What would it take to force a 1943 invasion of France?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What would be enough to convince the Wallies to launch an invasion of France in 1943? Would having the V-1 system attacking London be enough? Would it have to be a collapse of the USSR? Or something else? I'm assuming this would mean foregoing Torch in 1942 and using those forces to invade France in 1943.
 
If the WALLIES stopped the U-Boat campaign dead in early 1942 it might be doable in 1943. However US war production was still ramping up and the logistics would still have been difficult. The US army was still expanding in 1943 and a lot of troops were still relatively untrained and unprepared for combat, green troops with 18 months of post-basic experience are still much better than green troops posted straight to the front. In 1943 a lot of those troops were still relatively green and hadn't had time to grow into their roles or have the benefit of the extensive exercises they would have had in OTL when training for Overlord.

The real danger of a 1943 invasion was that there would have been fewer air assets to carry out the air interdiction plan to stop the Germans reinforcing their forces in France. The logistics were not there to allow for a sustained campaign which would likely have run out of steam well short of the German border leaving them vulnerable to counter attack.

An invasion in 1943 could be carried out in that the landings may well be successful and some headway would be made in retaking the continent, I just think it would likely have degenerated into a stalemate which would have dragged on into late 1944 with much heavier losses than in OTL and still not have ended before 1945 anyway.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Eliminating Torch is really difficult. The U.S. didn't have the manpower to send to England at that point, but the political environment more or less demanded that American troops engage somewhere.

Landing in France at some point in 1943, by itself, would require the U.S. becomes completely dominant in war planning to the point that the British just agreed to whatever the Americans want even if they believe it would result in a slaughter of British troops, the complete roll back of the U-boat threat by mid 1942 or an impending Soviet collapse.
 
Yes they were, but it doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Don't forget that there was US pressure for an invasion in 1942 as well.
 
Perhaps a better start to WW2 by Britain would be enough: A better showing in Norway, sinking the S&G and not losing the Glorious, pulling the BEFs equipment out of France, a very different Greece/Crete/Desert where Crete holds and Rommel is engaged by the full 2nd Armoured and doesn't get past Gazala, Ark Royal doesn't sink, Force Z doesn't sink, Britain holds southern Malaya/Singapore/Sumatra.

That's quite the list I know, but all of them are quite small campaigns in themselves and are not related to one another and Germany and Japan managed to string together a bunch of victories so it's not ASB. At the end of it in 1942 the Axis is contained much more closely, Torch goes into Sicily and perhaps the conditions are right for France in 1943.
 
...

Landing in France at some point in 1943, by itself, would require the U.S. becomes completely dominant in war planning to the point that the British just agreed to whatever the Americans want even if they believe it would result in a slaughter of British troops, the complete roll back of the U-boat threat by mid 1942 or an impending Soviet collapse.

Possiblly not. Dill as CIGS had been keeping staff busy studying the problem. Staff studies were done & plans for a 1942 invasion were actually started. All that ended when Brooke replaced Dill as CIGS. It is conceivable that had Dill out manuvered Churchill & remained CIGS The Brit attitude and leadership in this direction would have been different.

If the WALLIES stopped the U-Boat campaign dead in early 1942 it might be doable in 1943. ...

I need to search out documentation for a Brit admiral claiming that the dispersal of escorts and cargo shipping for Op Torch in 1942 & the subsequent Tunisian campaign did serious damage to the Allies in the battle of the Atlantic. The argument was concentration of ASW assets in the north Atlantic would have revealed the defeat of the submarines three to four months earlier. If I recall the arguments correctly Donitz would have seen the unsustanable losses of March & April as early as November or December.
 
Last edited:
What would be enough to convince the Wallies to launch an invasion of France in 1943? Would having the V-1 system attacking London be enough? Would it have to be a collapse of the USSR? Or something else? I'm assuming this would mean foregoing Torch in 1942 and using those forces to invade France in 1943.

The Med landing was driven by Churchill's soft underbelly approach, who fearful of WW1 like losses sought an indirect method of winning the war by attacking and knocking out Italy.

Being the then senior partner in terms of experience and actual forces Churchill was able to push for this strategy

However I believe that this was a mistake, Italy turned out to be a tough old gut and the Invasion of France should have been conducted in 1943.

While the Allies had more equipment and air power and operational knowledge in 1944 - there was far less defences and forces stationed in France to oppose them in 1943.

As for Italy, by all means fake an invasion build up. Bring Italy to the negotiating table and present soft terms to them - anything to remove them from the Axis and free up the med

But the only way to stop WW2 in Europe was to knock out Germany and for the Wallies the only realistic way of doing this was Via France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Now perhaps several members of the Cabinet, Smuts, the Canadians etc being more in favour of the direct approach via France

Perhaps the true horror of what is occurring in occupied Europe becomes common knowledge by early 43 and this moves the British and American People and many in the Military and free forces to demand and earlier invasion.

Rains ideas for a better start might also help things but the whole not going via France was a Churchill decision.
 
The quick answer was a collapse of the Soviet Army. Say a German victory at Stalingrad followed by a victory at Kursk and another threat to Moscow.

This would have caused a quick reaction invasion to draw off German strength.
 
....

As for Italy, by all means fake an invasion build up. Bring Italy to the negotiating table and present soft terms to them - anything to remove them from the Axis and free up the med

..

Economically Italy was on the ropes before the end of 1942. Mussolinis stubborness prevented any realisitc planning for exiting the war. This economic collapse would occur whatever the Allies do. If the Allies have a viable lodgement in France Hitlers credibility will be reduced & the Facist Grand Council is liable to take the same action they did OTL in 1943. Simply a cease fire with Italy pending negotiations could open the Mediterranean sea route for the Allies.
 
The quick answer was a collapse of the Soviet Army. Say a German victory at Stalingrad followed by a victory at Kursk and another threat to Moscow.

This would have caused a quick reaction invasion to draw off German strength.

Alternately a worse defeat in in the east for the Axis, resulting in a weaker defense in the west. That scenario was the basis for the 'Round Up' option & the 'Rankin' plans
 
What would be enough to convince the Wallies to launch an invasion of France in 1943? Would having the V-1 system attacking London be enough? Would it have to be a collapse of the USSR? Or something else? I'm assuming this would mean foregoing Torch in 1942 and using those forces to invade France in 1943.

If the USSR was collapsing do you think the US/UK would rush together an invasion to attempt to get a foothold on the continent before the Germans could bring troops back from the east? Or would that delay the invasion past June 1944 since it might take more time to soften up Germany and build up the US forces to insure the invasion would be a success.

If the USSR collapsed and US/UK rushed an invasion it might fail. A disastrous invasion wouldn't go over well with the public and would probably delay a second invasion well past 1944.
 
Economically Italy was on the ropes before the end of 1942. Mussolinis stubborness prevented any realisitc planning for exiting the war. This economic collapse would occur whatever the Allies do. If the Allies have a viable lodgement in France Hitlers credibility will be reduced & the Facist Grand Council is liable to take the same action they did OTL in 1943. Simply a cease fire with Italy pending negotiations could open the Mediterranean sea route for the Allies.

I would have accepted that.

An Armistice of sorts?

Sicily and Italy cost the Allies 1/3 million casualties and over 8000 Aircraft lost not to mention the actual number of troops and amount of resources used in the campaign.
 
...
An Armistice of sorts?

...

The complication is the German forces in the Med, The Italians have to deal with a threat there. Best case for the Allies is the German land and air power is frantically withdrawn from the Med. to France, leaving Italy vulnerable to the Allied threats in the autum & unfettered by some stray German armies in Italy.

If a powerful German force remains in Italy then perhaps a Italian exit is delayed of made messy. However every German corps in the Med is one not in France.
 
I would have accepted that.

An Armistice of sorts?

Sicily and Italy cost the Allies 1/3 million casualties and over 8000 Aircraft lost not to mention the actual number of troops and amount of resources used in the campaign.

Roosevelt was pretty adamant that the only acceptable outcome was unconditional surrender from Germany, Italy and Japan. What would change his mind to accept a separate peace deal with Italy? What would Italy have to give up?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Force? Not much, other than:

What would be enough to convince the Wallies to launch an invasion of France in 1943? Would having the V-1 system attacking London be enough? Would it have to be a collapse of the USSR? Or something else? I'm assuming this would mean foregoing Torch in 1942 and using those forces to invade France in 1943.

Force? Not much, other than:

A) the Russians losing big in 1942, but remaining in the fight; if they actually do collapse, the Allies aren't going to go all in...

Or:

B) something like the 1939 Oslo Report comes into the hands of the Allies in 1942, but with details on the German atomic, biological, and chemical weapon research programs.

Best,
 
Roosevelt was pretty adamant that the only acceptable outcome was unconditional surrender from Germany, Italy and Japan. What would change his mind to accept a separate peace deal with Italy? What would Italy have to give up?

Churchill doing his nut when Roosevelt dropped the 'Unconditional surrender' bombshell at Tehran and the press suddenly finding their Camera films and recordings confiscated and being 'urged' not to report/or urged to forget what FDR had just said or for that matter Churchill's tantrum. This might give elements in Italy committed to getting out of the war more leverage in doing just that!

What would Itlay have to do? - Brain dump time

I imagine that the Italian Fleet would have to sail to Valletta or even further afield and kept under the guns of the Med fleet (much like the HSF at the end of WW1) until a proper peace deal could be hammered out.

Who knows maybe those lovely Italian Fast BBs and Cruisers might see action in the Far East in 45 post a US refit as part of an Italian Contribution? :D

Italian formations in Russia would have to remain in place in the east - this is a difficult one - some how convincing the Russians to repatriate an Italian Army - maybe if it was kept secret enough the Italians minus their weapons could be repatriated via Iran? Perhaps the Russians could exploit the sudden holes opening in the lines etc but I suspect that the Germans would have gotten wind of what was happening and might interfere

German forces in Italy would have to be allowed to leave - again a difficult problem - I suspect this might lead to bloodshed anyway - Germany would then be obliged to leave forces in Austria and South Eastern France watching Italy

I can see the Allies possibly having to conduct an invasion of sorts if the Germans tried to take control in Italy during the confusion of the Armistice similar to OTL - but instead of an invasion to topple the government - one launched to save it - although after the Husky ops I suspect that more Germans would have been in country including some very powerful armoured units - and this would not be the case in TTL and an Italy intent on becoming a Neutral with fewer German forces in country might possible be able to pull it off.

Off course there were a fair amount of Italians who were just as Fascist as the Nazis. They would also be a problem.

I can imagine serious internal issues even if they did pull it off

Poor poor Italy :(

Mean while those forces that OTL invaded Sicily and Italy instead invade France.

Who knows after a successful invasion of France the Italians join the Allies - flush with US Built arms and open up a 3rd front with limited Allied involvement
 
Churchill doing his nut when Roosevelt dropped the 'Unconditional surrender' bombshell at Tehran

Casablanca: The Symbol Confrence in Morroco in january 1943. Near the end of the several days of meetings Roosevelt told Churchill he was including the Unc Sur item in the official joint policy document for public release. This was in a one/one meeting between the two with only a few aides & clerks present. Churchill had other things on his mind & did not much consider the implications.

In any case the policy was only enforced in the case of Germany. Eight months later Eisenhower was given authority to negotiate the Italian surrender & a number of significant conditions were included. i.e.: the Italian government remained intact & nominally running Italy, the Italian army remained in existence, & was eventually rearmed (tho a small volunteer force). Italian police & civil authority retained their identity & significant authority.

If paying lip service to the US policy is what it takes to get Italy into a cease fire then I suspect that will be done.


What would Itlay have to do? - Brain dump time

I imagine that the Italian Fleet would have to sail to Valletta or even further afield and kept under the guns of the Med fleet (much like the HSF at the end of WW1) until a proper peace deal could be hammered out.

Who knows maybe those lovely Italian Fast BBs and Cruisers might see action in the Far East in 45 post a US refit as part of an Italian Contribution? :D

Italian formations in Russia would have to remain in place in the east - this is a difficult one - some how convincing the Russians to repatriate an Italian Army - maybe if it was kept secret enough the Italians minus their weapons could be repatriated via Iran? Perhaps the Russians could exploit the sudden holes opening in the lines etc but I suspect that the Germans would have gotten wind of what was happening and might interfere

German forces in Italy would have to be allowed to leave - again a difficult problem - I suspect this might lead to bloodshed anyway - Germany would then be obliged to leave forces in Austria and South Eastern France watching Italy

I can see the Allies possibly having to conduct an invasion of sorts if the Germans tried to take control in Italy during the confusion of the Armistice similar to OTL - but instead of an invasion to topple the government - one launched to save it - although after the Husky ops I suspect that more Germans would have been in country including some very powerful armoured units - and this would not be the case in TTL and an Italy intent on becoming a Neutral with fewer German forces in country might possible be able to pull it off.

Off course there were a fair amount of Italians who were just as Fascist as the Nazis. They would also be a problem.

I can imagine serious internal issues even if they did pull it off

Poor poor Italy :(

Mean while those forces that OTL invaded Sicily and Italy instead invade France.

Who knows after a successful invasion of France the Italians join the Allies - flush with US Built arms and open up a 3rd front with limited Allied involvement

Food and cash would be far more useful for the Italians, and coal. OTL the need to supply southern Italy with fuel, food, and health supplies proved a major drain on Allied shipping. I've seen some rough numbers that suggest the shipping cost of keeping the southern Italian population alive in 1944 offset a large part of the savings from reopening the Mediteranean sea route. Not much use in sending new arms to Italy if the population is dying from the cold in the winter of 1943/44.
 
According to Robert James Maddox (In *The New Left and the Origins of the Cold War*), pp. 114-15, the notion of Churchill's shock and disagreement over the "unconditional surrender" policy FDR unveiled at Casablanca is a long-exploded myth. Citing John L. Chase, "Unconditional Surrender Reconsidered" (*Political Science Quarterly* LXX June 1955; reprinted in Robert A. Divine, ed., *Causes and Consequences of World War II*) and Herbert Feis, *Churchill-Roosevelt-Stalin* (pp. 110-111), Maddox states that Chucrchill may have been surprised by FDR's *timing* but not by the policy itself. Nor did he disapprove of it at the time, as is shown by his message to the War Cabinet several days earlier: "We propose to draw up a statement of the work of the conference for communication to the press at the proper time", he said, and asked the War Cabinet's view of "including in this statement a declaration of the firm intention of the United States and the British Empire to continue the war relentlessly until we have brought about the 'unconditional surrender' of Germany and Japan."

See Feis's discussion at https://archive.org/stream/churchillrooseve007330mbp#page/n125/mode/2up
 
Top