I was under the impression that Crete held in TTL. Did I miss the fall?
Ah that's what you meant. I was confused - not sure which Crete you were referring to - OTL or TTL.
But which German and Italian forces held Crete in OTL? Where would those forces be without Crete? Would they (as is likely) end up in Macedonia and Thrace to protect the Axis flank against any seaborne invasion? Or could the end up in the Dodecanese (at least the Italian forces)?
I'm saying go for Sicily and Italy up to Naples with the Americans. More Americans, less Commonwealth.
Well here is where the differing attitudes would make that difficult. In OTL the Americans I believe had to be brought around to the idea of invading Sicily in the first place and after that they didn't like Montgomery's idea of invading Italy across the toe, thinking it a waste of time and resources and that if any invasion of mainland Italy should occur it should bypass the toe and land around Salerno or Naples (Hitler feared they would bypass the toe and land around Rome for which they had plans for airborne drops which got called off at the last minute). Any invasion of Sicily in late 1941/early 1942 is probably going to be a Commonwealth/Free French affair with a smattering of American troops. Thereafter any invasion of mainland Italy is also likely to be more Commonwealth/Free French than American simply because it is so early in the war. Without the need for landings in North Africa (OTL Nov 1942) or Sicily, the Americans will probably be a lot more focused on building up forces for an assault across the Channel and in southern France for 1943 (at least that would be their aim). They may even think that invading Italy is unnecessary and that taking Sardinia and Corsica would be all that is needed.
If they are going to dictate the course of the war they can do it with their troops.
Which by 1943 they will do since Maitland Wilson can invade Greece and Bulgaria all he wants but if he does it on his own there is no way he is going to have enough forces to push all the way through the Balkans and into Germany....at least not without possibly suffering a defeat to make Singapore look good. For that planned push he will either need no Pacific theatre (so the Japanese do not attack Pearl Harbour - but that probably keeps American troops out of the war longer) or he will need American forces. When did his OTL plan for invading along the Danube plain develop? Was it before the Japanese opened up the Pacific theatre for Britain? If so it might indicate where he was planning on getting most of his troops and reserves from.
If they insist on southern France straight away they can do that with the French.
Which would be assured suicide for Wilson's venture. So he would have even less troops at his disposal - only Commonwealth (mainly British and Canadian at this point since a lot of the Aussies and New Zealanders go to the Pacific and the South Africans were never predictable as to which theatre they would support) and Greek troops at his disposal.
I think that Britain is more likely to have Victory Disease in TTL. She will be less likely to accept being told what to do.
Which isn't necessarily a good thing. Lack of Allied unity in command was one of the reasons the Allies did much more poorly than they could have from 1914-1917. Still seems likely to me that a Combined Chiefs of Staff will be formed in February 1942 with Marshall and Brooke.
All of this of course depends on who the decision makers are and in what position they are at the time:
In OTL Churchill preferred to have Wilson take over Eighth Army upon the death of it's commander Gott in OTL August 1942, but Alan Brooke (Chief of Staff) preferred Montgomery. In OTL Gott became Eighth Army commander despite the reservations of it's previous commander (Auckinleck) and Brooke as a result of Churchill picking him. No Churchill might mean that Gott isn't picked (and doesn't die as he did in OTL) and Brooke's baby (Montgomery) gets the goodies.
Wilson would still have to sell his plan to the CCS (which may well include the Free French in TTL) and to the likes of Brooke who is probably going to have a lot more influence if Churchill's successor as PM is willing to let the military personnel get on with things - someone like that is also likely to let the military's ranks also get on with things and not follow a subordinate over his superior. Since Brooke had a "wild dream" (as he put it after the war) of bringing Turkey into the war he might well support any Dodecanese operation and landings in Greece - just don't expect the Americans (not liking the peripheral stuff which they considered to be partly about British imperial aims as opposed to wholely focused on beating Germany) or the Free French (can't see them supporting a landing in Greece over a land at home..in France) to necessarily support him.
Brooke also looked forward to be given command of the invasion of western Europe later on and was disappointed in late 1943 when he was passed over.
This could well lead to closer Franco-American relations in and after the war and slightly more luke-warm Anglo-American relations in and after the war (however when it comes to the Pacific I would expect Franco-American relations to cool a bit as the French would be focused on Indochina and the US would be focused on Japan).
Southern Italy is in British interests up to a point (it opens the convoy route up).
Southern Italy never closed the convoy route. Once Malta was safe (Sicily taken) and the Italian navy penned in at home or at the bottom of the sea the only threat to the convoys would be German U-boats and with those it wouldn't make a difference whether the Allies took southern Italy or not - they would still be able to operate unless the Allies took the entire Mediterranean coast so as to deny the U-boats any bases for refuelling (and even then they could still sortie into and out of the Med from the Atlantic without needing bases in the Med).
This is why I still think British forces would contribute to invading Sicily and taking the southern ports in mainland Italy. I don't think they would be willing to make that a major push.
I doubt this. Once they take Sicily I can't see them invading Italy and only stopping at Naples. That would make sense to us in retrospect based on what happened in OTL and with the bare minimum necessary for Dragoon. However in OTL there are a number of reasons they didn't stop:
1. Italy defected and joined the Allies after the British crossed the toe and took Taranto. It would be insane to leave the legitimate Italian government (the king and who he picks) that is now an ally to hang out to dry in Rome. That might well cause Italy to think of switching sides again especially if....
2. There were a lot of German troops in Italy and a number of Italian troops still ready to fight for the new puppet government. With so many forces they could push the Allies back out of Italy and re-take Sicily. Then the Allies are back to square 1. Without actually taking Italy, it would make it easier for the Germans to "persuade" the King that he made a mistake joining the allies and to revert that decision - which would make it more difficult for operations in the Balkans since Italian troops there are more likely to switch over if their government has.
3. The British themselves all seemed to like Mediterranean operations and didn't favour the Balkans over Italy but wanted both. They could persuade the Americans on Italy due to Sicily's strategic importance and then because once Sicily was taken they basically had to go into Italy so as not to lose Sicily again and once they went into Italy they basically had to keep moving up. Also Italy was the major German ally in Europe, so knocking them out of the war would be a plus.
Once you have a defensible toehold in Italy that includes Taranto the convoys are pretty safe.
See above. Taranto isn't necessary. Sink the Italian navy or keep them penned up (which the RN could easily do) and the convoys are safe.
They would go for the Dodecanese and Eastern Thrace, maybe even well before any Italian surrender.
Which makes it that much more difficult since the Italians aren't going to be giving up because they are now on the same side. It's one thing to beat the Italians in a wide open desert, it's another to beat them on rocky islands with few open spaces. Even in 1943 in OTL the British got thrown back off the Dodecanese despite having more forces available at the time and with the Axis position weaker generally.
Stopping at/before the prepared defences reduces losses while still committing Axis forces to defending Italy.
Stopping at prepared defences also invites Axis forces to not just defending Italy but expelling the Allies from it. It might even preclude any Italian surrender.
No build up for D-Day. This is D-Day.
Only for Wilson and Co. The Free French are most certainly not going to throw their support into a Balkan D-Day
over a French D-Day (they may well support a Balkan offensive as an auxilliary offensive but not the main one). Given the terrain as well, it's little wonder the Americans supported an invasion of western Europe over the Balkans - France is basically a pancake compared to what they would have to go through in Greece where the Germans had already basically covered the only points of invasion and would probably heavily defend or counterattack along the invasion routes inland from Salonika or Alexandroupoli - think Battle of the Bulge a year or two earlier (when the Germans still have a much better ability to counterattack) in the valleys of Macedonia.
Holding Crete makes a big difference to air cover and reinforcement logistics in the Dodecanese.
True.
So does not having an ally pull forces out of the assault a fortnight before the operation.
Instead the ally in question never supports it to beginwith.
America's view on winning the war was short sighted to the point of naivety.
Yup, which is why they lost.
The object of the exercise was to liberate Europe (remember Poland?),
There is
no practical way to get a large British army to help out Poland directly. That was seen from as far back as 1939 when instead of using the RN to blast their way through the Baltic to land the BEF and a French expenditionary force, the British and French decided to prepare to defend France and beat Germany in the west.
Actually, beating Germany is the
quickest way of liberating Europe. The Germans in northern Italy and in Norway and Denmark all surrendered without a shot once their superiors in the government and the military all surrendered. There was no need to invade Norway despite the Allies have at least 2 plans to do.
There would be very little point in beating around the bush (liberating Europe inch by inch) when simply going for the root of the problem (Germany) would achieve the same objective and possibly in a shorter time.
Plus invading through the Balkans in 1943 is still no guarantee of liberating Poland directly since any major Balkan front along the lines of D-Day (which is very unlikely) would probably pull a lot of German reserves off the front with the USSR - so that gives the USSR an easier and earlier shot of going through Poland and to Berlin (and the terrain through Belarus and Poland is much more easier to navigate than through the Balkans with the Carpathians in the way and the generally mountainous terrain before you get to the Danubian plain).
Even with reinforcement, Europe's southern coastline was always going to be weaker than the Atlantic wall.
Which is why Accolade in the Dodecanese was a success and D-Day a failure.
An earlier Western front takes the western allies off the hook with Uncle Joe.
Well not a "western" front per se. More a Balkan front. But of course it is les pressure on Germany since it is so close to the eastern front that it essentially becomes a part of it and we have a one front war.
He can be estranged in terms of political support and lend lease (we need that production and shipping for Italy and Bulgaria).
American lend-lease wasn't so skimpy that production and shipping for Italy and Bulgaria was going to cause any noticeable drop in the supplies sent to the USSR.
And Italy and Bulgaria need to join the Allies first, which isn't guaranteed with a stop in southern Italy and any landing in Greece which could well be stopped even if not defeated.
The threat of a landing in Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, northern France, southern France, northern Italy or even the western Balkans still ties up troops. The small fraction involved in north Africa in OTL is soon diluted among so many points of entry in TTL.
Actually no. Norway was the least likely point for an invasion and everyone knew that because invading Norway would mean having to invade Denmark thereafter. Southern France is going to require Corsica and Sardinia, so if those aren't taken then the more reserves will be sent to the Channel, Belgium and Italy.
Unlike the Channel and Belgium all the other points of invasion are going to require preliminary operations that will tip the Germans off as to where to expect something major - Norway will tip them off to Denmark,; the Dodecanese will tip them off to Greece; Pantelleria tips them off to Sicily and in turn Sicily tips them off to Italy; Corsica and Sardinia (or failing those, southern and central Italy) tips them off to southern France. Once the Allies focus on the Dodecanese the main German reinforcements are going to be sent to southern Italy (to drive the Allies out if they invade and stop) and to the Balkans. One big fear would be for the Allies to link up in eastern Europe with the Soviets driving down from the north and the British, Americans and French driving up from the south. No way Germany's leaders are even going to want to entertain that possibility.
