Right - I'm working on a new version of my Comrade Cripps timeline (new POD, new direction, generally greater coherence) and I have found that my knowledge of the military side of Britain's war effort is generally lacking. This is causing me quite a few headaches and I thought, with nothing to lose, that I might ask the forum for help on the military side of things.

So, the POD is in early 1942 (just after the Fall of Singapore). What I know about Stafford Cripps on the running of the war is covered in these points:
  • Cripps advocated for a "second front" as soon as possible to alleviate the pressures upon the Soviet Union.
  • He wanted a "War Planning Directorate" to advise on broad strategy for the entire war and serve as a counterweight to the Chiefs of Staff.
  • He advocated for empowering the Ministry of Production and placing a new Ministry of Materials and Machine Tools under its oversight.
  • His plan was to streamline bodies concerned with scientific research and development necessary for the war effort.
  • And, finally, he wished to bring the United Kingdom into closer co-operation with the Soviet Union in actually fighting the war and in forging an alliance that would last beyond the final victory.

How would these policies and ideas have altered Britain's prosecution of the Second World War and what might have the effect of having someone like Sir Stafford Cripps (a radical socialist with a keen logical mind and an impressive record in organisation and administration) as Prime Minister during the war years been on Britain's conduct of the war?
 

Sideways

Donor
Right - I'm working on a new version of my Comrade Cripps timeline (new POD, new direction, generally greater coherence) and I have found that my knowledge of the military side of Britain's war effort is generally lacking. This is causing me quite a few headaches and I thought, with nothing to lose, that I might ask the forum for help on the military side of things.

So, the POD is in early 1942 (just after the Fall of Singapore). What I know about Stafford Cripps on the running of the war is covered in these points:
  • Cripps advocated for a "second front" as soon as possible to alleviate the pressures upon the Soviet Union.
  • He wanted a "War Planning Directorate" to advise on broad strategy for the entire war and serve as a counterweight to the Chiefs of Staff.
  • He advocated for empowering the Ministry of Production and placing a new Ministry of Materials and Machine Tools under its oversight.
  • His plan was to streamline bodies concerned with scientific research and development necessary for the war effort.
  • And, finally, he wished to bring the United Kingdom into closer co-operation with the Soviet Union in actually fighting the war and in forging an alliance that would last beyond the final victory.

How would these policies and ideas have altered Britain's prosecution of the Second World War and what might have the effect of having someone like Sir Stafford Cripps (a radical socialist with a keen logical mind and an impressive record in organisation and administration) as Prime Minister during the war years been on Britain's conduct of the war?

Your questions pale into insignificance compared to the issue of how you get a Labour government (with a POD of after 1931 - if he enters parliament as OTL). You've already got a different lead up to war, and you might have a subtly different Nazi regime too.
 
Your questions pale into insignificance compared to the issue of how you get a Labour government (with a POD of after 1931 - if he enters parliament as OTL). You've already got a different lead up to war, and you might have a subtly different Nazi regime too.

As I mentioned in the OP, I already have how Cripps comes to power sorted out. It's a POD that has never been used, as far as I know, and it takes place in early 1942.
 
Well, a streamlined R&D would probably accelerate everyone's favourite euphemism, Tube Alloys, which is a major game-changer to start with.
 
How would these policies and ideas have altered Britain's prosecution of the Second World War and what might have the effect of having someone like Sir Stafford Cripps (a radical socialist with a keen logical mind and an impressive record in organisation and administration) as Prime Minister during the war years been on Britain's conduct of the war?

Opening a second front would need alot of resources - and 1942 is very late in the day to move resources around.

The logical thing to do would be to reduce the resources invested in Bomber Command, since OTL it consumed something like 80% of the British resources. I wonder if '42 is early enough to get much out of cutting down Bomber Command and boosting the army though?

Almost certainly, "second front" would mean clearing out North Africa and then launching an invasion of Italy as per OTL. The Brits could invade Greece, but they can't threaten Germany much from there. France is beyond Britain's capabilities until '44 if they get very lucky or, more likely, '45. The main limitation in where Britain can invade being how much landing craft they have.

And an Anglo-Soviet alliance after WW2 would actually be enough to challenge the US in close to equal terms. Could lead to a very interesting cold war.

Also, a more leftist post-war government might be just the thing needed to make a British Commonwealth that had a real use.

fasquardon
 
IIRC, Stalin's opinion of Cripps was not exactly positive. That might cause problems for a proper UK-USSR alliance.
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
IIRC, Stalin's opinion of Cripps was not exactly positive. That might cause problems for a proper UK-USSR alliance.
Though I do like the idea of a left wing UK more sympathetic to the Soviet Union. That means the anglosphere won't be united as such in anti-communism. If US nuclear planners have to consider attacking the UK-oh wow.

I can personally imagine the CIA even attempting some good old fashioned coup de etats if push comes to shove.
 
Afraid I don't know enough about Cripps to offer advice but the idea seem interesting so I'll keep a watch on this thread.
 
Someone noted earlier that Stalin did not have a high opinion of Cripps (which I didn't know about) but the opposite was also true, Cripps although a man of the left had few illusions about the nature of Stalin's regime after his time as Ambassador. But did take the hugely unwise step of agreeing to licence jet engine designs to the Soviet Union post-war. Main butterflies would presumably be in India where he would offer more concessions than Churchill was willing to? Also opposed the black propaganda campaign against Nazi Germany. A bit too naïve (though not that naïve -one of the few socialists to visit the USSR and see at least part of the reality rather than the illusion) and idealistic for a proper war leader?
 
Someone noted earlier that Stalin did not have a high opinion of Cripps (which I didn't know about) but the opposite was also true, Cripps although a man of the left had few illusions about the nature of Stalin's regime after his time as Ambassador.

Well, there are two parts to this. One is Cripps' opinion of Stalin, which was fairly low, and the other is the nature of the Soviet Union.

What Cripps did was draw a line, marking out what was the fault of Stalin and what was good about the Soviet system that he could see. In that respect, Cripps pro-Soviet views made quite a bit of sense. His intellectual background, which was couched in the pro-Sovietism of the Webbs, allowed him to steer clear of the personal disputes (as was his nature) and look upon the wider picture. It was his still his mission to ally Britain and the Soviet Union without believing the quite moronic idea that Stalin's regime could be transplanted into the British political system.

Main butterflies would presumably be in India where he would offer more concessions than Churchill was willing to?

Very likely, yes. He didn't have the same attachment that Churchill had and was a very close and personal friend of Nehru's in the 1930s, so perhaps a more open discussion of Indian independence could be had.

Also opposed the black propaganda campaign against Nazi Germany. A bit too naïve (though not that naïve -one of the few socialists to visit the USSR and see at least part of the reality rather than the illusion) and idealistic for a proper war leader?

Not at all. The man was in favour of the strategic bombing of Germany when it had many pacifistic critics, going so far as to affirm that it was part of the pilot's moral duty to terrorise Germany and bring the war to a closer end through such means.

What Stafford Cripps opposed wasn't "black propaganda" in the sense of condemning Nazi Germany, but the specific nature of some broadcasts that made allusions to unsavoury sexual practices that the Nazi leadership may have indulged in. He thought that was a waste of time and rather inappropriate for broadcast.
 
Right - I'm working on a new version of my Comrade Cripps timeline (new POD, new direction, generally greater coherence) and I have found that my knowledge of the military side of Britain's war effort is generally lacking. This is causing me quite a few headaches and I thought, with nothing to lose, that I might ask the forum for help on the military side of things.

So, the POD is in early 1942 (just after the Fall of Singapore). What I know about Stafford Cripps on the running of the war is covered in these points:
  • Cripps advocated for a "second front" as soon as possible to alleviate the pressures upon the Soviet Union.
  • He wanted a "War Planning Directorate" to advise on broad strategy for the entire war and serve as a counterweight to the Chiefs of Staff.
  • He advocated for empowering the Ministry of Production and placing a new Ministry of Materials and Machine Tools under its oversight.
  • His plan was to streamline bodies concerned with scientific research and development necessary for the war effort.
  • And, finally, he wished to bring the United Kingdom into closer co-operation with the Soviet Union in actually fighting the war and in forging an alliance that would last beyond the final victory.

How would these policies and ideas have altered Britain's prosecution of the Second World War and what might have the effect of having someone like Sir Stafford Cripps (a radical socialist with a keen logical mind and an impressive record in organisation and administration) as Prime Minister during the war years been on Britain's conduct of the war?


My few thoughts.
1. Is possible, depending on the time of the POD. The US was keen on invading in 1942 or 43, the British (Churchill and Brookes) knew it was unrealistic, and since most of the soldiers would be British, it was vetoed. Searching the after 1900 forum under "Operation Roundup" should give some hits. Hopefully this thread works. new forum problems. Basically, a mid 1943 invasion is possible if planning by April 1942; prob too early for your POD. Cancelling US Pacific operations, and limiting most Med ones as well, should get you enough shipping- seemed to the main limitation for a 1943 invasion. Most troops will be British, so you've got more pull in making it work. The WAllies had a plan to rush an invasion late 1942/ 1943 if USSR or Germany was giving up. Have Stalin threaten to pull out if no 2nd Front by July 1943?

2. Good luck, from my limited knowledge. Brookes and the other military leaders leaders prob won't go for it- they threatened to resign en masse in 1945 (1944?) when Churchill proposed freeing Burma instead of bombing Japan. So they are not pushovers (handy dealing with Churchill, of course). Brookes is your main opponent to a 1943 invasion, so... have the POD take him as well, perhaps?

3. No clue. Truman got major publicity from chairing the Senate committee on military wasteful spending, I believe. Have something like that here? The British had a Ministry of Supply, but I jsut found out about it, so no idea. Possible?

4. Just facing the normal opposition from bureaucrats protecting their turf. So possible, but Meadow/ Roem/ iaianbx/ (others I've insulted by not including DanielA) might have an idea how to streamline an organization while undercutting opposition to it and still having it be productive. Cross-pollination with the RN, RAF, Army, and civilians transferred into other branches? Or at least points of contacts? Have to balance secrecy and information, though.

5. FDR feels like he'd be the most supportive of this, no idea how that translates into help in the UK. Doubt Stalin would allow troops on his soil; unsure if you were thinking of that.
 
Top