Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[MattII]

War between Germany and America is coming, it is only a matter of time. Germany declaring war on America when it did in OTL was basically formalising the semi war that was already happening between the two countries. I think the same will hold true ITTL and Germany will declare war.

What could be an interesting change and one not discussed is America looking at the situation in Europe and comparing it with the situation in the East. With Britain on the ascendance in Europe and having secured all of North Africa (plus or minus the French bit) there may be a big push to "let Britain carry on" in Europe while America goes Pacific first. The practicalities of that notwithstanding it would likely make sense to quite a few people in America. After all Britain has shown it does not need massive help right now while Japan is overrunning the pacific (well most of it, Malaya should hold ITTL).

I doubt Allan will want to go down that route because it opens a massive can of worms and takes the TL on a massive and untrodden path. Is an interesting thought experiment though. Churchill left to dictate almost unopposed the course of the war in Europe with a (fairly) mighty British army at his disposal. Oh the trouble he could cause.

Britain isn't in immediate crisis, but it also doesn't have nearly the numbers needed to force a landing in Europe on its own. OTOH, with fewer British warships either sunk or damaged, or tied down running fast convoys to support Malta, the USN won't need to deploy as many ships in the Atlantic, and thus, will have more ships available for Pacific operations.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

War between Germany and America is coming, it is only a matter of time. Germany declaring war on America when it did in OTL was basically formalising the semi war that was already happening between the two countries. I think the same will hold true ITTL and Germany will declare war.

I agree that is the most plausible scenario.

What could be an interesting change and one not discussed is America looking at the situation in Europe and comparing it with the situation in the East. With Britain on the ascendance in Europe and having secured all of North Africa (plus or minus the French bit) there may be a big push to "let Britain carry on" in Europe while America goes Pacific first. The practicalities of that notwithstanding it would likely make sense to quite a few people in America. After all Britain has shown it does not need massive help right now while Japan is overrunning the pacific (well most of it, Malaya should hold ITTL).

I doubt Allan will want to go down that route because it opens a massive can of worms and takes the TL on a massive and untrodden path. Is an interesting thought experiment though. Churchill left to dictate almost unopposed the course of the war in Europe with a (fairly) mighty British army at his disposal. Oh the trouble he could cause.

Indeed

I could see some tweaks that have the split of the US war effort focusing more on the Pacific than European theatre. Especially in 1942 and the first half of 1943.

Ultimately though the US will want to send substantial air and land forces to the latter theatre. With a scheduled invasion of France no later than OTL. And 1943 may well be preferred.

 

[MattII]

Indeed

I could see some tweaks that have the split of the US war effort focusing more on the Pacific than European theatre. Especially in 1942 and the first half of 1943.

Ultimately though the US will want to send substantial air and land forces to the latter theatre. With a scheduled invasion of France no later than OTL. And 1943 may well be preferred.

See above, with more British warships both afloat and free, the USN won't need to put as many of their own warships into the Atlantic, so they can be instead deployed to the Pacific. that, or they can start running coastal convoys earlier, reducing the damage done in the Second Happy Time.

 

[RyderWest]

The North African campaign ending early will have a lot of effects on the European theatre, that is for certain. At least the Italian commander made the right call and decided not to fight to the last man for what was essentially a nonsensical last stand.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

And there are a lot of Italian prisoners of war that something is going to have to be done with.

Legend has it that the Women's Land Army is in for a hard fight in the Battle of the Haystacks.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Legend has it that Women's Land Army is in for a hard fight in the Battle of the Haystacks.

The Italians not being "pullovers"?

 

[MarcH]

Britain isn't in immediate crisis, but it also doesn't have nearly the numbers needed to force a landing in Europe on its own. OTOH, with fewer British warships either sunk or damaged, or tied down running fast convoys to support Malta, the USN won't need to deploy as many ships in the Atlantic, and thus, will have more ships available for Pacific operations.

Not entirely true. Britain definitely has the numbers to invade somewhere like Sicily if you include the Canadians for instance. The question is will Britain be fully willing to release enough troops from defense of Britain and will the Canadians be allowed to take part? If they do then an invasion of Sicily by Britain alone is a possibility.

I do agree though that other locations are pretty much out of the Question.
Greece could be invaded in theory but the terrain is pretty rubbish and Britain can't support a push up through the Balkans. Also if the initial landings don't go as well as hoped then Britain could very easily get stuck in a pretty awkward position.
Continental Europe is out of the question as soon as Japan joins the war. In theory if it the East stays peaceful and Britain brought all the Dominion troops together then they have the number to invade the continent but that would require a massive build up and again no war with Japan.
Norway could be a possibility, or at least part of it but again it would be a massive shipping sink and unless Britain could very quickly launch a surprise invasion far south enough to secure a decent chunk of southern Norway it will end in stalemate somewhere. Probably a better option than Greece as it provides much more cover for Arctic convoys but does that justify the resource cost? IMO no honestly.

That only really leaves the Aegean islands and Sicily as viable Britain only targets and even then Sicily depends on political will that may not be there. Churchill having most of the Aegean in British hands though will be very hard to dissuade from a mainland Greek adventure.

 

[MattII]

Not entirely true. Britain definitely has the numbers to invade somewhere like Sicily if you include the Canadians for instance. The question is will Britain be fully willing to release enough troops from defense of Britain and will the Canadians be allowed to take part? If they do then an invasion of Sicily by Britain alone is a possibility.

Okay, let me rephrase, they do not have the numbers to force a landing in mainland Europe, outside of perhaps the 'soft underbelly', say, Italy or Greece, and even those only maybe. And even Sicily shouldn't be a purely British affair, as it's a good chance to blood at least a few American units. Not as many as OTL Torch, but a few.

 

[yulzari1]

If, and I think it a bigger ‘if’ than most, Vichy does switch sides in North Africa at least, then there is no need for Torch so no large input of US land forces in 1942 to the European theatre. No urgent need for them in Britain either as an invasion is a long gone threat. It all suggests a lesser ground forces input into the European theatre.

However, when we look a the OTL input, there is little extra need for material in the Pacific land campaigns even if there is room to use more naval forces. Especially if the French Navy can escape and add it’s fleet to allied resources then more Franco-Commonwealth naval resources can be allocated to the Pacific campaign.

What an allied French North Africa and West Africa can do is draw upon colonial troop recruitment which can be a significant addition to allied numbers, not forgetting the Greeks as well. With US ground material as in OTL still existing then it will be easier to man these. Essentially replacing OTL US army divisions with US armed divisions manned by French army troops. Much as the French did IOTL in France. This means that the troops numbers available to move forwards in Europe remain similar and the kit remains much the same. The limiter will be the sea lift capacity. Both for any amphibious landing and to maintain the same over an extended period. This is looking at future strategy from the logistics point of view. As to where the allied force may be applied is a military/political strategy decision.

As a minor matter, Spain is going to feel vulnerable as a route into France and Germany from North Africa. Whether a good choice or not it is a possibility, even if a low one. If Italy can be persuaded to withdraw then a ‘voluntarily’ allied Spain would give an unhindered land route. For a given degree of ‘unhindered’.

 

[marathag]

And there are a lot of Italian prisoners of war that something is going to have to be done with.

Sent to the interior of OZ

Geneva Accords provide that prisoners be taken to a climate similar to that in which they had been captured.
At this point, Texas isn't available, per US not being in the War yet. Where else does the Commonwealth territory have desert like Libya?

 

[GrahamB]

Mustn't forget de Gaulle. De Gaulle certainly wouldn't be letting anyone in the timeline forget him... )

And there are a lot of Italian prisoners of war that something is going to have to be done with.

"Charles, we have a job you are uniquely qualified for..."

 

[CB13]

Lots of variables for the Americans to consider in their own self-interest when determining next steps:

1. With Britain fighting and winning on their own, America would become concerned about the lessons learned and technology developed making Britain more capable than they are. They would therefore be factions looking for direct involvement at first opportunity to try to play catch up given the experience also being gained by Japan and the USSR as well.

2. With Britain solidifying Africa and drawing the Dominions ever-closer into their global supply chain, another faction will be looking at the globe from the standpoint of maintaining role of being a "world power" investments need to be made to sustain their current areas of influence (defacto colonies).

3. US Industrialists (likely in rare collaboration with US unions) would be advocating increased defense spending. First, by maximizing foreign sales. Second, through domestic rearmament.

4. All of which,, being up against only the 'America First" movement....which given the money and jobs at stake, is not really a fair fight.

Bottom Line is old mantra of "We're falling behind", will be hard to ignore in D.C. It's just a matter of how leaders move the many chess pieces at their disposal.

 

[yulzari1]

Sent to the interior of OZ

Geneva Accords provide that prisoners be taken to a climate similar to that in which they had been captured.
At this point, Texas isn't available, per US not being in the War yet. Where else does the Commonwealth territory have desert like Libya?

A bit of a b*gger if you lived in Aosta. Where did all those Italian POWs who worked in Britain get captured then?

 

[marathag]

A bit of a b*ggers if you lived in Aosta. Where did all those Italian POWs who worked in Britain get captured then?

Many were aboard Italian flagged vessels at the start when Italy entered the War. Since they were 'Captured" in the UK, they stayed there.
Internemnt included Italian Nationals residing in the UK, and even immigrants who had lived in the UK for less than 20 years, and even Italians who fled Italy to get away from Fascism

Many were interned on Isle of Man

 

[marathag]

America would become concerned about the lessons learned and technology developed making Britain more capable than they are.

Much harder to turn down the offer of building UK Tanks in the USA, and may have more influence on how the M3 Stuart, M4 Sherman and M6 Heavy are developed, with more UK say on further developments. They were pushing for heavy tanks, both the T14 and M6, and never got them.

You won't have OTL's M3 Grant proving a savior in the Libyan sands vs the poor showing of UK armor, so the US Armor Board has a lot less pull, than the UK that chased the Germans and Italians out of Africa with Vickers tanks

Already ITTL, they fobbed off the Grants to a lower threat Theater, seeing little need in that interim tank. They are seen a more than equal nation that builds and fights their designs effectively, a strong showing in France, and then what's just gone on in Libya

 

[Orry]

Much harder to turn down the offer of building UK Tanks in the USA, and may have more influence on how the M3 Stuart, M4 Sherman and M6 Heavy are developed, with more UK say on further developments. They were pushing for heavy tanks, both the T14 and M6, and never got them.

You won't have OTL's M3 Grant proving a savior in the Libyan sands vs the poor showing of UK armor, so the US Armor Board has a lot less pull, than the UK that chased the Germans and Italians out of Africa with Vickers tanks

Already ITTL, they fobbed off the Grants to a lower threat Theater, seeing little need in that interim tank. They are seen a more than equal nation that builds and fights their designs effectively, a strong showing in France, and then what's just gone on in Libya

Still not built here

 

[Atrophied]

The issue is that british alone will be kinda hard pressed to do the invasion of italy without american help i think without tying down alot of their troops to do a invasion of france i think mostly . And italy isnt a great place to invade actually is the other issue since its pretty much isolated by the alps from the rest of europe more or less and the same with greece , its somewhat isolated by the balkan mountains from the "tasty" parts of europe .

I think a 1942 spring/Summer sicily invasion seems obivous thing to do - basicly a replacement operation torch i think , with things maybe being delayed abit if churchill and the greeks push for occupying the aegean island first with shipping and not the troops i guess wich also opens up more the bombing of ploesti oilfields and a greek invasion threat to tie down german troops .

Brits can insist on being abit more senior partners to start with the americans here is the other point wich could change things abit compared to otl.

And i doubt that the americans will change very much but what they will do especially with armor is actually listens to the brits alot more than in otl wich has already been shown here. The main diffrence probably is that the americans deploy more of their navy to pacific from the start .

Also i still think that nuffield should maybe concetrate on doing a infantry tank wich would hopefully be attached to each infantry divison so each divison has organic tank support on the offensive and arent as weak against tanks. Something on the lines of late model churchill or black prince i guess would be the thought here . Mainly cause the brits arent yet super thrilled on relying on one design and universal tank yet and having 40-60 infantry tanks attached to each divison could help alot during ww2 atleast i think.

Another butterfly is that the afrika corps isnt sucking up alot of modern german tanks wich can probably be sent to the eastern front to restore the panzer divisons abit better than otl altough i imagine the germans will to deploy about a army to the italians to stiffen them up and avoid them falling sooner since the italians are even more reputably weaker than in otl. And this is also where some of the otl afrika corps tanks can go , a few panzer divisons maybe ?

 

[marathag]

Another butterfly is that the afrika corps isnt sucking up alot of modern german tanks wich can probably be sent to the eastern front to restore the panzer divisons

The Panzers sent to Africa along with their logistics, won't be enough to make a real difference in the USSR. They will be swallowed up in the steppes

 

[CB13]

An argument could be made that from the British standpoint it may make more sense to let the US be the "senior partner" for any actions against Italy due the family connections of Italian immigrants in the USA. The Italians would be more likely to surrender more quickly if they know there's a chance they have a cousin (who is a good guy) on the opposing force. Also the British know if the Americans are to be "blooded" to gain valuable experience, it's much better to do so against the the Italians than the Germans. In doing so, the British can focus on 1. Refitting and retraining their best units with the newest equipment they feel they need to fight the Germans, 2. Sending the replaced equipment to South East Asia in an attempt to better fortify Singapore and other colonies. against an increasingly threatening Japan.

 

[marathag]

. Also the British know if the Americans are to be "blooded" to gain valuable experience, it's much better to do so against the the Italians than the German

The gloss of German Panzer superiority has been avoided in the TL, given the better results with German vs British combats in France, Greece and now Libya, so is possible there is less institutional fear of the German Heer overall