Operation Compass succeeds

[condor]

First off, this is the first TL I've thought about doing that isn't in the dark ages, so my idea has probably been discussed, dissected and found implausable already.

Let us say that Churchill is temporarily incapacitated (though not permanently injured) and unable to interfere in strategic planning between December 1940 and February 1941. First off, would his immediate replacement be as likely to interfere in the conduct of the war as he did?

Assuming the answer is no and that whoever is in charge tells the Greeks to look to their own defences against the Italians, I'm wondering:

Could General Richard O'Conner press ahead with Operation Compass and drive the Italians, and any elements Afrika Corps that make it ashore, from North Africa before Churchill recovers. Nazi Germany and Italy would then hold the Balkans, but British and Commonwealth troops would have won their first significant land campaign against the Axis, secured the Suez Canal from attack and have freed up perhaps as many as 100'000 men for deployment elsewhere.

Does anyone think Operation Compass could succeed in its aims uninterupted, or maye suggest a way that doesn't involve ASBs striking down the Prime Minister. I'm aiming for the Japanese to face more serious opposition when they make their drive for the Dutch East Indies.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

What happens to Crete then? And wouldn't this other bloke end up keeping the job even after Churchill gets back on his feet?

 

[condor]

What happens to Crete then? And wouldn't this other bloke end up keeping the job even after Churchill gets back on his feet?

I thought the Battle of Crete took place three months after the fall of Greece? If I have that right then the British government could always send reinforcements from Egypt to bolster the garrison once the Italians are forced back to the coast and either attempt an evacuation or begin surrendering.

In answer to the second question, I guess the prestige from being in office and overseeing the first land victory for the British Empire probably would make Churchills replacement a hero in the publics eye. So, yes in retrospect the former PM doesn't necessarily have to get back into power. Really I only wanted him out of the way to let O'Connor and his subordinates finish off General Graziani

 

[Thande]

How about something that just means Churchill is out of communication at the crucial time, like (wild speculation) failures in undersea comm cables?

This WI has intrigued me as well...

 

[Riain]

In quick summary, stopping Compass and going to Greece was the single worst decision made by Churchill in WW2.

The timing is tight, but the 2nd armoured div arrived just after Compass halted, as did a brigade of amphibous troops in their ships. This could have been combined or whatever with the veteran 7th Armoured and the Australian divs, to get to Tripoli before Rommel had so much as a tank regiment in place. This puts British forces on the border of Vichy Tunisia, whether they could have launched a coup there or whatever I'm not sure, but something would have happened with the French.

It was British forces which led to German intervention in Greece, they may or may not have intervened anyway, but at least Britain would have lost lots of scarce assets when Greece fell. Also Crete may or may not have fallen, as an island it was inherently more defensible for the naval minded British. If it had fallen it wouldn't have mattered since the Brits held the Libyan coast so Malta was secure from the rear. If it had held it would be a handy forward base for the sort of operations the allies could mount in 1941 and 42.

Perhaps most importantly, with the securing of nothern Africa and the Middle east 3 australian divisions and several indian divisions, not to mention air and naval forcves would be free to be re-deployed to Asia during late 1941. Would Malaya have fallen if it was defended by 4 or 5 veteran units, much greater naval (think of the ships sunk/severely damaged between April and December 1941, Ark Royal leaps to mind) and air strength commanded by the likes of Wavell, OConnor, Tedder and Cunningham? The Japnese trip over themselves from the very start by failures in Malaya and at sea, finding themselves squeezed between malaya/Singapore and Australia/PNG.

In summary, the European war ends perhaps a year earlier, but not as early as the Pacific war which has the wind taken out of it's sails in the first 3 months by the British.

 

[PMN1]

Loosing Churchill permanently at this point would probably help overall and he still has his place in hsitory, the man who kept Britain in the war.

Edit: Of course that depends on who replaces him.....

 

[condor]

In quick summary, stopping Compass and going to Greece was the single worst decision made by Churchill in WW2.

Quite true in my humble opinion.

I'm going to spend the next couple of days toying around with a draft of this TL, and see what I come up with. I can see some interesting butterflies springing up as a result of a faster victory in North Africa. I'm going to have to spend some time working out a more plausable way of marginalising Churchill as well.

Do not let this stop you posting any ideas or arguments for / against this POD. Ideas are always welcome and if its realistic from the get-go then it can only be a better TL.

 

[Shimbo]

Quite true in my humble opinion.

I'm going to spend the next couple of days toying around with a draft of this TL, and see what I come up with. I can see some inteeresting butterflies springing up as a result of a faster victory in North Africa. I'm going to have to spend some time working out a more plausable way of marginalise Churchill as well.

Do not let this stop you posting any ideas or arguments for / against this POD. Ideas are always welcome and if its realistic from the get-go then it can only be a better TL.

The old standby of a heart attack might be a possibility. IIRC he did have a mild heart attack later in the war, according to 'The Struggle for Survival', by his doctor, Lord Moran, so bring that forward and make it more severe, then he has to resign because of poor health.

Which reminds me of a story about Lord Moran in IIRC John Colville's book 'The Fringes of Power" (I paraphrase): Colville concerned about the PM's health asks Athony Eden what to do if the PM is suddenly taken ill. Eden replies: "send for Lord Moran... then he can send for a proper doctor."

TTL may have interesting ramifications once the Americans are involved. They may have more influence due to not having to contend with someone of Churchill's massive prestige, but on the other hand the British won't have been on the end of so many defeats so may have more confidence.

 

[condor]

TTL may have interesting ramifications once the Americans are involved. They may have more influence due to not having to contend with someone of Churchill's massive prestige, but on the other hand the British won't have been on the end of so many defeats so may have more confidence.

Exactly the direction I was hoping to go.

I don't want to turn this TL into a Britwank, but I do have some rather nifty ideas concerning events that will take place after the war during the decolonisation of Asia and Africa. Negotiating from a position of greater strength at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences than in OTL is crucial for the events I have in mind to happen though.

Perhaps having the Americans stick to a mainly amphibious campaign in the Pacific theatre whilst the British and Commonwealth divisions make an equally bloody drive through Thailand?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

If instead of the four divisions sent to Greece Churchill sends a single properly equpped division to Crete that may hold the island. On the other hand, if Hitler responds to the loss of the entire Italian colonial empire as he did to the Allied landings in French North Africa this could turn out extremely badly for the British.

 

[condor]

If instead of the four divisions sent to Greece Churchill sends a single properly equpped division to Crete that may hold the island. On the other hand, if Hitler responds to the loss of the entire Italian colonial empire as he did to the Allied landings in French North Africa this could turn out extremely badly for the British.

A division or two of Indian or Australian infantry, entrenched and waiting for the German Fallschirmjaegers (paratroopers), would probably be sufficent to sway the battle in favour of the British.

This has the benefit of securing a forward base of operations near the balkans and also leaves the bulk of the Western Desert Force free for redeployment.

The problem for Hitler though would be responding to the successful British campaign. If the Heer doesn't have any allied territories to disembark at, they will find it difficult to counter the British Empire forces. I don't think theres anywhere else that the Germans could strike a strong enough blow against the British to avenge the loss of the Italian Empire. He'd either have to order the Luftwaffe to renew its efforts against the British Isles, or completely lose it and begin mentioning certain sea-dwelling mammals to the OKW.

And to parody a Monty Python sketch:

OKW officer: ''But mein furher, we won't have much fun with ze Seelöwe''

Furher: ''Von't have much fun with ze Seelöwe...''

 

[Redbeard]

If instead of the four divisions sent to Greece Churchill sends a single properly equpped division to Crete that may hold the island. On the other hand, if Hitler responds to the loss of the entire Italian colonial empire as he did to the Allied landings in French North Africa this could turn out extremely badly for the British.

I assume you mean taking over Vichy France? But why should that be "extremely badly" for the British?

With all of North Africa on British hands by 1940 or early 41 it would much earlier be a realistic option to quickly reinforce British airstrength in the Far East - that may easily have cruicial influence if/when the Japanese have a go at SEA - on top of much more British strength being available for SEA.

Unless of course Churchill in untamed self-confidence launch grandiose schemes on the European continent. Short of the humiliating expeiences vs. the Afrika Corps you may fear that the British gladly join Marshall when he propose a major landing in France in 1943 - IMO it will most likely end in the biggest military and political disaster in Anglo-Saxon history. Even if the pretext is the Japanese beaten back in the Far East, the result is probably Europe under permanent Nazi control and the British and US concentrating on the "rest".

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Grimm Reaper]

My thought is that Hitler takes over much of French North Africa.

At the end of 1942 in OTL, and in a much weaker position, he had no difficulty seizing French Tunisia and deploying 250,000+ troops there.

If he sends half that prior to Barbarossa, a mere four divisions plus support, for no other reason than keeping an eye on French colonies and keeping the British away from Sicility then the British will be fortunate to hold on the old Egyptian/Libyan border and may not be so fortunate. If he makes an effort comparable to what he did in November 1942, facing a weaker British Empire and no US in sight then Barbarossa begins with the effective collapse of the British Empire in Africa/Middle East.

 

[condor]

Unless of course Churchill in untamed self-confidence launch grandiose schemes on the European continent. Short of the humiliating expeiences vs. the Afrika Corps you may fear that the British gladly join Marshall when he propose a major landing in France in 1943 - IMO it will most likely end in the biggest military and political disaster in Anglo-Saxon history. Even if the pretext is the Japanese beaten back in the Far East, the result is probably Europe under permanent Nazi control and the British and US concentrating on the "rest".

I think Churchill wouldn't be getting back into power that quickly or even at all, as his successor would have overseen the first (and a truely stunning) victory over the Italians. I think that the public would latch onto and rally around their new leader for such a feat being accomplished.

I do agree about the landings in southern France, though I'd imagine (thanks to the IJA) that Britain will only be able to provide the token commitment of a few divisions to such a landing.

I like the heart attack option too, as it will help Churchill to remain a hero of the people without completly ruining his reputation. I take it to mean that I'm going to have to have a rapid succession of bad news to set off the PM's ticker.

 

[condor]

My thought is that Hitler takes over much of French North Africa.

At the end of 1942 in OTL, and in a much weaker position, he had no difficulty seizing French Tunisia and deploying 250,000+ troops there.

If he sends half that prior to Barbarossa, a mere four divisions plus support, for no other reason than keeping an eye on French colonies and keeping the British away from Sicility then the British will be fortunate to hold on the old Egyptian/Libyan border and may not be so fortunate. If he makes an effort comparable to what he did in November 1942, facing a weaker British Empire and no US in sight then Barbarossa begins with the effective collapse of the British Empire in Africa/Middle East.

A good point, but would the Heer be able to land sufficent forces in North Africa if the landings are contested by O'Connor and the Western Desert Forces lunge west on land and the British Mediterranean Fleet pressing the Germans and Italians in the Mediterranean.

Without the losses suffered by the RN between late 1941 to 1942, and the signs of imminent victory perhaps prompting the release of additional naval assets from the Far East or the fleet at Scarpa Flow, could any Axis convoys heading for North Africa be intercepted / badly savaged / discouraged from attempting the crossing?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

They weren't in OTL November 1942 and the British/American forces then were vastly more powerful that what the British alone had 18 months earlier. Also given the limited British forces, units being sent to Crete(and elsewhere), units for occupation duty and so forth it seems very unlikely that the Germans will be kept out of North Africa if they really wish to arrive.

 

[aktarian]

How long before British logistics collapse and troops are stranded with little in terms of fuel and other supplies and Germans take advantage of situation?

 

[condor]

Both good points, and to be honest I shall have to retreat and consider this a little more carefully

IMHO though, given that the much more prominent goal (in Hitlers mind) of conquering the Soviet Union is going to begin in late June, North Africa would likely remain a low priority front for him. Suggesting that a large force be assembled to relieve the Italian and Vinchy French holdings in North Africa, which would likely mean stripping troops assigned to taking part in Operation Barbarossa, might no go down well with the Furher. The Afrika Corps was IIRC a last minute force that was cobbled-together-from-whatever-we-have-that-isn't-committed.

Since the Americans aren't in the war yet, and therefore won't goad Hitler into pouring more men into the relief effort, and that Field Marshal Rommel hasn't come close to overunning egypt twice; A vast committment of men and material seems unlikely.

The logictical situation would probably benefit for the collapse of the Italian holdings in the rest of Africa, as well as the tens of thousands of British and Commonwealth combat and support units freed up in these theatres. With secure supply routes, the logistical nightmare is a small step closer to becoming doable.

I will study the matter further, and hopefully return with something that more resembles a counter-arguement though.

 

[PMN1]

The problem for Hitler though would be responding to the successful British campaign. If the Heer doesn't have any allied territories to disembark at, they will find it difficult to counter the British Empire forces.

I dont know what other ports may have been available.

Martin Van Crefeld’s ‘Supplying war’

Even without an offensive, however, Rommel’s demand for a second division had already jeopardised his supplies. Together with the Italians, the Axis force now in Libya totalled seven divisions, which when air force and naval force units were added, required 70,000 tons per month. This was more than Tripoli could handle effectively, so that a crisis was bound to develop unless the French agreed to allow 20,000 tons of supplies a month to pass through their port of Bizerta. Although Rommel was usually at loggerheads with his nominal Italian superiors, they were in agreement this time, for Mussolini had long been looking for just such an opportunity to penetrate Tunisia. Hence Rommel’s request was enthusiastically seconded.

Negotiations with Vichy were accordingly initiated. Firstly, the premier, Admiral Darlan, was asked to sell the Germans French lorries stationed in Africa, to which he immediately agreed. Encouraged by this success, Hitler next summoned Darlan for a tete a tete on 11 May, in the course of which he told him that the unloading facilities of Tripoli harbour were ‘being used to capacity’ and asked for permission to use Bizerta. Darlan acceded to the request, and on 27-8 May a German-French Protocol was signed in Paris, granting the Germans rights of transit through Bizerta. It also provided for French ships to be chartered by the Axis, mentioned Toulon as a possible alternative port of embarkation in case Naples became choked. At this point, however, Vichy was alarmed by the British invasion of Syria. For reasons of their own, the Germans also came to regret the agreement, and by the end of summer not a single Axis load had passed through Bizerta.

 

[WilsonTGreat]

Yeah, IIRC, the only reason the germans were involved in greece or north africa was a direct result of the italians. They had no real interest in the region what-so-ever

that may change though if it looks like the entire southern portion of europe looks like it's vulnerable to an invasion from northern africa

i also don't see why it's esential to completely eliminate Churchill from the loop entirely, just say have him hospitalised during the operation compass stuff, but recovering afterwards.

although, just to throw a spanner in the works, would the fall of northern africa make italians/germans look to try and be more persuasive about getting Franco and his spanyards to enter on the axis side to help secure france? (doubt that he would agree to join a side that seems to be losing but still)

also could this potentially stall barbarossa for a few months or more while the germans consolidate?