Yes Lancer44, you’re absolutely right. It is obvious that Allied forces in Western Europe were the reason why French speak french not russian, etc. Stalin’s plan was to march to the West over III Reich’s dead body.
But this is a highly-abstract level of discussion, and we’re drawing final conclussions. Maybe we should specify on what level we concentrate. Strategic, tactical or some else?
This topic was intended as a highly abstract from start… We are not drawing final conclussions yet.
I would say that most of Forum members did not have a final say… Or…
…maybe I’m wrong and no one is interested anymore in this topic… 
Salute,
Lancer44
I wouldn’t like to copy anything what was said before but…
What about political consequences of failed invasion?
First, because Western Allies would have not been able to start another invasion before april 1945, so Soviets would have been considered as liberators of Europe. Even if Germans moved their armies from France, Holland and Belgium to the Eastern Front, Soviets would win (perhaps in June-July 1945). We got to remeber that in summer 1944 Soviets reached the Vistula River (just few hundred km to German border). What I am trying to say is, that there would have been no sense to launch another invasion 1945. Of course, if Soviet Union would be still considered as an Ally.
So finally, Russian tanks reached English Channel, Atlantic Ocean, and met Allied forces in northern Italy. All Europe (Spain, Italy, Greece not included) is in Stalin’s hands. He is the one and only liberator. US and Great Britain have no right to decide about Europe’s future. All agreements made in Casablanca concerning post-war division of Europe are out-of-date and forgotten. Stalin’s dream comes true.
P.S. Please, forgive me my english 
on the exetreme side, i hope this is not stupid
would nazi german turn into British and Americans and ask for their help?
Maybe in exchange of giving back the entire France back to the Allies, the allies troops would stand in the border of Germany.
This is what the German wants to do all along after Normandy, which is to fight with the soviet and negotiate with the allies anyways
I never would have thought of that situation. I don’t think it is likely though. At that time we were at equal tearms with the Soviets. I wouldn’t call US/GB allies with SU, but we just wanted the same thing. The destruction of the thrid Reich. “An enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
It is not stupid at all but impossible, if you consider how Roosevelt loved uncle Joe and Churchill disliked DeGaulle.
Roosevelt and Churchill gladly accepted first Allies - Poland and Czechoslovakia - to be taken by Stalin. They did not gave a damn about ex-Hitler axis: Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, they accepted soviet occupation of Austria until 1956.
They would also swallow Western Europe in Stalin’s grip.
Roosevelt died in April 1945… Too late.
I think that success in Normandy and 6-th of June crossed Stalin’s chance to conquer Europe.
Lancer44
It is not stupid at all but impossible, if you consider how Roosevelt loved uncle Joe and Churchill disliked DeGaulle.
Roosevelt and Churchill gladly accepted first Allies - Poland and Czechoslovakia - to be taken by Stalin. They did not gave a damn about ex-Hitler axis: Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, they accepted soviet occupation of Austria until 1956.
They would also swallow Western Europe in Stalin’s grip.
Roosevelt died in April 1945… Too late.
I think that success in Normandy and 6-th of June crossed Stalin’s chance to conquer Europe.
Lancer44[/quote]
no, i meant if the allies are defeated in normandy and changes history
Something is not right.
8)
So, why Stalin put so extreme pressure on Allies to open the Western Front?
[quote=“Kovalski”]
Something is not right.
8)
So, why Stalin put so extreme pressure on Allies to open the Western Front?[/quote]
Just think logically. It is true that Stalin wanted Second Front - despite all what historians are saying about him, he worried about losses of Red Army.
But if Allied invasion would be pushed back, Stalin would win war on his own and Europe would be a prize.
Than obviously invasion on the 6-th of June 44 changed the possible course of history.
It is another alternative topic “How Stalin would manage occupation of Western Europe?”
Also we may ask “Where USA would be today without benefits of Operation Paperclip and - more important - massive loot of German Patent Office records?”
Lancer44
It is not stupid at all but impossible, if you consider how Roosevelt loved uncle Joe and Churchill disliked DeGaulle.
Roosevelt and Churchill gladly accepted first Allies - Poland and Czechoslovakia - to be taken by Stalin. They did not gave a damn about ex-Hitler axis: Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, they accepted soviet occupation of Austria until 1956.
They would also swallow Western Europe in Stalin’s grip.
Roosevelt died in April 1945… Too late.
I think that success in Normandy and 6-th of June crossed Stalin’s chance to conquer Europe.
Lancer44[/quote]
sorry, i dont get what you said due to my bad english
do you mind explain it more? thanks 8)
Err, patents are public anyway. I don’t know whether the RPA published applications or just grants at the time, but really that’s a moot point.
no explantion from lancer44?
As far as I am aware by June 1944 the war in the East was largely on Polish soil - the country Britain went to war over in Sept 1939.
If, as Lancer44 “what if’s”, the Channel coast was bristling with Panzers and either the 6th June invasion failed or was too risky then PERHAPS another option would have been to fight alongside the Russians:
1 - This would have relieved the pressure on Russia - which is what Stalin was wanting a second front for.
2 - Much war materiel was already been shipped from the UK and US to Russia for use by the Russian troops - may be it would not have been too much extra trouble to ship the troops to man this equipment too.
I think if I had been Eisenhower then the Italian campaign was too slow and bogged down in difficult terrain, the 6th June invasion was highly complex and risky and could have failed quite easily. Contributing in a major way to the campaign in the East MIGHT have been a lower risk strategy.
[quote=“Man_of_Stoat”]
Err, patents are public anyway. I don’t know whether the RPA published applications or just grants at the time, but really that’s a moot point.[/quote]
Are you sure?
Before modification of US Patent Office database anyone could enter in “search”, say Stealth and in results you could see dozens of patents witheld due to “national security reasons”.
Now, after modifications it’s impossible. This patents vital for US defence have no searchable titles and never show up.
Second Amendment and Freedom of Information Acts doesn’t apply in full.
Do you really think that in Hitler’s Germany patents were public?
USA officially were neutral state up to end of 1941; do you think that, say military attache from US Embassy in Berlin could go to German patent Office and ask for “all patents about rocket propulsion” or “all patents for submarine detection devices”.
Just think about it.
Lancer44
Hi FW-190 Pilot,
I don’t understand what you don’t understand… 8)
Please explain.
Salute,
Lancer44
Hmm, I doubt Stalin would agree.
British and American forces on the Eastern front in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria or Czechoslovakia would rob him of his much awaited opportunity to turn these countries into his communist satelites.
Imagine - alongside Red Army followed by Smersh and NKVD onto Polish territory coming Americans and British. Instead of disarming and arresting Home Army members, Allies are friendly and allow Polish administration to take power… At least in some places.
For Stalin - nothing but trouble. Scenario with Allied troops fighting on Easter Front is totally impossible for purely political reasons.
Perhaps single symbolical units like French “Normandie-Niemen” squadron but not the whole armies.
Cheers,
Lancer44
It is not stupid at all but impossible, if you consider how Roosevelt loved uncle Joe and Churchill disliked DeGaulle.
Roosevelt and Churchill gladly accepted first Allies - Poland and Czechoslovakia - to be taken by Stalin. They did not gave a damn about ex-Hitler axis: Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, they accepted soviet occupation of Austria until 1956.
They would also swallow Western Europe in Stalin’s grip.
Roosevelt died in April 1945… Too late.
I think that success in Normandy and 6-th of June crossed Stalin’s chance to conquer Europe.
Lancer44[/quote]
because i am trying to guess the following, how about you pick my mistake, thanks for the help:P
-first the allies was being defeated at Normandy
-Prevent communist from spreading to the entire Europe
-Germany tries to make peace with the Allies, Nazi german propose to give the allies the entire France back without any combat
-In exchange, ally forces would stand in the border of Germany in the east side to prevent any soviet advancement
Advantage for the allies:
To get France back without further causualties
Advantage for the Nazi German:
They continue to survive
Hi FW-190 pilot,
I like your scenario!
Before I’ll try to comment, please be a bit more precise and say where would be eastern border of Germany? Precise geographical position, please. 8)
Also what would happen with Protectorate of Czech and Moravia, Slovakia, Baltic countries and Finland.
Cheers,
Lancer44
i think the allies would not stand at the border between Germany and Russia (aka the frontline)
i think the allies would stop at least 10 miles away from the frontline because it doesnt make sense to sarafice allies soldiers to battle for the Nazi
while the allies are deploying on that position, the allies would forced the soviet to negotiate a new peace deal with the German because it would be either enter the negotiation or risk to be in war with the allies.
Now the allies would have more power against the soviet in the negoatiation table. the allies cannot forced the German to pay a lot for the war because they worried that the German would backfire on them like they did on world war 2. the war that they just suffered only 10 million people.
Hitler would be asked to be out of office and be charged for mass murder and war crime. I think it would either
-
Nazi let him go and give him to the allies because most of the Nazi official would thought Hitler a liability to the party anyways
-
Nazi members are loyal to Hitler that they would say no, and the allies would have to take back the offer
I think the final deal would be something like that
-Germany would ruled the Baltic state with the allies
-Russia would ruled half of Poland and half of it would be ruled by Germany and the allies. There would be a new wall in Poland and a non-military zone in the new border
-France would be return to well, France and no longer be an Axis territory
-Some of the lower rank German official would be charged for mass murder and war crime, as a sybolic trail to make the western citizens happy (especially the British)
I have little knowledge on country like Finland, Crez Republic
but i do think its just a game of who gets there first
SU might said Finland is in trouble and needs to be protected by the strong communists power
or the allies said the people of Crez Republic would need the help from the allies and protected the citizens from militia
Your scenario looks like ready recipe for WWIII in 1952…
Poland dividen between Reds and Germans is a sure recipe for it.
From my point of view - I’m from this country - very unattractive proposition.
I would say that what really happened in 1945 was much better option for all sides and ensured peace. Germany are now democratic and completely different. Poland as well. Ukraine is independent.
UE and NATO guarantee peaceful solutions to all problems.
Your scenario FW-190 Pilot keeps nazis firmly entrenched in the middle of Europe. Do you think that such change of direction in their policies would be possible?
What about millions which perished in nazi camps? Who would compensate them?
Lancer44