What if D-Day had failed?
470398
If D-Day had failed than it is likely that Hitler and the Nazi Party would have suceeding in at least conquering Europe.  However, with Hitler's attitude and ideals I don't think he would have stopped with just Europe considering the fact that the Appeasement attempt of giving Czechoslavakia, more specifically the Sudaton land, failed.  The failure occurred because Hitler returned for the rest of the country.
1152894
Bad planning in 03.For some assinine reason our higher-ups thought all of Iraq would be out there tossing flowers and dancing in the streets of every city and village ala occupied Europe when the Allies went through following D-Day, they didin't have a contingency plan for the Baa'th  party members and former Reuplican Guards and others who didn't want us there.\nSo they dispatched 150,000 troops instead of thrice the number needed to stabalize the country and get the Iraqis back on their feet.
504324
~The only way that Germany could have won would have been with the support of the US and by tapping into US industrial might, just as was the case  with Britain and France.  The good thing about sitting on the sidelines until the fight is almost over is that the Johnny-(Sammy)-come-lately gets to pick the winner.  \n\nThus, the occupation of Moscow would have been shared by the US and Germany and the cold war would have been unnecessary.  Britain would have retained some semblance of its present self, but we wouldn't have had to suffer the Lady Di crap. Most likely, Britain would have pulled an Italy and switched sides.   The rest of Europe would be the non-entity it is and was, with US and German troops ever present to keep it that way.  Lech Walesa and Solidarity would never have happened.  The Berlin Wall would not have come down because it would have never been built.\n\nThe trip to the moon  would have happened sooner and much more efficiently.  Synthetic fuels would be the norm rather than the exception.  The Euro would have come into being 5 decades sooner.  The Common Market  would have come into being much sooner, under a different name.  Italy would still by a nice place to visit, but not much else.  The Soviet Union would have been an Anglo-American-German colonial protectorate.  Israel would not exist, Algeria would have gained independence much sooner and Nasser would not have had to, wanted to or needed to nationalize the Suez Canal.  Qaddafi and Idi Amin would have been tending camels rather than running puppet-governments for super powers.  Korea would have been left to the Koreans.\n\nIn exchange for a US alliance, or peace with the US, Germany would have terminated its treaties with Japan.  The Japanese markets and materials would have been replaced and exceeded by the products and profits from the west, with  whom the Germans were much more kindred.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still have the distinction of being the only places on earth to have been nuked, but Uncle will have his day.  Chiang may have stayed on the mainland, but, if not, Mao would have been even less significant than he was.  Nam would have been unnecessary.\n\nThe Middle East would have been subjugated and Sadam and the Shah would be meaningless footnotes in history.  We would still have pillaged Middle Eastern oil, but Opec wouldn't have been able to stop us.\n\nThere is a reason that one of the US's strongest allies today is Germany.  Hitler was an anomaly.  The US and Germany are as tight today as they were when Von Steuben trained the Troops at Valley Forge, and Britain and Germany share more history and monarchical families than any other two nations in European history.\n\nHitler would have been talked away from his racial policies, but not too quickly.  The rest of the world was never really too upset with the camps and the death of 6 million Jews and 9 million others who died in them anyways.  Certainly not the US, who had exercised similar policies with Native Americans and who was pondering what could be done to quash the  Afro-Americans, Eastern and Southern Europeans  and Asians who were making foolish noises about equality and justice and  whose backs were no longer needed in the mills,  in the fields, in the factories and on the railroads.\n\nIn short, not much would be different today.  The names and places of history might be different, but your life would be pretty much what it is.\n\nSo why do you ask?
188954
I once had a 6th grade teacher that said that nobody could rule the world because it would spread them to thin. I subscribe to that theory because it sounds reasonable to me. Just because Germany or Japan took over France there was still a resistance that contributed to the victory by the allies. If it was here there would also have been an underground that would have made it tough to keep us in line. So the answer to this is no I think that English will always be the language of the land regardless if we pass on a war or not.
1056387
possibly circulation shutting down? lack of oxygen, lack of blood pressure? Depends what has failed.
104663
Let's take it a bit further, what if America Never Existed?  Suppose that man never flew, or made it to the moon.  Never developed an assembly line, or saved the world from polio.  Medicines never developed, or the world in famine fed.  Many of the worlds diseases were wiped out because of the good old U.S.of A.  There would be no Nuclear Weapons, or Nuclear Powered Electricity, or Nuclear Medicine.  Oh yeah, how well do you speak German or Japanese?
1161851
Certainly no better than it did.  The will to win must be resolute and all measures to do so must be taken.  Limited wars fought with too many conditions are a recipe for certain failure.
1110148
It would have eventually become so corrupt that it would have become weak, then it would have been taken over and fallen. Rome was about 3 things, sex, money/ power, and violence. It would have inevitably become weak, and when it fell it already was.
1181119
Frightening!!\n\nActually, I wouldn't consider it a win because it would have been a detriment to the rest of the world.\n\nOne would hope there would have been a revolt afterwards....\n\nOr you never know....Hitler could have come out of the closet and put a new spin on things
1012800
In Stephen Ambrose's D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II, he writes, Time magazine reported on June 12 [1944] that "as far as the U.S. Army can determine, the first use of D for Day, H for Hour was in Field Order No. 8, of the First Army, A.E.F., issued on Sept. 20, 1918, which read, 'The First Army will attack at H-Hour on D-Day with the object of forcing the evacuation of the St. Mihiel salient.'" (p. 491) In other words, the D in D-Day merely stands for Day. This coded designation was used for the day of any important invasion or military operation. For military planners (and later historians), the days before and after a D-Day were indicated using plus and minus signs: D-4 meant four days before a D-Day, while D+7 meant seven days after a D-Day.\n\nIn Paul Dickson's War Slang, he quotes Robert Hendrickson's Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins. Many explanations have been given for the meaning of D-Day, June 6, 1944, the day the Allies invaded Normandy from England during World War II. The Army has said that it is "simply an alliteration, as in H-Hour." Others say the first D in the word also stands for "day," the term a code designation. The French maintain the D means "disembarkation," still others say "debarkation," and the more poetic insist D-Day is short for "day of decision." When someone wrote to General Eisenhower in 1964 asking for an explanation, his executive assistant Brigadier General Robert Schultz answered: "General Eisenhower asked me to respond to your letter. Be advised that any amphibious operation has a 'departed date'; therefore the shortened term 'D-Day' is used." (p.146)\n\nBrigadier General Schultz reminds us that the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 was not the only D-Day of World War II. Every amphibious assault-those in the Pacific, in North Africa, and in Sicily and Italy-had its own D-Day. The National World War II Museum's opening exhibition explores the history and lessons of the Normandy invasion. In 2001 a special exhibition will highlight the D-Days of the Pacific Theater, North Africa, and the Italian Campaign
736980
In English military parlance, D-Day is a term often used to denote the day on which a combat attack or operation is to be initiated. While the initial D in D-day does not stand for anything, it often represents a variable, designating the day upon which some significant event will or has occurred; see Military designation of days and hours for similar terms.\n\nDuring WW2, D day referred to Dieppe day
1142511
I would be devastated at the loss. My life would never be the same. I would be very proud of him as I consider all those who join the forces as heroes. I would curse the day George W was born for getting us into an unnecessary war with no exit plan,
926267
how about 5000 americans in some buildings is better than 3000 soldiers and marines who volunteer and fight for their freedom.\n5 times as many soldiers died in normandy on d-day.\n\nis losing a life bad yes, but is it worth what we are fighting for, yes yes yes.
1054244
The energy that was expounded by both forces was totally wasted, so therefore they will diminish and die.......:(:(:(  (~p~)
223910
In English military parlance, D-Day is a term often used to denote the day on which a combat attack or operation is to be initiated. Whilst the initial D in D-day is not an abbreviation of anything, it is taken from the word day and represents a variable, designating the day upon which some significant event will or has occurred
801026
Yes, they did. It was a calculated risk. The Germans did the same thing in WWII, which was very successful (39-40). So did the US a few years later (44-45).\n\nThe idea is that you bunch your units together to achieve maximum firepower against the enemies forces, with the objective being to breakthrough the enemies line of defense. Once the initial breakthrough occurs, then the bunched forces are spread out to destroy the enemies backfield of supplies & their command and control (headquarters) units. Secondary units of the attacking force are tasked with protection of the supply lines, rounding up & holding prisoners of war.\n\nThe risky part is that by bunching the majority of your forces in one place, you leave your own supply lines open to attack via a flanking manuver. However, this risk is mitigated by the fact that once you breakthrough the enemy's primary line of defence, they are usually too occupied with trying to defend their own territory / supply lines / reestablish a line of defence to go after yours.
810274
In English military parlance, D-Day is a term often used to denote the day on which a combat attack or operation is to be initiated. While the initial D in D-day does not stand for anything, it often represents a variable, designating the day upon which some significant event will or has occurred.\n\nBy far, the best known D-Day is June 6, 1944 — the day on which the Battle of Normandy began — commencing the Western Allied effort to liberate mainland Europe from Nazi occupation during World War II. However, many other invasions and operations had a designated D-Day, both before and after Operation Overlord. D-Day was originally planned for June 5, 1944 but bad weather and heavy seas delayed that.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_Day