re: WW2: What if D-Day failed?

quote:

---

I think the more interesting question is what happens to Spain if DDay fails. I think they go into Spain to take away a buffer and try to pincher from Spain and Italy

---

I don't know. Invading Spain would bring a new country into the war on the side of the Germans. Plus the terrain of Spain was rough and the roads poor, not to mention the Pyrenees which would have to be crossed just to get to southern France. Going this way would probably have resulted in a post war totally unified Germany under Soviet control.

I think the most likely move by the allies would be like I said earlier. Namely I think they'd take the divisions that were in England and had not been decimated on D-Day, which would be a very substantial force, add in the formations still pouring in from the states, and throw them all into a seaborne invasion along Adriaric coast in the Balkins. Push north from say Yugoslavia, which was already seeing a lot of fighting thanks to Tito, and head for central Germany from the south. Churchill wanted to do this from the start and he'd see a failed D-Day invasion as proof he was right.

They were already going through the Alps in Italy. Spain would have been an easy out as Franco was still in civil war at places.

If they come from the north (Denmark Finland) it would have worse.

Nerd Fantasy Board

Isn't it "Faber"

Americans regroup and attack them somewhere else? It wasn't like every able bodied man got involved like the USSR. Germans were screwed no matter what

quote:

---

It's an Amazon series. Man In the High Tower. Not on Netflix

---

The Man In The High Castle

quote:

---

The reason they dropped the bomb on Japan was that they were purposely stalling and being deceitful about negotiating. They were warned and then given time to comply.

---

You'd have thought 1 would have been enough. Apparently they didn't get the picture.

There are still moments where I wonder how/why a second atomic bomb had to be used. This isn't some guilt trip from an American, but rather a criticism of all parties involved. If you're Japan, why would you let that happen again?? If you're the US, why would you use it again if the first one wasn't enough? A logical person would assume that they'd surrender after 1 or never surrender at all. Dropping the second one was such a risky move IMO. Anyway, I don't mean to derail the thread.

quote:

---

It's an Amazon series. Man In the High Tower. Not on Netflix.

---

Fatherland is a much, much better treatment of the subject. Man in the High Tower is fantasy with not much connection to the IRL history. Fatherland takes a very plausible premise and runs with it.

The reasoning was they wanted Japan to think they had an endless supply of Atomic bombs. Instead of just two. They also wanted to scare Russia. The US considered bring Japanese officials to a remote island and dropping a bomb so they could witness it. But they scrapped the idea because they only had two. Those were vastly different from each other so they didn't even know if they would work. The test bomb at Trinity was in the make of "Fat Man". So they didn't know if "Little boy" would even work.

The Japanese Imperial War counsel wasn't phased by the first bomb. They had a million men under arms in China. The second bomb coupled with the coup on the Imperial palace and Russia entering the war finally convinced them. Even then the vote was deadlocked with the Emperor having the deciding vote.

Most people don't realize just how far from defeat Japan was at this point. We has spent that entire gruling campaign just fighting their navy. Their army was strong and unbloodied. An invasion of Japan would have been the quagmire to end all quagmires. It would have been the entire civilization fighting dead to the last man, street by street.