Steve---once again due to the diversion of resources to the Med, the Allies wisely realized that a cross Channel invasion was best delayed until 1944. We look at the events of WW II with "perfect" hindsight. Those who were planning and executing the war were obviously learning as they went along. The Germans realized that crushing the Anzio beach head in January of 1944 would make the Allies hesitate before moving into Europe. The saving of the Anzio beach head diverted (there is that word again) valuable/precisious shipping assets from the cross Channel invasion force. So both sides appreciate the criticality of Anzio. Fortunately, the Allies won out. There was just no way the Allies could have successfully invaded Europe in 1943....hindsight or not.
My two cents on a Sunday morning
DJ

I think the Normandy landings in 44,were very much on time ,by this time the germans were very much on the defensive there factories were suffering the heavest bombings of the war.The german army was on the defensive in Russian and the Balkans and the allies had just won the battle of the atlantic agains the U-boat menace now they had a freer hand in supplying the Murmansk run and England.Also the allies had cracked the german enigma code by 43,which was invaluable in assesing german troop movments.By 1944 the german army was a well intrenched enemy on the Western front ,but they were spread too thin.Also there generals were very demoralized with the way Hitler was planning there campaigns overuling his generals.but they were still a dangerous foe with half a million men and equipment on the eastern front.Remember after the Normandy invasion the germans moved some of their crack ss units west to counter the allied trust in France and the low countries,But I agree like someone posted before the allies in partically the American air power played I decisive role in this .American air power has been very decisive on the battle field ever since to the present day 2002.Also the germany was on a fight for its very survival they were being squeezed in on all sides.The german army after Normandy didnt recover fully for an all out offensive untill the Ardennes in late 44,which they were able to muster up all their equipment for one last big push against the allies which by that time were knocking on the door.

Good replies by all.

My intent is not to refight the war or to suggest a different coutcome. But, I do think that going back and saying 'What if' is a usefull exercise. (As long as you stay within the boundries of reason and fact.)

One of the problems of looking back on past events is that we start to believe things could only have worked in one particular way. This seems especially true in a war where we can proclaim a "winner" and a "loser;" that it was a certain chain of decisions that allowed the victors to prevail.

What I would like to point out is that the shows, movies and books, we read tend to stick to standard dogma as far as the events of WW2 are concerned.

There is this assumption that the Allies had a Grand Strategy that went off like clock-work and that if altered in any way, the war would have been lost, etc. (Some people get downright mad if you suggest otherwise.)

There is no proof that anyone got together and said lets invade France in '44 after we gain experience in Italy or after we do a, b, or c, etc. As I mentioned, the Allies disagreed on the timing of events. There was compromise, disagreement, and sometimes downright animosity between the Allies.

The thing that bothers me most is that facts are distorted. Just one examlpe; every war show you ever see says that Overlord was the largest invasion. Look at the numbers and you will see this ain't necessarily true. So does that mean the people writing the books and producing the shows aren't checking facts? (And, just look how under-reported the contributions of the Russians have been.)

The fun part of studying this subject is to try and look at material in new ways. If we were to listen only to someone like Stephen Ambrose, then the war was a Great Crusade of 18-year-olds going off to fight for truth, justice and democracy. Well, that's certainly a patriotic notion and appeals to our emotions (and sells books) but the reality may be a bit different.

Steve

PS - I hope to ask more 'What if" questions in the future.

My view on history is to take history and the most accurate depiction and learn from it. What happened happened and as long as revisionists and politically correct people keep history as a tool to learn, then we will all be better off.
Until then, let us think of these men who have risked their lives for our freedom. Huah!

I think if Allies actually did attempt the landing in 43, it would be difficult to the brink of failure. One more year, German almost bleed themselves dry in the Eastern Front, and various fronts also cost them more materials and lives. 43, The Wehrmacht was still kinda at its prime, and I cannot remember 100% correct, did the U-Boat arm still wrecked havoc in 43?

My 2 HK cents