plot against the Casablanca Conference succeeds

Do you mean Operation Longjump? That was directed against the Tehran Conference.

Or do you mean: what if the plot of movie Desert Commandos (1967) was real?
 
Do you mean Operation Longjump? That was directed against the Tehran Conference.

Or do you mean: what if the plot of movie Desert Commandos (1967) was real?

my understanding the al-Husseini (Grand Mufti) organization tipped the Germans about Operation Torch.

so in reading articles about Operation Long Jump was thinking an action against Casablanca seems more feasible?
 
my understanding the al-Husseini (Grand Mufti) organization tipped the Germans about Operation Torch

First I've ever heard of such a thing. And it doesn't make much sense. Husseini had no particular influence or connections outside Palestine and the Near East, nor any "organization" besides his clan in Palestine. He was in exile in Berlin, anyway. How would he "run" agents in French North Africa?

so in reading articles about Operation Long Jump was thinking an action against Casablanca seems more feasible?

Perhaps; but the Casablanca Conference was several months after TORCH.
 
First I've ever heard of such a thing. And it doesn't make much sense. Husseini had no particular influence or connections outside Palestine and the Near East, nor any "organization" besides his clan in Palestine. He was in exile in Berlin, anyway. How would he "run" agents in French North Africa?

Perhaps; but the Casablanca Conference was several months after TORCH.

trying to run down that particular quote, not quite sure what the timing of Torch vs. later Casablanca Conference has to do with anything? the occupation of Iran occurred in 1941 and they were attempting an operation there in 1943? so on the face of it they must have had or felt they had operatives still in place?

my interest was not however in speculative details of the particular operation, but the effects. anything that stalls the Allies in North Africa? or bypasses Italy for earlier attempt on France? (with Roosevelt and Churchill gone)
 
Grand Mufti source for Allied landings was (allegedly) Sultan of Morocco The Unseen War in Europe by John H. Waller pp. 251-252
 
Grand Mufti source for Allied landings was (allegedly) Sultan of Morocco The Unseen War in Europe by John H. Waller pp. 251-252

Always good to have a definite cite. I hate having to write "ISTR".

However, this sounds dubious. How would the Sultan have known in advance of TORCH? AFAIK, Allied pre-landing contacts in French North Africa were confined to the pro-Allied conspirators in the French regime. (That is, contacts where the landings would have been disclosed. Consul Murphy and his staff had formal contacts with loyal Vichy adminstrators such as Nogués, but would have told them nothing.)
 
trying to run down that particular quote, not quite sure what the timing of Torch vs. later Casablanca Conference has to do with anything? the occupation of Iran occurred in 1941 and they were attempting an operation there in 1943? so on the face of it they must have had or felt they had operatives still in place?

my interest was not however in speculative details of the particular operation, but the effects. anything that stalls the Allies in North Africa? or bypasses Italy for earlier attempt on France? (with Roosevelt and Churchill gone)

Grand Mufti source for Allied landings was (allegedly) Sultan of Morocco The Unseen War in Europe by John H. Waller pp. 251-252

Always good to have a definite cite. I hate having to write "ISTR".

However, this sounds dubious. How would the Sultan have known in advance of TORCH? AFAIK, Allied pre-landing contacts in French North Africa were confined to the pro-Allied conspirators in the French regime. (That is, contacts where the landings would have been disclosed. Consul Murphy and his staff had formal contacts with loyal Vichy adminstrators such as Nogués, but would have told them nothing.)

my point was Germany would likely have had more ability to penetrate into Morocco than Iran, and at a time when any such operation would have had more effects?
 
Ok, assuming some sort Axis special ops team pulls it off. Churchill & Roosevelt are dead. The OP indicates only those two are dead & no others are casualties. That is the Joint Chiefs & two dozen other staff survive.

1. The Brits do their PM selection thing & a new PM is now in the war time control seat of the empire. Vice President Henry Wallace is sworn in as the New US President.

2. the Joint Chiefs can continue the conference, but its unlikely any binding decisions will be reached after the deaths. The new PM & President will naturally want to review everything discussed anyway before signing off or vetoing decisions/recommendations.

3. Another conference will be scheduled ASAP.

4. A big one is if Roosevelt is alive long enough to put the Unconditional Surrender policy into place. If thats been published by the press its pretty much Allied policy. Stimson, Knox, Marshal & a number of other powerful insiders had previously discussed the policy and signed of on it, before the SYMBOL conference. It the deaths occur before the surrender policy is broached by Roosevelt then it may be a year or more before others among the US leadership push it into policy.

5. The question of Allied strategy for 1943 is left hanging until Wallace & the new PM figure out which recommendations to approve. Ike will have guidance to finish up in Tunisia as fast as practical & some vague guidance for planning further ops in the Med. but nothing like the guidance and commitment of forces as in OTL. that will have to come after the new PM & Pres. get a grip.
 
Ok, assuming some sort Axis special ops team pulls it off. Churchill & Roosevelt are dead. The OP indicates only those two are dead & no others are casualties. That is the Joint Chiefs & two dozen other staff survive.

NED is a problem.

1. The Brits do their PM selection thing & a new PM is now in the war time control seat of the empire. Vice President Henry Wallace is sworn in as the New US President.

a. I have no certain idea who succeeds Churchill. If it is Atlee, things go on as RTL with the IGS more or less carrying out the British preferred peripheral strategy. If it is someone else, then we could see American political/military muscle flexed sooner, with frankly disastrous mid-war results before Wallace is impeached and jailed for treason.

b. Henry Wallace... I don't know. the guy was a progressive and a modernist with the correct peacetime ideas, but in the middle of a world war where national survival is at stake, you want a Truman, not a dreamer and a fool. And Wallace was both.
2. the Joint Chiefs can continue the conference, but its unlikely any binding decisions will be reached after the deaths. The new PM & President will naturally want to review everything discussed anyway before signing off or vetoing decisions/recommendations.

If I am Marshall and King I am very nervous. If I am Alanbrooke, I can work with Atlee, easily as he will listen, but Wallace will come as a complete shock.

3. Another conference will be scheduled ASAP.

c. Agreed.

4. A big one is if Roosevelt is alive long enough to put the Unconditional Surrender policy into place. If that's been published by the press its pretty much Allied policy. Stimson, Knox, Marshal & a number of other powerful insiders had previously discussed the policy and signed of on it, before the SYMBOL conference. It the deaths occur before the surrender policy is broached by Roosevelt then it may be a year or more before others among the US leadership push it into policy.

d. It may be the policy, but Wallace is, what was known at the time, "a fellow traveler" or deluded pro-Stalin apologist. Some really hard decisions are coming post Torch, some which are frankly necessary and anti-Soviet. FDR was probably the BEST strategist among the Allied leaders and the best politician. He could assess risks with a cats whisker fineness and sell it to Stalin. Wallace apparently from the historical record was something of a damned fool, when it came to geopolitics and grand strategy. Stalin might sell him a process that would lead to Wally disaster and to Stalin triumphant. We really needed the shark-like and shrewd FDR to manage a monster like the Russian mass murderer and dictator as a useful ally.

5. The question of Allied strategy for 1943 is left hanging until Wallace & the new PM figure out which recommendations to approve. Ike will have guidance to finish up in Tunisia as fast as practical & some vague guidance for planning further ops in the Med. but nothing like the guidance and commitment of forces as in OTL. that will have to come after the new PM & Pres. get a grip.

e. Better hope in that ATL, that whoever is British is at least as strong and firm as Churchill or that Wallace is impeached soonest and Rayburn takes over. Rayburn was TOUGH and he learned fast. Marshal can mentor him.
 
Ok, assuming some sort Axis special ops team pulls it off. Churchill & Roosevelt are dead. The OP indicates only those two are dead & no others are casualties. That is the Joint Chiefs & two dozen other staff survive.

well ... first did not want to debate the details of any raid, so left it open ended, second had in mind the single gunman that had just assassinated Adm. Darlan. (which scenario would suggest only one or two victims but did not intend to limit it to that so did not suggest that?)

(of course it would be interesting to have your views on the relative importance of the other participants! so feel free!)
 
January 1943 may be early enough Roosevelt's staff can influence Wallace. One of the problems of 1943-44 was leaving him out of the information and planning loop. Like many VP he was given the mushroom treatment. Truman knew nothing of the MANHATTEN project, or of the previous conferences with Stalin & Churchill.
 
The question of Allied strategy for 1943 is left hanging until Wallace & the new PM figure out which recommendations to approve. Ike will have guidance to finish up in Tunisia as fast as practical & some vague guidance for planning further ops in the Med. but nothing like the guidance and commitment of forces as in OTL. that will have to come after the new PM & Pres. get a grip.

I have no certain idea who succeeds Churchill. If it is Atlee, things go on as RTL with the IGS more or less carrying out the British preferred peripheral strategy. If it is someone else, then we could see American political/military muscle flexed sooner, with frankly disastrous mid-war results ...

are we speculating weeks or months of delays? and at what stage, a delayed invasion of Sicily or earlier? long enough for Axis to try their own version of Dunkirk rescue? (from Tunisia)
 
are we speculating weeks or months of delays? and at what stage, a delayed invasion of Sicily or earlier? long enough for Axis to try their own version of Dunkirk rescue? (from Tunisia)

I don't know. If the RM tries, it dies.

BTW, US succession is FAST, mere minutes, how quickly can the crown do it? Parliamentary can be somewhat involved?
 
are we speculating weeks or months of delays? and at what stage, a delayed invasion of Sicily or earlier? long enough for Axis to try their own version of Dunkirk rescue? (from Tunisia)

I don't know. If the RM tries, it dies.

BTW, US succession is FAST, mere minutes, how quickly can the crown do it? Parliamentary can be somewhat involved?

for the leadership change was considering how long for new US and UK leaders to agree on plans.

for evacuation Rommel was proposing it? delusional? or just willing to sacrifice the RM to retrieve ??? half the troops?
 
for the leadership change was considering how long for new US and UK leaders to agree on plans.

for evacuation Rommel was proposing it? delusional? or just willing to sacrifice the RM to retrieve ??? half the troops?

Rommel was a landlubber who knew nothing about logistics or seapower... Airpower came as quite a shock to him, too. Clueless.
 
... long enough for Axis to try their own version of Dunkirk rescue? (from Tunisia)

The Axis tried and failed at evacuation. A few thousand we're saved, over 200,000 lost.

Rommel was a landlubber who knew nothing about logistics or seapower... Airpower came as quite a shock to him, too. Clueless.

The shock was a 3-1 operational air superiority. Not only did the Allies triple the number of aircraft in the Med, but their operating methods increased the effective sortie rate. Dolittle and the other Allied air commanders worked out mehodologies for out fighting the Axis at the operational and stratigic level, over Tunis and the Sicillian straits. In a few months the Axis air forces went from superiority to beaten in the Med.
 
Top