I thought Foch was appointed Supreme Allied Commander in 1918 in response to the crisis caused by the German Spring Offensive?
A Blunted Sickle - Thread II
- Thread starter pdf27
- Start date
OTL, the BEF was a part of one of the French armies and under direct French command. In practice, rapid collapse of the French command system in 1940 effectively left them as an independent body.
There's also the question of what a Supreme Commander actually does. Foch as a Generalissimo worked with a very light touch - cajoling, encouraging and getting his subordinates to collaborate with each other. His WW2 equivalents had a staff of their own responsible for planning, and the ability to make subordinate commanders do what they were told to (mostly). I'd argue that the former function exists ITTL, with GQG ensuring that Brooke's actions are coordinated with the French ones.
One thing I'm toying with is the idea that while military command is less centralised (due to the huge out-of-area responsibilities both have, not just the different experience of WW2) procurement will be more centralised, probably on the OCCAR model. Without US involvement I think that's an easier pill to swallow, and given the increasing complexity of military equipment they're really going to struggle to build the size of forces needed to deal with the Soviet threat if they're funding multiple parallel development projects.
If the Soviets haven't parked themselves as overlords of central Europe, would they still be seen as the pre-eminent threat? Unless I missed something, their last outings to date were fighting the Japanese to a standstill, the Winter War debacle, and getting warned off Romania by Italy, none of which really cover them in glory let alone out them as a major military threat. Unless they involve themselves in the death throes of Germany, I would think that the Entente would be most concerned with ensuring Germany doesn't come back for round 3, and probably Japanese expansionism in the far east.
Sorry if this has already been covered, but what is going to be the fate of Austria postwar? Are they going to continue to be separated from Germany, or will the Anschluss stick? If the Entente are looking to end the dominance of Prussian militarism in Germany, then shifting the makeup to include more of the Catholic south might be attractive.
Sorry if this has already been covered, but what is going to be the fate of Austria postwar? Are they going to continue to be separated from Germany, or will the Anschluss stick? If the Entente are looking to end the dominance of Prussian militarism in Germany, then shifting the makeup to include more of the Catholic south might be attractive.
Given that Foch was Supreme Allied Commander in 1918 it does not surprise me that the French wanted that in 1939. The fact the British didn't though is exactly why I feel very doubtful that we would see anything like OTL's NATO structure and activities in this TL's post war world.
I don't see it as that odd. In the Napoleonic Wars you did have armies led by one commander (e.g. Wellington) that came from various countries, but as far as I know there was never an overall supreme commander in charge of the British, Prussian, Russian and Austrian armies. Where you had armies from more than one country being led by a single commander it seems to have been:
- armies of weaker/smaller nations being led by an army from one of the big nations (so the Spanish under the command of Wellington with the Spanish having fallen far from their peak of power thanks to the Napoleonic Wars, Revolutionary Wars and other events)
- armies of smaller nations that are connected to one of the big nations dynastically (so Hanoverians with the British).
We think it's odd because that is what we are used to since 1943, but up until then the experience of 1918 was not exactly typical.
And there we go. I would think that if they have managed to function without the kind of deep integration that has been typical since 1943 then the thinking would not move towards what has become the norm in OTL since 1943. Once actions are coordinated and that function exists, the need for a Supreme Allied Commander (or for multilateral exercises) is not that great (if it even exists at all).
Now that I can definitely see. That's also likely to be a less sensitive area in terms of centralization and cooperation than appointing supreme commanders and doing joint exercises. It's also one of the areas where the benefits obviously outweigh any (perceived) drawbacks.
And when the French demand that everything is a French design with a 99% French workshare and a 1% budget contribution, then flounce out when the British reject this, how will procurement progress after that? I slightly exaggerate perhaps but the history of common procurement and France is not exactly reassuring.
Or is this 'common' as in say the Franco-Italian FREMM frigates, which have different hulls, engines, weapons, speeds, crew sizes, radars, helicopter hangar size, etc. But do have several bolts that are quite similar in some respects. Because that I can absolutely see happening.
Even in the original timeline the British and French have managed to cooperate on some projects - see for example the 'Concorde' supersonic aircraft.
An engineering and technical triumph indeed. But a catastrophic commercial disaster with barely a dozen built, none of which could be sold and were basically dumped onto unwilling national flag carriers after the entire development and construction costs (at least £10 billion in today's money) were written off. The money spent developing a complete dead end could have funded something useful, instead Boeing got a free run for the era and large chunks of the British and French aerospace industry never recovered.
If that is a success, I dread to think what a failure might look like.
They're entirely capable of doing so when they want to. Typhoon/Rafale and Horizon were instances of clashing requirements more than anything else.
The example you show is the entirely French designed Puma and the entirely British designed Lynx. If the plan is to keep development national, but to agree not to develop the same things and ironclad agreements to purchase what the other develops, then I concede that could work. Though I think the clashing requirements issue will come up more often than either side want or expect.
I maintain that joint development would be incredibly fraught and one hell of a challenge.
More likely it will be common munitions and the like rather than jointly built kit. So ammunition that can be shared even if the gun is different, common spec for a VLS silo, command systems that can talk to each other etc. Similar with exercises, acting as one unit might not happen but checking standards to ensure both sides understand each other will happen. Might even go as far as having exercises against each other for bragging rights etc ( competition to keep excellence or some such excuse )
Or the Anglo-Dutch frigate project where the Dutch complained that the only thing Dutch about their ships were the names.
I thought if the Dutch like the look of English warships, they just come and tow them away
On supreme commanders, even after excluding US involvement, I suggest that Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Poland, Free France, Czechoslovakia and Canada might want to discuss supreme - or at least theatre - commanders (with Poland being under both French and British command at different times).
There's also a fair few naval vessels from Norway, Netherlands, etc that served under British command.
This was pure pragmatism of course, since (to borrow from Churchill) one general is always better than two generals. I would also agree that it has strong parallels with Wellington's armies with multiple contingents from smaller nations.
There's also a fair few naval vessels from Norway, Netherlands, etc that served under British command.
This was pure pragmatism of course, since (to borrow from Churchill) one general is always better than two generals. I would also agree that it has strong parallels with Wellington's armies with multiple contingents from smaller nations.
But out of the eight countries you listed, 5 are either in the British Empire (India) or are dominions in the British Commonwealth (Australia, NZ, South Africa and Canada) and would historically have come under British command in the war more or less anyway (or perhaps have even had their contingent leading if it was large enough and depending on the theatre; but unlike OTL there is no Pacific Theatre, indeed is there really any other theatre than Europe and the Atlantic?). There is also no "Free French", just the French.
And yes, the Polish armed forces in exile as well as the Norwegian and Dutch armies serving under British or French command would more likely parallel Wellington's armies. Even the original 1940 BEF was more like that in that it was a small contingent, attached to a (much larger) French Army however it had the right of appeal directly to London. Britain however seemed disinclined to the idea of appointing Foch 2.0 as supreme commander of all eventual British forces that could be deployed in France.
The Commonwealth armies, remembering their WW1 & Boer War experiences, had been issued very clear orders from their own governments, communicated to the British, that they were not to fritter their strength away in penny-packets or in engagements in which they were not properly supported. Freyberg had definitely been granted written permission to extract the 2nd New Zealand Division, in effect the entire New Zealand field army, from combat if he deemed it necessary. On at least one occasion he did so, following the failure, yet again, of British armour to support his division despite being assigned to do so. The South Africans had similar orders and were also not to be used outside of Africa. The Australians, Canadians, New Foundlanders, and Indians also had conditions attached to the use of their armies in British Imperial service. Australia even withdrew its divisions from North Africa to defend against the Japanese in the Pacific. New Zealand very nearly followed that example, only remaining in the Mediterranean Theatre due to a combination of pressure and promises from both the British & Americans.
So, despite what their allies and enemies may have thought, the British Commonwealth & Imperial armies were not monolithic, but were in both fact & practice coalition armies that required negotiations at the highest levels regarding their deployment in the field.
Indeed! And that is exactly the kind of trend I would expect to continue in TTL (and not just with the Commonwealth but with the Entente). The Commonwealth armies would end up under British command in the field with restrictions, reservations and exceptions, much as how the BEF was placed under the command of a French Army but with direct appeal to London. Chances are that as situations arose in TTL post-war world one might even see a small British force being attached under the command of a larger Commonwealth force (such as in a future war with Japan) under similar circumstances in what would be a reversal of the traditional role.
ctayfor
Monthly Donor
Every Colonel Blimp will have a cow (at least on paper in his letter to the Times).