Garrison

Donor
The impact of the OTL campaign in 1943 wa masked by new capacity coming online, efficiency gains (in the aero industry not those controlled by Speer) and the decision to focus Bomber Command on Berlin. Harris became so fixated on area bombing and dehousing as a strategy that he resisted when the means for precision bombing were available.
 
Hm, what's the difference in British debt being racked up for ITTL compared to IOTL? Because the better British performance during the war is definitely a good thing, but a large part of the British post-war decline is due to Britain being broke, and I don't know how much the better war performance has affected their finances...

Well, the war (especially in the West) will probably end sooner, which should do a lot at the very least.
 

Garrison

Donor
Hm, what's the difference in British debt being racked up for ITTL compared to IOTL? Because the better British performance during the war is definitely a good thing, but a large part of the British post-war decline is due to Britain being broke, and I don't know how much the better war performance has affected their finances...

Well, the war (especially in the West) will probably end sooner, which should do a lot at the very least.
Hard to quantify to be honest. There was a shorter blitz, lower losses of shipping in the Atlantic, a much shorter campaign in the Med and North Africa, not losing access to Malaya and Burma, better British armour leading to less dependence on US models. It all adds up but to how much is beyond my knowledge of economics.
 
12th March – 20th May 1943 – Europe – A Bodyguard of Lies

Garrison

Donor
12th March – 20th May 1943 – Europe – A Bodyguard of Lies

The build-up of men and material in Southern England during the spring of 1943 was the necessary precursor to the cross channel invasion and despite the scale of the forces being accumulated no one in charge of the planning was in any doubt that if the Germans could bring the full weight of the forces available in the west against Normandy then at the very least a successful landing would be a far costlier affair, at worst the Allies might be repelled altogether, with incalculable consequences for the course of the war. Such a defeat still would not lead to outright Nazi victory, but it could well persuade Stalin that a separate peace was an acceptable option or force the Western Allies to consider their own deal with the devil in Berlin. The massive intelligence and counter-intelligence operations conducted to ensure this did not happen have been mentioned in passing but given their scale and importance it is worth discussing them in greater detail [1].

The overall codename for the Allied intelligence efforts around D—Day was Operation Fortitude, which was by the spring of 1943 broken down into four major sub-groups, Fortitude North, Fortitude South, Fortitude Med, and Fortitude Aegean. North was focused on fostering the idea that the Allies were seriously contemplating a landing in Norway and made extensive use of radio traffic from non-existent army units and the construction of what appeared to be new airstrips and base facilities in Scotland that Luftwaffe aerial reconnaissance were occasionally permitted to photograph. As with all the best deception plans Fortitude North played into the expectations and fears of the enemy. Hitler was deeply afraid that the Allies would target Norway and Narvik in particular to cut the vital flow of Iron ore from Sweden, without which the German steel industry would be crippled, in effect a repeat of the plan that had come close to succeeding in 1940. The success of Fortitude North meant that not only were requests to reduce the large garrison force in Norway to release troops for other duties rejected by Hitler but he insisted that the garrison be reinforced, and extensive new fortifications built. The garrison in Denmark was also maintained at full strength and would remain stationed in the country well after the Allies were already ashore, meaning they made no contribution whatsoever to the defence of Western Europe or the Reich itself [2].

If Hitler was obsessed with a threat to Norway, then von Kleist and the General Staff were just as focused on the prospect of a larger scale repeat of the Dieppe Raid, with Calais or Cherbourg being considered the most likely targets for a full-scale Allied assault against the Atlantic Coast and reinforcing this belief was the purview of Fortitude South. This naturally used the same tactics of false radio traffic and false bases but on a far larger scale than Fortitude North. These bases were built close to Dover and the shortest route across the English Channel from Calais and were graced with wooden mock-ups of aircraft and even inflatable tanks, all convincing enough when seen from the cockpit of a fast-moving reconnaissance aircraft. As part of this deception the Allies created AUSAG, the Advance United States Army Group, with a detailed order of battle that documents captured later proved that the Abwehr had laid out in intricate detail for the General Staff. One tricky issue for Fortitude South was that the obvious and most likely commander for AUSAG was General Patton. To draw attention away from Patton a rumour was spread that he was in disgrace because of some unfortunate lapse of judgment carried out in full view of the press. So effective was this rumour that Patton had to bite his tongue when offered sympathy or assistance over his predicament, though he apparently found the episode fairly amusing in later years [3].

Fortitude South did not simply concentrate on Calais, it also encompassed another of Hitler’s strategic obsessions, the Channel Islands. The only part of the British Isles to be occupied by Nazi Germany has supplied many disconcerting images of Wehrmacht troops interacting with the locals, giving some flavour of what might have been if Operation Sealion had ever been successfully carried out. Hitler was convinced that given the humiliation suffered by the British in abandoning the islands and allowing them to be occupied they would seek to take them back as soon as they could. This had led to a program of fortification building on Jersey and Guernsey that bore no relation to their real strategic value. The British had concluded in 1940 that the Channel Islands were too easily isolated and they had no intention of trying to retake them when doing so would get them no closer to their goal of driving the Germans out of Western Europe and taking the war into Germany itself, they would still have to cross the Channel after all and the islands would make a poor staging area. As in so many other places the fortification were built on the backs of slave labour, starved, and worked to death in the construction of massive works of concrete and steel that still litter the islands decades later [4].

The deception operations for Fortitude Med and Fortitude Aegean faced an added complication when it came to disguising troop movements as they had to cover the fact that entire divisions were being withdrawn, either as part of Millennium or for service in South East Asia whereas the Fortitude operations based in the UK had the slightly simpler task of misdirecting the Germans as to where the troops massing in Britain were to be unleashed. In North Africa and the Middle East the planners fell back on the old standard of having units moving openly and visibly in one direction by day, while quietly moving in the opposite direction by night. In the case of Fortitude South this meant convoys arriving in Alexandria and Tunis and unloading by day, only to be reloaded by night and columns of trucks and tanks driving the same loop of roads multiple times while radio traffic levels were gradually increased. These operations also made use of yet more dummy vehicles to deceive aerial reconnaissance. Perhaps more than any of the other Fortitude operations those in the Mediterranean relied on the biases of the German high command for their success. Information certainly reached Berlin pointing to the existence of the fake convoys, but it was this information that was dismissed as a deception by a General Staff all too willing to believe that the British would not feel secure in the Mediterranean until they had removed Italy from the war. Indeed, there were still those in London agitating for an invasion of Italy after Millennium had pinned down German forces in the west as an alternative to the proposed follow up landings in the south of France. Churchill did not let go of his hobby horse until the Autumn of 1943.

In some ways Fortitude Aegean had the easiest time of the deception plans because even as the British were working to persuade the Axis that an attack on Greek territory there was an actual operation in the works, though this had little to do with Churchill’s grand ambitions. Fortunately the plan for Operation Jasper was able to work in tandem with Fortitude Aegean to ensure it retained the element of surprise and its execution helped to persuade the Axis of the veracity of the misinformation being passed to them [5].

Underpinning all these deception efforts was the information being relayed to the Abwehr by their network of agents in Britain, a network in fact being run by MI5. The terrible performance of the Abwehr operations in Britain have been advanced as evidence of where the true sympathies of Admiral Canaris, head of the Abwehr, really lay. He was no supporter of Hitler and the Nazi regime but even so there are rather more mundane explanations for the subversion of Abwehr operations by the British than sabotage by Canaris and much of the unravelling of the German network can be traced back to the invasion scare of 1940. While fear of Fifth Columnists and German paratroopers led to any number of luckless innocents being harassed and arrested it also made life all but impossible for the genuine agents Germany attempted to deliver to Britain, especially as their language skills and local knowledge fell far short of the standard required to go unnoticed. Once arrested these Abwehr agents were offered a simple choice, be shot as a spy or work for the British, a large number chose the latter and as further agents were dispatched with orders to contact their predecessors they were also scooped up and either imprisoned or turned [6].

Not every Abwehr agent had to be coerced into co-operation, perhaps the most famous example of this was Eddie Chapman. A petty criminal who had been locked up for several criminal offenses on Jersey when the Channel Islands were occupied Chapman volunteered to work for the Germans and after some reluctance he was accepted by the Abwehr, trained, and parachuted into Britain, where he promptly turned himself into the authorities and was recruited by MI5 and eventually sent back to occupied Europe. He was a valuable operative for the British while being highly regarded by the Germans also, to the extent that he was even awarded with the Iron Cross for his efforts. His codename of Agent Zigzag reflected the complexity of the operations he was involved in but also suggested that MI5 was never entirely certain where his loyalties lay.

Perhaps the most extraordinary agent of the war was Juan Pujol Garcia, who started out not as an MI5 or Abwehr operative but as independent motivated by little more than his detestation of the Nazis. Pujol was a Spaniard and offered his services to the British as an agent, only to be rejected. Undeterred he created his own fictious identity as an ardently pro-Nazi Spanish official and began passing false information, much of which was based on guesswork about Britain and its culture that was almost hilariously inaccurate. Nonetheless he became a trusted agent and when the British became aware of his operations MI6 finally brought him into the fold and gave him the codename Agent Garbo. Agent Garbo became the centre of a cottage industry of fictitious agent and informants who became the source of a wealth of false information passed to the Germans and Pujol played a major role in reinforcing the German belief that the Pas de Calais was the main allied target. He achieved a unique distinction in that he was awarded both an Iron Cross and the MBE, the Germans never realized that their master spy spent the entire war deceiving them [7].

Allied plans depended on more than just the flow of false information to the Germans but the information flowing from the Germans to their agents. The questions they were asked to answer about Allied preparations revealed their own preoccupations and the ULTRA decrypts revealed much about how effective the false information being sent to the Germans was. Importantly by 1943 the Allies were also making strides in breaking the Lorenz cipher. Used at the highest levels of the Nazi regime this was a far more complex system than Enigma, nonetheless through a combination of human error on the part of German users and the ingenuity of the code breakers they were able to not only read the code but mechanize the decryption process, culminating in the creation of one of the earliest digital computers Colossus at the end of 1943, though this came too late to warn the Allies of the Germans final gamble in the west [8].

Between Fortitude and ULTRA the British ‘had the Germans coming and going’ and this massive advantage in intelligence operations was vital to prospects of success on D-Day, proving so successful that some in the German high command still hesitated to fully commit the available reserves to Normandy for fear it was simply a diversion from the ‘real’ invasion [9].

[1] It is massive topic and this just going to be an overview of the alt version.

[2] Norway was a much closer run thing here than IOTL, so Hitler’s paranoia is worse, if possible.

[3] So what did happen with Patton IOTL is just a cover story here, and the fake army is AUSAG rather than FUSAG.

[4] of course these ludicrous structures are still to be found all across Europe since destroying them would be simply too expensive and/or dangerous.

[5] And Operation Jasper will have its own updates soon.

[6] I honestly think that whoever was running the Abwehr the British network was doomed to failure with a poor pool of potential agents and a hostile suspicious population.

[7] It would have been criminal to let these two be butterflied away.

[8] Which will also of course have its own updates in due course.

[9] And naturally there are a lot more updates on Millennium to come.
 

Garrison

Donor
Next couple of updates covers the first Big 3 conference and after that it's off to Java and Borneo for a quartet of updates covering the sea and land battles there.
 
12th March – 20th May 1943 – Europe – A Bodyguard of Lies

The build-up of men and material in Southern England during the spring of 1943 was the necessary precursor to the cross channel invasion and despite the scale of the forces being accumulated no one in charge of the planning was in any doubt that if the Germans could bring the full weight of the forces available in the west against Normandy then at the very least a successful landing would be a far costlier affair, at worst the Allies might be repelled altogether, with incalculable consequences for the course of the war. Such a defeat still would not lead to outright Nazi victory, but it could well persuade Stalin that a separate peace was an acceptable option or force the Western Allies to consider their own deal with the devil in Berlin. The massive intelligence and counter-intelligence operations conducted to ensure this did not happen have been mentioned in passing but given their scale and importance it is worth discussing them in greater detail [1].

The overall codename for the Allied intelligence efforts around D—Day was Operation Fortitude, which was by the spring of 1943 broken down into four major sub-groups, Fortitude North, Fortitude South, Fortitude Med, and Fortitude Aegean. North was focused on fostering the idea that the Allies were seriously contemplating a landing in Norway and made extensive use of radio traffic from non-existent army units and the construction of what appeared to be new airstrips and base facilities in Scotland that Luftwaffe aerial reconnaissance were occasionally permitted to photograph. As with all the best deception plans Fortitude North played into the expectations and fears of the enemy. Hitler was deeply afraid that the Allies would target Norway and Narvik in particular to cut the vital flow of Iron ore from Sweden, without which the German steel industry would be crippled, in effect a repeat of the plan that had come close to succeeding in 1940. The success of Fortitude North meant that not only were requests to reduce the large garrison force in Norway to release troops for other duties rejected by Hitler but he insisted that the garrison be reinforced, and extensive new fortifications built. The garrison in Denmark was also maintained at full strength and would remain stationed in the country well after the Allies were already ashore, meaning they made no contribution whatsoever to the defence of Western Europe or the Reich itself [2].

If Hitler was obsessed with a threat to Norway, then von Kleist and the General Staff were just as focused on the prospect of a larger scale repeat of the Dieppe Raid, with Calais or Cherbourg being considered the most likely targets for a full-scale Allied assault against the Atlantic Coast and reinforcing this belief was the purview of Fortitude South. This naturally used the same tactics of false radio traffic and false bases but on a far larger scale than Fortitude North. These bases were built close to Dover and the shortest route across the English Channel from Calais and were graced with wooden mock-ups of aircraft and even inflatable tanks, all convincing enough when seen from the cockpit of a fast-moving reconnaissance aircraft. As part of this deception the Allies created AUSAG, the Advance United States Army Group, with a detailed order of battle that documents captured later proved that the Abwehr had laid out in intricate detail for the General Staff. One tricky issue for Fortitude South was that the obvious and most likely commander for AUSAG was General Patton. To draw attention away from Patton a rumour was spread that he was in disgrace because of some unfortunate lapse of judgment carried out in full view of the press. So effective was this rumour that Patton had to bite his tongue when offered sympathy or assistance over his predicament, though he apparently found the episode fairly amusing in later years [3].

Fortitude South did not simply concentrate on Calais, it also encompassed another of Hitler’s strategic obsessions, the Channel Islands. The only part of the British Isles to be occupied by Nazi Germany has supplied many disconcerting images of Wehrmacht troops interacting with the locals, giving some flavour of what might have been if Operation Sealion had ever been successfully carried out. Hitler was convinced that given the humiliation suffered by the British in abandoning the islands and allowing them to be occupied they would seek to take them back as soon as they could. This had led to a program of fortification building on Jersey and Guernsey that bore no relation to their real strategic value. The British had concluded in 1940 that the Channel Islands were too easily isolated and they had no intention of trying to retake them when doing so would get them no closer to their goal of driving the Germans out of Western Europe and taking the war into Germany itself, they would still have to cross the Channel after all and the islands would make a poor staging area. As in so many other places the fortification were built on the backs of slave labour, starved, and worked to death in the construction of massive works of concrete and steel that still litter the islands decades later [4].

The deception operations for Fortitude Med and Fortitude Aegean faced an added complication when it came to disguising troop movements as they had to cover the fact that entire divisions were being withdrawn, either as part of Millennium or for service in South East Asia whereas the Fortitude operations based in the UK had the slightly simpler task of misdirecting the Germans as to where the troops massing in Britain were to be unleashed. In North Africa and the Middle East the planners fell back on the old standard of having units moving openly and visibly in one direction by day, while quietly moving in the opposite direction by night. In the case of Fortitude South this meant convoys arriving in Alexandria and Tunis and unloading by day, only to be reloaded by night and columns of trucks and tanks driving the same loop of roads multiple times while radio traffic levels were gradually increased. These operations also made use of yet more dummy vehicles to deceive aerial reconnaissance. Perhaps more than any of the other Fortitude operations those in the Mediterranean relied on the biases of the German high command for their success. Information certainly reached Berlin pointing to the existence of the fake convoys, but it was this information that was dismissed as a deception by a General Staff all too willing to believe that the British would not feel secure in the Mediterranean until they had removed Italy from the war. Indeed, there were still those in London agitating for an invasion of Italy after Millennium had pinned down German forces in the west as an alternative to the proposed follow up landings in the south of France. Churchill did not let go of his hobby horse until the Autumn of 1943.

In some ways Fortitude Aegean had the easiest time of the deception plans because even as the British were working to persuade the Axis that an attack on Greek territory there was an actual operation in the works, though this had little to do with Churchill’s grand ambitions. Fortunately the plan for Operation Jasper was able to work in tandem with Fortitude Aegean to ensure it retained the element of surprise and its execution helped to persuade the Axis of the veracity of the misinformation being passed to them [5].

Underpinning all these deception efforts was the information being relayed to the Abwehr by their network of agents in Britain, a network in fact being run by MI5. The terrible performance of the Abwehr operations in Britain have been advanced as evidence of where the true sympathies of Admiral Canaris, head of the Abwehr, really lay. He was no supporter of Hitler and the Nazi regime but even so there are rather more mundane explanations for the subversion of Abwehr operations by the British than sabotage by Canaris and much of the unravelling of the German network can be traced back to the invasion scare of 1940. While fear of Fifth Columnists and German paratroopers led to any number of luckless innocents being harassed and arrested it also made life all but impossible for the genuine agents Germany attempted to deliver to Britain, especially as their language skills and local knowledge fell far short of the standard required to go unnoticed. Once arrested these Abwehr agents were offered a simple choice, be shot as a spy or work for the British, a large number chose the latter and as further agents were dispatched with orders to contact their predecessors they were also scooped up and either imprisoned or turned [6].

Not every Abwehr agent had to be coerced into co-operation, perhaps the most famous example of this was Eddie Chapman. A petty criminal who had been locked up for several criminal offenses on Jersey when the Channel Islands were occupied Chapman volunteered to work for the Germans and after some reluctance he was accepted by the Abwehr, trained, and parachuted into Britain, where he promptly turned himself into the authorities and was recruited by MI5 and eventually sent back to occupied Europe. He was a valuable operative for the British while being highly regarded by the Germans also, to the extent that he was even awarded with the Iron Cross for his efforts. His codename of Agent Zigzag reflected the complexity of the operations he was involved in but also suggested that MI5 was never entirely certain where his loyalties lay.

Perhaps the most extraordinary agent of the war was Juan Pujol Garcia, who started out not as an MI5 or Abwehr operative but as independent motivated by little more than his detestation of the Nazis. Pujol was a Spaniard and offered his services to the British as an agent, only to be rejected. Undeterred he created his own fictious identity as an ardently pro-Nazi Spanish official and began passing false information, much of which was based on guesswork about Britain and its culture that was almost hilariously inaccurate. Nonetheless he became a trusted agent and when the British became aware of his operations MI6 finally brought him into the fold and gave him the codename Agent Garbo. Agent Garbo became the centre of a cottage industry of fictitious agent and informants who became the source of a wealth of false information passed to the Germans and Pujol played a major role in reinforcing the German belief that the Pas de Calais was the main allied target. He achieved a unique distinction in that he was awarded both an Iron Cross and the MBE, the Germans never realized that their master spy spent the entire war deceiving them [7].

Allied plans depended on more than just the flow of false information to the Germans but the information flowing from the Germans to their agents. The questions they were asked to answer about Allied preparations revealed their own preoccupations and the ULTRA decrypts revealed much about how effective the false information being sent to the Germans was. Importantly by 1943 the Allies were also making strides in breaking the Lorenz cipher. Used at the highest levels of the Nazi regime this was a far more complex system than Enigma, nonetheless through a combination of human error on the part of German users and the ingenuity of the code breakers they were able to not only read the code but mechanize the decryption process, culminating in the creation of one of the earliest digital computers Colossus at the end of 1943, though this came too late to warn the Allies of the Germans final gamble in the west [8].

Between Fortitude and ULTRA the British ‘had the Germans coming and going’ and this massive advantage in intelligence operations was vital to prospects of success on D-Day, proving so successful that some in the German high command still hesitated to fully commit the available reserves to Normandy for fear it was simply a diversion from the ‘real’ invasion [9].

[1] It is massive topic and this just going to be an overview of the alt version.

[2] Norway was a much closer run thing here than IOTL, so Hitler’s paranoia is worse, if possible.

[3] So what did happen with Patton IOTL is just a cover story here, and the fake army is AUSAG rather than FUSAG.

[4] of course these ludicrous structures are still to be found all across Europe since destroying them would be simply too expensive and/or dangerous.

[5] And Operation Jasper will have its own updates soon.

[6] I honestly think that whoever was running the Abwehr the British network was doomed to failure with a poor pool of potential agents and a hostile suspicious population.

[7] It would have been criminal to let these two be butterflied away.

[8] Which will also of course have its own updates in due course.

[9] And naturally there are a lot more updates on Millennium to come.
The only part of the British Isles to be occupied by Nazi Germany.
As a proud Guernsey man (Sarnian) I would just like to point out that the Channel Islands have never been part of the British Isles or the United Kingdom.
We are officially self governing possessions of the British Crown.
Under the UK Interpretation Act 1978, the Channel Islands are deemed to be part of the British Islands, not to be confused with the British Isles.
Also can I just say how much I'm enjoying this thread and look forward to the next part.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
The only part of the British Isles to be occupied by Nazi Germany.
As a proud Guernsey man (Sarnian) I would just like to point out that the Channel Islands have never been part of the British Isles or the United Kingdom.
We are officially self governing possessions of the British Crown.
Under the UK Interpretation Act 1978, the Channel Islands are deemed to be part of the British Islands, not to be confused with the British Isles.
Also can I just say how much I'm enjoying this thread and look forward to the next part.
It is Channel Islands week on WW2TV. Interviews on mapping of fortifications on Jersey, impact of occupation on civilians, special forces raids and Deportations.
 
14th – 17th March 1943 – The Tunis Conference – Part I – Diverging Interests

Garrison

Donor
14th – 17th March 1943 – The Tunis Conference – Part I – Diverging Interests

The first meeting of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, the ‘Big 3’, in Tunis was as much matter of symbolism as it was of strategic discussion, though there was to be plenty of that as well. The three great war leaders coming together was meant to send a message of unity and solidarity, dispelling any hopes the Axis entertained of somehow splitting the allies apart and making a separate peace in either the east or the west. Of course, this made little impression with Hitler or his innermost circle. To the Fuhrer it simply served as proof that the Fuhrer had been right all along, and the world was against Germany, under the direction of the vast Jewish conspiracy of course. In some respects the symbolism may have backfired as it discouraged those in the Third Reich who entertained hopes that that they might save Germany, and themselves, by overthrowing Hitler, though some continued with their schemes, feeling Hitler had to be removed regardless of what the Allies might or might not do [1].

On the Allied side the individual who was least happy with the conference was almost certainly Charles De Gaulle. He had persistently agitated for France to have a seat at the top table to ensure that its interests were protected and in this respect selecting Tunis as the venue might have been intended as something of a sop to French pride, though if it was it did nothing to stop De Gaulle’s complaints about being excluded from critical discussions on the plans for the European theatre of the war. This did nothing to endear De Gaulle to the Americans, who had not completely given up on the hope of finding some credible alternative to De Gaulle as the leader of Free France, but efforts to try and elevate the status of one or other of the senior former Vichy representatives all fell flat in the face of De Gaulle’s resolute stance and the fact that their own country regarded them with suspicion precisely because of their actions while serving Vichy. Those who had served Free France from the beginning might have had better credentials, but there was no appetite among them for the sort of political manoeuvring the US was trying to engage in, especially as it was obviously intended to place France into a subservient position [2].

Through the lens of later history, or even indeed in the eyes of some members of Congress at the time, it would be easy to imagine that the conference would be divided along the lines of the democratic west versus the Communist east, with both sides seeking to impose their will on the other. The situation was rather more complicated than this and while this divide would come to dominate later discussions the lines between east and west were distinctly blurred at Tunis, greatly annoying the British who feared the Americans were being far too accommodating with Stalin. It would be wrong to say relations between Britain and America had fractured, more that the sense of relief in the British camp after the USA entered the war had long since dissipated and they were now starting to think about the possible shape of the post war world, and where Britain would be ranked in the new world order that would inevitably emerge from a world war that had seen an even greater disruption of the established order than that of 1914-18. It was one thing to accept that the USA was the senior partner in the alliance and that they would emerge as a world power, or indeed a superpower after the war was won, it was quite another to simply accept the USA attempts, often rather heavy handed, to draw nations such as Australia and Canada into their sphere of influence at the expense of Britain. The heavy handedness, combined with the unfortunate behaviour of the likes of Douglas MacArthur and Ernest King had effectively derailed such efforts, but not ended them. It had though led the Canadians and Australians to make a great show of loyalty to the ‘mother country’ precisely to send a message to the Americans, while at the same time looking to redefine their own relationships with the British [3].

If these efforts to influence the White Dominions had annoyed London it was as nothing compared to the British grievances over the conduct of the war in the Pacific. Fairly or not at the beginning of 1943 the British felt they were still carrying most of the weight in fighting the Japanese, while at the same time having their ideas for a co-ordinated strategy being largely ignored by the USA. This improved somewhat after the departure of Ernest King, but even so the possibility of a drive towards the Philippines continued to be floated by various US politicians and military officers, even as the British were clear that the seizure of the DEI would achieve far more strategically. That this had finally been accepted was a small triumph for the British, and a massive relief for the ABCD forces on Java, but the arguments still rankled with senior British officers such as Auchinleck and Montgomery [4].

The conference itself created yet another source of British unhappiness as it became clear that their fears were justified and Roosevelt was focused on improving relations with Stalin, even if this came at the expense of the Anglo-American relationship. All of this led to considerable pressure on Churchill to reign in his Americophile tendencies and focus on a hard-headed pursuit of British interests, something made easier by personal slights dealt out by Roosevelt as he tried to build his relationship with Stalin. Some in Washington certainly sympathised with the British over Roosevelt’s attitude to the Soviets, which did not mean they were fans of the British Empire. Still the two Western Allies were fully committed to Operation Millennium and recognized the importance of maintaining co-operation in the most critical areas. This cooling of relations led to a distinct tailing off in several aspects of Anglo-American co-operation in regard to technology sharing such as jet engines, radar, as well as a greater emphasis on an independent British nuclear program [5].

From the US perspective there were excellent reasons to strengthen ties with the USSR and the keeping the British in the war was no longer a critical consideration in 1943, after all there was no prospect of Britain suddenly deciding to make a separate peace with Nazi Germany, a possibility that still exercised the minds of the US leadership when it came to the USSR. The withdrawal of the Red Army from the conflict, leaving the Nazis access to the resources of the territories already under German control and possibly restoring the flow of Soviet oil might well make any offensive in the west all but impossible and reduce the war in the west into a bloody stalemate, at least until the inevitable collapse of such a cold peace or the Manhattan Project bore fruit [6].

Beyond merely assuring continued Soviet commitment to the war in Europe Roosevelt was also keen to obtain a pledge from Stalin that the USSR would enter the war against Japan. In the aftermath of the battle Khalkin Gol in 1938 the USSR and Japan had concluded a non-aggression pact, and despite Japan being at war with the Western Allies and Germany being at war with the USSR that pact still stood. This was clearly advantageous to the Soviets since it meant they only had to worry about war on one front and the Japanese were hardly enthusiastic about adding to their list of enemies, hence why they had resisted German efforts to persuade them to enter the war against the USSR. Stalin was almost equally reluctant to enter the war against Japan and obtaining a commitment from him would inevitably come at a price.

There was also some genuine sympathy in the US administration towards the USSR, most notably in the shape of the Vice-President Henry Wallace. In the years after the war Wallace has been portrayed as something akin to a Soviet mole in the heart of the US and even at the time his perceived communist leanings meant that there was already a groundswell of opinion in the Democratic Party to see him replaced in 1944 as Vice-President, and any idea that he might become the Presidential candidate if Roosevelt chose not to run for a fourth term was out of the question. Wallace was not a Soviet agent, he did however have a rather distorted view of the reality of life in the USSR and was eager to see them receive all possible support, despite objections from elsewhere in the government [7].

To achieve his strategic goals at Tunis Roosevelt felt had little choice but to prioritize Soviet concerns over those of the British, though the degree to which he openly snubbed Churchill to ingratiate himself with Stalin raised some eyebrows even in the US delegation. Despite this disquiet Roosevelt did achieve one of his goals, Stalin agreed to a declaration that not only would none of the parties to the anti-Nazi alliance make a separate peace, they would only accept the unconditional surrender of Germany. There would be no room for a repeat of the ‘stabbed in the back’ myth to take root as Germany would be broken and remade by the victorious powers, though what form that remaking would take was still a matter of debate. Some in the USA were considering the wholesale destruction of Germany industry, turning to clock back to before the Industrial Revolution, this would coalesce into the Morgenthau Plan, named after Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, and it would seem an attractive idea as more came to be known about the scale of the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany [8].

Roosevelt was rather less successful in persuading the USSR to break with Japan. Stalin was adamant that the USSR would not enter the war until Nazi Germany had been defeated, and that Western Allies must focus their efforts on assisting the USSR in achieving that goal. The best that Roosevelt could obtain was an agreement the USSR would join the war against Japan no more than four months after the end of the war with Germany, which meant that for the foreseeable future the Japanese would still be able to focus all their resources on defending against attacks from the Americans and British. Some cynically concluded that Stalin were expecting the Allies to have finished off the Japanese before the Soviet Union had to make good on his promise. From the perspective of many in the Western Allied leadership it appeared that Stalin left Tunis the undisputed winner in the negotiations, Stalin however saw things very differently, and not without reason [9].

[1] Some German officers really do just hate Hitler by this point, and this will be discussed in more detail later.

[2] Not all the French are admirers of De Gaulle, but the ones who would be willing to take his place are basically too tainted to be acceptable and he has largely succeeded in cementing his position.

[3] In the simplest terms with the pre-war boost to the Canadian arms industry and the British victories in North Africa and South East Asia their standing with the White Dominions is higher and there isn’t the sense they need to look to the Americans for security.

[4] To call it a disagreement is putting it mildly, the tug of war over the DEI and the Philippines has become a fight over who exactly is in charge in the Pacific?

[5] In this timeline the phrase ‘special relationship’ will probably only be used sarcastically.

[6] And which of those would be worse for the future of Europe is hard to say, but the reality was that for all the occasional suggestions in Moscow and Berlin a peace was never going to happen.

[7] Of course what happens in 1944 will largely come down to the degree of success achieved in Normandy.

[8] With the war moving at a faster pace the questions are being asked sooner and so there will still a recognizable version of the Morgenthau Plan put forward.

[9] which is the subject of the next update.
 
Stalin going personally at Tunis? I understand he was quite reluctant to set foot outside the USSR, and him going to Tehran was a rare feat, but as far as Tunis, I'm dubious.
 
After the purges, gulags, Holodomor and Ribbentrop-Molotov Agreement, to this day, I cannot fathom how Roosevelt felt he could trust anything signed by Stalin. It's mind blowing.
 

Garrison

Donor
Stalin going personally at Tunis? I understand he was quite reluctant to set foot outside the USSR, and him going to Tehran was a rare feat, but as far as Tunis, I'm dubious.
Well given the different strategic circumstances he was afraid he might miss out on too many big decisions if he stayed away.
After the purges, gulags, Holodomor and Ribbentrop-Molotov Agreement, to this day, I cannot fathom how Roosevelt felt he could trust anything signed by Stalin. It's mind blowing.
Well some of it wasn't known yet, but yes, it is weird that he was so willing to trust Stalin, you have to wonder how much influence Wallace had there.
 
After the purges, gulags, Holodomor and Ribbentrop-Molotov Agreement, to this day, I cannot fathom how Roosevelt felt he could trust anything signed by Stalin. It's mind blowing.

I am not sure whether it was trust or more he thought Stalin could get him what he seemed to want.

From ‘Warlords, the heart of conflict 1939 – 1945’ by Simon Berthon and Joanna Potts.

Page 131

But as the war ground on, Churchill began to see a new threat to Europe – the man who had become the third ally in the fight against Hitler, Joseph Stalin. In late 1942 he told Anthony Eden: ‘It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarianism overlaid the ancient state of Europe.’

Roosevelt thought otherwise. As far as he was concerned, the cause of war in the first place was the in fighting between Europe’s ancient, imperialist nations and he began to see in Stalin someone who would help him in his great cause of freeing the world of that Imperialism. Also in 1942, in a conversation with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, he remarked: ‘The European people will simply have to endure Russian domination in the hope that – in ten or 20 years – the European influence will bring the Russians to become less barbarous.’

This is taken from ‘The Roosevelt Letters: Being the Personnel Correspondence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Vol.3: 1928 – 1945.


I have never seen anything that even suggested that this idea for Roosevelt had to throw Europe to the Russians being contested.
 

Garrison

Donor
I am not sure whether it was trust or more he thought Stalin could get him what he seemed to want.

From ‘Warlords, the heart of conflict 1939 – 1945’ by Simon Berthon and Joanna Potts.

Page 131

But as the war ground on, Churchill began to see a new threat to Europe – the man who had become the third ally in the fight against Hitler, Joseph Stalin. In late 1942 he told Anthony Eden: ‘It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarianism overlaid the ancient state of Europe.’

Roosevelt thought otherwise. As far as he was concerned, the cause of war in the first place was the in fighting between Europe’s ancient, imperialist nations and he began to see in Stalin someone who would help him in his great cause of freeing the world of that Imperialism. Also in 1942, in a conversation with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, he remarked: ‘The European people will simply have to endure Russian domination in the hope that – in ten or 20 years – the European influence will bring the Russians to become less barbarous.’

This is taken from ‘The Roosevelt Letters: Being the Personnel Correspondence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Vol.3: 1928 – 1945.


I have never seen anything that even suggested that this idea for Roosevelt had to throw Europe to the Russians being contested.
Interesting, of course circumstances got in the way of Roosevelt and the Soviets IOTL, and they will derail this plan even more thoroughly here.
 
Well given the different strategic circumstances he was afraid he might miss out on too many big decisions if he stayed away.

Well some of it wasn't known yet, but yes, it is weird that he was so willing to trust Stalin, you have to wonder how much influence Wallace had there.

Wallace's pro-Sovietism is somewhat overstated by both his left-wing defenders and his enemies. Nothing he was advocating while in office and immediately afterwards was really out of line with what you got in not only Roosevelt's rhetoric, but the full spectrum of American liberaism. Hell, Luce's Life magazine - as reactionary an institution as you can imagine - was running Soviet propaganda pieces through the war era. Wallace's big error was that in 1948 he was still personally in 1944, and Communist agents basically gassed him up to run as President on a ticket they effectively controlled and deliberately cut him off from other information. He would not have ended up as thoroughly entangled as he was if he'd remained on the Democratic ticket. He was naive, for sure, but basically just a liberal New Dealer with poor choices in friends after 1945.

Roosevelt was not in top form by the mid-40s. He also congenitally disliked and distrusted Churchill, thinking - correctly - that the British were on the outs and the Russians were the key player who had to be accommodated. Churchill's anti-Sovietism might have seemed, to American policymakers, as a demand that the Americans prop up British and French interests in ways they had no interest in doing.

If the British are totally economically dependent on you and on the way down, and the Russians are on the way up, you're better off striking an arrangement with the Russians. More advantage to be garnered - especially if your key priority is keeping them in the war in the West and bringing them into the war in the East.
 
Wallace's pro-Sovietism is somewhat overstated by both his left-wing defenders and his enemies. Nothing he was advocating while in office and immediately afterwards was really out of line with what you got in not only Roosevelt's rhetoric, but the full spectrum of American liberaism. Hell, Luce's Life magazine - as reactionary an institution as you can imagine - was running Soviet propaganda pieces through the war era. Wallace's big error was that in 1948 he was still personally in 1944, and Communist agents basically gassed him up to run as President on a ticket they effectively controlled and deliberately cut him off from other information. He would not have ended up as thoroughly entangled as he was if he'd remained on the Democratic ticket. He was naive, for sure, but basically just a liberal New Dealer with poor choices in friends after 1945.

Roosevelt was not in top form by the mid-40s. He also congenitally disliked and distrusted Churchill, thinking - correctly - that the British were on the outs and the Russians were the key player who had to be accommodated. Churchill's anti-Sovietism might have seemed, to American policymakers, as a demand that the Americans prop up British and French interests in ways they had no interest in doing.

If the British are totally economically dependent on you and on the way down, and the Russians are on the way up, you're better off striking an arrangement with the Russians. More advantage to be garnered - especially if your key priority is keeping them in the war in the West and bringing them into the war in the East.
I was a big fan of “Watching from San Diego” as it had a more nuanced take on Wallace than you usually find. Wallace was a bit naive and easily played by bad actors around him, but had he stayed on the Roosevelt ticket in ‘44 he’d probably have executed the end of the war similarly to Truman (though it’s hard to see him triumphing like 1948)
 
I was a big fan of “Watching from San Diego” as it had a more nuanced take on Wallace than you usually find. Wallace was a bit naive and easily played by bad actors around him, but had he stayed on the Roosevelt ticket in ‘44 he’d probably have executed the end of the war similarly to Truman (though it’s hard to see him triumphing like 1948)

Will have to check that out. Wallace's actual political instincts - for instance, campaigning in the Deep South on a civil rights platform with a black running mate - weren't necessarily up to scratch and he just wasn't as insanely good on the stump as an old-school Bryan fan like Truman. No way he pulls that election off, no matter how badly Dewey fucks it up. But he seems like he was a pretty personally decent guy, his time as ag secretary and his broader contributions to American farming are undeniably good, and an early and strong stand on civil rights merits a W.
 
Will have to check that out. Wallace's actual political instincts - for instance, campaigning in the Deep South on a civil rights platform with a black running mate - weren't necessarily up to scratch and he just wasn't as insanely good on the stump as an old-school Bryan fan like Truman. No way he pulls that election off, no matter how badly Dewey fucks it up. But he seems like he was a pretty personally decent guy, his time as ag secretary and his broader contributions to American farming are undeniably good, and an early and strong stand on civil rights merits a W.
Sums up my thoughts pretty well.
 
...Eddie Chapman. A petty criminal...
Not a petty criminal; Chapman was a professional burglar and safecracker. One of his "exploits" was breaking into a top secret laboratory to photograph the new Squid anti-submarine weapon - posed next to a fake out of scale ruler.
...some in the German high command still hesitated to fully commit the available reserves to Normandy for fear it was simply a diversion from the ‘real’ invasion [9]...
GARBO sent a message on D-Day+3, warning that Normandy was a feint. In postwar interrogation, Keitel said that message was why I SS Panzer's move to Normandy was cancelled.

IMHO the careers of both were reasonably probable, and not likely to be butterflied.
 
Last edited:

Garrison

Donor
Not a petty criminal; Chapman was a professional burglar and safecracker. One of his "exp!oits" was breaking into a top secret laboratory to photograph the new Squid anti-submarine weapon - posed next to a fake out of scale ruler.

GARBO sent a message on D-Day+3, warning that Normandy was a feint. In postwar interrogation, Keitel said that message was why I SS Panzer's move to Normandy was cancelled.

IMHO the careers of both were reasonably probable, and not likely to be butterflied.
I can assure you that neither of them has been butterflied, that really would have been criminal. :)
 
Top