Churchill plan for Balkan Allied invasion.

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005, 15:20
Location: Poland

Churchill plan for Balkan Allied invasion.

#1

Post by Molobo » 16 Aug 2005, 17:28

Does anybody have more details on the supposed plan of British to land an allied force in Balkans instead(or in addition to) of French landings.I heard that such thing was planned but under pressure from Soviets was put off.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

#2

Post by Steve » 17 Aug 2005, 12:20

The British wanted to do something in the Mediterranean theatre in the spring of 1944 before Overlord which had been given a date of May 1st 1944. The British proposals had been aired prior to the Tehran conference of November 1943 and Churchill and Roosevlt discussed them at Cairo before going to Tehran and then Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin discussed them at Tehran.

The British proposed that the withdrawl of landing craft from the Med. would stop for the time being. The allies would press on to Rome. Increase supplies to the Balkan guerillas (in practice this would mean Tito). Sieze a bridgehead on the Dalmation coast. Bring Turkey into the war (this could mean re-equiping the Turkish armed forces).

The Americans had wanted a cross channel invasion in 1943 but had agreed to the British Italian strategy instead. By this time the Americans were becoming very suspicious that the British did not believe in Overlord and were trying another diversion for 1944. The Americans were determined to pin the British down to the invasion of France and the US Chiefs of Staff told Roosevelt to make it crystal clear to the British that they would have nothing to do with any Balkan operations.

Though the Americans at the discussions in Cairo had no interest in the British proposals Churchill still pressed for them at Tehran. Roosevelt put them to Stalin at one of the meetings between the three of them. Stalin was dismissive of them saying among other things (versions of what he said differ on a few important words) that France was a lot nearer Germany than Italy or the Balkans. Though Churchill did not give up the British proposals were dead.


User avatar
Bronsky
Member
Posts: 825
Joined: 11 Apr 2003, 10:28
Location: Paris

Re: Churchill plan for Balkan Allied invasion.

#3

Post by Bronsky » 21 Aug 2005, 23:20

Molobo wrote:Does anybody have more details on the supposed plan of British to land an allied force in Balkans instead(or in addition to) of French landings.I heard that such thing was planned but under pressure from Soviets was put off.
The British and the Americans both wanted to do Overlord. On the other hand, the Americans wanted to make it the #1 priority so as to get it done on schedule, figuring that since they were Americans it would work. By contrast, the British who had a lot of painful experiences of deploying forces before they were ready (BEF, Greece, Crete, North Africa, Dieppe) wanted to wait until they were ready before doing Overlord. Meanwhile, they wanted to pursue opportunities when they occured.

So this meant that when an opportunity beckoned in the Mediterranean, the British thought that it was foolish to let a perfectly good occasion to score a strategic success go to waste just for the sake of following a stupid schedule for an operation (Overlord) which might well have to be postponed anyway. Whereas the Americans believed that if the Allies didn't draw the line somewhere, then Overlord would never happen because there would always be "great opportunities" to syphon off the resources necessary.

In addition to these divergences, Churchill throughout the war toyed with the idea of resurecting a Balkan front like the Armée d'Orient which had collapsed Bulgaria and then threatened Germany from the south in 1918. Ever since he became PM, he tried to build such a Balkan front, at first hoping to get Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey together, and then tirelessly trying to persuade the Turks to join.

Until 1943, the British generally had their way and they were generally right: the Americans were not ready, so it was better to do something useful in the Mediterranean than get a bloody nose on schedule in France. However, the Americans drew the line in mid-1943, essentially something like: "we'll do Italy and that's it". So when Italy surrendered and Churchill saw an "opportunity" in the Balkans (Italian garrisons were surrendering, there was a power vacuum before the Germans took over) he tried to get his Balkan front again. At more or less the same time, the Allies were scheduled to meet Stalin in Tehran. Roosevelt put the matter to him, and obviously Stalin wasn't interested in Balkanese sideshows, he wanted THE Second Front, i.e. a major operation that would engage a significant portion of the Wehrmacht. In other words, Overlord. So he said that he was willing to sacrifice a Balkan operation now for the sake of a guaranteed Overlord within 6 months. And since the British didn't have the shipping to do the thing on their own, that was that.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#4

Post by Andy H » 21 Aug 2005, 23:58

and obviously Stalin wasn't interested in Balkanese sideshows, he wanted THE Second Front, i.e. a major operation that would engage a significant portion of the Wehrmacht.
I would agree with that and add also that Stalin had a weather eye on the western Allies interferring in his zone of influence come the post WW2 era.

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

#5

Post by Michael Emrys » 22 Aug 2005, 06:11

Similarly, it seems to have been a large part of Churchill's aim in putting strong forces into the Balkans to meet the Soviet armies somewhere east of Vienna and Prague, thus keeping them out of as much of Eastern Europe as possible.

User avatar
Bronsky
Member
Posts: 825
Joined: 11 Apr 2003, 10:28
Location: Paris

#6

Post by Bronsky » 22 Aug 2005, 12:22

Grease_Spot wrote:Similarly, it seems to have been a large part of Churchill's aim in putting strong forces into the Balkans to meet the Soviet armies somewhere east of Vienna and Prague, thus keeping them out of as much of Eastern Europe as possible.
This is very much the product of Cold War memoir-writting, by Churchill and many British generals along the lines of "see how wrong you were not to listen to us ?".

On the other hand, while Churchill didn't want to see the Soviets in control of Greece or the straits, there is no doubt that at the time he advocated his Balkan, and later his "let's scratch Dragoon and land in Trieste instead", strategies as a WWII-winning move, not as a Cold War-winning one. Just because the British in general and Churchill in particular were more aware of the postwar implications of Soviet advances than the Americans in general and Roosevelt in particular doesn't mean that "more aware" should translate into "had a pretty good idea of what the Cold War would be like and tailored their strategy accordingly".

Now if we must absolutely do some Monday morning quarterbacking from the point of view of the Cold War, I feel bound to point out that the American strategy was far more effective than the British one. Firstly, the West retained control of the straits and got Greece without investing the significant resources in the Balkans called for by the British. Secondly, and more importantly, from a Cold War perspective which would you rather have: France, the Low Countries and West Germany, or Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Yugoslavia ? The West was sitting on the richest, most populated and most industrialized parts of Europe in 1945, let's not forget that before we start blaming the Allies for losing the peace somehow...

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

#7

Post by Michael Emrys » 22 Aug 2005, 21:22

You misunderstood me. It is not so much Churchill foreseeing the cold war as simply having a distrust of the Soviet Communists and desiring to keep them out of as much of Europe as possible.
Bronsky wrote:Now if we must absolutely do some Monday morning quarterbacking from the point of view of the Cold War, I feel bound to point out that the American strategy was far more effective than the British one. Firstly, the West retained control of the straits and got Greece without investing the significant resources in the Balkans called for by the British. Secondly, and more importantly, from a Cold War perspective which would you rather have: France, the Low Countries and West Germany, or Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Yugoslavia ? The West was sitting on the richest, most populated and most industrialized parts of Europe in 1945...
Oh, I agree with that completely. I was not arguing in favor of Churchill's strategy, but trying to explain the rationale for it.
...let's not forget that before we start blaming the Allies for losing the peace somehow...
Er, where do you get that from?

User avatar
Bronsky
Member
Posts: 825
Joined: 11 Apr 2003, 10:28
Location: Paris

#8

Post by Bronsky » 23 Aug 2005, 11:09

Grease_Spot wrote:You misunderstood me. It is not so much Churchill foreseeing the cold war as simply having a distrust of the Soviet Communists and desiring to keep them out of as much of Europe as possible.
Sorry, I should have made it clear that the Cold War thing was a digression, i.e. an argument that usually crept up in these kinds of discussions, but not something that you had actually written.

In other words, I was more ranting than answering you, sorry about that.

That being said, as I wrote my understanding is that Churchill's strategy did not primarily emanate from his distrust of communism but from his opinion that it was the right way to go. In other words, he would probably have advocated the same strategy even if Stalin had been removed by a Czarist coup which had turned the Soviet Union back into Imperial Russia.

gjampol
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 31 Oct 2007, 11:38
Location: So. Calif.

Re: Churchill plan for Balkan Allied invasion.

#9

Post by gjampol » 19 Feb 2009, 09:15

According to John T. Flynn's "The Roosevelt Myth," Roosevelt opposed Churchill's proposal. Speaking of the Tehtan conference, he writes:


"...Stalin got everything he wanted--everything without any exceptions. Churchill did not, because Roosevelt, in pursuit of his vain policy, sided with Stalin against Churchill. Roosevelt got nothing, as we shall see. He got, of course, the United Nations. But this had already been settled on before he went to Teheran. And what is more this was no victory because Stalin got the United Nations precisely on his own term and in a form that has enabled him to put his finger into every problem in the world and to completely frustrate the British and Americans in every effort to introduce order, peace and security. Roosevelt did not get what he believed to be his objective because he made it clear he had to have Stalin's free and wholehearted support in the United Nations or it would be a failure from the start. Forrest Davis commented that Stalin acted with dash, Roosevelt with tardy improvisation. Stalin layed his "great design" to control those sectors of eastern Europe which he wanted in his orbit. Roosevelt put all his eggs in one basket--his world organization scheme for which apparently he was prepared to sacrifice everything else, including the very things a world organization was expected to ensure. Meantime Stalin and Molotov did not shrink from lying or indulging in double talk and Roosevelt was foolish enough to believe them. At home Roosevelt's Red and pink collaborators and his closest consultants were busy pouring out Soviet propaganda. Harry Hopkins never tired of plugging for his friend Stalin. Henry Wallace, then Vice-President, was talking about encouraging a people's revolution in Europe to advance the cause of the common man. Tito was being glorified in American magazines by Red and pink writers and others who were just plain dupes. Stalin himself and the Soviet government were offered to the American people in new and happy colors until, as James F. Byrnes conceded, as the war neared its end Russia occupied a place in the good will of the American people exceeding that of any other ally. All this had been instigated and urged by Roosevelt himself. And no one knew it better than Stalin." (P. 354-5)

"Once again Churchill brought up the question of shifting the invasion effort from the west coast of France to the Balkans. He wanted to hurry the Italian invasion by amphibious landings in the North and on the Northeast Adriatic aimed at the Danube Valley, an operation in the Aegean aimed at Rhodes or the Dodecanese and operations in and from Turkey if she would come into the war. General Deane says that Churchill wanted the Anglo-American forces in the Balkans as well as the Russians and he suggests that Churchill's foresight was later approved by our hindsight. There can be no doubt that the Invasion of the French coast was a less formidable undertaking then an invasion of the Balkans when the subject was first considered. Our opportunity to get into France in 1943 had been thrown away by Roosevelt's agreement to yield to Churchill against all his military advisers. But the African invasion had gone more swiftly than was hoped for when launched, though the Italian operation had been troublesome. Now, however, that Italy was successfully invaded and the guerilla forces in Yugoslavia were so strong the question of the Balkan invasion took on added significance. Churchill urged it now with fresh vigor. But Stalin was adamant against it and this was enough reason for Roosevelt to object. Moreover, time was now running heavily against Roosevelt and Churchill Stalin's armies were winging their way toward his territorial objectives." (P. 355-6)

"There was still something more to be settled. Stalin had engineered Roosevelt into living in the Soviet embassy although the American embassy was available. He had done this by exploiting the danger to the President from German spies. Roosevelt was, of course, in no greater danger than the British Prime Minister. The success of Stalin's maneuver in this matter was soon to become clear. Later Roosevelt told his son Elliot that "in between times Uncle Joe and I had a few words, too--just the two of us." As Stalin's guest in the Russian embassy, Roosevelt was accessible for a secret talk or two without Churchill's knowledge. One of these dealt with the Chinese Communist issue. Roosevelt told Elliott we couldn't do much about that "while Winnie was around." He brought up the question of a common front against the British on the matter of Hong Kong, Shanghai and Canton. Chaing, Roosevelt told Stalin, was worried about what Russia would do in Manchuria. Roosevelt and Stalin agreed that Manchuria would remain with China and that Stalin and he would back Chiang against the British. Referring to this, Roosevelt confided to Elliott that "the biggest thing was in making clear to Stalin that the United States and Great Britain were not in one common block against the Soviet Union" After that the way must have seemed wide open to Stalin for all his plans. Here was Roosevelt suggesting a secret deal between himself and Stalin against Churchill, just as he had suggested a secret deal between himself and Chiang against Churchill and as he was later to make another secret deal between himself and Stalin against Chiang. (P. 358-9)

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Churchill plan for Balkan Allied invasion.

#10

Post by South » 19 Feb 2009, 11:07

Good morning Gjampol,

Re Flynn's "Russia occupied a place in the good will of the American people exceeding that of any other ally.";

Exceeding the UK and Dominions ?

In his book on public opinion polls, "WAR, PRESIDENTS and PUBLIC OPINION", ISBN: 0-471-62299-0, 1973, Dr John Mueller
has a Chapter 7 titled "Retrospective Support for the Wars" (pg 168). At pg 170, at 7.2 "World War II", the lead sentence starts with: "The highly limited data from World War II...".

Shared with the UK and Dominions was a common language, the Common Law, a common hertage, America's Episcopalian Church, much US UK/Dominion "joint venture" businesses and much US commerce between and among the UK and Dominions.

Flynn might be correct re FDR and Stalin discussing Hong Kong, BCC, Canton and Shanghai against UK policy plans but Flynn cannot make concrete statements such as the above quote.


The Soviet Union was not an unknown to the American public.

Warm regards,

Bob

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”