hitlers decision to attack the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) sealed Germanys fate which was ultimately delivered in late June, 1944 through Operation Bagration resulting in the destruction of Army Group Center, an event from which the German Army never recovered. Operation Overlord, although impressive in execution and planning was a side show in reality - the tour de force component was in fact the Royal Navy led by Ramsay. Approximately, 90% of German resources were centred on the Eastern front. The short answer to the posed question is the Iron curtain would have extended to the Channel.
Thank you! Found it so strange no one had mentioned the situation on the eastern front so far. So yea, unfortunately D-Day is severely overrated in the US/UK
@@ytumamatambien1725 I find it remarkable that so few in the UK and US understand the Soviet history from WW2. Whilst the Soviets had their own failings e.g. non-aggression pact, there is no denying the enormous impact the Red Army had on WWII, without which Western Europe would have remained a german Dominion. The impact on Russia was enormous with > 25 million casualties.
I don’t think the Russians were underrated. If they had been then the arctic convoys, which cost a lot in men and materials, would have been downsized. The allies knew the sacrifice they made and if it hadn’t been for the Allies offensive then a lot more materials and armour would have been redirected to the east. Plus a lot more planes sent east. You could say the other way that the Russians ignore the effort the west made and in fact stress that they were the main reason the Germans lost.
Even if the landing at Omaha Beach had failed, the Western Allies had put enough force ashore at the other beaches to stay. A full on failure of D-Day was NEVER going to happen. They weren't going to say, "oops, Omaha failed, let's all load back up and leave." The build up in Normandy, and the eventual breakout, all would have taken longer and been more difficult, but would have still happened. All of the weaknesses and problems faced by the German army would have still existed. It was overstretched, outnumbered, and it's strength was waning. The Allies had complete control of the air, to harass and attrit German units trying to reinforce Normandy, and to limit their flow of supplies.
Is that a P51 in German markings at 27:24? Very professionally made, with a great presenter and expert guests who are absolutely on top of their game. I have subscribed and 'liked'. Thank you.
I'm subscriber 508 and i love this channel - James Hanson rocks! He offers up sensible commentary and always asks the right questions of the experts. Long live this channel! Cheers, PJ in Sydney :)
"What if D-Day failed?" Bonn, July-August 1945: "Here comes the sun, doo-uhn dudoo~" Berlin, a few days later: "Here comes the sun! And I say, it's alright!~"
I like this video, but the historians didn't really play along with the "what if". They didn't explore the idea of what COULD have happened to the Germans if things went right for them. The best they came up with was "Well the Americans would use the atomic bomb on Germany". In this future, I think you need to get people on the panel to understand the purpose of the discussion and guide them better to discuss the what if scenario.
Wrong, Bagration around 450,000 German casualties, while 300,000 other German soldiers were cut off in the Courland Pocket, while D-Day was big to those involved and took some pressure off the Soviets it was not a deciding factor. Failure might have added 3 months to the war.
It is indeed sobering to compare the numbers involved on the Eastern Front with those in the West. To put it in perspective, you could say that for every division in the West there was a corps in the East. And of course the fierceness, and the casualty rates are different by a couple of orders of magnitude. Another aspect is that Rommel is only considered a fantastic general by the British is a weird romanticized way. In reality the man was a convinced nazi and never had to fight a complicated campaign.
Even if it was a one front war the Russians in 1944 had Germany outnumbered on their own in EVERYTHING. The USSR had 170 million people Germany had 70 million people.
That is why I put much more credence into the "the Iron Curtain may have included all of Germany" speculation rather than "it could last until 1947." Could Hitler have sent additional forces east to slow the Soviets? Not really, especially if the landings were postponed instead of failing. Any weakening of the forces in France would make new landings more likely.
3 detachments of US Marines were onboard USS Texas, tasked to aid the Rangers, if needed. They were instructed to stand down, when the Rangers succeeded.
Czechoslovakia had the sight distance rows of pillboxes mixed with cannon fortresses at the strategic high grounds all along the border with the nazi Germany and a strong industry to support its military. Wouldn't it been fed to the axis as an appeasing gift from allies in Munich 1938 the bloodbath at the D-Day shouldn't happen. Remember it in case of the Crimea and the other potential strategic outposts of Ukrainian resilience against rashistic aggression.
D-Day was bound to work. Given the organization, planning and massive logistical superiority of the Allies… it was always going to be a question of HOW successful…not will it be successful.
No one would click on this for a study of the Omaha beach assault. Reviewing in depth what if scenarios is a good selling point. Stick to that and don't do clickbait titles.
We are far enough removed from WWII and the resulting Cold War. That "what if" scenarios regarding failed Op. Overlord are very interesting. Lets be honest here. The real threat to the free world in the 20th C. was not NAZI Germany. It was the evils of marxism and the USSR.
Great channel to do what Operations Researchers call “sensitivity analysis”: in this case the outcome was sensitive only to an intelligence breach and weather.
Landings were originally scheduled for early May. That wasagreed at the 1943 triangular conference. It is interesting to speculate how it all would have gone if the landings had gone off then.
I love this channel, subscribed instantly! If i have one complaint though, it's that you spend 40+ minutes giving a fairly basic re-telling of D-Day, and then just a few minutes talking about the "What-if". The reason I'm watching this channel is because of the "what-ifs", there's a lot of videos out there going into D-Day itself in much more depth.
If the video is supposed to be about what happened if D-Day failed. Yet more than 1/2 the video is spent discussing what actually happened and is already well documented. Its only necessary to watch the last 10minutes
@@jpotter2086 Yes, a supposedly respectable RUclips channel insulting our intelligence with crap like this. It's a shame as the video itself was well done
I have to wonder if you are sending your disgust in the right direction. RUclips incentivizes clickbait titles and thumbnails because it works on people. simple as
Title is kind of misleading, only in the last 8-9 minutes do they actually discuss: 42:57 - What If D-Day had failed? Not really focused entirely on "History Undone" as the title of the channel suggests
NOT TRUE USA ONLY HAD2 U BOMBS THANKS TO A SURRENDED U BOAT HEADING TO JAPAN WITH URANIUM SO NO THEY WOULD ONLY HAD MAYBE 1 BOMB AT MOST AND THEY WOULD ONLY USED IT ON JAPAN
I would like to see the counter factual of The Second Battle of El Alamein (23 October - 11 November 1942). What if the Axis powers had allowed the Axis to drive further into Egypt? The battle for North Africa, and maybe even Rommel's demise could have looked very different!
Great channel. The discussion towards the end about relations to USSR really caught me the most. Is there the possibility of discussing Plans of 'Operation Unthinkable'?
It is really irritating to click into a video posted with the headline What if DDay had failed and I find the video be entirely about how DDay could never have failed. Dishonest Clickbait and I am very disappointed and I am blocking your channel.
The WWI water cooled crew served Maschinengewehr 08, or MG 08 would have been better weapons to mount overlooking landing beaches. They are very heavy and almost impossible to relocate quickly. But concrete bunkers with fixed arcs of fire, tend not to move far anyway. The great advantage being reliable sustained fire power. They were after all designed for scything through massed infantry attacks.
D-Day did partially fail in that much of the German army escaped through the Falaise gap in Normandy, only to regroup and defeat the Allies at Arnhem in September and inflict a near defeat at the Battle of the Bulge at the end of 1944. By the time the Rhine was crossed by the western allies in early 1945, the germans were happy to head west and surrender en-masse to escape the all conquering Soviets.
It had no effect on the eastern front, in terms of defeating Germany it was irrelevant; it just meant the Soviet iron curtain wasn't positioned on the Atlantic wall.
@@forresttm I notice in recent years that the narrative not to give the Red Army the rightful credit for destroying the German army, has moved on from “it was the winter” to “it was the supplies”.
If the invasion would have failed. Instead of the “iron curtain” going through Germany it would have been on the coast of France, and the war would have lasted another year. But Germany would still of been defeated. Even with the wonder weapons the manpower shortage was beyond critical. You can have the best tank, aircraft, or other weapons, but if you don’t have the pilots, drivers, or shooters they don’t mean anything. Most everything needs fuel and/or lubricants, and that includes the factories that made them. They would have simply been overwhelmed by shear numbers. As the soviets did do, and massive firepower.
GREAT VIDEO and analysis of the D-Day possibilities and facts. It would be interestings to see the scenario if the Africa Korps had obtain victory at El Alamein, going into the Suez Canal and oil fields in the MIddle East .
France has a northern coast? Boy I learn something new every day! Anyway, there was no plan "B", no matter how many men died the allies would have just sent more. As it turned out the Atlantic wall was not very deep and once the beach defenses were overcome the allies moved inland. Air and Naval superiority played a big part but the absolute cause of the victory was the resolute bravery of the men involved and their ability to overcome the defenses. The German high command knew that if they couldn't stop the allies at the beaches they would lose France and eventually the war. Besides, the Germans had Hitler and we had FDR and Churchill.
To be fair, we Americans only talk about Omaha and ignore Utah. Juno, Sword, Gold and Utah beaches were a cakewalk compared to Omaha beach. Of the 5, it has the most compelling narrative.
@@dwaneoconnor5978 Not quite 90%, unless you're including troop ships and landing craft. Other Allied nations made up a sizeable portion of the armada. The French alone committed seven warships, for instance.
The question makes no sense, because if D-Day had failed, and the allies were repelled on that first day, the fight would have continued. The landing was so large, that in the real world the Axis forces that were on hand could not have repelled all the allied forces on a single day. The beachhead would have been successful SOMEWHERE in Normandy. The Navy could have pounded the coast again, and got it right. The Allies had air superiority. The biggest enemy was the weather, not the Germans.
The allies still would have massive control of the air. Germany was running out of oil and other resources. A failure at d-day would have just meant a delay of the end for Germany. The German development of rockets may have had more time for development, but German infrastructure and cities would have been bombed heavily including their rocket sites.
Operation Dragoon was closing following Normandy. If Normandy was cancelled the LSTs and all the resources could have gone to Dragoon. If Overlord had tried and failed Dragoon would have paused. Perhaps indefinitely
Had D-day failed, some aid effort for the USSR would have been reduced to build up the forces in southern France. The second front would have been slower to liberate France but the communist progress would have also been slowed.
D-day was never going to fail. The Americans could have abandoned Omaha beach and concentrated on moving supplies to Utah beach instead. But even "if" D-day was a failure, the Russians were advances from the East at a rapid clip. The war may have taken longer, but the results would have been the same.
Very Interesting! In a future episode, I would like to see the following question discussed: What would have happened if Truman had decided not to use atomic bombs against Japan?
@@petebondurant58 Depends on how many in Congress knew about the Manhattan Project. Of course when the found out about it after the war he would have been impeached and removed from office. And possibly killed by the mothers of the men killed landing in Kyushu, assuming the service men didn't catch him first. Millions of lives were saved by using the atomic weapons. Operation Downfall would have been the largest amphibious landing. It would have been made up of the ships that took part in the Normandy landings plus the entirety of the Pacific Fleet. The casualty rates were expected to be higher than even those on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Admirals King and Nimitz were arguing for continuing the strict naval blockade instead to starve/freeze the Japanese into submission. Dugout Doug was for the frontal assault so that he would get the glory of beating the Japanese into submission.
@@petebondurant58that's not true. We had already bombed most of the Cities already. And the submarines have basically wiped out their merchant Fleet and the Navy.
What so often gets overlooked is the 2nd landing on the French Mediterranean coast shortly after and they raced up north
The English didn't want to do Dragoon in the first place. Had D-day failed there would have been no second landing.
😊@@1dcbly
@@1dcbly I disagree. Dragoon was a logical extension of the Italian Campaign and would have furthered the effort by forcing the Germans to weaken the Italian front. The UK wanted their assessment of the " soft underbelly" of Europe to be proved correct.
@@johannesvalterdivizzini1523 Please remember the English DID NOT WANT Dragoon! They saw it as an unnecessary diversion of force and actively fought against it. You can disagree but I think the forces earmarked for Dragoon would have been sent to England for a second try at Overlord. Remember Normandy was chosen because it was the second most direct route to central Germany. Dragoon was a secondary landing that was a long way from Germanys centers of gravity. Why would you think that Dragoon would be successful after Overlord, with much more forces available, failed? The forces the Germany used to repulse Overlord would be available to repulse Dragoon 2 month later. As an example of just how little the English thought of Dragoon, look at Dragoon’s command structure. There isn’t a single British or Empire commander in high level of command. They are all American or French.
Shouty shouty! British please, not English. Get your nations right even if the rest is!!!
The best parts of this video are when this panel discusses what actually happened on June 6, 1944. But this panel is in way over its head in the "what if" scenarios. Regardless of what might have happened on D-Day the Allies had overwhelming air and naval supremacy. And the D-Day June 6 landing force involved barely one percent of the men the Americans had under arms. But the biggest thing the Allies had going for them on June 6, 1944 was how unhinged Hitler had become by then.
Hitler had surrounded himself with incompetent yes men like Jodl and Keitel while denying Generals who actually knew what they were doing any authority to act on their own. Generals like Max Pemsel and Erich Marcks knew before day break on June 6 that Normandy was the real invasion and not a diversion. They knew because of the sheer size and extent of the Allied pre-dawn raids, even if many more senior but more remote Generals were still deceived for days afterwards. In addition the German decision to schedule war games in Rennes for a date with optimal lunar and tidal phases for an amphibious invasion was absurd. Such war games might have made sense two weeks earlier or later but not on June 6. As a result of those war games dozens of essential German unit commanders were away when the invasion started.
Ironically the marginal weather conditions on June 5 and 6 worked in the Allies' favor since the German weather forecasts had a sedative effect on the Germans. The German meteorologists missed the window of several hours of barely tolerable conditions that American and British forecasters had predicted with disastrous result for the Germans. The Normandy invasion would have been much more difficult in perfect weather but with marginal weather conditions the surprise of the invasion was near total.
Lastly the mulberries (artificial portable ports) had an indispensable role in the success of the Normandy invasion making it possible to break through much sooner than would have been possible otherwise. And the mulberries were a concept the Germans had no idea about before the Normandy invasion. While they weren’t essential on day one they were essential for breaking out of Normandy as quickly as the Allies did. The Allies had learned as early as the disastrous mostly Canadian 1942 Dieppe raid than a channel invasion of France would not work at a port city and that they would have to bring artificial ports with them to adequately supply their forces.
Great comment!
1% of the troops the Americans had under arms.....
I wonder how many troops of each nationality took part on the 6th of June. That's ground forces. We'll ignore naval and air forces unless you insist
@@SCWillson Yeah, I have it a thumbs up, too. Seems like long rants or comments are more acceptable on military videos than on anything else. Many of us read them all the way, and come back with our own lengthy take!
If D-Day failed. It would have meant that instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki going BOOM , Berlin and The Ruhr, would be turned into even more rubble, but glowing a bit more.
I think they would've hit Dresden. Sort of a salutary warning for the Soviets, something to provoke some thought among the Red Army top brass. "Oh, guys, you might want to avoid that for a bit. It's actually going to be quite dangerous for a while and we have a few more of these up our sleeves, so tread carefully."
I think that is true. I note that Oppenheimer commented after VE Day that he was sorry they couldn’t have used “the device” on the Nazis. Also agree, Evan. They would have made the “demonstration” well to the East to show “Uncle Joe” the capabilities of the atomic weapon.
@@evanhughes7609 The US had 4 A-Bombs a month planned for Sept 1945.
Imagine losing 4 major cities a month .
That ignores the criteria for target selection. An important part of target selection was to demonstrate the destructive power of the bomb on cities that have not yet already been mostly leveled by other means and hence more clearly see the bombs' effect. That's also why Tokyo was not a top target either because it was already devastated by a much more severe fire bombing. In my opinion much more likely initial targets would have been cities like Munich or Nuremberg perhaps Hamburg. (although as I recall even Hamburg was hit hard by then)
The Ruhr area maybe (though as the other commenter noted, possibly not, due to it failing to meet the criteria), Berlin surely not. Completely destroying the capital city and the leaders in it might sound like a good idea, but makes future enemy actions unpredictable, especially as a lot of the Germans still thought they'd win or at least get a favourable peace agreement.
"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops," Eisenhower wrote. "My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander. This was his other speech, D-Day was never a guarantee as perceived in American history
I've read that before, but it's still sobering
Exactly, it was never a guaranteed thing.
"Failure is always an option" - Adam Savage, Myth Busters.
I'm subscriber No. 190! I hope this channel grows and does well! James Hanson is excellent!
If he keeps this up the skys the limit 🇬🇧📚👏
Another suggestion for 'What Ifs' The Jacobites win at Culloden and put Charles Stuart on the throne. This would have had massive repercussions not least for a future USA. No French Indian wars and no revolution?
Had the Stuarts regained the monarchy, it would probably have accelerated the American revolution because the Stuarts were roman Catholic, and some of the 13 colonies were founded on extreme protestantism
He would have been probably more autocratic than George III & the colonies would still have wanted independence. The Scots were actually going back home at Culloden but might have been successful had they marched to London or if they'd had more French support
Came from times radio I’m excited to see what comes of this channel!
Likewise
Operation Dragoon (initially Operation Anvil) was the code name for the landing operation of the Allied invasion of Provence (Southern France) on 15 August 1944. Although initially designed to be executed in conjunction with Operation Overlord, the Allied landing in Normandy, a lack of available resources led to a cancellation of the second landing. By July 1944 the landing was reconsidered, as the clogged-up ports in Normandy did not have the capacity to adequately supply the Allied forces. Concurrently, the High Command of the French Liberation Army pushed for a revival of the operation that would include large numbers of French troops. As a result, the operation was finally approved in July to be executed in August.
The Americans had the most grueling landing on D-Day. The British faced the most grueling hold against counter-attack after landing.
No... the Brits had a commanding general renowned for delays and inaction.
I'd love to see this episode re-done but with experts who can adequately "play" along to show the "what if" of D-Day. I was frustrated by this episode because, while I thought the discussions were really illuminating, the experts weren't answering James Hansons' questions to role play D-Day from the German perspective and role play the "what if" scenario of how the Germans could have better responded which might have halted the allied advances past the beaches. James asked the experts to think hypothetically to role play how the Germans might have been able to stop the allies, and the experts just were never able to do that. They only kept answering James' hypothetical questions with what actually happened, not what could have happened. Furthermore, when the experts finally kind of sort of play along in the hypothetical in the last 8-9 minutes of the show, they only talk about what would have happened if the Germans learned about D-Day in advance. And they only came up with Eisenhower choosing to scrap the mission. Their information was very good and I learned some new things, but in no way was this "History Undone".
They are limited in their thinking, because they are historians - not military leaders. Military leaders undergo decades of study, discipline and ongoing training. They serve their apprenticeship under fire. Many are killed before they can reach the higher ranks. Monty nearly died on several occasions, and was badly wounded during WW1. Historians are students of history. - They didn't live it - or make it.
Author and "alternative history" writer Peter Tsouras gives a somewhat plausible version of a German victory in his book "Disaster at D-Day". I say "somewhat plausible" because, while his account is mostly accurate as to background factual information, he still leans very heavily on nearly everything going right and good decisions for the Germans, and things going terribly wrong with bad decisions for the Western Allies.
Warning: SPOILERS!!!
In his version:
Rommel convinces Hitler to allow the movement of the 12th SS Panzer Division to a position midway between Utah and Omaha beaches, just a day or two before D-Day. Rommel delays his historical trip back to Germany to inspect the 12th SS in its new position. This means that both Rommel and a strong armored force are perfectly situated to immediately respond to the landings. The Omaha landing is wiped out by D+2, and Utah just barely holds on.
To try to restore the situation, Montgomery is much more active on his side of the landings. He drops the 1st British Airborne Division and the Polish Parachute Brigade(which historically wasn't declared ready for combat till August) as part of an ambitious plan to advance, encircle, and capture Caen. The airborne troops land directly on top of other arriving German panzer reinforcements and are slaughtered. The British and Canadian ground forces are overextended, vulnerable, and driven back with heavy losses.
All of this is enough to help convince an unusually compliant Hitler that Normandy is the one and only real invasion, and to order the mass movement of German units to Normandy. The Germans are able to match, and even surpass, the buildup of the Allies, giving them more opportunities for attacking the beachheads.
In the end, even with all of the non historical advantages, the Germans are still not able to drive the Allies into the sea, but extremely heavy casualties on both sides, but especially for the British, turn the Normandy landings into something of a stalemate.
Political events then conspire to remove Hitler and the Nazis from power, while Rommel negotiates an armistice with the Western Allies.
@@dongilleo9743 - Thanks. Very interesting. I don't have much sympathy for the nazis, however Rommel was an honourable man who treated his prisoners well. Tsouras's thesis is a dream outcome for Rommel. The war's second half was less than kind to him. A democratic society would have allowed him to live - despite his suspected trangressions - and would not have forced him to take his own life, after taking him from his wife and son.
Yeah! The usual Omaha 'blanket' (anyone who was totally ignorant would think it was the only beach) for the first 25 minutes.
@@dongilleo9743Just out of curiosity, did the RAF and USAAF dive bombers/ground attack aircraft respond at all to Rommel's new armor? Because they would have been targets during the initial bombardment, and priority targets the second they started moving. They wouldn't have been much of a surprise, after all: Enigma communications were being decrypted as quickly on Bletchley Park as they were in Berlin by this time.
I always correct people who describe the Normandy landings with the Germans being 'unprepared.' I correct them to mean 'under-prepared' but the heavy casualties especially at Omaha beach show the Germans definitely prepared.
I always correct people when they make things up that aren’t true too. Congratulations, give yourself another pat on the back.
@@xiaokaI came here to say this.
Perhaps you should read about Operation Bagration - Hitlers decision to attack the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) sealed Germanys fate which was ultimately delivered in late June, 1944 through Operation Bagration resulting in the destruction of Army Group Center, an event from which the German Army never recovered. Operation Overlord, although impressive in execution and planning was a side show in reality - the tour de force component was in fact the Royal Navy led by Ramsay. Approximately, 90% of German resources were centred on the Eastern front. The short answer to the posed question is the Iron curtain would have extended to the Channel.
Thank you! Found it so strange no one had mentioned the situation on the eastern front so far. So yea, unfortunately D-Day is severely overrated in the US/UK
@@ytumamatambien1725 I find it remarkable that so few in the UK and US understand the Soviet history from WW2. Whilst the Soviets had their own failings e.g. non-aggression pact, there is no denying the enormous impact the Red Army had on WWII, without which Western Europe would have remained a german Dominion. The impact on Russia was enormous with > 25 million casualties.
I don’t think the Russians were underrated. If they had been then the arctic convoys, which cost a lot in men and materials, would have been downsized.
The allies knew the sacrifice they made and if it hadn’t been for the Allies offensive then a lot more materials and armour would have been redirected to the east. Plus a lot more planes sent east.
You could say the other way that the Russians ignore the effort the west made and in fact stress that they were the main reason the Germans lost.
If Germany didn't attack Russia, the Stalin would probably attack Europe a few years later.
Even if the landing at Omaha Beach had failed, the Western Allies had put enough force ashore at the other beaches to stay. A full on failure of D-Day was NEVER going to happen. They weren't going to say, "oops, Omaha failed, let's all load back up and leave." The build up in Normandy, and the eventual breakout, all would have taken longer and been more difficult, but would have still happened.
All of the weaknesses and problems faced by the German army would have still existed. It was overstretched, outnumbered, and it's strength was waning. The Allies had complete control of the air, to harass and attrit German units trying to reinforce Normandy, and to limit their flow of supplies.
Great 1st episode, looking forward to more. Thanks for taking the time and effort to create quality historical overview.
It’s astounding how we’re not far away from repeating this all over again.
The Allies are invading France again?
@@petebondurant58 Putin is preparing to invade Europe.
Repeating the Normandy landings?
WWII wasn’t the first war, it’s happened since human time began. It won’t stop now.
I think what he means is massive conventional war on this scale, yes war will always be with us but war on this scale has only been seen twice
Is that a P51 in German markings at 27:24?
Very professionally made, with a great presenter and expert guests who are absolutely on top of their game. I have subscribed and 'liked'. Thank you.
Wow it is!
Yes it is.
I think that clip may be from the movie "Fighter Squadron" starring Edmund O'Brien.
I'm subscriber 508 and i love this channel - James Hanson rocks! He offers up sensible commentary and always asks the right questions of the experts. Long live this channel! Cheers, PJ in Sydney :)
Superb piece, thanks gentlemen. 🇬🇧📚🇨🇦🇺🇸🇫🇷
Just discovered and now really enjoying your channel
"What if D-Day failed?"
Bonn, July-August 1945: "Here comes the sun, doo-uhn dudoo~"
Berlin, a few days later: "Here comes the sun! And I say, it's alright!~"
I dont think it would have changed much if D day failed. Bagraton has crashed the easthern front anyway and opened the Way to Berlin.
Well done, James, looking forward to more excellent releases!
Saw the guy from the tank museum..subscribed. done.
I like this video, but the historians didn't really play along with the "what if". They didn't explore the idea of what COULD have happened to the Germans if things went right for them.
The best they came up with was "Well the Americans would use the atomic bomb on Germany".
In this future, I think you need to get people on the panel to understand the purpose of the discussion and guide them better to discuss the what if scenario.
You mean more along the lines of, " what if we actually wake up Hitler?"
Anyone out there ever seen the 1981 movie "Eye of the Needle"? Donald Sutherland was 'The Neddle'🔪 VERY close to getting that warning out.. 💀
great video keep em rolling in.
Wrong, Bagration around 450,000 German casualties, while 300,000 other German soldiers were cut off in the Courland Pocket, while D-Day was big to those involved and took some pressure off the Soviets it was not a deciding factor. Failure might have added 3 months to the war.
It is indeed sobering to compare the numbers involved on the Eastern Front with those in the West. To put it in perspective, you could say that for every division in the West there was a corps in the East. And of course the fierceness, and the casualty rates are different by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Another aspect is that Rommel is only considered a fantastic general by the British is a weird romanticized way. In reality the man was a convinced nazi and never had to fight a complicated campaign.
Even if it was a one front war the Russians in 1944 had Germany outnumbered on their own in EVERYTHING.
The USSR had 170 million people Germany had 70 million people.
That is why I put much more credence into the "the Iron Curtain may have included all of Germany" speculation rather than "it could last until 1947." Could Hitler have sent additional forces east to slow the Soviets? Not really, especially if the landings were postponed instead of failing. Any weakening of the forces in France would make new landings more likely.
@@bludfyre,
I totally agree and echo your comment.
There were 306 Marines involved in D-day all on Navel Ships doing original Marine type jobs, guarding ships.
There were actually 17,600 Royal Marines used at D Day - perhaps you are talking about US marines who were apparently aboard belly button ships.
3 detachments of US Marines were onboard USS Texas, tasked to aid the Rangers, if needed. They were instructed to stand down, when the Rangers succeeded.
Czechoslovakia had the sight distance rows of pillboxes mixed with cannon fortresses at the strategic high grounds all along the border with the nazi Germany and a strong industry to support its military. Wouldn't it been fed to the axis as an appeasing gift from allies in Munich 1938 the bloodbath at the D-Day shouldn't happen. Remember it in case of the Crimea and the other potential strategic outposts of Ukrainian resilience against rashistic aggression.
This was a super enjoyable video and hope to see lots more from history Undone. Subscribed
Glad you enjoyed it! Many thanks
D-Day was bound to work. Given the organization, planning and massive logistical superiority of the Allies… it was always going to be a question of HOW successful…not will it be successful.
Yes, yours is the most sensible comment on this site. Your statement is exactly correct.
That's a bit optimistic.
No one would click on this for a study of the Omaha beach assault.
Reviewing in depth what if scenarios is a good selling point. Stick to that and don't do clickbait titles.
We are far enough removed from WWII and the resulting Cold War. That "what if" scenarios regarding failed Op. Overlord are very interesting. Lets be honest here. The real threat to the free world in the 20th C. was not NAZI Germany. It was the evils of marxism and the USSR.
I really enjoyed this. Informative and strategic analysis.
Love this presentation. Well managed and very professional.
Great channel to do what Operations Researchers call “sensitivity analysis”: in this case the outcome was sensitive only to an intelligence breach and weather.
Landings were originally scheduled for early May. That wasagreed at the 1943 triangular conference.
It is interesting to speculate how it all would have gone if the landings had gone off then.
I love this channel, subscribed instantly! If i have one complaint though, it's that you spend 40+ minutes giving a fairly basic re-telling of D-Day, and then just a few minutes talking about the "What-if". The reason I'm watching this channel is because of the "what-ifs", there's a lot of videos out there going into D-Day itself in much more depth.
If the video is supposed to be about what happened if D-Day failed. Yet more than 1/2 the video is spent discussing what actually happened and is already well documented. Its only necessary to watch the last 10minutes
The video only talks about what if D-Day had failed in its last 3 minutes!!!!!
Thanks you just saved me a ton of time
context provides greater understanding
Standard clickbait-and-switch misrepresentation.
@@jpotter2086 Yes, a supposedly respectable RUclips channel insulting our intelligence with crap like this. It's a shame as the video itself was well done
I have to wonder if you are sending your disgust in the right direction. RUclips incentivizes clickbait titles and thumbnails because it works on people. simple as
Title is kind of misleading, only in the last 8-9 minutes do they actually discuss: 42:57 - What If D-Day had failed? Not really focused entirely on "History Undone" as the title of the channel suggests
Fantastic show!
YOUR a fantastic show.
Robert Oppenheimer: hold by beer
Well done, a clarity that few presentations have failed. Thank you.
Umm… what?
The War would have ended in 1945 after the allies dropped 2 nukes on Germany
NOT TRUE USA ONLY HAD2 U BOMBS THANKS TO A SURRENDED U BOAT HEADING TO JAPAN WITH URANIUM
SO NO THEY WOULD ONLY HAD MAYBE 1 BOMB AT MOST AND THEY WOULD ONLY USED IT ON JAPAN
They only built two bombs- one for Germany, one for Japan.
@@joebombero1 The Americans had 3 ready. USS Indianapolis delivered the 3rd one to Tinian.
@@tarjeijensen7237and were making many more
I remember Sir Brian Horrocks in the 1970s and Dan Snow's docs. Love this sort of documentary, different period, different theories.
I would like to see the counter factual of The Second Battle of El Alamein (23 October - 11 November 1942). What if the Axis powers had allowed the Axis to drive further into Egypt? The battle for North Africa, and maybe even Rommel's demise could have looked very different!
Did they have the fuel and manpower left for such a drive? The RAF and RN did their best to limit how much material was making it to Rommel.
Excellent program👍 (Love Silicone Curtain Channel ❤ ).
Excellent program. Thank you
Excellent.
Love these videos! Keep em coming
Excellent content. MUCH more like this please!
Ales klar
@@DaveSCameron Alles klar
What a great conversation about the situation on DDay and some speculation on what it's failure could have meant
A new and interesting angle on history. A 48:57 bright future for the History Channel
I just found this channel- great content- thank you!
Misleading title to this video
Excellent production; speakers are extremely well learned and presented themselves well.
The USMC did have a part on D Day, watch mark felton.
Why do you hate us😂
Brilliant 😊
Why does the host sound like David Jones hosting SNF. Bro’s talking about D Day like he’s analysing a football match
Churchill was Haunted by Gallipoli..
As well he should be! At the Brit’s didn’t stop for tea this time.
@@sidgarrett7247Why should he be ?
The eventual air raid would have been a glowing success...
Great channel. The discussion towards the end about relations to USSR really caught me the most. Is there the possibility of discussing Plans of 'Operation Unthinkable'?
MG34 was the slower of the two @ 950-1150 compared to the MG42 @ 1100-15/1600 rounds a minute. Both had extra barrels in boxes of two or four in a box
If we’re going to do this, let’s go big: 1066, The Battle of Hastings. Harold wins!! 😊
We’ll definitely have a look at this soon Ziggy. Things could have been very different.
@@HistoryUndonewithJamesHanson Agree, though we've only just got some historians accepting the value of alternative history. Baby steps! :-)
The colonist especially Hamilton and Jefferson saw themselves as the Anglo Saxon successors.
It would certainly have meant less posh buffoons (of Norman/French descent) but more chavs (of Anglo-Saxon descent) in the UK.
Brilliant James 🫡
I like how they're using original Risk game wooden pieces to represent the combatants.
Why is this titled what if D-Day had failed ? That's part is five minuets of a 50 minute video
I have a uncle that was KIA not recovered at the battle of long tree hill do you have any information about that battle
Not to mention naval gunfire support versus the panzers.
It is really irritating to click into a video posted with the headline What if DDay had failed and I find the video be entirely about how DDay could never have failed. Dishonest Clickbait and I am very disappointed and I am blocking your channel.
Many of the machine guns were captured French and other guns, not MG-42s.
According to the account by the German machine gunner on Omaha they had two Polish water cooled machine guns in his bunker that jammed very quickly
The WWI water cooled crew served Maschinengewehr 08, or MG 08 would have been better weapons to mount overlooking landing beaches. They are very heavy and almost impossible to relocate quickly. But concrete bunkers with fixed arcs of fire, tend not to move far anyway. The great advantage being reliable sustained fire power. They were after all designed for scything through massed infantry attacks.
D-Day did partially fail in that much of the German army escaped through the Falaise gap in Normandy, only to regroup and defeat the Allies at Arnhem in September and inflict a near defeat at the Battle of the Bulge at the end of 1944. By the time the Rhine was crossed by the western allies in early 1945, the germans were happy to head west and surrender en-masse to escape the all conquering Soviets.
It had no effect on the eastern front, in terms of defeating Germany it was irrelevant; it just meant the Soviet iron curtain wasn't positioned on the Atlantic wall.
If D-Day had failed, the Soviet Red Army would have ended up on the Atlantic coast of France.
Pretty much
Only if usa kept their supplies up.
@@forresttm I notice in recent years that the narrative not to give the Red Army the rightful credit for destroying the German army, has moved on from “it was the winter” to “it was the supplies”.
@davidpryle3935 the red army seems to get more credit then it deserves..
The west wants to take more credit than it deserves
If the invasion would have failed. Instead of the “iron curtain” going through Germany it would have been on the coast of France, and the war would have lasted another year. But Germany would still of been defeated. Even with the wonder weapons the manpower shortage was beyond critical. You can have the best tank, aircraft, or other weapons, but if you don’t have the pilots, drivers, or shooters they don’t mean anything. Most everything needs fuel and/or lubricants, and that includes the factories that made them. They would have simply been overwhelmed by shear numbers. As the soviets did do, and massive firepower.
Well done James
GREAT VIDEO and analysis of the D-Day possibilities and facts. It would be interestings to see the scenario if the Africa Korps had obtain victory at El Alamein, going into the Suez Canal and oil fields in the MIddle East .
France has a northern coast? Boy I learn something new every day! Anyway, there was no plan "B", no matter how many men died the allies would have just sent more. As it turned out the Atlantic wall was not very deep and once the beach defenses were overcome the allies moved inland. Air and Naval superiority played a big part but the absolute cause of the victory was the resolute bravery of the men involved and their ability to overcome the defenses. The German high command knew that if they couldn't stop the allies at the beaches they would lose France and eventually the war. Besides, the Germans had Hitler and we had FDR and Churchill.
Yes, from Calais to Brest is the northern coast of France. This shouldn't come as a surprise, especially since the Allies landed at Normandy.
Presentism - When you can't leave well enough alone.
The P51 Mustang with swastika was funny touch 😂
It seems odd that the British today only want to talk about the American experience on D-Day.
I guess they think they'll get more views. That's all they care about at the end of the day.
@@JohnyG29 Personally I wanted to hear the British point of view and experience.
90% of ships on D-Day where British. The British also got hit by mobile armor on day 1. US did not see armor for days.
To be fair, we Americans only talk about Omaha and ignore Utah. Juno, Sword, Gold and Utah beaches were a cakewalk compared to Omaha beach. Of the 5, it has the most compelling narrative.
@@dwaneoconnor5978 Not quite 90%, unless you're including troop ships and landing craft. Other Allied nations made up a sizeable portion of the armada. The French alone committed seven warships, for instance.
The question makes no sense, because if D-Day had failed, and the allies were repelled on that first day, the fight would have continued. The landing was so large, that in the real world the Axis forces that were on hand could not have repelled all the allied forces on a single day. The beachhead would have been successful SOMEWHERE in Normandy. The Navy could have pounded the coast again, and got it right. The Allies had air superiority. The biggest enemy was the weather, not the Germans.
The allies still would have massive control of the air. Germany was running out of oil and other resources. A failure at d-day would have just meant a delay of the end for Germany. The German development of rockets may have had more time for development, but German infrastructure and cities would have been bombed heavily including their rocket sites.
Can you compare the numbers to the landing on Okinawa?
Great video, thanks
Very interesting
Operation Dragoon was closing following Normandy. If Normandy was cancelled the LSTs and all the resources could have gone to Dragoon. If Overlord had tried and failed Dragoon would have paused. Perhaps indefinitely
Do the battle of Trafalgar please.
Based on the subject...the video starts at 43:00
I'm subscriber number 1. Wasn't the first but I am the best.
Great detail
Love that the first mention of the luftwaffe shows a captured mustang. What's that all about?
While Omaha is interesting, Juno Beach is terribly overlooked.
Casualties second only to Omaha, the Canadians performed marvelous duty.
Had D-day failed, some aid effort for the USSR would have been reduced to build up the forces in southern France. The second front would have been slower to liberate France but the communist progress would have also been slowed.
The southern invasion of France would have expanded in scope and numbers resulting in the defeat of Germany from a different direction.
D-day was never going to fail. The Americans could have abandoned Omaha beach and concentrated on moving supplies to Utah beach instead. But even "if" D-day was a failure, the Russians were advances from the East at a rapid clip. The war may have taken longer, but the results would have been the same.
The difference was that western Europe was free of the Dictatorship hiding under the cloak of socialism.
This is a really good question
Very Interesting! In a future episode, I would like to see the following question discussed: What would have happened if Truman had decided not to use atomic bombs against Japan?
He would have been impeached and removed from office by an outraged American congress.
@@petebondurant58 Depends on how many in Congress knew about the Manhattan Project. Of course when the found out about it after the war he would have been impeached and removed from office. And possibly killed by the mothers of the men killed landing in Kyushu, assuming the service men didn't catch him first. Millions of lives were saved by using the atomic weapons.
Operation Downfall would have been the largest amphibious landing. It would have been made up of the ships that took part in the Normandy landings plus the entirety of the Pacific Fleet. The casualty rates were expected to be higher than even those on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Admirals King and Nimitz were arguing for continuing the strict naval blockade instead to starve/freeze the Japanese into submission. Dugout Doug was for the frontal assault so that he would get the glory of beating the Japanese into submission.
@@petebondurant58that's not true. We had already bombed most of the Cities already. And the submarines have basically wiped out their merchant Fleet and the Navy.
If D-Day fails, are you even sure FDR wins re-election?
This was amazing