Alanbrooke in charge one year earlier

Redbeard · Mar 3, 2004

Inspired from the thread about Percival I will try this ATL:

WI Alanbrooke had been appointed Chief of Imperial General Staff one year before his OTL appointment in December 1941?

Before that Alanbrooke (in OTL) had commanded an Armycorps in France 1940 and skillfully conducted a figthing retreat to Dunkirk and next was in charge of the British home defence army. As CIGS he very soon showed an until then unseen ability to "filter" the impulsiveness of Churchill and consistently advocated basic logistic considerations as the foundation of the overall war strategy (as opposed to Churchill's "let's hit them at any given opportunity" or the US initially overly self-confident "let's invade right now"). The strategy of tying up as many axis forces in the Med. with already deployed allied forces while building up new armies for the invasion of France was much his plan (instead of disengaing the alllied forces in the Med. and using them for an invasion).

We of course can't know how he would have reacted, but is there a chance that he would/could have stopped some of Churchills' initiatives from december 1940 to december 1941 (could be fighter sweeps over France or no Greek adventure), what would he have initiated instead, and what would the consequences have been?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Prunesquallor · Mar 3, 2004

Actually you can't really blame Churchill for either "fighter sweeps" over France or Greece. I always got the impression that the fighter operations over France were Leigh Mallory's responsibility (I could be wrong, trying to make an impact after his replacement of Dowding) and that Greece was largely Wavell's business.

Redbeard · Mar 4, 2004

Prunesquallor said:
Actually you can't really blame Churchill for either "fighter sweeps" over France or Greece. I always got the impression that the fighter operations over France were Leigh Mallory's responsibility (I could be wrong, trying to make an impact after his replacement of Dowding) and that Greece was largely Wavell's business.

Leigh-Mallory and Wavel certainly were the generals put in charge of executing the operations, but it is my impression that both operations were Churchill "pets" and anyway typical in being opportunity seeking, costly and with limited effect.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Prunesquallor · Mar 4, 2004

Churchill was enthusiastic about fighter sweeps into France which he saw as actually doing something but I got the impression that the initial drive was Leigh-Mallory's, quite in accord with his views on using big formations of fighters which caused controversy in the Battle of Britain. I also got the impression that Churchill did allow Wavell quite a degree of choice over Greece and that the decision was finally his.

Redbeard · Mar 4, 2004

Prunesquallor said:
Churchill was enthusiastic about fighter sweeps into France which he saw as actually doing something but I got the impression that the initial drive was Leigh-Mallory's, quite in accord with his views on using big formations of fighters which caused controversy in the Battle of Britain. I also got the impression that Churchill did allow Wavell quite a degree of choice over Greece and that the decision was finally his.

I don't think we disagree on formalities, but no matter where an idea was born Churchill bore the responibility in the end, and ideas that are likely to be approved by superiors are always more likley to survive the important first moments after birth. After having read Alanbrookes unedited war diaries and Dr. Ong Chit Chung's "Operation Matador" (a very well reserched work claiming that Churchill was mainly to blame for the fall of Singapore) my image of Churchill has changed much, as has my rating of Alanbrooke's importance. I of course know that his diaries are only one side of the matter, but if just 10% is true I would have hated to see Churchill without Alanbrooke one day more, and I can't stop wondering what could have been achieved with Alanbrooke in charge earlier.

I find it intriguing, that UK in 1941 produced more or as many tanks, planes, guns or ships than the entire axis combined! The popular image of the lonely Brits being overwhelmed by countless hordes of axis tanks, planes and ships etc. simply isn't true, and the next question of course is if this abundance of materiel could have been used better? Judging from what Alanbrooke did after 1941 I would guess that he would have opposed many of the very costly adventures of OTL 1941. Apart from the already mentioned fighter sweeps and the Greek adventure tremendous resources were poured into the failed offensives in 1941 in NA. The 300 fighters, 200 guns and 40 tanks needed to bring the Malaya garrison up to Matador strength would not have been a big problem in 1941 with a degree more of strategic sense in the British leadership.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Mr.Bluenote · Aug 25, 2004

Redbeard said:
WI Alanbrooke had been appointed Chief of Imperial General Staff one year before his OTL appointment in December 1941?

Good for the Brits, I'd say! I see Alanbrooke as the British equivalent of Marshall, but I'm not to sure, his earlier appointment would have changed that much, Steffen!
If you want a powerfull PoD, then replace Eisenhower with Alanbrooke as SHAEF (Alanbrooke really wanted that slot) and Monty with, say, Patton?! Then send Monty and Ike to Iceland or something....

Redbeard said:
We of course can't know how he would have reacted, but is there a chance that he would/could have stopped some of Churchills' initiatives (...) could be fighter sweeps over France or no Greek adventure (...)

Fighter sweeps? Hm, yes, that might tie up some Luftwaffe resources etc etc, but cost the Brits some further casualties, use up resources etc ect, and in the end it probably wouldn't make any big difference, other than beefing up German air defences in France (perhaps not that bright an idea...). Greece? Hmm, I think people tend to overlook the political perspective of that little adventure as you call it! How could Churchill and the British NOT come to the Greeks aid?! Seen from london, the situation in NA was under control, Greece needed help AND the British got a chance to return to Europe and fight in a very defence friendly countryside, where the locals actually have shown that they can and will fight (Britain didn't have many of those allies about at the time, you know)!

Redbeard said:
After having read Alanbrookes unedited war diaries and Dr. Ong Chit Chung's "Operation Matador" (a very well reserched work claiming that Churchill was mainly to blame for the fall of Singapore) my image of Churchill has changed much, as has my rating of Alanbrooke's importance. I of course know that his diaries are only one side of the matter, but if just 10% is true I would have hated to see Churchill without Alanbrooke one day more, and I can't stop wondering what could have been achieved with Alanbrooke in charge earlier.

Eventhough I think that Chruchill and Alanbrooke actually made a damn near perfect team, the average British general were not without spine, you know, so let's not overestimate Churchill's power over operations and such. Still, Britain without Alanbrooke would have been slightly worse off, unless you made him SHAEF of course.

Regarding Singapore, there's a lot more to the story than your precious Matador-thingie, Steffen.

Something went very wrong in Singapore, yes. Churchill took full responsibility, and he cursed himself for not asking about land defences as he, quite naturally, I'd say, assumed they were there. Had the Brits been able to rally their troops and not give in to panic now and again Singapore most likely could have been held. Bsically I'll say that the officesr present f'd up! Opr.Matador, as we have discussed elsewhere, required a set of certain circumstances; speed and the American blessing (the Brits were loath to occupy a neutral country etc etc). Besides, not all the Japanese troops came via the Kra, you know...

Redbeard said:
I find it intriguing, that UK in 1941 produced more or as many tanks, planes, guns or ships than the entire axis combined!

Hmm, the Brits had to build a lot of stuff, they had to cover a lot of ground and they had to play it safe, which meant that NA goes before anything else (than Indian) and that it had to have first priority. The Brits btw did as they have always done, they hit on the weaker part of a given hostile alliance, in this case Italy. As the war went on, I'll say that Churchill and Co's decisions were largely right.

Alanbrooke was a gift, no doubt, but he wasn't God or Jesus Christ, Churchill, however, was very, very close!

Best regards!

- B.

Grimm Reaper · Aug 25, 2004

It's not too hard to see Great Britain outproducing the Axis in 1941, in some areas, bearing in mind that Italian and Japanese production were never very impressive. As an example, the US in 1944 produced every 11 days roughly as many planes as Japan built from Pearl Harbor to the final surrender.

Bear in mind that raw production numbers may need some investigating, such as in 1940 the British built more aircraft than the Germans, but the British also emphasized fighters to a much higher degree over bombers and transport aircraft. Additionally, the Germans had over 100 fully equipped divisions even before all the largess at France's expense. Great Britain's first priority was replacing all the equipment lost at Dunkirk. When one nation enters the war with a large army, the other nation either produces more equipment or will never even break even, let alone gain an advantage.

While it is true that 'the buck stopped' with Churchill, it is also true that the RAF, Bomber Command in particular, were a mind of their own for much of the war. The response of Arthur 'Bomber' Harris when informed that he MUST yield @60 long-range bombers for combating the U-boats, at a time when his reserve for the 1000 plane raids was over 300 strong, is one for the books.

I've always like Lord Alanbrooke, ESPECIALLY after his comments regarding Viscount Montgomery's autobiography.

"Viscount Alamein has finally released his book explaining how he won the Second World War. Singlehandedly.

I might note that they did have the fighters and such for Singapore, but they got sent to shore up the Russian front instead.

Had Metaxes lived it is likely he would have asked Hitler to negotiate a settlement, once he learned that the British couldn't even provide the minimum forces(9 divisions) Greece needed. Meanwhile the British effort there bought the worst of all worlds, failing to seize Libya while never having enough to hold Greece AND cancelling a proper effort that might have held Crete and nearby islands.

As for generals, it's a shame Churchill never really warmed the British CinC in Egypt in 1940-41, who took Vichy Syria, Italian East Africa, let O'Connor clobber the Italians, cleared the Red Sea, and still found a few units for Greece.

Another choice might have been Lord Gort, the man who saved the BEF in France. Alanbrooke was one of his subordinates, after all, and only handled the battle of the left flank because Gort chose him for the job. Now I should note that point, of all Gort's officers it was Alan Brooke and no one else who was given the task, but it was nonetheless Gort who saw the danger of the Belgian collapse and was prepared for it. I might also note that to this day many French generals, politicians, and historians have cried over the 'bolt from the blue' of Belgium's surrender, yet Gort was fully prepared for and anticipating it.

Brilliantlight · Aug 25, 2004

Mr.Bluenote said:
Good for the Brits, I'd say! I see Alanbrooke as the British equivalent of Marshall, but I'm not to sure, his earlier appointment would have changed that much, Steffen!
If you want a powerfull PoD, then replace Eisenhower with Alanbrooke as SHAEF (Alanbrooke really wanted that slot) and Monty with, say, Patton?! Then send Monty and Ike to Iceland or something....

- B.

Considering the fact that the US was producing far more arms then the British Empire and was in the process of producing more soldiers as well it was inevitible that an American would become SHAEF. Eisenhower was actually a good choice IMO. The position called more for someone who could work with almost anyone more then a tatical genius. Someone who could work well with the competing factions in the US and UK armies and Ike was good at that.

Mr.Bluenote · Aug 25, 2004

Brilliantlight said:
Considering the fact that the US was producing far more arms then the British Empire and was in the process of producing more soldiers as well it was inevitible that an American would become SHAEF. Eisenhower was actually a good choice IMO. The position called more for someone who could work with almost anyone more then a tatical genius. Someone who could work well with the competing factions in the US and UK armies and Ike was good at that.

Yeeees, but one might point out that the British might have just a wee bit more experience at this war business than Mr.Deskjockey (Ike). Of course I do get your point, B, but, but, but, Ike was not that good at his job, now was he? Just look at the "marvelous" job he did in France and his handling of Monty (little bugger of a primadonna) and Patton and, and, and... Since the US forces made up the bulk of the ground forces, wouldn't be more straitforward to give them Monty's job? Well, that's politics I guess...
Naturaly you'd need someone else than a tactical genius, you'd need somebody with a firm understandig of strategy, logistics and communication (hint, I'm refering to Alanbrooke

)!

Good post btw, Mr.Reaper! Nice points and all!

Best regards!

- Bluenote.

Paul Spring · Aug 25, 2004

I was under the impression that Alanbrooke was cautious to a fault - he was reluctant to invade France even in the summer of 1944!

Brilliantlight · Aug 25, 2004

Mr.Bluenote said:
Yeeees, but one might point out that the British might have just a wee bit more experience at this war business than Mr.Deskjockey (Ike). Of course I do get your point, B, but, but, but, Ike was not that good at his job, now was he? Just look at the "marvelous" job he did in France and his handling of Monty (little bugger of a primadonna) and Patton and, and, and... Since the US forces made up the bulk of the ground forces, wouldn't be more straitforward to give them Monty's job? Well, that's politics I guess...
Naturaly you'd need someone else than a tactical genius, you'd need somebody with a firm understandig of strategy, logistics and communication (hint, I'm refering to Alanbrooke )!

Good post btw, Mr.Reaper! Nice points and all!

Best regards!

- Bluenote.

Do you really think ANYONE could have handled Montgomery and Patton well? They were both egotisitcal and loved the limelight. I think he handled it as well as anyone else could have. The SHAEF position was more administrative then anything else. You are there more to keep the various units cooridinated then anything else. I think that because an American was bound to be an American , Monty's position was going to be a Brit. Since the first place position was going to be an American the second was going to be the second. Alenbrooke would have been a better choice then Monty but it would be a Brit.

Grimm Reaper · Aug 25, 2004

Oh, I believe many could have been more effective than Ike in handling Patton and Montgomery. But Ike's easy-going and diplomatic ways were a key reason he got the job.

Of course, had one of the other generals emerged and been more effective, they would have been courtmartialed unless they were very clever at disposing of the bodies and setting up an alibi.

Mr.Bluenote · Aug 26, 2004

Brilliantlight said:
Do you really think ANYONE could have handled Montgomery and Patton well?.

As Mr.Reaper said, yup! You just needed somebody with a spine to handle Monty, while Patton just needed to be allowed to fight!

Generally speaking people are to hard on Patton, seen form his point of view I would have gone damn near bonkers as well. Ironically, Patton knew how to wage modern, mobile warfare, but he often get picked on by historians, while Monty (little WWI-hidebound pest, that he was) gets all the praise.

Brilliantlight said:
The SHAEF position was more administrative then anything else. You are there more to keep the various units cooridinated then anything else..

Yup, but the position had some real influence on the ground as well, need I mention Ike's idiotic let's-prolong-the-war-with-a-few-months-idea (the broad front)?!

Brilliantlight said:
I think that because an American was bound to be an American (...)

Hehe, yeees, they usually are!

Brilliantlight said:
Alenbrooke would have been a better choice then Monty but it would be a Brit.

Yeah, but I still would have liked to see a more aggressive (read: fighting) general in charge.

Is there any PoD that could reverse the roles, so that we have a Brit (Alanbrooke fx) as SHAEF and an American (Say, Patton) as ground commander? Perhaps the US got chopped up in Torch, and only got saved by the Brits (and Patton)?

My regards!

- Mr.B.

Brilliantlight · Aug 26, 2004

Mr.Bluenote said:
Hehe, yeees, they usually are!

- Mr.B.

Typo, I edited the post and eliminated a bit too much and noticed it too late. I meant that an American was bound to be in charge and I don't think there is a single thing that would change that.

Brilliantlight · Aug 26, 2004

Mr.Bluenote said:
As Mr.Reaper said, yup! You just needed somebody with a spine to handle Monty, while Patton just needed to be allowed to fight! !

- Mr.B.

Diplomatically difficult, Monty was a favorite of the Brits(don't ask me why) and so he had to be handled with care so as not to start a major incident.

Grimm Reaper · Aug 26, 2004

Well Americans usually are Americans. Except when they aren't.

Redbeard · Aug 26, 2004

Mr.Bluenote said:
Good for the Brits, I'd say! I see Alanbrooke as the British equivalent of Marshall, but I'm not to sure, his earlier appointment would have changed that much, Steffen!

Regarding Singapore, there's a lot more to the story than your precious Matador-thingie, Steffen. Something went very wrong in Singapore, yes. Churchill took full responsibility, and he cursed himself for not asking about land defences as he, quite naturally, I'd say, assumed they were there. Had the Brits been able to rally their troops and not give in to panic now and again Singapore most likely could have been held. Bsically I'll say that the officesr present f'd up! Opr.Matador, as we have discussed elsewhere, required a set of certain circumstances; speed and the American blessing (the Brits were loath to occupy a neutral country etc etc). Besides, not all the Japanese troops came via the Kra, you know...

Alanbrooke was a gift, no doubt, but he wasn't God or Jesus Christ, Churchill, however, was very, very close!

Best regards!

- B.

Just say Alanbrooke, Singapore or Matador - and I'll be there: "Who mentioned the....!"

I used to think about Churchill and Alanbrooke like you in your last line, but now I guess I see Churchill as the gift (and you should see some of the gifts I've recieved) and Alanbrooke as close to....

Comparing to the problem Dill as CIGS had in standing up to Churchill's schemes and ideas, and how Alanbrooke handled him when he became CIGS, I can only conclude that a lot of decisions would have been different if Alanbrooke had been in charge earlier.

Regarding Singapore and Matador I'll spare you all of starting all over again (do I hear sighs of relief out there?), but only say that the problem of American approval of entering Thai territory had been "solved" before 7th of December 1941, as the local Commander (Brooke-Popham) a few days had been authority to, on his own initiative, launch Matador. He did get the necessary intelligence, but just didn't dare to launch - that's were a more aggressive commander would have been a blessing.

But I'm quite happy the allied commanders in late WWII were so relatively unaggressive. By that time they would win by just cautiously deploying their ever growing strength, and being aggressive would just mean unneccessary risks. In that context I think Monty was close to the ideal allied general with his very methodical approach and not letting himself get caught out on a limp. The only way the Germans could have avoided total defeat after 1943 probably was a couple of overly aggressive allied commanders being caught out on a limp with a major force. And I actually like Patton, but prefer him kept in a tight leash, and only to be unleashed in emergencies, like at the Bulge when he (or his staff) turned the front of the entire 3rd Army in 24 hours - a very, very impressive feat.

Eisenhower did the job in 1944, and if it ain't broken, don't fix it! The British however, lost their Empire when Churchill gambled with everything in the Med in 1940-41, and that may indeed be called broken...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Mr.Bluenote · Aug 26, 2004

Brilliantlight said:
Typo, I edited the post and eliminated a bit too much and noticed it too late. I meant that an American was bound to be in charge and I don't think there is a single thing that would change that.

Yes, I know, B! I just couldn't resist the joke! Sorry, won't happen again... right away at least!

Redbeard said:
Just say Alanbrooke, Singapore or Matador - and I'll be there: "Who mentioned the....!"

Hehe, yeah, so I noticed!

Redbeard said:
I used to think about Churchill and Alanbrooke like you in your last line, but now I guess I see Churchill as the gift (and you should see some of the gifts I've recieved) and Alanbrooke as close to....

It's not that I don't understand what you'r saying, Steffen, but Churchill's position was that of a politician leading a country in a time of war, which means that he has to make decisions based, sometimes at least, more on the political reality than that of the military ditto! Hence Greece, the Med and what have we. All things considered, it was better to lose more or less anything in Asia (besides India, naturaly), than to lose the Med. I mean what could go wrong in Asia? Australia and New Zealand was perfectly secure - I just can't see the Japanese invading either, and seen in the greater scheme og things did Singapore, Burma and HK matter that much? Seriously the effects of loosing the Med and the Suez would have been way bad (oil in danger etc etc).

Redbeard said:
Comparing to the problem Dill as CIGS had in standing up to Churchill's schemes and ideas (...)

Hmm, while I basically don't disagree with you, you must know that men like Smuts and Ismay was also around. Old Pug (Hastings Ismay, Churchill's Chief of Staff, I believe) did as much to, eh, keep Winnie on the right track. He was not known as "the man with the oil can" for nothing!

Redbeard said:
Regarding Singapore and Matador I'll spare you all of starting all over again (do I hear sighs of relief out there?) (...)

Haha, probably!

Still, Matador depended on a very thight time frame, and the news of that most infamous of days needed to filter through and all that... well, let's not dwell on old Mataor anymore!

Redbeard said:
But I'm quite happy the allied commanders in late WWII were so relatively unaggressive.

Considering that the Allies full well knew what Hitler and his band of genocidal maniacs was up to, I'd say that was very close to being a crime in itself. The Allies should have pushed hard and fast, when they had the chance. I mean, had Monty just moooved, then Rommel and the DAK could have been destroyed in Libya and later the Falaise Pocket could have been closed... Monty's handling of Caen, especially the Goodwood part, was not worthy of a fresh lieutenant (in my book, but then again I go bonkers, when Monty is mentioned

)!

Redbeard said:
The only way the Germans could have avoided total defeat after 1943 probably was a couple of overly aggressive allied commanders being caught out on a limp with a major force..

Hmm, had that statement been in regard to the Eastren Front, I would agree - nothing more dangerous than field commanders with poor 3C against defending Germans - rather nasty business that! But the Allies had the Germans on the ropes, I mean they had them running several times (Libyan and France, and to a lesser degree at times in Italy - fx let's take Rome, who cares about the German army, eh?!).

Redbeard said:
And I actually like Patton, but prefer him kept in a tight leash (...)

May I ask why? Patton was not the loose cannon he's often made to look like... Have you btw read any of his poetry?

Redbeard said:
Eisenhower did the job in 1944, and if it ain't broken, don't fix it! The British however, lost their Empire when Churchill gambled with everything (...)

Yeah, had the Ike-comparison been used in relation to cars, we'd still be driving Ford T's!

How do you btw mean Churchill lost the Empire? At that time it was already gone (having looked at it several times during my venture into space in the MoS/Brits in Space TL).

But ok, let's return to the basic premise of this thread, what do you think would have come out of Alanbrooke being Cheif of Staff earlier?

Best regards and all!

- B.

Brilliantlight · Aug 26, 2004

Mr.Bluenote said:
Considering that the Allies full well knew what Hitler and his band of genocidal maniacs was up to, I'd say that was very close to being a crime in itself. The Allies should have pushed hard and fast, when they had the chance. I mean, had Monty just moooved, then Rommel and the DAK could have been destroyed in Libya and later the Falaise Pocket could have been closed... Monty's handling of Caen, especially the Goodwood part, was not worthy of a fresh lieutenant (in my book, but then again I go bonkers, when Monty is mentioned )!

Hmm, had that statement been in regard to the Eastren Front, I would agree - nothing more dangerous than field commanders with poor 3C against defending Germans - rather nasty business that! But the Allies had the Germans on the ropes, I mean they had them running several times (Libyan and France, and to a lesser degree at times in Italy - fx let's take Rome, who cares about the German army, eh?!).

- B.

Even as an American I tend to see the US more guilty in this regard. GB was kicked around the block the first 3 years and was almost certainly going to be wary after that! Besides the Brits were running out of resources and to be fair to Monty he had to try to conserve his troops as much as possible since when they were gone they were gone. The British no longer had the manpower to replace them. The same could not be said of the US, I would agree Patton should have gotten an even higher position then OTL.

Phoenix · Aug 27, 2004

It really should have been a Brit who was SCAEF, people are NOT HEADQUARTERS.

The Brits had been at war for longer than the Americans, had Generals who had fought the Germans and the Italians, and had a much bigger stake in the war.

Hell, to most of the Allied troops in Britain, when the yanks showed up they were regarded as upstarts who didn't know anything about war.