Popular misconceptions of WW2, overestimating Nazi Germany

Recently, I've seen some popular misconceptions, especially those overestimating Germany.

First, there are various people in the popular atmosphere who claim that the Germans could've conquered most of Europe.
Truth: The Germans only got as far in Russia because of Russian incompetence. French and Brits were only defeated because they didn't coordinate themselves and the French incompetently spread their tanks. Plus, the French didn't do too much to assist Poland.

Second, many people think that the Germans were incredibly competent.
Truth: The Germans only won against the French because of French incompetence, for instance spreading tanks almost everywhere.

Third, people think that Poland stood 'no chance'.
Truth: the Germans had to use almost their whole army just to defeat Poland, along with Soviets helping them. Even then, the Poles lasted until October 6th, and that's without much French and British assistance.

Fourth, people think Lend Lease saved Soviets.
Truth: Even without Lend Lease, the Soviets would've defeated the Germans anyway. It just would've taken longer.

Fifth, people think Lend Lease to Soviets was beneficial.
Truth: Soviets didn't need it, the Allies were being wooed by Stalin to give it. When you look at the war from the end, you would see Stalin obtaining an empire of satellite states from Berlin all the way to Korea. Plus, Stalin got China on his side. You can say that Stalin has benefited a boatload from the war.

Do you have any more misconceptions to debunk?
And do you agree?

Britain was never 'defeated'...
The Germans might well have smashed every European city to pieces but without some patsies i doubt theyd have held much of it by dint of not having the manpower to hold down a restless population.

.The 2 are not mutually exclusive/

It didnt and it certainly got no help in any practical sense from anyone. Hell we didnt even proiperly go to war with Germany for over a year after Poland was dismembered.

It might well have, it also might well have been the straw that broke the camels back. Lend lease provided the breathing space to ramp up their own war production and hold the Germans. Counter factuals being innately stupid in their own right it is still dubious to assert that Russia would have triumphed without the rather large amounts of aid being funneled north to her.

Youve made 2 completely unrelated points... lend lease has nothing to do with the outcome of the war, in this sense. It was obviously extremely beneficial to the Russians fighting the Germans especially as they had no satellites at the time, Germany and Japan had them all and China was not an ally.


Where on earth do you get these ideas from? A couple are plausible but most of them are simply rank hypothesizing..

'The Germans might well have smashed every European city to pieces but without some patsies i doubt theyd have held much of it by dint of not having the manpower to hold down a restless population.'
The Germans were almost hopeless in even 'winning' World War 2.

'It didnt and it certainly got no help in any practical sense from anyone. Hell we didnt even proiperly go to war with Germany for over a year after Poland was dismembered.'
Poland didn't even decide to defend well, the troops were all packed near the border with no reserves in place. And the population wasn't even aware of it. Had the Poles decided to gear up from early 1939, by the time the Germans attack in September, it would be a hell of a bloody fight, and it would take a lot longer to get to Warsaw.
This means that more Germans would be tied up fighting Poland, leaving a lot less to defend the Western Front than OTL.
Combine that with UK, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Norway all ganging up on the very undefended Western Front and you get Germany defeated quite easily.

After all, at the Nuremberg trials, Alfred Jodl said "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."
In the same light, General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks."

This was a glaring error by the Allies. All it took to defeat Germany was for the Brits and French to gang up against the German rear, along with Poland soaking up the damage. That would be disastrous for Germany.

Alternate history, if all those countries joined in, along with Poland being much better prepared:
Allies find out that Germany wanted to attack Poland, so Allies pretended they don't know. Meanwhile they start prepping.
Germany attacks with almost all of its strength, against Poland.

Poland immediately falls back to Vistula, Drweca, Narew and Biebrza rivers. The border towns to the north are fortified, as well as Grodno. In the centre, it's a slow retreat with Poles falling back to Warta river, along with the lakes as cover. In the south, mountains held.
September 10, instead of Poles being encircled west of Warsaw, and Warsaw being threatened, the Germans are stuck on the 1st defence line.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dffPcxBUwds) at 1:17 is OTL German advance.

The Allies see that Germans are tied up, so they pounce on the undefended rear.
Czechoslovakian rebels begin to rise, tying up even more German forces to the east.
A crisis emerges by September 15, with Kiel gone, Hamburg within artillery range, the Elbe reached, the Rhine being reached near the Ruhr, Netherlands advancing to the Weser, and French breaking Siegfried line.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#/media/File:Poland2.jpg) Map of Poland for reference.

Meanwhile in the East in Sep 15 the Germans are bashing their heads at the 1st defence line.
The 2nd Polish defence line is around Bzura, Pilica rivers to the centre. Bug river, part of Narew river near Bialystok and Szczuczyn in the north. Mountains to the south.

Hitler decides to send reinforcements to the West to delay the Allied advance. In the East, he decides on a plan to threaten the Poles from the rear.
The plan is to break the Lomza-Grodno line, take Bialystok, advance to Brest and secure a bridgehead over the Bug. Meanwhile part of Bock's army would protect the flank by taking north-eastern Poland up to Szczuczyn. Pripyet Marshes would be the left flank of the Bug spearhead.
The plan, if successful, will disorganise the Poles, threaten their rear and force a withdraw to near Warsaw to allow them to defend their rear.

Bock and Rundstedt will also use some units to fool the Poles into thinking they're making a charge for Warsaw. Hitler knows he can't take Warsaw with one thrust because it's too heavily defended, yet also knows if the Poles know where he would attack, the plan would fail.

In the West, Hitler orders a general withdraw to the Rhine to defend, and hold Bremen, Hamburg and Munster. It will take 6 days for some reinforcements to arrive to patch up the crumbling front.

All of this presupposes that the large and relatively well armed German army was nothing but a paper tiger that recquired nothing more than a good jab with a stick to implode and see the Reich absorbed into the British and French empires... something that is manifestly claptrap.
Whether or not Poland was ill prepared, given they didnt have a crystal ball or any allies of note and were cleaved in two by 2 superpowers, i find your argument that they could have crippled the Reich specious at best...

As for the line about Germany being hopeless at winning WWII, have you not ever read a history book nor the comments made by various commanders and strategists from the day? The defeat of the Reich was by no means certain, at least until they decided to poke the Americans in the eye, Britain and her commonwealth/empire certainly wasnt going to eject them from the continent on their own. The notion that the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were simply a bunch of bumbling twits led by worse has no particular basis in fact. As shown quite nicely by the blockade failing, the Lufftwaffe being a constant threat up to and until the USAAF flattened Berlin and the bloody fighting that went on until the red army enveloped Berlin.

As to the rest, umm, im not sure where the conjecture is coming from..? Nor what on earth its based on for that matter. 'patch up a crumbling line' at Bremen within 6 days.. One suggests you see the state of the 'allied' militaries at that point. Not as bad as post evacuation but certainly nothing that would particularly threaten the fatherland by that point, at least to the degree you infer.

'All of this presupposes that the large'
The Germans were actually at parity by the French and British, or even slightly outnumbered, during the 1940 French blitzkrieg. The German army can be considered large, but it's not that large.

'and relatively well armed German army'
In 1939–40, 45 per cent of the army was at least 40 years old and 50 per cent of all the soldiers had just a few weeks' training. The German Army was far from motorised; ten per cent of their army was motorised in 1940 and could muster only 120,000 vehicles, compared with the 300,000 of the French Army. All of the British Expeditionary Force was motorised (Wikipedia citing Frieser 2005, p. 29).
Most of the German logistical transport consisted of horse-drawn vehicles (Wikipedia citing DiNardo and Bay 1988, pp. 131–32).
Only 50 per cent of the German divisions available in 1940 were fit for operations, often being worse equipped than the German army of 1914 or their equivalents in the British and French Armies. In the spring of 1940, the German Army was semi-modern; a small number of the best-equipped and "elite divisions were offset by many second and third rate divisions" (Wikipedia citing Frieser 2005, pp. 29–30)

So you are saying that an army in which only half of the divisions were fit for operations, worse equipped than the French and British as well as numerous crap divisions is 'relatively well armed'.

'was nothing but a paper tiger that recquired nothing more than a good jab with a stick to implode and see the Reich absorbed into the British and French empires'
The Germans had to use almost all their strength, as well as stripping the West Front bare, with significant Soviet assistance just to take more than a month to defeat a second-rate power (Poland).
What makes you think that the Allies couldn't have overwhelmed the German western border, especially since most of the German army and 90% of the frontline planes were tied up in Poland for 5 weeks? And a significant amount of Soviets for around 3 weeks?

What about the only 23 German divisions in the entire West vs the 110 French and British divisions? The French and British were well-armed, equipped and ready as shown above, while the Germans put third-rate troops in the West. Plus, those troops had lousy equipment and didn't have great morale.
It was a historical anomaly that the Germans didn't get overrun in the West.

'Whether or not Poland was ill prepared'
These reasons made the Polish government disregarded French advice to deploy the bulk of its forces behind natural barriers, such as the Vistula and San Rivers, despite some Polish generals supported the idea to be a better strategy. (Wikipedia citing Seidner 1978, p. 122.)
Polish prewar propaganda emphasized that any German invasion would be easily repelled. That made Polish defeats during the German invasion come as a shock to the civilian population. Lacking training for such a disaster, the civilian population panicked and retreated east, spreading chaos, lowering the troops' morale and making road transportation for Polish troops very difficult. (Wikipedia citing Seidner, Marshal Edward Śmigły-Rydz Rydz and the defence of Poland, p. 312)

For force dispositions:
Polish forces were stretched thinly along the Polish-German border and lacked compact defence lines and good defence positions along disadvantageous terrain. That strategy also left supply lines poorly protected. One-third of Poland's forces were massed in or near the Polish Corridor, making them vulnerable to a double envelopment from East Prussia and the west. Another third was concentrated in the north-central part of the country, between the major cities of Łódź and Warsaw. (Wikipedia citing Seidner 1978, p. 304.)
The forward positioning of Polish forces vastly increased the difficulty of carrying out strategic maneuvres, compounded by inadequate mobility, as Polish units often lacked the ability to retreat from their defensive positions, as they were being overrun by more mobile German mechanized formations. (Seidner, Marshal Edward Śmigły-Rydz Rydz and the defence of Poland, p. 312)

So yes, Poland was very ill-prepared and basically self-harmed themselves by defending very improperly, as you see above.
Had Poland braced for impact, it would be a lot different to OTL. Considering that even OTL it took almost all of German strength and lots of Soviets 5 weeks to defeat Poland, let's extend it and say they can hold for 3 months.

'given they didnt have a crystal ball'
Nobody has a crystal ball, so it isn't merely the Poles.

'or any allies of note'
French and British with 110 divisions isn't 'allies of note'? And don't forget Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Luxembourg.

'As for the line about Germany being hopeless at winning WWII, have you not ever read a history book nor the comments made by various commanders and strategists from the day?'
Those people attempt to exaggerate somewhat to make them look decent for overcoming the odds to fight a so-called 'overwhelming' enemy.
The remilitarisation of the Rhineland was a huge gamble that would've stopped Hitler had the French not sit there in cowardice.

'The defeat of the Reich was by no means certain, at least until they decided to poke the Americans in the eye, Britain and her commonwealth/empire certainly wasnt going to eject them from the continent on their own.'
The Reich only won the Battle of France in 1940 because of French and British incompetence.
Several decent divisions were diverted to the front instead of reserves which could've stopped the Sedan penetration.
The French spread all their tanks to infantry units instead of concentrating them. Maybe they're competent at self-harming themselves, that could be.

'Britain and her commonwealth/empire certainly wasnt going to eject them from the continent on their own.'
More population, more resources, more industry than those Germans, the Brits could eventually push the Germans but it would take forever.

'As shown quite nicely by the blockade failing'
Only because the French fell, quite incompetently in fact. French failing allowed the Germans to outflank the blockade. If French don't fall, the German fleet is basically bottled up near Germany.
Had the British, French and all allies attacked promptly, the Germans might even be limited to the Baltic (though that's unlikely).

Or all of those countries making a run for the vulnerable Weser and Elbe, which would cut off the North Sea German fleet and force them to surrender.
Wrestling Kiel from the Germans would threaten German navy in the Baltic, as Kiel would be a base for Brits to attack in the Baltic.

'the Lufftwaffe being a constant threat up to and until the USAAF flattened Berlin'
Technically yes because they still had operational planes.
But practically they were basically dominated from 1943. Even at Kursk sometimes the Soviets could reign superior to the German Air Force. By D-day the Allies overwhelmed the Germans, it was no contest, unlike your wording of 'constant threat'.

'and the bloody fighting that went on until the red army enveloped Berlin.'
1941 and 1942 to a lesser extent, sure. From Winter 1942 the Red Army was either overwhelming the Germans or punching them hard, even 3rd Kharkov exhausted the Germans.

'As to the rest, umm, im not sure where the conjecture is coming from..?'
Trying to construct a scenario where all the other Allies actually attack the relatively undefended German Western front, as I've shown that it's only 23 divisions.

'Nor what on earth its based on for that matter.'
French and British having 110 divisions vs Germany only fielding 23 for the Western Front.
From the sources above, French and British divisions, weaponry etc. were superior to the Germans.
If you have numbers and technological edge, what's stopping you?

'patch up a crumbling line' at Bremen within 6 days..'
That's what happens if you try to fight while being outnumbered 5 to 1, as 110 vs 23 divisions attests to (and German ones in the west being atrocious). Do you really think the Germans are such ubermensch they would be able to resist being outnumbered 5 to 1?

'One suggests you see the state of the 'allied' militaries at that point.'
Better than the Germans, as stated in the sources.

'Not as bad as post evacuation but certainly nothing that would particularly threaten the fatherland by that point, at least to the degree you infer.'
Even with 5 to 1 outnumbering?

Are you talking about total strength, men in arms or those who could be called up etc.? Either way, you can have the biggest army in the world but if it isnt in a usful place its useless. Simply look at Russia in 1904.

It would be slightly more helpful if you gave the actual source, not the wiki name..
either way, that doesnt go against what i said..? Suffice it to say, when i say army i mean armed forces. Granted i could have been clearer.

The results speak for themselves.. and as i said, the British army is irrelevent here given it wasnt in Europe...

Did you really just say that defeating a country in a month p[roves the German military machine was ****...? I'll let you think about the timelines there and get back to me when youve rethought what 5 weeks means in terms of modern mechanized warfare.

Or, contrary to your belief, they actually had good technology in their vanguard andf used superior strategy to completely and utterly route the allies. Again, the results speak for themselves.

What point are you making here, other than their government lied?

Again, the defeat of a nation, with what youve described as a good military, in 5 weeks is not something to be sniffed at. I would draw your attention to the Gulf war for a modern example of that principle.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Given that none of them did diddly for the Poles, no. No units were sent to Poland, ever. It was, after all, the Russians who err 'liberated' Poland, in a manner of speaking.

So every historian on the matter is wrong, bar the wiki ones youve read? I trust i dont need to point out the slight issue with that logic train?
Indeed the Rhineland one was, that has never been disputed though.

According to you they out numbered and outgunned, not to mention better tactics, than the Germans.. even with a series of beautiful cockups they should have easily beaten this 3rd world rabble youve described the German military as. Would you be able to pick one option as you cant very well put forth two mutually exclusive arguments.

Er, no. As WWI showed simple numbers dont matter in modern war to any real degree. Nevermind the sea landings are, at best, extremely difficult. The fact you just wrote off the 2nd most important contributor to the war as effectively irrelevant is quite impressive though.

The french are immaterial here, again, to roll with your argument on overwhelming British superiority. The grand fleet being substantially bigger than the German one after all.

And how exactly would Britain have magically got its hands on Kiel?! It couldnt invade Norway for gods saker, let alone the home country.

You are aware that the Luftwaffe continued to be a menace on Dday right?

You just added to what i said... unless youre actually arguing the fight for Berlin wasnt a fight?

That would certainly be a novel war given no war in history (or any of significance) has ever proceeded in that fashion.

Because they didnt have the technological edge at the start and, as youve been told, simple numbers dont win wars by this point.

Are you familiar with what happened in the East in WWI?
Odds are nasty but not insurmountable if you employ better tactics and equipment than the opponent.

Not quite.

See above

Are you talking about total strength, men in arms or those who could be called up etc.? Either way, you can have the biggest army in the world but if it isnt in a usful place its useless. Simply look at Russia in 1904.

It would be slightly more helpful if you gave the actual source, not the wiki name..
either way, that doesnt go against what i said..? Suffice it to say, when i say army i mean armed forces. Granted i could have been clearer.

The results speak for themselves.. and as i said, the British army is irrelevent here given it wasnt in Europe...

Did you really just say that defeating a country in a month p[roves the German military machine was ****...? I'll let you think about the timelines there and get back to me when youve rethought what 5 weeks means in terms of modern mechanized warfare.

Or, contrary to your belief, they actually had good technology in their vanguard andf used superior strategy to completely and utterly route the allies. Again, the results speak for themselves.

What point are you making here, other than their government lied?

Again, the defeat of a nation, with what youve described as a good military, in 5 weeks is not something to be sniffed at. I would draw your attention to the Gulf war for a modern example of that principle.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Given that none of them did diddly for the Poles, no. No units were sent to Poland, ever. It was, after all, the Russians who err 'liberated' Poland, in a manner of speaking.

So every historian on the matter is wrong, bar the wiki ones youve read? I trust i dont need to point out the slight issue with that logic train?
Indeed the Rhineland one was, that has never been disputed though.

According to you they out numbered and outgunned, not to mention better tactics, than the Germans.. even with a series of beautiful cockups they should have easily beaten this 3rd world rabble youve described the German military as. Would you be able to pick one option as you cant very well put forth two mutually exclusive arguments.

Er, no. As WWI showed simple numbers dont matter in modern war to any real degree. Nevermind the sea landings are, at best, extremely difficult. The fact you just wrote off the 2nd most important contributor to the war as effectively irrelevant is quite impressive though.

The french are immaterial here, again, to roll with your argument on overwhelming British superiority. The grand fleet being substantially bigger than the German one after all.

And how exactly would Britain have magically got its hands on Kiel?! It couldnt invade Norway for gods saker, let alone the home country.

You are aware that the Luftwaffe continued to be a menace on Dday right?

You just added to what i said... unless youre actually arguing the fight for Berlin wasnt a fight?

That would certainly be a novel war given no war in history (or any of significance) has ever proceeded in that fashion.

Because they didnt have the technological edge at the start and, as youve been told, simple numbers dont win wars by this point.

Are you familiar with what happened in the East in WWI?
Odds are nasty but not insurmountable if you employ better tactics and equipment than the opponent.

Not quite.

See above

And what do you think, @UnclePete and @ageshallnot

Sorry, but I'm rather bored by the thread now.

Are you talking about total strength, men in arms or those who could be called up etc.? Either way, you can have the biggest army in the world but if it isnt in a usful place its useless. Simply look at Russia in 1904.

It would be slightly more helpful if you gave the actual source, not the wiki name..
either way, that doesnt go against what i said..? Suffice it to say, when i say army i mean armed forces. Granted i could have been clearer.

The results speak for themselves.. and as i said, the British army is irrelevent here given it wasnt in Europe...

Did you really just say that defeating a country in a month p[roves the German military machine was ****...? I'll let you think about the timelines there and get back to me when youve rethought what 5 weeks means in terms of modern mechanized warfare.

Or, contrary to your belief, they actually had good technology in their vanguard andf used superior strategy to completely and utterly route the allies. Again, the results speak for themselves.

What point are you making here, other than their government lied?

Again, the defeat of a nation, with what youve described as a good military, in 5 weeks is not something to be sniffed at. I would draw your attention to the Gulf war for a modern example of that principle.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Given that none of them did diddly for the Poles, no. No units were sent to Poland, ever. It was, after all, the Russians who err 'liberated' Poland, in a manner of speaking.

So every historian on the matter is wrong, bar the wiki ones youve read? I trust i dont need to point out the slight issue with that logic train?
Indeed the Rhineland one was, that has never been disputed though.

According to you they out numbered and outgunned, not to mention better tactics, than the Germans.. even with a series of beautiful cockups they should have easily beaten this 3rd world rabble youve described the German military as. Would you be able to pick one option as you cant very well put forth two mutually exclusive arguments.

Er, no. As WWI showed simple numbers dont matter in modern war to any real degree. Nevermind the sea landings are, at best, extremely difficult. The fact you just wrote off the 2nd most important contributor to the war as effectively irrelevant is quite impressive though.

The french are immaterial here, again, to roll with your argument on overwhelming British superiority. The grand fleet being substantially bigger than the German one after all.

And how exactly would Britain have magically got its hands on Kiel?! It couldnt invade Norway for gods saker, let alone the home country.

You are aware that the Luftwaffe continued to be a menace on Dday right?

You just added to what i said... unless youre actually arguing the fight for Berlin wasnt a fight?

That would certainly be a novel war given no war in history (or any of significance) has ever proceeded in that fashion.

Because they didnt have the technological edge at the start and, as youve been told, simple numbers dont win wars by this point.

Are you familiar with what happened in the East in WWI?
Odds are nasty but not insurmountable if you employ better tactics and equipment than the opponent.

Not quite.

See above

All of this presupposes that the large and relatively well armed German army was nothing but a paper tiger that recquired nothing more than a good jab with a stick to implode and see the Reich absorbed into the British and French empires... something that is manifestly claptrap.
Whether or not Poland was ill prepared, given they didnt have a crystal ball or any allies of note and were cleaved in two by 2 superpowers, i find your argument that they could have crippled the Reich specious at best...

As for the line about Germany being hopeless at winning WWII, have you not ever read a history book nor the comments made by various commanders and strategists from the day? The defeat of the Reich was by no means certain, at least until they decided to poke the Americans in the eye, Britain and her commonwealth/empire certainly wasnt going to eject them from the continent on their own. The notion that the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were simply a bunch of bumbling twits led by worse has no particular basis in fact. As shown quite nicely by the blockade failing, the Lufftwaffe being a constant threat up to and until the USAAF flattened Berlin and the bloody fighting that went on until the red army enveloped Berlin.

As to the rest, umm, im not sure where the conjecture is coming from..? Nor what on earth its based on for that matter. 'patch up a crumbling line' at Bremen within 6 days.. One suggests you see the state of the 'allied' militaries at that point. Not as bad as post evacuation but certainly nothing that would particularly threaten the fatherland by that point, at least to the degree you infer.

Even with the Americans in, victory for The Allies was not booked marked.
The Nazis could still have turned things their way after that.

Even with the Americans in, victory for The Allies was not booked marked.
The Nazis could still have turned things their way after that.

Yeah, victory isn't bookmarked when you have one side which vastly outnumbered the other in terms of resources, population (much higher than Axis), morale (especially Soviet determination), industrial capacity (American industry was much superior to German one), logistics (German logistics suck) and technology (Panzer 3s and 4s were outclassed by T-34s and KV-1s)!

Hint: The Allies possessed all those attributes.

Debunking the myth about German 'superiority' in technology, you can see that Panzer 3s and 4s were outclassed by T-34s and KV-1s.
Me262s were outclassed by Gloster Meteors, especially in reliability.

And attempting to debunk some 'turning points for Nazis that were possible'
1. Launching Operation Barbarossa earlier
Truth: The weather and logistics conditions prevented that from happening, even if there was no helping of Italy in Greece.

2. Winning at Stalingrad
Truth: 6th Army was already exhausted before it got in Stalingrad. By late-September the 6th Army took half a month to launch a tiny offensive that only blew through significantly because of Soviet incompetence (like Zhukov attacking 6th Army at precisely the wrong time).
Logistics, manpower and equipment issues kept building up, to such an extent that even in September 6th Army was almost at its limit. The attacks at Stalingrad were merely final gasps for the dying 6th Army.

3. Encircling 62nd and 64th Armies before entrenching at Stalingrad
Truth: Logistics issues prevented that. 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army were already quite overextended, they couldn't go much further. The Germans weren't supermen capable of defying the rules of war.

4. 6th Army retreating
Had 6th Army retreated from late-September, it would be pretty difficult, with Soviet counterattacks hitting overextended and exhausted Germans. 6th Army would be forced to abandon lots of its equipment to get away. The flanks were somewhat weak but could hold. 6th Army would be quite damaged from it, and losing Stalingrad means the Soviets now have a strong base to strike Rostov. That means you're admitting you can't hold in the Caucasus, leading to Allies losing morale, abandoning you, exposing the Don flank. Some horses moved to Rostov.
A mid-October retreat would be even messier, even more equipment having to be abandoned. Some men were already malnourished because of logistics concerns. Plus the Soviets already had quite a bit built up for Uranus that would instead be used to chew up 6th Army. Even if 6th Army manages to make it out, it'll only be a shell of its former self. Depending on how messily the retreat goes, 6th Army could even be annihilated. Boatloads of horses had already moved to Rostov.

After the October 14 attack, any retreat by 6th Army had only one outcome: its annihilation. 6th Army would be forced to abandon the vast majority of its equipment, as well as some wounded and malnourished, and then walk their way towards the Chir, with very few panzers and vehicles. It would be a slaughterhouse. And that would free up 7 Soviet Armies to collapse the whole southern front.

5. 6th Army breakout
Considering logistics, 6th Army was possibly strong enough to break the encirclement. Even if it can, the fuel situation would mean it'd have to abandon almost all its equipment, as well as quite a few wounded and malnourished. The reserves would need a couple days to be assembled, which would leave the other areas very vulnerable to assault. From Marinovka to the Chir is almost 40 miles as the crow flies.

A normal footmarch is 20 miles a day, according to modern US doctrine. That is with no resistance and no malnutrition. You can halve that, so 4 days.

And that would be a slaughterhouse for 6th Army.

So what if D-Day had failed : highly unlikely overall, but even taking into account the Allies combined vast resource especially air power, it was in some places touch and go - a lucky break in the rough weather came when it did, which also had convinced the Germans the Allies would not launch an invasion in such weather, some of the German units the Allies were up against, Omaha, Hitler meddling, (Rommel himself thought the invasion would not be in the Pas de Calais area, the shortest route from the UK as did many of his contemporaries, but pretty well where it was), had not the Panzers been kept in reserve too far back for too long and been more readily available for deployment etc. etc.
A failure would have been extremely costly in particular to the UK ; man power, especially the army was running low, and it would have buttered up Harris's contention that bombing raids especially on cities and urban areas in Germany would win through.
It could have split the Allies, and possibly made the Americans fall back to a minimal defensive operation in Europe ( probably the south), concentrating their resource on the Pacific and Japanese instead. Soviet influence may well have spread much further west to the Benelux/low countries and France.
And don't forget how close La Boche came to splitting the Allies in The Ardenne Christmas '44, just when everybody was starting to relax a bit. The intelligence reports of a large German build-up were all but ignored.

Related to the thread:
On Dec 8, there was a significant penetration made by 21st Army in 6th Army's rear. Exploiting the penetration could completely unhinge Paulus' defences.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQsmRecraJQ) 13:53
Had the Soviets actually managed to exploit it, maybe by pulling reinforcements from other armies to 21st Army, Paulus' 6th Army could've been destroyed in early-mid December. The Soviets thought the 6th Army was too tough to destroy