Why did D-day even happen?

[102first_hussars]

Like the Allies could have easily taken Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Hungary through Italy, and been very close to Berlin, they could have spearheaded through to Berlin, and if they wanted to take France so bad why nt take them from behind by invading Vichey France, instead of breaking through a heavily defended Atlantic wall, like there is probably details that im not aware of, but yeah, if the Allies had of taken Berlin by invading Slovakia first and moving forward from there, maybe the USSR would never have made it to Germany meaning the Cold War would have went differently

[syscom3]

Why do you want to land and fight in mountainous regions?

A repeat of the italian invasion.

[mkloby]

Italy saw some very bitter fighting - and is unfortunately a widely unrecognized theater. Sys is right - tough mountain warfare, which is what italy was. Then continuing up north through austria into germany through tyrol alps??? Even passing to the east and launching an attack from slovakia/poland would have been an impractical scenario. Think of supply lines through mountains, arching around throughout half of europe...

[Maestro]

Plus the fact that many war criminals could have escaped due to the fact that there was nobody to block their retreat in the West.

[plan_D]

It's all a matter of supply. The biggest supply depot was Great Britain, an invasion from anywhere else would have ran out of supply very quickly.

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by plan_D

It's all a matter of supply. The biggest supply depot was Great Britain, an invasion from anywhere else would have ran out of supply very quickly.

Yep, Britain was the base and once in France you have the easiest and quickest route to Berlin with the shortest sea journey. Also if you read about the war in Italy you will see it is much harder going than you suppose with the Germans have multiple Sigfried line style defences (Gothic line etc).

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There were 2 main reasons why they did not try an major push through Italy.

One as plan_D pointed out was supply. It would have been more difficult to supply through Italy.

Two was the terrain. It would have actually prolonged the war to go through the Alps. Besides as history has allready proven the allies were bogged down for quite some time because of the fierce and well placed German defenses there.

[trackend]

Britain was (as D & Adler have said) a bloody great depot, aircraft carrier, docks and barracks with just a thin strip of water seperating it from the enemy. The skies to all intense and purposes where ruled by the allies as where the seas the possible landing sites streached along most of the French coast which in turn streached the defending German forces, even Norway was perceived as a possible invasion point and caused forces to be retained there just incase.
I think this was why the only feasable second front with the maximum chance of success was launched from the UK

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It would have been hell trying to go through the alps with hundreds of thousands of troops and equipment and the Germans would have had the terrain on there side.

Trying going up those mountains with the Germans shooting down on you.

[comiso90]

I think it's worth also considering that ending the war earlier through significantly increased efforts would probably result in a weaker US/Britain and a stronger USSR. Why not let the Germans and the Russians grind each other down while we continue to mass resources for a concentrated assault along a easier to manage western front.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Trying going up those mountains with the Germans shooting down on you.

Yeah, the terrain in the Alps practically defends itself.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

There were 2 main reasons why they did not try an major push through Italy.

One as plan_D pointed out was supply. It would have been more difficult to supply through Italy.

Two was the terrain. It would have actually prolonged the war to go through the Alps. Besides as history has allready proven the allies were bogged down for quite some time because of the fierce and well placed German defenses there.

Excuse me sir! I believe I pointed out supply issues first! Give it up

[syscom3]

A Balkan invasion was considered at one time in the war. And FDR and the JCS rejected it outright as being an "adventure" for political reasons and few if any military advantages.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Plus you would have to go through the same kind of terrain as you did in the Alps to get to Germany. Would have taken even longer.

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by syscom3

A Balkan invasion was considered at one time in the war. And FDR and the JCS rejected it outright as being an "adventure" for political reasons and few if any military advantages.

Yes Sys but Allies didn't want another Gallipoli style invasion as it failed in WW1. But by going through Greece into the Balkans but the Allies were smart to they fooled German Military Intelligence into believing a front invasion would go through the Balkans via Greece etc or Norway or even by France itself by Calais etc. The Italian campaign the Tough Old Gut of Europe was bad enough but Greece would have been just as bad going to the Balkans etc. The Germans had a hell of a time taking Greece in 1941. It wasn't a walk over as they first thought with Greek British and Commonwealth Troops defending every pass and mountain top in a fighting withdrawal. Second Battle of Thermopyle were Australian 6th Division men were defending the pass gave the German Army hell. Only thing the Aussies lacked was air cover of their own and the Germans had air superiority which they used to dislodge the Aussies, but it cost the Germans dearly for every foot of ground won in Greece as it did for Allies in Italy. So Greece via Balkans was out of the question. Good only to keep the Germans guessing and tie down extra divisions that could be used elsewhere