Best chance for Western allies improving their negotiating position 1944

In OTL, some months before Yalta, Churchill and Stalin broadly agreed the carve up of Europe. (both sides stuck to this rather sordid deal)

The Soviet Union having domination over Eastern Europe reflected military realisties.

What might have changed the situation:

I have few thoughts and would be interested in people's comments

1) Market Garden going really well

2) Better weather in May 1944 and a earlier D-Day

3) Operation Dragoon (invasion of Southern France) happens in 1943 instead of the invasion of Italy.

4) A Brilliant bold Comander at Anzio takes Rome and cuts off Nazi forces. All Italy occupied by allies by the fall of 1944 and Yugoslavia and Austria attacked


Has anyone any other suggestions?
 
FDR dies earlier - and Truman as president agrees more with Churchill than Stalin.
Either not so much is 'agreed' or who gets it wins!

Hence, Eisenhower is told to aim for Berlin.

A few minor clashes occur between US & USSR forces but these are brushed under the carpet as 'misunderstandings' - but the demarcation line is agreed by what achieved on the ground - further east perhaps assisted by the Germans giving ground in the West).
 

Markus

Banned
1) Market Garden going really well

4) A Brilliant bold Comander at Anzio takes Rome and cuts off Nazi forces. All Italy occupied by allies by the fall of 1944 and Yugoslavia and Austria attacked

1) Possible, though I would have prefered clearing the approaches to Antwerp instead.

4) Not possible. Due to a lack of amphibious vessels the Allies could not build up their strenght fast enough to advance towards Rome and protect the beachhead from counterattacks. Since the Germans had plenty of reserves at hand, this would have ended with a crushing defeat. But the Allies got a second chance. When they eventually broke out, they could have cut off 10th Army but Clarke choose to go to Rome instead. I had him fired for that in my TL.

5) The Battle of the Bulge: The 101st does not go to Bastogne but to the Meuse, thus Patton is free to attack the base of the bulge and cut off the entire German forces. That should shorten the war by a few month.
 
Perhaps an even less military, but more political issue can be launched, simmilar to in the previous World War: Only a Democratic Europe, meaning no-Soviet Occupation, since the Nations are free to choose their own stateform. If necessary occupationforces can be considered a Cassus Belli, so the USSR, already very badly struck in the war, faces more and longer warfare, if persiting on occupation of Eastern Europe.

Stalin might be the type of dictator to press on and try to conquer the whole of Europe, but most likely, his subordinates would not, propably starting a rebellion, to dispose of the dictator.
 
Stalin didn't start talking to Churchill and FDR until Tehran 1943, when his own military situation was secure, and he hung shit on Churchill as leading a power in eclipse. So in my mind the best way to get a better deal in 1945 is to be in a better position in 1943, which means more British success prior to the US entry into the war so the offensives against Germany can start from further forward.
 
One of the Valkyrie TLs on this board somewhere involved a general collapse of the Western Front as a result of in-fighting between the regular army and the SS or something.

Not sure how that actually happened--in OTL, the SS in Paris surrendered to the Wehrmacht without resistance. Perhaps Hitler orders Wehrmacht and SS units from elsewhere to attack the Wehrmacht units that had detained the SS?

Not sure WHY that would happen, considering the entire coup hinged on tricking everyone into believing the SS had murdered Hitler and the thing fell apart when it was revealed he was still alive.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
A landing in Greece to push up into Bulgaria and Yugoslavia?
Not losing Crete. A landing in north eastern Greece to push up into eastern Bulgaria, eastern Romania and eastern Poland?

Western Med Command decides it will suit there purposes to send 180 tons of small arms, ammo and mortars, loaded aboard 60x 3 ton (
60-cwt)lorries, to Crete instead of trying to evacuate 10,000 unarmed British (two scratch brigades) and Australian (a scratch brigade) troops on the island. Enough small arms are sent to also rearm the Greeks with .303 rifles and 100 rounds a man. The Greek's existing stocks are put into reserve for militia/training use. Marines (Mobile Naval Base Defence Organisation) on the island use the lorries to form a mobile response unit. Their place in the defences is taken by one of the scratch brigades (GB). The other two are placed at Heraklion (GB) and Rhethymnon (Aus). The NZ 4th Brigade get twelve of the lorries, making them more mobile reserve force. Let's say 25 men per lorry for easy arithmetic (300 a journey).

I'm guessing a case of 200 rounds .303 weighs about two pounds (1.7 pounds modern packing). So at a thousand cases in a ton, 42 tons (14 lorries) on .303 gives 210 rounds per man for the 40,000.
You can fit 54 belts of 100x 20mm AAA in a 3 ton lorry. Let's say 500 cases of six rifles in 3 tons. So 21,000 rifles take up 7 lorries (although 21 lorries with a mixed load of 1,002 rifles and 2,000 cases of ammo makes more sense in terms of bulk). A lorry can carry 272 cases of a dozen Mills bombs (3264 grenades). Nine lorries would ensure that the 29,000 commonwealth troops each had a grenade (29,376). You can get maybe 50x 3 inch mortars on a lorry (112 pounds plus 8 for packing).

This flies in the face of a 1944 starting point, but the die is cast by then.
 
Last edited:
Top