Would D-Day have been sucsesful without the Americans?

Any thoughts?

 

I doubt it since most aircraft and landing craft were supplied by the Americans, I'd say around 1/2 of the troops were American so I would have to say no, or highly unlikely.

By the way welcome to the forum.

 

nope, operation overlord (codename for D-Day) wouldn't even be planned at all without the americans. churchill was more for liberating the balkans and prevented them to fall in Russian hands but the americans wanted to land in frace, the shortest way to berlin, the shortest way to get adolf hitler and end the war. and since the americans would be responsalble for he material, they won.

 

About 3/4 of the troops in ETO were American, and just about every last one of the required landing craft. Without America, not just in a strategic sense, there could be no Operation Overlord.

 

without america d-day would have been postponed until 1953 and then germany would invade england....lol...(sea lion 2..)

 

Short answer: No.

 

Normally my reply would be an enthusiastic YES..but since I started watching Band of Brothers yesterday...

On the other hand, it seems to be an all too common experiance (probably a stereotype, so don't take this personnally) that 'Americans won the war by themselves' While it's true they helped a hell of a lot (thousands of planes, tanks, troops...the list goes on) some of the other battles fought by Canadain and British troops are shoved to the back burner. I'm sorry if this offends anyone.

 

I dont think it should offend anyone since it is true. On D-day the British Empire were just as responsible for the success as the Americans. :smok:

 

That is a different issue isn't it? The question wasn't whether Americans take to much credit for the winning of the war or whether they are ignorant of the contributions of others but merely would D-day have been successful (or possible) without the Americans.
Personally I think that others (Canadians?) tend to overemphasize the magnitude of their contributions while minimizing the American impact on the war. We all have our opinions.

 

that is, if they got ride of the sovjets.
rumor goes that the allies had no choice but invade in the summer on 1944. the reason was stalin who had demanded a second front and started more and more to think that the allies wold let germany and the sovjet union kill each other. so, they had to invade or else stalin might sign a peace treaty with hitler to stop the bloodshed since sovejet losses become higher and higher (in the end about 20 million if i'm correct)

 

LOL, everyone feels like their own country does not get enough credit... the best is to be as equal, fair, and objective to all nations as possible everyone.

As for D-Day being possible without America, the answer is NO... without the troops, equipment, and logistics provided by the mighty US of A the Brits would have never been able to push through.

 

Quillian that was exactly America's plan to have Russia and German kill each other. Works well for them less resistance and reinforcements to deal with. Thus making it all easier. I do think D-Day would be possible without the Americans although I would doubt any major sucess. They would probably be driven back.

 

Gunter:
I don't fancy those boys swimming to the beach with a full pack.
Just who do you think provided the landing craft from LCI's to LCT's and the amphib DUKWs and such?

D-Day without the Americans would have guaranteed another Dieppe at best, and a major setback to the entire war effort. Countless lives would be lost, not only in the landing, but in year(s) to come.

Your comment makes no sense: "Yes, D-Day is possible, but they would probably be driven back." I guess suicide is always an option.
Is that your idea of a successful mission, or simply a successful waste of opportunity, good men, invaluable supplies and equipment? I call that an unequivical failure.

Tim

 

D-Day could have been a failure with or without Americans (fortunatly it wasn't)...

Dieppe was a failure but without it D-Day would probale have been a failure too (Valual lessons were learned and practiced with D-Day and the Anzio landings)

Maybe the question should be:
Would D-Day have been sucsesful without the Commonwealth?

 

No, it would not have been a success, it would probabbly have been a disaster, it might not have been possible to even try. Just to reiterate every statement already made:
The Britsh strategy would almost certainly have not included a landing on the continent, but the traditional British imperial strategy of nibbling at the edges, Greece, the Balkans and Norway, while the continental powers fought it out.
It was the USAAF that wiped out the Luftwaffe fighter force before the invasion thus acheiving air supremacy over western Europe, not just the beaches.
The USAAF contributed at least half, if not more, of the aircraft to the transportation plan which helped seal off the invasion area and limited supply to the fighting troops.
While the RAF was capable of defeating the Luftwaffe over the invasion beaches, they would have had to do it while the invasion was taking place. The LW would have had a bigger effect on the landings while this was happening, and the superiority would have been local, limited to the range of RAF fighters.
Half the troops involved on D-Day were US. The Brits & Canadians could have made up the difference during the initial phases, but they could never have replaced the total nuumber of US troops involved and would have run into the famed maonpower shortage much earlier. The US had troops waiting in the US and could have raised an army twice as large if necessary.
The US provided a large proportion of the landing craft, essential not just for the landing, but the continued supply of the beachhead. Without them, the beachead would have likely starved.

Without the US there would have been no D-Day, no western allied march to the Elbe and the Soviets would have made it to the Rhine, or at worst signed an armistice with the Nazis at the 1939 Polish-German border. And the battle would have re-started within five years.

 

Without Western Allies (without D-Day and invasion of Italy...without invasions at all) would the Russians have made it to Berlin?
As in many books most German Soldiers believed in 1944 that there was still hope for victory in the east...

 

My personal opinion is that the Soviets would have been forced to accept an armistice of mutual exhaustion in 1944 without the Western Allies, if not sooner. If Britain had given up in 1940, I would think the Germans may have even been able to acheive their territorial goals against the Soviets in 1941. Although these were poorly defined and might not have actually knocked the Soviets out of the war.
The contributions of the Med (North Africa-Sicily-Italy), the air war, lend-lease, German troops all over the map (Norway to Spain, Greece and the Balkans) defending against potential invasions, and finally D-DAY and the NWE campaign are all down played against the contributions of the Soviets in my opinion.

 

D-Day could not have been possible without the Americans, their material contribution was just too great... If Britain was forced to conjure up the resources for D-Day alone, it would have taken decades for them to aquire enough equipment to do so... And if they did that they would probably be invading a Soviet occupied France: i think one main reason D-Day was executed was to prevent the Soviets from completely defeating Nazi Germany and gaining subsequent control / political influence of Europe. By 1944 there was no possible doubt that the Soviets were going to steamroll Germany, and the Allies weren't going to accept the threat of a Soviet controlled Europe.

 

Also, i'm interested to know canambridge... How would Britain giving up in 1940 cause the Soviets to lose against Germany?

 

it might seem to others that americans think they won the war...i think this is because most big movies (war movies are costly) are made in america....hollywood makes movies to sell to american ticket buyers first....american movie goers are mostly intrested in movies about americans(my wife watches a television channel devoted to woman...arrrg ..chick movies...my little boy likes shows about kids...does this seem strange to anyone?)...i hope this sheds some light on why american war movie tend to focus on american soldiers...and yes we always beat up the bad guys in the end....