The Longest Day : Hitler sleeping?

Hitler sleeping?

Just watched "The Longest Day" for the first time.

My interpretation of the movie is that a key reason for the Allies' success on June 6, 1944, was that the Germans did NOT send forces from elsewhere in France to Normandy. According to the movie, this is attributable in large part to the fact that Germans at military headquarters would not wake up Hitler up so he could order the forces from elsewhere to move.

This seems preposterous and I have NEVER heard this before. Does anyone know if this is true?

ZWrite

Re: Hitler sleeping?

In "Patton" the reason given is that the Germans believed that the Normandy invasion was just a diversion and that Patton would command the real invasion of occupied France, landing at Calais.

Tough to swallow that one completely - it was a movie about Patton (a great movie); Patton was stewing about being used as a decoy while he was being sidelined from the real action he craved; and ultimately the ruse worked and the Normandy landing was successful.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

I seems incredible but it's absolutely true. Panzers held in reserve could only be released on the direct orders of Hitler who was sleeping and no-one dared wake him.

It's referred to in books by Ryan, Ambrose, Hastings, Holmes and many others.

http://worldwar2history.info/D-Day/Hitler.html

Re: Hitler sleeping?

"seems incredible but it's absolutely true. Panzers held in reserve could only be released on the direct orders of Hitler who was sleeping and no-one dared wake him."

That statement is very true - but Hitler wasn't just merely asleep. In his later years Hitler was an uppers-and-downers drug addict. On daily basis he was awake until the early morning hours then went to bed around three or four a.m. taking a heavy dose of sleeping medication upon retiring for "the night." The staff officers that knew him the best, realized that if they did get Hitler awake he would be in a rage at having his pill induced sleep interrupted. So they let the sleeping manic-director alone.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

Yes, it is totally true.

In addition, (and as shown in the Movie) the Luftwaffe was totally ineffective and the Aliies had total Air Superiority during the battle. This is critical. Even if the Panzers had been released, they would have been under constant air attack. All supply lines to Normandy were under constant air attack.

In fact, the Allies broke out of Normandy by carpet bombing the Germans in the Falais pocket and effectively destroyed the German Army in France.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Hitler sleeping?


Luck play a big part in war. Lucky Hitler was sleeping on that Tuesday morning.

At Pearl Harbor, it was a lucky thing for the US that the Japs called off the planned third wave, thinking that they lost the advantage of surprise, not realizing how good a job the first two waves did. It's also lucky that they missed the fuel depot, and that the carriers were out at sea. The war would have been completly different had all that happened!
_________________________________
It's a tough universe...If you're going to survive, you've really got to know where your towel is.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

In what way would it have been different?
Maybe taking an additional 6 mos to a year to still beat the Japanese?

Re: Hitler sleeping?

Probably extending the war. Guadalcanal would not have happened until later, after the Japanese had dug in, with the results that more Americans would have died.

No Coral Sea or Midway.

Instead of two, maybe three atom bombs or more would have been needed.

Overall, more Americans would have died, probably...

Re: Hitler sleeping?

Don't think the American casulaties would have been much different, just delayed until the replacement carriers were ready for deployment. The delayed deployment would have allowed for even more equipment and manpower to be available and may in fact have shortened the war and ultimately saved American lives.
The same number of atom bombs (2) would still have been sufficient to get the attention of the Japanese. The effect would still be the same with just 2.
It appears the OP was indicating the US would have lost the war if the third wave had attacked. Don't agree. We were a much more resilient and determined breed back then. Can't apply today's America with the Greatest Generation.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

*****
At Pearl Harbor, it was a lucky thing for the US that the Japs called off the planned third wave
*****

*****
In what way would it have been different?
Maybe taking an additional 6 mos to a year to still beat the Japanese?
*****

*****
Probably extending the war. Guadalcanal would not have happened until later, after the Japanese had dug in, with the results that more Americans would have died. No Coral Sea or Midway. Instead of two, maybe three atom bombs or more would have been needed.
*****

There is another darker possibility, starting at Pearl Harbor and having a domino effect across the globe years into the future.

If the carriers had been caught at Pearl and the fuel reserves destroyed the American naval presence in the Pacific would have been eliminated. Even if the carriers had not been caught at Pearl, the oil needed to keep them moving and mounting anything other than short range defense couldn't be replaced in time to do anytime for six months at the earliest. The American naval presences is crippled and forced into strictly a defensive mode.
With no forces for Midway and Guadalcanal, the Japanese would have threatened Australia and possibly invaded. The British navy had it's hands full and couldn't do anything in the pacific on their own - they were busy trying to keep the German U-boats from strangling England.

If you remove the Australians from the picture, either by surrender, fighting for their survival on their own continent or holding troops in deterring an invasion, you now have no safe south Pacific ports for any ships that might be transferred by the US Navy from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Pearl Harbor would be standing alone without any defense (if not actually invaded); the logical move would then be to home port the surviving Pacific fleet back to San Diego all ships that could make it, scuttle everything that couldn't, and concentrate on defending the mainland from the Japanese. A decision would also have to be made at that point as to how important Alaska was to US interests. Do you split the remainder of the the fleet to guard against invasion in two widely separated places with weakened forces, or concentrate on one?

If the decision is made that Alaska is expendable, then you now affect the Canadians, who will be forced to keep troops home to defend against a possible invasion by the Japanese if southern Alaska and the Aleutians are allowed to fall. You can forget Juno beach being handled by the Canadians now on D-Day, they won't be there.

If you take out the Canadians at Juno, you either have to postpone the invasion or weaken the other beaches to fill in the gap at Juno.

Can you imagine Omaha beach with one less division? The resistance there almost caused the invasion to be called off. If one beach fell it was feared all would fall. That's just considering the Canadians.

Go back to Alaska being considered expendable. The Americans would know that if the Japanese did invade, the Pacific Northwest would be threatened from the north and the sea. Possibly in time more area along the northern border might be in danger - it simply would depend on how well the Canadians could defend and how well the Japanese could fight and supply themselves that far out. The western seaboard would be constantly under threat.

At the very least the fear of invasion spanning the entire western seaboard would have kept more of the military home to defend the mainland. Now you have Omaha and Utah beach even more depleted.

If D-Day was even still an option then. Imagine D-Day with few or no American units. Even factoring in the Marines that are not island-hopping now, it would take more than just the Marines to defend the western seaboard. Army units would be needed. Units that would have been deployed elsewhere around the world.

With American troops staying home there would not have been the landing in Tunisia, the Germans more than likely would have taken the Suez. The Mediterranean becomes the Axis lake. Italy is safe from invasion and remains in the Axis powers, guaranteeing Germany's southern defense. More troops could be devoted to the Eastern Front against the Soviets without weakening the Eastern front from invasion.

People always seem to forget Germany was actually fighting on three fronts.

More troops available to the Germans would mean Kursk in 1943 would be different. The units of the Afrika corps not destroyed and abandoned would be available, plus units that were deployed in Italy in 1943 would be there too. This is after two more years of fighting without aid from America (they would be keeping their own supplies for their own defense needs). The Soviet army would still be a factor just by shear numbers, but it may very well not have become the juggernaut it did by winning at Kursk and never looking back. If the Germans had even just held the line at Kursk, the war in the east might easily have fallen into a stalemate with the Soviets for years. If they managed to pull off a victory at Kursk, there was nothing left to stop the German flanking Moscow to the south. Soviets units in the north would be forced into holding actions as units were withdraw from that front and sent to defend Moscow's flank. The entire Soviet spring offensive falls apart instead of becoming the major victory they never looked back after.

With resources flowing into Germany from the Mediterranean theater, the Middle East and the Caucasus, it's feasible they could have held the Soviets at bay and stalemated for years if they weren't actually victorious.

At this point peace between the United States and a Germany that isn't a direct threat starts looking more and more appealing (if war was even declared by the USA on Germany after this Pearl Harbor). A Britain concentrating on survival and not able to project a military presence could free up even more German forces to face the Soviets.

The outcome(s) from there start to become mind boggling. Eisenhower is a military disgrace instead of a hero if the invasion is tried and fails, and never becomes President of the USA - or he masterminds a perfect defense that defeats a Japanese invasion and is swept into office with headlines that read "Eisenhower Beats Truman". Possibly no JFK either because of the whole war hero thing in his first election didn't hurt him getting elected.

No Cuban missile crisis because there would be no Soviet missiles in Cuba, they'd all be in Russia pointed at Germany - if they even existed.

The Korean war never happens because under Japanese control there is no North or South Korea. China never goes communist because the factions continuing fighting the Japanese instead of each other.

Here's the really wild one: Japan does NOT become an economic and technological powerhouse it is today because the changes MacArthur pushed after the war never happen. Their economy stays more focused on controlling their gains instead of improving and revamping their internal infrastructure. Japan stays a military powerhouse, and it goes through it's own Viet Nam when Ho Chi Mihn decides it's time to kick the Japanese invaders out. It maintains a large presence in the worlds economies through brute force by controlling the Pacific Rim instead. The Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere becomes reality, but still weaker overall than it is today.

We could very well be living in a world where the Cold War was between the USA and the Japanese; with it played out in South America and the Pacific Islands instead of Europe and Eastern Europe. The Germans and the Russians would have probably been locked in struggle for so long that defending themselves from each other and watching each other is their primary concern in their version of the Cold War. The African brush wars in the 60's and 70's have had a different outcome due to Italian influences (backed by German aid) in their African colonies. No Belgian paratroopers in Leopoldville. No Mike Hoar in Rhodesia.
Nuclear exchange may or may not have happened, but if it did it's likely it would have been more than just two small devices used against one country. Possibly Germany and the Soviet Union in a series of exchanges using what they had as they made them until they realized the costs.
No series of Middle eastern wars for the last 50 years because there is no Israel to unite the Arabs. No OPEC either, most of the world's oil is controlled by Berlin.

In effect, Yamamoto's one decision forged the world into what we know now.

In my humble opinion.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

You have nothing to be humble about. You know your history and have an excellent view on alternate history (one of my favorite subjects).

Yeah, I have to agree. With the war on such a wide and massive scale, it shudders the mind to think about the war knowing anything about the "butterfly effect".

In a quite a few instances, it is a miracle that we aren't speaking German, in spite of Hitler's "leadership". One off course Britsh bomber dropping it's load on Berlin causing Hitler to release the pressure on the (practically defeated) RAF, and shift to cities during the Battle of Britain.

The Russians lost to the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war and held a lot of reserves for defense against the Japanese. Hitler declared war on America (after Pearl Harbor) expecting the Japanese to declare war on the Russians, putting the Russians on a multi-front war with his Atlantic Wall, secure.

Instead Japan and Russia had signed a neutrality pact earlier, allowing them to concentrate on their own interests. Just imagine if the Japanese returned Hitler's gesture (his intended plan)? The war could have become three theatres, instead of two.

Or if Hitler honored his neutrality pact and Russia, might have sat out the entire war, safe on two sides, with the Atlantic wall, fully manned for D-Day?

Ironically, Japan kept the pact and the Russians violated it after Germany's defeat, a year before agreed expiration in 1946.

There's just no honor amongst thieves. ;)

Nothing else I say can hold a candle to your analysis.

Re: Hitler sleeping?


One off course Britsh bomber dropping it's load on Berlin causing Hitler to release the pressure on the (practically defeated) RAF, and shift to cities during the Battle of Britain.

I think you'll find it was an off course German bomber dropping it's load onto London that caused the RAF to retaliate with an attack on Berlin a few days later, thus angering Hitler. And making Goering look a bit of a pillock as he'd said no enemy bomber would ever fly over Reich territory.
However it may well be that Hitler and Goering were going to attack London and other cities soon in any case. They were constantly being told that the RAF was nearly destroyed- it was far from being so. In a style reminscent of the Soviet Tractor Factory bit they were always told what they wanted to hear, their underlings fearful to tell the truth. So the Luftwaffe was always on the brink of total success etc.
As it happens it's doubtful that they could have totally destroyed RAF Fighter Command anyway. British aircraft production was keeping pace, indeed gaining on British fighter losses. More and more pilots were being trained.
Not a single aerodrome (save Manston as it was too close to France) was put out of action for more than 24 hours- bomb cratars can be filled easily enough on grass runways, aircraft can be maintained in the open air if necessary- they were well dispersed anyway in special blast pens. And in any case fighters of that era could be flown from any long stretch of flat field, not exactly uncommon in the South of England.
For a decent overview of the Battle of Britain read The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

If the two carriers that were then working out of Pearl were sunk (and the USN had five more carriers elsewhere) and the oil tanks attacked, few of the consequences you posit wold have happened. In particular, the Japanese had neither the troops not the logistical ability to invade Australia. Even if they managed to get ashore on the north coast, there's a thousand miles of desert and near wilderness to cross without much in the way of roads and rail before they get to somewhere worthwhile. In other words, they'd be struck there. Alaska is even less feasible for them.

Incidentally, Hawaii was not defenceless even had Pearl and the fleet been more damaged. There were still substantial army forces and shore defences in place. Not that the Japanese had the ability to invade. That didn't have the logistic ability to conduct more than a mornings raid let alone keep a fleet off shore for thew weeks an invasion would require. Nor did they have the sea lift for an invasion force.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

*****
If the two carriers that were then working out of Pearl were sunk (and the USN had five more carriers elsewhere)
*****

For clarity, there were eight carriers floating on December 7th, in my scenario their fates would be something like this:

Lexington - destroyed/damaged
Enterprise - destroyed/damaged
Ranger - Atlantic, never left - considered unsuitable for pacific combat due to low speed (in fact finished the war as a training carrier in real life)
Long Island - Atlantic auxiliary/escort carrier, suitable only for escort, not forward combat

That left four carriers to cover two oceans, one containing the powerful Japanese Navy (who would be adding more ships to their navy at the same time) and no forward refueling points. The other having the wolf packs running unchecked and no reason to challenge them for some time since we'd not be doing lend-lease (keeping our materials for our own defense). We would only be concerned about defending our coast against them at that point.

Saratoga - San Diego, committed to west coast defence
Yorktown - Norfolk, redeployed through the Panama canal to bolster west coast defence
Wasp - Bermuda, would have stayed Atlantic under the events I described above concerning England
Hornet -Norfolk, would be the same as the Wasp.

The others five carriers under construction had significant times before completion:

Essex - 12 months out
Cabot - 14 months out
Bon Home Richard - 16 months out
bunker hill -17 months
Intrepid - 21 months out
(these times were under sped up wartime conditions, not modified at all)

At best it would be a year until three carrier force would be put in the Pacific (if it wasn't being deployed as a replacement for a destroyed carrier elsewhere). A year for many things to happen unchecked - and an extremely fluid and different political world in that time to consider also.

*****
In particular, the Japanese had neither the troops not the logistical ability to invade Australia.
*****

They wouldn't have to invade desolate areas at all (that would be just silly to invade empty space; the Japanese proved they weren't that inept); a temporary token invasion simply to keep Australian forces in place is all that's needed. The bombing of Darwin caused some forces of the Australian military to stay on defense and out of other theaters they could have been in. Imagine what having a Japanese raid on Australian soil for even a week would have done. Remember, politicians not only have the world stage to consider. A scared population has to be addressed, and ignoring them could cause even larger problems internally.

*****
Alaska is even less feasible for them.
*****

Alaska was considered a viable option to the Japanese in real life, and they did attack portions of the Aleutians. With a US Pacific force stretched thin already, it is conceivable the Japanese might invade the southern portions of Alaska (again, ignoring the empty northern areas) and threaten Canada into a defensive footing on their western border, fitting in with my scenario above.

*****
Hawaii was not defenceless even had Pearl and the fleet been more damaged. There were still substantial army forces and shore defences in place
*****

Hawaii had six Army regiments and three Marine Brigades; all woefully under armed due to budget cuts and political ambivalence before December 7th. Hardly a substantial force. Lots of men, with outdated weapons and a peacetime combat load with no possibility of being resupplied or getting replacements. Thier fate would have ultimately been the same as those forces in the Philippines after a year. Remember, with the navy on a defense footing for the west coast, only a small force would be needed to blockade Hawaii and weaken them further.
The shore defenses were geared to fight a surface action defense, which proved worthless in real life defending against an air attack. The Japanese wouldn't have to invade quickly, they could wait months, maybe years, for a Hawaii that was hungry, demoralized, and left feeling abandoned all that time. All that time they would also be subjected to bombing attacks, keeping the fleet in a constant state or repairing itself until it couldn't anymore, reducing those shore defenses, and generally lowering moral. Basically forced to expend ammo, men, and material. You can't stop an invader is you have nothing to fight him with.

*****
Not that the Japanese had the ability to invade. That didn't have the logistic ability to conduct more than a mornings raid
*****

Underestimating the Japanese is what started this, lol. You also don't take into account the Japanese would have changed their plans accordingly with my scenario. No Guadalcanal tying down troops, none of the Marshalls for that matter, in fact all of the forces spent fighting the Marines and Navy in the South Pacific in the opening stages of the war would most likely be logically allocated to taking Hawaii, probably around November 1942 would be my guess, as both a gain to their holdings and a political message to Washington to stay on the West Coast.

*****
Nor did they have the sea lift for an invasion force.
*****

They moved large quantities of troops and supplies even further while fighting in the south Pacific. I see no reason why they couldn't move even more men and materials shorter distances in a mostly unopposed Pacific.

Even fighting back after we had replaced and strengthened our Navy would have been a monumental and risky measure. Hawaii would have to be the first thing, and we would be attacking (by that time) a well-defended Japanese outpost 2500 miles away through contested waters that would be defended by an enemy experienced and prepared for the new style of naval combat they had already been using - if it was even politically authorized to begin with at that point.

Just like there would have been no D-Day if there wasn't an England to stage from, there could be no retaking of the Pacific without Hawaii.

Even if the Enterprise and Lexington survived in a scenario where the fuel stores on Hawaii had been destroyed, they would have gone back to San Diego. With the longer distances to cover with tankers, the Navy would second guess mounting large operations. The primary targets for the Japanese would become the tankers, causing the task force to abort, or worse, a ship dead in the water can be destroyed at their leisure. The US would need a larger naval force to protect both carriers and tankers. The pacific would develop into a mini arms race, both sides building - the Japanese to have an ever larger force to destroy the American Tankers and carriers before they got too far, the Americans building to have a large enough force to protect the carriers and tankers to allow themselves to mount a mission.

If the American public and leaders would condone (or could afford) such measures and not sue for peace beforehand.

Perhaps, maybe, if, possibly... all my scenarios are educated guesses based on a third wave being launched successfully against the fuel stores. In the end, who knows?

Thankfully, we'll never know...



Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order

Re: Hitler sleeping?


Four carriers . . .

There's no reason why historical carrier deployments would be kept to. The RN was quite capable of handling the Atlantic without US carriers.

(who would be adding more ships to their navy at the same time)

In 1942, Japan completed two escort carriers. That year, the USN completed 1 fleet carrier and nine escort carriers. IN 1943 the numbers were three fleet carriers and an escort carrier for the IJN and 14 fleet carriers and 28 escort carriers for the USN.

Alaska was considered a viable option to the Japanese in real life, and they did attack portions of the Aleutians.

Yet all they did was occupy two undefended islands closer to Japan than any of the major population centres of Alaska. Do note, they never tried more and the Aleutian attack was intended as a strategic feint.

Hardly a substantial force.

A corps sized force of three divisions not substantial? Really?

The shore defenses were geared to fight a surface action defense, which proved worthless in real life defending against an air attack.

No kidding. That's what the AAA defences were there for. Even on a semi-peacetime footing, they shot down twenty and damaged about fifty of the 171 aircraft of the second wave. Against alerted wartime forces with radar warning, they could be expected to maintain that rate. A loss rate per raid like that is not sustainable for more than a couple of days.

They wouldn't have to invade desolate areas at all

Seeing as it would be too far to get to the bits of Australia where nearly all the people live, they wouldn't have any choice.

a temporary token invasion simply to keep Australian forces in place

And this would bee much better for Japan than fighting them in New Guinea why?
Not to mention the fact that they didn't have the forces to invade Australia, Alaska, or Hawaii anyway. The army was fully committed, the navy didn't have the fleet train and was also busy, and they simply did not have the shipping to carry and supply troops if they had any to carry.

Underestimating the Japanese is what started this, lol

We have a much better appreciation of what resources Japan had available in 1941-45 than they did at the time. They did as well as they did not because they were supermen, but because the Allies were not ready and they were lucky. As Yamamoto predicted that luck ran out after six months and they could not win the subsequent war of attrition.

You also don't take into account the Japanese would have changed their plans accordingly with my scenario.

So what? The Allies would have responded and given the massive disparity in forces, the Japanese would have lost. It doesn't matter if they are ground down in detail in the Solomons or smashed island by island as the USN advanced across the Central Pacific. For that matter, they could ignore Japanese ground forces in the Pacific and concentrate on operating B-29s from China.

They moved large quantities of troops and supplies even further while fighting in the south Pacific.

Not really. Not only were those nearly all administrative moves rather than combat deployments (except for the penny packets in the Solomons), Japanese bases were already present and well established, in some cases for a couple of decades. Shifting a battalion at a time from Saipan to Truk is a bit different than mounting a amphibious assault from Truk to Hawaii.

Even if the Enterprise and Lexington survived in a scenario where the fuel stores on Hawaii had been destroyed, they would have gone back to San Diego.

Perhaps. More likely the US would have moved civilian oil tankers to Pearl and used them as floating tank farms and carried on from there.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

Then we shall agree to disagree.
I maintain that the destruction of the oil stores there would have been far reaching effects in an alternate scenario, your point of view maintains a world where it wouldn't matter, ignores political changes for a nation put on a defensive footing, has England defeating the wolf packs singlehandedly, Hawaii defending itself with freshly stocked and modernized forces while being cut off from the mainland, apparently developing these modernizations from what was available at hand (and a radar network beyond what it had to boot), moves places like Darwin somehow behind desolate deserts that an enemy has to fight their way through to get to, escort carriers that function as full sized carriers, and the Japanese blindly following their original plans rigidly and illogically without change - making Hollywood propaganda type decisions on when and where they'd fight, consistently making the worst decisions possible under your constraints... even having America deploying apparently impervious floating tank farms (ignoring the logistical nightmare of keeping themselves fueled and not being hampered by the law of diminishing returns - the sheer cost of that endeavor would have strained an American economy already pushed to its limits to the breaking point), etc, etc...

Basically, your analysis leaves Pearl Harbor totally irrelevant and has USN not only containing the IJN, but capable of defeating it after devastating losses while operating 2500 miles further east out of the West Coast of the USA.

Against a debate like this, I have nothing.

I only follow outcomes to possible logical conclusions without adding fantastical reaches (B-29s suddenly operating out of China after crossing thousands of miles deep into/across enemy-held territories) or ignoring inconvenient points (pretty much the entire political aspects).


Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order

Re: Hitler sleeping?


I maintain that the destruction of the oil stores

You're also including additional changes that the two carriers then operating from Pearl Harbor were destroyed and that Japan would decide to invade Hawaii and Australia. None of those proceed from the above premise.

ignores political changes for a nation put on a defensive footing

America was already on a defensive footing and the first few months of the Pacific War did not go in America's favour anyway. Americans would still be angered by Japan's apparent diplomatic duplicity before the war, the "Sneak Attack" on Hawaii, and the torture and murder of American POWs on Wake and in the Philippines. Adding Japanese atrocities on American civilians in Hawaii to that list, should Alien Space Bats permit them to do so, would not make Americans less outraged or less thirsty for revenge. You have very much underestimated the resolve of the American people during that time - as did the Japanese government and high command.

has England defeating the wolf packs singlehandedly,

Leaving aside that England is only part of the United Kingdom and not the whole, and that the RN and RAF were supported by the RCN and RCAF, all I said was that US fleet carriers could be moved to the Pacific. They played little or no part against the U-Boats and a minor role against Axis surface forces. I said nothing about withdrawing other units of the USN's Atlantic Fleet.

Hawaii defending itself with freshly stocked and modernized forces

You mean the two army divisions that were near full strength including divisional artillery and the dozens of coastal defence guns? Given that Japan couldn't support an invasion force to begin with, that's clearly more than was needed.

while being cut off from the mainland,

How? They were barely able to get a task force there for a single morning's work. There was never any serious danger that Hawaii could be interdicted.

(and a radar network beyond what it had to boot),

The single operational radar was well able to give raid warnings as it did on 7 December 1941.

moves places like Darwin somehow behind desolate deserts

Darwin was not a major population centre. In 1941 it had a population of about two thousand. The entire Northern territory had a population of about nineteen thousand.

escort carriers that function as full sized carriers,

I didn't say that, though they did in real life.

and the Japanese blindly following their original plans rigidly and illogically without change

By that you mean operating within their real world limits and sometimes beyond them. There are good reasons why they didn’t try to invade Hawaii, Australia, or Alaska in real life or even launch a spontaneous third strike at Pearl.

even having America deploying apparently impervious floating tank farms

No less impervious than the oil tanks there in real life and what they did in real life at their advanced bases a bit later in the war.

(ignoring the logistical nightmare of keeping themselves fueled

Why would they need to be kept fuelled themselves save for a trivial amount needed for a reduced housekeeping load? Once there, they don't need to move.

the sheer cost of that endeavor would have strained an American economy already pushed to its limits to the breaking point), etc, etc...

The US built about thirty four million tons of merchant shipping during the war, over three thousand ships. The cost of a dozen or so tankers deployed to Hawaii would be a rounding error.

B-29s suddenly operating out of China

Which they did in real life.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

Hawaii would have been under Japanese control and the carriers would have moved in range of San Diego, San Fransico and the other west coast ports. Remember MOST (80-90% +/-) of the Pacific Fleet was stationed at Pearl, and USN ships were still getting pulled into the Atlantic Theater as of Dec 6th '41.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

How would "Hawaii been under Japanese control?"

Japan did not intend to invade Hawaii. You cannot "control" where your feet are not standing. Americans would STILL be in control of Hawaii.

The war would have been extended, yes. Japanese carriers would probably like you say have gotten closer to the American mainland. If they wanted to invade, which at no point their plans included so. Their only invasion of the Americas was a diversionary tactic at the Aleuts in support of Midway...

Re: Hitler sleeping?

ok I stand (well sit) corrected .. but you have to admit without the Pacific fleet at Pearl (with all the carriers they thought were there) and the IJN in control of the waters arount Hawaii .. they could have moved troop transports to invade.

Forgot that it was the objective to (as quoted from WikiPedia):

" preventing the Pacific Fleet from interfering with Japanese conquest of the Dutch East Indies. Second, it was a means to buy time for Japan to consolidate her position and increase her naval strength, before the shipbuilding of the Vinson-Walsh Act erased any chance of victory. Finally, It was intended as a blow against American morale, which might discourage further fighting and enable Japan to conquer Southeast Asia without interference."

Re: Hitler sleeping?

They could have moved transports to invade. But in a war, things do not happen on a whim. You have to plan long range. In hindsight, the Japanese did not have plans to invade Hawaii. Doubt very much they would have created one in a month. Does not mean the US should not have been complacent after the attack...

I agree with you that had the Japanese destroyed the carriers and the fleet support at Pearl, the Japanese would be in control of the waters around Hawaii.

And on what you quoted, achieved objectives 1 and 2 but not 3.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

Where do you people get your information? I can't believe some of the FACTS I read. Just like the OP not knowing about Hitler sleeping. One of the most well known facts of WW2.. The rest of you just make up scenarios and statistics and throw them out there for all the world to believe.

Help stamp out and do away with redundancy

Re: Hitler sleeping?

They did not "miss" the fuel stores. Fuel and repair facilities were third wave targets. Nagumo (Japanese Commander of OPERATION HAWAII) made a good call, strategically, to call off the third wave a push west.

Remember... the main effort was the Southern Operation.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

It is a FACT of history.

Help stamp out and do away with redundancy

Re: Hitler sleeping?

I remember hearing on the History channel that a few days after the invasion some areas of German resistance managed to push the allies back to the beach. If that is true then the immediate mobilization of the reserve panzer units might have defeated the Normandy invasion

Re: Hitler sleeping?

Possibly or it would have stalled it a bit more

Re: Hitler sleeping?

I always assumed that they were just simply scared to wake Hitler up from his sleep.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

So how much difference would it have made between waking Hitler up immediately and waiting until he woke up to get permission to release the Panzer divisions? A few hours? And how would a few hours have made all the difference between the Germans winning and losing at Normandy, since as many people pointed out, Normandy wasn't really a secure beachhead until days or weeks after D-Day?

I'm perfectly willing to concede to a strong argument about this, but as of now my opinion is that Hitler sleeping through H-Hour is overstressed as a primary reason why the Germans lost at Normandy. The deception of the "main invasion at Calais" (yes, with Patton as a major part of the deception) is more significant in holding off the sending of the Panzer divisions to Normandy. That and, as someone pointed out, Allied air superiority over northern France.

Oh yes, and the brave sacrifice of the American, British and Canadian troops who actually took those beaches.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

I appreciate the answer in all it's detail.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

I agree with Squeeth's points. It's clear that the Allied invasion planned on receiving even larger counterattacks from the Panzers than what they actually encountered. Allied airpower definitely was prepared for this contingency. The same goes for the massive Allied naval forces offshore.

I just want to point out that at the Salerno landings in 1943 a Panzer counterattack that came close to smashing the landing forces was stopped in it's tracks by naval gunfire.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

Yes, I can't help thinking that the Operation was planned taking into consideration these Panzer groups would be sent in once the landings sites were known to the Nazis. Surely Ike knew the deception could only last so many hours.
But more to the point, I doubt Ike et.al planned the invasion around the knowledge that Hitler would be caught 'napping' Sounds like this was just a bonus
for the Allied Forces ? I wonder what the plans were for handling these Panzer groups ? They must have been expected them to be sent in once the landing site was known right ? Since the Allies controlled the skies I'd imagine they planned on bombing runs to stall the tank advances as Naval bombardment would be too risky once the Allies pushed in land ? Just wild speculation here on my part, I'm certainly not that well read on the subject - the thought just hit me after reading the OP then taking a break to pour a cup O'Joe :-).

OK, having just re read my post I've realized I've diluted my original question:

Since the Allies could not have known Hitler would be sleeping with orders not to awaken him, Ike and Co must have had a plan(s) to deal with these Panzer groups, no ?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

Don't mind Squeeth. He's contractually obligated to dismiss Patton whenever possible. Apparently the classically brilliant military strategy of defeating an army by sweeping around and outflanking it is overrated when Americans do it. When Germans do it, of course, it's another story.

To be fair, Monty's engagement of the Germans was a crucial element to making Cobra work. But as usual Monty was as skeptical of the success of the American breakout as the Germans initially were, which had much to do with his not sufficiently exploiting the situation at the Falaise Gap. Maybe if Monty had respected the abilities of American generals like Patton as much as Patton respected the German generals he faced, it might have resulted in a significantly greater disaster for the Germans in France.

Of course, since Monty didn't even have much respect for other BRITISH generals, maybe that's asking too much.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Hitler sleeping?

This is absolutely true as far as it went. When the first call went to Hitler's headquarters to request release of the Panzer reserve, his staff refused to wake him. By all accounts, Hitler was treated by a quack doctor throughout the war who pumped him up with various potions during the day (that were alleged to include amphetamines) and then gave him sleeping potions at night so he could get a few hours rest. It was well-known around headquarters that you did NOT wake up Hitler too early in the morning.

Having said that, even when Hitler woke up, he still refused to release the Panzer reserve. He was convinced that the attack at Normandy was a bluff and the main attack would eventually land at Calais (which was much closer to England and would put invading forces much closer to the German border as well). Even more importantly, it wouldn't have mattered all that much if Hitler had immediately released the reserve. The allies had complete control of the air and any daytime troop movements were immediately spotted and attacked viciously by allied fighter-bombers. The Panzer reserves were eventually released a few days after the invasion and they got shot up so badly enroute to the battlefield that they had insufficient force to mount the planned counterattacks and instead they were wasted in static defense.
Top