Ghastly Victories: The United States in the World Wars
- Thread starter RamscoopRaider
- Start date
Part 6-44 Fall of Europe, Setting Sun, End of Empire
RamscoopRaider
Donor
…55 Anglo-French and Dutch divisions had been destroyed in Case Grey. Remaining were 75 divisions, responsible for holding a line from the Swiss Border to the sea, something that had required over 120 in the previous war. Worse many of these divisions had only been raised in the past month, often severely understrength and few of them were armored, mechanized or motorized. Anglo-French morale was pitiful and defeatism was rampant in both the military and civilian populations
Against them, after dealing with the need to occupy the Netherlands, screen Antwerp and secure lines of Communications the Germans could send 120 divisions against the French, admittedly not at full strength and somewhat exhausted. Among these were a solid corps of 12 Panzer and 12 motorized divisions as an armored fist to break French lines. They had excellent morale and every expectation that they would win as long as they fought.
In the air the situation remained in German favor. The French had pulled off a minor miracle and by June 10th had more fighters flying, and better ones, than on May 10th. This was mitigated by the fact that their bomber force was either destroyed or in Algeria and that the British were no longer flying save in defense of Britain itself. As such the Luftwaffe maintained air superiority over the battle front and continued to be able to bomb at will with only the accumulated wear and tear of a long campaign really harming their performance…
…The German objectives for Case Green were simple. Army Group South would probe and launch attacks of opportunity on the Maginot line to prevent the troops there from influencing the battle to the north. Army Group Center, reduced in strength by the transfer of five of its Panzer divisions and a similar number of motorized units, would attack in the direction of Reims from its position between Laon and Arlon. After breaking French lines Army Group Center would then hook east to outflank the Maginot line from behind. Army Group North, heavily reinforced with diversions from Army Group Center, would attack southwest to encircle Paris and then advance into the French heartland.
To stop this Weygand planned a defense in depth. His infantry units, reinforced with extra 75mm guns pulled out of reserve as ersatz AT guns, would form a defensive line. Rather than a single continuous line as prewar French doctrine entailed Weygand directed them to form a series of hedgehog positions in every single town, village and hamlet on the front, where they would fast and force the Germans to besiege them individually, preventing a rapid breakthrough and exploitation. His mobile reserves would then be able to counterattack and relieve the trapped infantry after the Germans were exhausted. This plan depended on the infantry holding out long enough to be relieved and the mobile forces being strong enough to be relieved, things that were very questionable…
…Winston Spencer Churchill should in a rational world never have been considered to replace Anthony Eden as Prime Minister. He was after all the driving force behind the Norway fiasco in his role as First Lord of the Admiralty, a position he had already failed at in WWI with the Gallipoli fiasco. Unfortunately Churchill had learned from Gallipoli and managed to shift the blame for his second naval fiasco onto his superior.
His appointment as Prime Minister came about as a result of a perfect storm of conditions. The disaster in France and Belgium convinced many MPs that a grand coalition was necessary and Labour refused to be part of one led by Samuel Hoare or John Simon. The successor in this case would have been Edward Wood, Viscount Halifax, who had taken over the Foreign Office after the death of Neville Chamberlain. Halifax was well liked, competent, acceptable to all parties and had just pulled off a minor miracle in minimizing the diplomatic fallout from the Norway debacle. Halifax however was a lord, and no lord had served as Prime Minister since Marquess Salisbury in 1902 and Halifax was unwilling to break with that tradition and refused to take the position despite multiple efforts to convince him otherwise. That left Churchill as the best known Conservative from the Commons willing to take the position.
Churchill was an arrogant belligerent alcoholic prone to arguments and fits of irrational fancy. He had spent 10 years in the political wilderness after his mismanagement of the British economy during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer and before that had been responsible for the Ten Year rule which gutted British military potential. Yet he had managed to be the first British politician to see Hitler for the warmongering madman he was, namely because he saw him as a clone of Sanna who Churchill believed was also a warmongering madman rather than a shrewd nationalist politician. Because of this opposition to Hitler Churchill’s reputation had recovered and by 1941 he was among the best known Conservative politicians and with the expected choices unacceptable the position defaulted to him…
-Excerpt From The Fall of Europe, Scholastic American Press, Philadelphia, 2005
…Winston Churchill was in many ways the worst man to replace Anthony Eden. His worst characteristics have been oft exaggerated, such as his drunkenness, but he was still the wrong man for the job. He was a marvelous orator and very charismatic but that was not what Britain needed, not when the Ministry of Information was perfectly competent. What Britain needed was a cold eyed realist who could recognize the perilous situation the empire was in and make the hard decisions needed to triage it. A PM who could maintain good relations with the Americans and Dominions, who the Empire was more dependent on than ever, who could prevent infighting in the government and keep the ship of state running smoothly and who could let the experts do their jobs without interference.
Winston Spencer Churchill was not this man and despite his good intentions was unsuited for the job. While undeserving of comparisons with Herbert Henry Asquith or David Lloyd George, much less Johnathan Turner, he remains one of the worst Prime Ministers of the 20th century, if not all time. It is exceptionally unfortunate that the cabinet and King were unable to persuade Viscount Halifax to accept the position in June 1941…
-A Setting Sun, the Decline and Fall of the British Empire, Bodley Head, Nottingham, 2015
…The choice of Winston Spencer Churchill to succeed Anthony Eden seriously sped up the decline of the Empire. Churchill acted as if the geopolitical situation was the same as it had been in 1914, if not in 1900 rather than 1941. Britain was no longer the dominant force it once was even within the empire let alone without. Militarily, industrially, economically and diplomatically it was far weaker than it had once been and need to act cautiously and preserve its strength. Churchill did not see that and acted as if this was still the time of Queen Victoria I and not King Edward VIII. He dictated to the Dominions rather than treated them as equals, viewed the other members of the empire as subjects and acted as thought Britain was the senior party in the relationship with the United States, rather than the junior. This did not even mentioned the damage caused by his meddling in the armed forces…
-Excerpt from The End of Empire: The British Empire from 1914 to 1964, Southern Hemisphere Press, Wellington, 2005
Against them, after dealing with the need to occupy the Netherlands, screen Antwerp and secure lines of Communications the Germans could send 120 divisions against the French, admittedly not at full strength and somewhat exhausted. Among these were a solid corps of 12 Panzer and 12 motorized divisions as an armored fist to break French lines. They had excellent morale and every expectation that they would win as long as they fought.
In the air the situation remained in German favor. The French had pulled off a minor miracle and by June 10th had more fighters flying, and better ones, than on May 10th. This was mitigated by the fact that their bomber force was either destroyed or in Algeria and that the British were no longer flying save in defense of Britain itself. As such the Luftwaffe maintained air superiority over the battle front and continued to be able to bomb at will with only the accumulated wear and tear of a long campaign really harming their performance…
…The German objectives for Case Green were simple. Army Group South would probe and launch attacks of opportunity on the Maginot line to prevent the troops there from influencing the battle to the north. Army Group Center, reduced in strength by the transfer of five of its Panzer divisions and a similar number of motorized units, would attack in the direction of Reims from its position between Laon and Arlon. After breaking French lines Army Group Center would then hook east to outflank the Maginot line from behind. Army Group North, heavily reinforced with diversions from Army Group Center, would attack southwest to encircle Paris and then advance into the French heartland.
To stop this Weygand planned a defense in depth. His infantry units, reinforced with extra 75mm guns pulled out of reserve as ersatz AT guns, would form a defensive line. Rather than a single continuous line as prewar French doctrine entailed Weygand directed them to form a series of hedgehog positions in every single town, village and hamlet on the front, where they would fast and force the Germans to besiege them individually, preventing a rapid breakthrough and exploitation. His mobile reserves would then be able to counterattack and relieve the trapped infantry after the Germans were exhausted. This plan depended on the infantry holding out long enough to be relieved and the mobile forces being strong enough to be relieved, things that were very questionable…
…Winston Spencer Churchill should in a rational world never have been considered to replace Anthony Eden as Prime Minister. He was after all the driving force behind the Norway fiasco in his role as First Lord of the Admiralty, a position he had already failed at in WWI with the Gallipoli fiasco. Unfortunately Churchill had learned from Gallipoli and managed to shift the blame for his second naval fiasco onto his superior.
His appointment as Prime Minister came about as a result of a perfect storm of conditions. The disaster in France and Belgium convinced many MPs that a grand coalition was necessary and Labour refused to be part of one led by Samuel Hoare or John Simon. The successor in this case would have been Edward Wood, Viscount Halifax, who had taken over the Foreign Office after the death of Neville Chamberlain. Halifax was well liked, competent, acceptable to all parties and had just pulled off a minor miracle in minimizing the diplomatic fallout from the Norway debacle. Halifax however was a lord, and no lord had served as Prime Minister since Marquess Salisbury in 1902 and Halifax was unwilling to break with that tradition and refused to take the position despite multiple efforts to convince him otherwise. That left Churchill as the best known Conservative from the Commons willing to take the position.
Churchill was an arrogant belligerent alcoholic prone to arguments and fits of irrational fancy. He had spent 10 years in the political wilderness after his mismanagement of the British economy during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer and before that had been responsible for the Ten Year rule which gutted British military potential. Yet he had managed to be the first British politician to see Hitler for the warmongering madman he was, namely because he saw him as a clone of Sanna who Churchill believed was also a warmongering madman rather than a shrewd nationalist politician. Because of this opposition to Hitler Churchill’s reputation had recovered and by 1941 he was among the best known Conservative politicians and with the expected choices unacceptable the position defaulted to him…
-Excerpt From The Fall of Europe, Scholastic American Press, Philadelphia, 2005
…Winston Churchill was in many ways the worst man to replace Anthony Eden. His worst characteristics have been oft exaggerated, such as his drunkenness, but he was still the wrong man for the job. He was a marvelous orator and very charismatic but that was not what Britain needed, not when the Ministry of Information was perfectly competent. What Britain needed was a cold eyed realist who could recognize the perilous situation the empire was in and make the hard decisions needed to triage it. A PM who could maintain good relations with the Americans and Dominions, who the Empire was more dependent on than ever, who could prevent infighting in the government and keep the ship of state running smoothly and who could let the experts do their jobs without interference.
Winston Spencer Churchill was not this man and despite his good intentions was unsuited for the job. While undeserving of comparisons with Herbert Henry Asquith or David Lloyd George, much less Johnathan Turner, he remains one of the worst Prime Ministers of the 20th century, if not all time. It is exceptionally unfortunate that the cabinet and King were unable to persuade Viscount Halifax to accept the position in June 1941…
-A Setting Sun, the Decline and Fall of the British Empire, Bodley Head, Nottingham, 2015
…The choice of Winston Spencer Churchill to succeed Anthony Eden seriously sped up the decline of the Empire. Churchill acted as if the geopolitical situation was the same as it had been in 1914, if not in 1900 rather than 1941. Britain was no longer the dominant force it once was even within the empire let alone without. Militarily, industrially, economically and diplomatically it was far weaker than it had once been and need to act cautiously and preserve its strength. Churchill did not see that and acted as if this was still the time of Queen Victoria I and not King Edward VIII. He dictated to the Dominions rather than treated them as equals, viewed the other members of the empire as subjects and acted as thought Britain was the senior party in the relationship with the United States, rather than the junior. This did not even mentioned the damage caused by his meddling in the armed forces…
-Excerpt from The End of Empire: The British Empire from 1914 to 1964, Southern Hemisphere Press, Wellington, 2005
The most interesting part of this thread for me has always been trying to figure out why the in-universe sources sound the way they do and this is reinforced here. How bad can things get that the above is the dominant view of Churchill?
And who exactly is this Johnathan Turner character? I don't *think* that's anyone famous in OTL...
And who exactly is this Johnathan Turner character? I don't *think* that's anyone famous in OTL...
interesting, so there is going to be a Victoria II rather than Elizabeth II?
So Churchill is the 'worst man for the job' TTL! That's unexpected. As username5243 notes, nice case of TTL using very different historiography to intrigue the reader. Though I thought from prior discussion Churchill was not an option for government in TTL with how much worse Gallipoli was. Anyways, this could be a fascinating exploration of how in another world the flaws of the OTL Allies could have seriously screwed them over.
Sounds like Churchill is going to commit some extremely serious internal policy fuckups at the British Empire's expense.
How in the hell does Churchill of all fucking people end up as the worst option? Especially in regard to relations with the US? Like that's the one thing the man knew from the get go, that keeping the US friendly with the British was the only way to save them, even before he was appointed as First Lord the second time round. I know FDR isn't president(who is again BTW?) here but unless he somehow gets the president killed and it being 100% his fault there's no way Churchill could screw it up that bad.
Could be that the sources who portray him as being the worst don’t view the breakup of the British Empire as a good thing like we do in our timeline. Could also be that he goes through with Operation Unthinkable.
Or he orders the RN to board US passenger and cargo ships going to Europe to check for contraband and the US ships resist boarding. Without anglophiles like WW or FDR, things could go south fast.
In the OTL the US put up with this and with ships getting forced into UK ports for inspection.
Last edited:
If the Post-War thinks the break up of the empires was a bad thing then shit has really gone south. Also it's been heavily hunted at that there does end up being a WW3 at some point.
That would require there to be trade between the Nazis and the US though. If the trade situation between the two followed the same general path as OTL by now essentially no trade should exist between them.
The British interfered with US trade with neutrals, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and pre-entry into the war Italy and the Balkans. Just like they did in WW1 with trade to Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway.
It was another starvation blockade, it included all kinds of foodstuffs, animal feed, forage, and clothing, and articles and materials used in their production.
By 25 November 1939, 62 U.S. ships of various types had been stopped, some for as long as three weeks. Few US presidents would have put up with it. But FDR like his mentor WW, bent over backwards to ignore it. The US also never prosecuted the British for seizing US Mail. Armed robbery of US mail carried a mandatory 25-year jail term. Churchill knew FDR from their collaboration during the first World War.
Time magazine, 7 April 1941 - Vichy Vice-Premier Admiral Darlan declared that the Vichy merchant marine had so far brought through the blockade 7m bushels of grain, 363,000 tons of wine, 180,000 tons of peanut oil together with large amounts of fruit, sugar, cocoa, meat, fish and rum. Darlan claimed that the British were reluctant to risk another third bloody clash like those at Dakar and Oran, and that, while they had sunk seven unescorted French food ships, they had never sunk, or even stopped, a French ship escorted by warships.
Last edited:
I mean for starters that's possibly because one of two things. First thing is the US couldn't prosecute the British over the mail unless they handed over the officers in charge of the vessel that seized it. Literally the most that could happen is a complaint and demanding payment for it along with it being returned. Second thing is that there 100% was smuggling of goods declared illegal with the blockade via the mail. In fact it was bad enough the US Government had to actually ban parcels being sent via the mail abroad to Europe because of the sheer amount the British kept finding. It's one of those situations that while the US had every right to gripe about the mail being violated they never pushed it because the British could quite literally just say "We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't keep finding the shit" and had the receipts to back it up.
As for the rest despite some complaints the blockade was never a major political issue during the war by either party. If it ever had been that big of an issue the House and Senate could've just created a bill to do something about it and if the president veto's it just override the veto.
kham_coc
Banned
Ah so they filed extradition requests?
Then we get into the blockade which violates international law. That's it. Blockading neutrals is and always was illegal.
A US president not interested in complying with British dictat could have ignored it.
1: No they didn't, just complained because it wasn't worth pissing off relations with a major trade partner.
2: They were having ships stop in British ports for inspections which was and still is 100% legal. Goods they confiscated were ones that had Germany and/or any of the Axis members as ultimate destinations which again was and still is 100% legal.
3: The British actually had a system to go through that basically pre-approved any cargo you could carry and you'd just flash it to whatever vessel stops you and they'd just let you go. Pretty much everyone but the US was using that system, hell even Italy was until they sided with Germany.
4: Yes a US President could ignore it but why would they risk war with the British over it? Especially when during this period the British are the biggest trading partner the US has with the second biggest being Canada. Something that's ignored a lot in the whole "Wilson and FDR only ignored the blockade because they were such anglophiles". Yes that played a part of it but the fact is especially during the WW2 era the US didn't do enough trade with other nations outside the America's besides the British for trying to break the blockade actually be worth it.
5: Again I point out if it really was that big of an issue the House and Senate could've forced the president to deal with it. They didn't for the above mentioned reasons.
I'm going to be the one to come out and say that Britain is going to get raped ITTL and I wouldn't be all too surprised if it doesn't eventually end up looking like For All Time except with nuclear weapon damage added in (considering all the hints that have been made implying WW3).
Last edited:
FDR was not going to charge anyone from Britain with any crime. The US looked the other way on election interference and on assassinations carried out on US soil according to Intrepid.
Food blockades constitute a war crime. See famine (starvation) of civilians (API Art. 54, APII Art. 14, Rule 53)
Also the Statute of the International Criminal Court establishes that starvation of civilians constitutes a war crime when committed in international armed conflicts.
Last edited: