WI the Torch landings were further east per British preference, & North Africa cleared earlier?

[raharris1973]

Stevep:
Historically Operation Torch was a compromise with the US insisting on landings on the Atlantic coastline of Morocco for fear that landings further east would possibly see the forces cut off if Hitler was able to persuade Franco to join the Axis and hence possibly close the Med to allied forces and supplies. This dragged the British landings westwards as well. Originally Britain wanted to land further east including IIRC in N Tunisia. This would have made it much more difficult for the Axis to occupy Tunisia so you could have seen most/all of FNA liberated while Rommel and his Italian allies were retreating from 2nd El Alamein. In that case you could have seen N Africa cleared a few months earlier. The down side of this would have been the POW haul would have been less as those German forces sent to occupy Tunisia OTL won't have gone along with similar air and logistical resources savings for then as well. Also the forces that landed in FNA wouldn't have had the battle experience they gained OTL and exposing some of the problems which could occur later in a more dangerous situation.

What if the Americans relaxed their fears about a possible Spanish entry at this late date, and agreed to forego Atlantic/Morocco landings, and allowed the west, center, and east task forces, per the British preferences to cover all the Algerian ports and possibly Bizerte in Tunisia, putting the Allies in position to prevent Von Armin's Germans from occupying Tunisia, and trapping Rommel and the Italians in Libya?

I imagine Rommel and the Italians in Libya would be toast, except for any lucky evacuees, by Jan 1943, or Feb 1943, at a stretch. What do the Anglo-Americans do next? Invade Sicily in March or April 1943?

But is Sicily higher risk, with the Anglo-Americans facing Italian reinforcements plus Von Arnim's forces moved in and digging in and fortifying the island since November 9th 1942? Does giving a large joint Axis force time to prepare and fortify in Sicily instead of grinding it down and capturing it in Tunisia make it likely to repulse any Allied invasion? Or just make a Sicily campaign harder fought? Or lead to bypassing of Sicily to a Sardinia-Corsica approach to Italy?

 

[Japhy]

Churchill bangs the drum harder about getting more American kids killed in the name of maintaining the British Empire though his soft underbelly nonsense. More German Troops are around to fight on the Eastern Front.

 

[Death's Companion]

Yeah I think the butterflys might actually be a net negative for the Allies.

Like Tunisia OTL cost them a second Stalingrad worth of men and material and gave the allies a lot of valuable experience.

I think landings in Sicily would be earlier though perhaps not too much earlier due to shipping constraints and the need to concentrate and train forces especially if there were stronger Axis forces in Italy and political questions will be raised if Sicily does not immediately fall but instead turns into a prolonged campaign. Does Mussolini fall as OTL or does he cling on or the Italians feel a bit more or less secure than OTL?

If there is an earlier Italian front then its possible that Citadel is never given the go ahead and so the Germans probably have stronger reserves in general but that is balanced by the Soviets not taking the astounding losses they took OTL so the Eastern Front probably is still moving steadily Westward in 1943 but the Germans might be more capable of resisting so the hammer blows in Ukraine and Belorussia might be less severe if they come in their OTL form at all.

Think generally though the war follows the same track, the differences would be more the exact dates and shape of specific events rather than the eventual outcome of a divided Europe and conquered Germany.

 

[History Learner]

If Hitler writes off North Africa from November of 1942, focusing instead on evacuations, then Winter Storm is correspondingly reinforced and it's likely 6th Army is able to make an escape from Stalingrad. 20 additional German divisions makes a huge difference for the 1943 Eastern Front, even if they are short on equipment from the withdraw, as they can be used to hold down the Mius Front enabling Manstein to focus on lopping off Soviet forces south of the Osel River and thus basically stopping cold Soviet plays in the second half of '43 in Ukraine. Between that and possible Axis favorable events in Sicily/Italy, it's possible Stalin throws in the towel.

 

[raharris1973]

it's possible Stalin throws in the towel.

Meaning what - Axis-Soviet armistice along uti possedetis, current battlefield, lines, basically Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltics and a smidge of northwest Russia south of Leningrad left in Axis hands?

 

[Earling]

The idea Hitler would just write off North Africa seems completely contrary to everything that happened in OTL.
So I imagine troops would have still been thrown at Tunis regardless - and if the allies can threaten that, then into ports further south.

 

[Charles EP M.]

If there's a quicker Allied victory with less experience gained, does sound like wherever the Allies go next will be bloodier for them than OTL and that will surely impact what they do next & where.

(Could it strengthen American calls for a 1943 Normandy landing if the Axis are knocked out of North Africa sooner? There'll have been a clear win, fewer shortcomings will be evident.)