What if D-Day Had Failed?

Carlo D'Este (Armchair General Consulting Historian) | June 13, 2005  | 0 comments  | Print  | E-mail

What if D-Day Had Failed? June 6, 2005: A Look Back at What Might Have Been

"Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

Nothing was a sure thing on D-Day. (National Archives)

General Dwight D. Eisenhower scribbled these chilling words on a piece of paper shortly before D-Day, June 6, 1944. Ike’s naval aide, Captain Harry C. Butcher, found it crumpled in his shirt pocket weeks later and saved it for posterity. In contrast to a message of hope that Eisenhower had recorded before the invasion, which was broadcast on the BBC the morning of June 6 announcing the invasion of France, the world never knew until years later of its existence - and then only as an insight into Ike’s remarkable character.

Another anniversary of that historic day is upon us - the 61st of the greatest military operation of its kind in the history of warfare. This was the date when American, British and Canadian troops launched the greatest battle for freedom ever fought. They called it Operation Overlord, and it marked the beginning of the most important western battle of the Second World War. The success or failure of Overlord would determine the course of the war in Europe.

Hindsight and the passage of time often evolve into the deepening of already established beliefs about historic events. And, while the focus of our remembrance is quite properly on the drama of the invasion, it also leads to, I believe, a tendency to take the success of D-Day too much for granted. Of course, we are fully cognizant that D-Day was a costly and bloody military operation; that Omaha Beach was nearly lost the morning of June 6 and held only by the bravery of the GI’s pinned down there under murderous fire. Such scenes are etched into history and our collective memory through photographs, books, oral histories and films such as The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan.

History, however, can sometimes mislead us into false perceptions. D-Day might have failed for any number of valid reasons. One of its perceptions is that it was always destined to succeed; yet what is rarely ever discussed or written about is the compelling possibility that D-Day might actually have failed - and what the consequences of that failure might have been.

Is it possible Rommel could have forced an Allied surrender, as he did in 1940? (National Archives)

What follows is not a fanciful supposition but a sobering look at the inevitable consequences of an Allied failure on June 6, 1944.

The truth is that it was never a certainty that Overlord would succeed. Of course, no commander undertakes a military operation of the magnitude of Overlord without confidence in its success. However, given the enormous obstacles that had to be overcome, Eisenhower unquestionably not only recognized that failure was entirely possible but also prepared in advance to accept full responsibility.

A brief look at the daunting challenge Eisenhower and his planners had to accomplish in 1944 reveals why failure was possible. If the D-Day landings were to succeed, each of the following criteria had to be fully met:

• Plan and successfully carry out the largest amphibious operation in the history of warfare.
• Land over 150,000 troops on D-Day by sea and by air on a strongly defended hostile shore.
• Accomplish this while at the same time deceiving the Germans over where the Allies would invade.
• Successfully execute this extraordinary operation even though - until the very last minute - the actual site of the invasion was the most heavily guarded secret on the planet, kept from all but the key invasion force commanders.

Individually, each of these prerequisites held the potential to fail; collectively, they represented a very high risk. World War II amphibious operations were all perilous. Sicily, Salerno and the numerous landings in the Pacific were all testaments to the complexity of such endeavors, particularly when the unpredictability of Murphy’s Law was added to the mix. The Sicily landings, for example, were plagued by numerous unexpected and unforeseen problems that included inexperienced transport pilots and lack of aerial discipline, so-called "friendly fire" from Allied ships at sea, high winds and smoke from fires burning on the island. Likewise, Salerno was nearly lost as the result of faulty planning and Mark Clark’s decision not only to ignore the advice of his naval commanders and forego a pre-invasion bombardment, but also to embark the landing craft from far too great a distance from the beaches.

Help Armchair General by bookmarking to

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.