Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
Hmmm... the D-day was a success because of the overwhelming force. Total sea and air supremacy and crushing magnitude of material and manpower. Couldn´t have failed. Unlike the popular belief that the gringos and limeys hold so dear, the main body of the nazi army was in fact somewhere else i.e. in Russia, where it had been all but consumed fighting most desperate and horrific battles already for three years. The rest of the army was spread thinly in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania, France etc.
Hell, they were so short of resources that the bunkers at Normandy were manned mostly by "voluntary" Poles and Russians. As one German general dryly noted: "If we ask a Russian to fight the Americans for the Germans in France, we are asking a lot". How true. That they managed to give hell in Omaha and Utah as much as they did is a testament for the wehrmacht´s (unfortunate) efficiency.
There has been plenty of discussion of the two panzer divisions, whether they should have been closer to the beach as Rommel wanted, and receiving the collective fire of the allied big naval guns, or further back where their movement was severely hindered by the allied air. This is like discussing whether Titanic would have been better of the band playing in the bow instead of the aft.
To answer your question: Unwise yes, but it was a gamble that they took. One different twist of the tale, like England agreeing to peace, or Hitler going straight to Moscow, would have meant 1000 year Reich. And us two would still today be mortal enemies.