Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

One there one specific Joint Chief who stopped Kyoto?  He had gone there on his honeymoon or something?

I can't remember who, but I remember reading that exactly.  He went there on his honeymoon.  That saved that city. 

Incidentally, when people think of devastating bombings, they usually think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki first but the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9/10, 1945 definitely killed more than the Nagasaki Atomic bombing, and may have killed more than the Hiroshima bombing. 

The US manufactured cluster bombs that were specifically designed to destroy Japanese paper houses and nearly obliterated almost every major Japanese city. 

The invasion was originally scheduled for 1 May.  Ike postponed it for a month in order to assemble more landing craft.  It was rescheduled for 5 June, and of course had already been pushed back a day (on the 4th) because of weather.  On 5 June, the British meteorologist on Ike's staff believed that there was a 24-hour window of acceptable weather starting late that night.  Ike said, "Go!" and the invasion went off on the 6th.

What if Ike had mistrusted the Brit and trusted his American meteorologist--who was not predicting acceptable weather--instead?  There was only about a 4-day window there in early June where moon and tide conditions were acceptable.  And the weather on 6 June was bad enough as it was to adversely affect the landings.  It got worse on the 7th and was pretty bad for the next couple of weeks.  The Mulberry artificial harbor off Omaha Beach was so badly damaged in a storm on 19 June that it could not be repaired.

Had it not been executed on 6 June, it would have been postponed into July.  It is possible that the deception operations--Fortitude North and Fortitude South--might have been compromised during the additional month.

Maybe with more success in the West, the Germans do a better job against the Soviets in the East.  And the war goes on into the summer of 1945.

And the atomic bombs are used on Berlin and whatever other German city was producing the most war materiel.  And we don't have 74 years of critics saying that we dropped the bombs on Japan because of racism.

Quite a few books indicate that during the BOB Hitler had been pulling men and material off of the eastern front for that western thrust.And Churchill wasn't at all on board with Overlord.That was until favorable results started trickling in

What bothers me about our military now is how detached we approach it.  Obviously, no one wants "boots on the ground" and risking unneeded deaths, but when you hear coverage, it bothers me that the cost of the war is so front and center.  
Who gives a damn about that?  
we're not the same country that transformed automotive assembly lines into tank-creation factories.  We consider war to be an inconvenience now.  That detachment is what doesn't sit well with me.  
It's still 20 year olds out there on the front lines.  It's still old men calling the shots, still politicians keeping their kids on the sidelines - same as always.  But the attitude we have as a whole is just problematic.

Even tiny French towns have a memorial to those who died in WW I (and II and Africa, but there are fewer names).  I've been in towns of 1000 people and seen the monuments with 80 names on it.  The French, and British, had long memories of WW I, and did not want a repeat.  This heavily influenced French strategy in WW II, they wanted to:

1.  Move the war into Belgium.
2.  Be on the defensive.
3.  Let the Germans do mass attacks and get mowed down.
4.  Hunker behind fortifications so they could hold the actual border with fewer troops (Maginot).

The French lost a generation of men in WW I, and they were suffering to have enough to fight in WW II even though they had more men, tanks, planes, etc. than the Germans.  When Germany attacked Poland, the French made a desultory foray into Germany and found little resistance and retreated back into the Maginot Line.  When the Germans attacked in May 1940, they rushed into Belgium to reach their defensive lines (along a river in general) and the Germans cut them off at the pivot point.  The French in theory could have attacked back south and cut off the German advance, but they simply did not have an attack mentality or command structure or mobility.  The British made an attack at Arras and have Rommel quite the fright, but the attack was uncoordinated and failed.

The worst outcome at D-Day I had not considered was worsening weather, as someone above noted.  It was bad anyway, and later in June a terrible storm hit and really set back landing supplies (destroyed one Mulberry).

The 4th ID that landed at Utah had a fairly easy go of it though, it's hard to see how that would have failed completely unless weather was so bad they couldn't land.

But that landing zone was deep in bocage country.  The Normans in that area divided their plots of land with heavy tall hedgerows.