After the fall of France in July 1940, how feasible would be the POD of the French govt fleeing to French North Africa in order to continue the fight against the Germans ? OTL, IIRC Petain and his cronies were so defeatist in their mindset that they didn't seriously consider this option, meaning that Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Syria and Lebanon, plus the French fleet at Oran and Mers-el-Kebirs, were left in Vichy French hands after the partition of the country by the Nazis, thereby complicating things for the British. What sort of POD would be required for the French govt to have recovered enough backbone to relocate to North Africa as a base for continued military ops against the Germans ? How about some sorta coup by DeGaulle or some other French gen with backbone against Petain, so that France could still continue the fight from the colonies with the resources available there (such as the fleet and substantial Foreign Legion garrisons) ?
July 1940: French fight on from North Africa
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
This was discussed in the 'what ifs' of WW2 book. The author thought that it was a practicable idea. His thoughts were that the free French could have made up several divisions of infantry. The biggest problem would be armaments... while lots of rifles could be had, the French would be direly short of artillery, AFVs, and transport. OTOH, if this had been decided on before France surrendered, the bulk of France's front line aircraft could have been moved to N. Africa, although fuel would be a problem. Thus, you'd have a Free French army in N. Africa that would be able to defend itself quite well, but unable to attack anyone. Once the US gets into the war though, those French divisions would be incredibly valuable.... armed with American equipment, they could help crush Rommel, land with the allies on D-Day, and move on into Germany with the rest. Hmm... what might the post-war France be like?
A desolate wasteland. The Franks got a very lenient peace in OTL, that's why they accepted it. If they fight for every last scrap of land, they'll hurt the Germans pretty badly, but they will have lost another huge segment of their population and France will lie in ruins.
We need a reason for the French to refuse terms; either Adolf demands some ridiculous things straight off the bat (actually unlikely), or the war looks less hopeless. Maybe if the attack into Norway failed? More would be better... How about Italy neutral or at war with Germany? That would be enough.
We need a reason for the French to refuse terms; either Adolf demands some ridiculous things straight off the bat (actually unlikely), or the war looks less hopeless. Maybe if the attack into Norway failed? More would be better... How about Italy neutral or at war with Germany? That would be enough.
I think the scenario here is that mainland France will be surrendered, but Free French would hold on in N. Africa... the French wouldn't be fighting inch by inch in France itself. Presumably, someone like DeGualle would be leading the whole thing....
Well, you can say goodbye to Libya. Either that or Hitler decides to support Mussolini's ambitions in North Africa to protect his southern flank before Barbarossa. It's actually a better idea than Operation Sealion. Such a campaign would involve:
1) Taking Malta. Without at least neutralizing Malta, the logistics become next to impossible.
2a) Holding a defensive position in the west while striking east towards the Suez.
2b) Holding a defensive position in the east while striking west to take out the Free French with the intent of "liberating" the Tunisian and Algerian peoples.
2c) Hitler gets bold and orders the military to go both ways.
The Germans would have a better chance of winning a campaign in North Africa in 1940 if they committed a lot more manpower to that front. By choking off the central and eastern Med and seizing the Suez, the British will be in a terrible position.
Of course, the Germans have a massive opportunity to fail miserably in North Africa. The whole operation relies on supplying a front across a large body of water, no easy undertaking for even major powers, especially when the world's most powerful empire is against you.
France fighting on in North Africa can have either a good or a bad outcome. Just flip a coin.
1) Taking Malta. Without at least neutralizing Malta, the logistics become next to impossible.
2a) Holding a defensive position in the west while striking east towards the Suez.
2b) Holding a defensive position in the east while striking west to take out the Free French with the intent of "liberating" the Tunisian and Algerian peoples.
2c) Hitler gets bold and orders the military to go both ways.
The Germans would have a better chance of winning a campaign in North Africa in 1940 if they committed a lot more manpower to that front. By choking off the central and eastern Med and seizing the Suez, the British will be in a terrible position.
Of course, the Germans have a massive opportunity to fail miserably in North Africa. The whole operation relies on supplying a front across a large body of water, no easy undertaking for even major powers, especially when the world's most powerful empire is against you.
France fighting on in North Africa can have either a good or a bad outcome. Just flip a coin.
Given the German propensity for collective punishment, I rather suspect that a Free French force in Africa would probably provide the basis (I was going to say 'justification', but thought better of it...) for some pretty serious German reprisals in France itself.
Quite possibly that would be true. More of France will probably be occupied and Hitler might even force Petain to "settle" Italian territorial claims on France as well. That last part is more of adding insult to injury, but given Hitler's personality, I don't consider such a demand implausible.
Brilliantlight
Banned
Quite likely and that means Germany's occupation cost goes straight up.Ace Venom said:
Brilliantlight said:
And like I brought up in the Central Powers victory thread, the German leadership generally lacked farsightedness. Hilter had occupied all of France in OTL even after the Vichy government took power. It's not very unlikely for Hitler to attempt such a think in TTL. Whether he orders the occupation of France to occur at the same time as a North Africa campaign is anyone's guess. Hitler was just that impulsive.
Valamyr
Banned
There would be no Vichy government in the advent that resistance continued, that was quite clear in the German plans. All of France would be occupied, and collaborators would be forced to adminstrate from Paris.
Higher reparations fees seems like a given.
The French Fleet, would actually be the largest contribution to the allied war effort. Libya would be held for a time with German help, but Id expect Africa to be won by the allies much earlier.
France would have a throughly different reputation after the war, which would be an important long term consequence.
Hitler being impulsive, it could mean bad things for mainland france though.
Butterflies do their work, and as Roundhammer proceeds in late summer 1943, a throughout sorched-earth policy is applied in France, which includes major cities. Sometime in the fall of 1943, Paris burns throughly while Hitler is still influencial enough to order such an operation. Battle continues on the western front until the winter of 1944, when the Reich finally collapses.
Higher reparations fees seems like a given.
The French Fleet, would actually be the largest contribution to the allied war effort. Libya would be held for a time with German help, but Id expect Africa to be won by the allies much earlier.
France would have a throughly different reputation after the war, which would be an important long term consequence.
Hitler being impulsive, it could mean bad things for mainland france though.
Butterflies do their work, and as Roundhammer proceeds in late summer 1943, a throughout sorched-earth policy is applied in France, which includes major cities. Sometime in the fall of 1943, Paris burns throughly while Hitler is still influencial enough to order such an operation. Battle continues on the western front until the winter of 1944, when the Reich finally collapses.
Last edited:
How much harsher will he get? He soaked France for billions, to the point that wealth from France exceeded everything the Nazis got from all the land the occupied in Poland and the USSR. He used hundreds of thousands of French as cheap labor in Germany. He held many French POWs for the entire war. He took Alsace-Lorraine without even mentioning it in the armistice. What more would he have done?
Reprisals? Usually inflame the populace and once the Afrika Korps is captured...
More looting? At what point does it do enough damage that sabotage and strikes cost more than you get?
Occupy the entire nation? Easier for De Gaulle to recruit while Germany must waste another hundred thousand or more.
Land for Italy? In exchange for all of Italy's colonies, and ultimate return in 1945.
Reprisals? Usually inflame the populace and once the Afrika Korps is captured...
More looting? At what point does it do enough damage that sabotage and strikes cost more than you get?
Occupy the entire nation? Easier for De Gaulle to recruit while Germany must waste another hundred thousand or more.
Land for Italy? In exchange for all of Italy's colonies, and ultimate return in 1945.
"How much harsher will he get? He soaked France for billions, to the point that wealth from France exceeded everything the Nazis got from all the land the occupied in Poland and the USSR. He used hundreds of thousands of French as cheap labor in Germany. He held many French POWs for the entire war. He took Alsace-Lorraine without even mentioning it in the armistice."
He could treat the French like slavs. Take everything he could concievably have need of. Use millions of Frenchmen as slave labor. Stop feeding French POWs. French women are up for grabs, literally and figuratively. Take everything north of Paris without mentioning it in the peace treaty.
You seem to think that the long-term negative side-effects of mistreating people would make the Nazis hold back. Boy that was a funny sentence.
He could treat the French like slavs. Take everything he could concievably have need of. Use millions of Frenchmen as slave labor. Stop feeding French POWs. French women are up for grabs, literally and figuratively. Take everything north of Paris without mentioning it in the peace treaty.
You seem to think that the long-term negative side-effects of mistreating people would make the Nazis hold back. Boy that was a funny sentence.
Hitler might well do all of that... which would drive thousands more into the Free French forces. I think the scenario here is that France will surrender as in OTL, but DeGualle or someone will refuse and carry on the fight in N. Africa regardless of what the politicians in France say. Hitler probably won't make that fine distinction and launch reprisals anyway. Interestingly, would he regard the FF army as a threat and send large forces to N. Africa to destroy them? If so, what other front will be reduced to allow for it?
Redbeard
Banned
French keeping up the fight
In the weeks before France fell in June 1940 there was a heavy "fight" in the French government over the issue of going on from overseas territories. The Prime Minister actually wanted this, but was in minority in a crucial meeting in June and he stepped back.
The probable reasons are several, but here are a couple:
1. The French and British repeatedly misunderstood each other (sloppy diplomacy)
2. The French felt let down by the British (not sending more fighters, withdrawing to Dunkirk etc.)
3. The French really didn't imagine that the British would keep up the fight
4. The Americans had remained silent on repeated pleas to enter the war
5. The German peace terms were much more lenient that the French had anticipated.
I think it is inside plausability to change enough of those to have a few ministers vote differently on that meeting in June 1940 (and if nothing else works then bribe/threat them...).
If the French stay in the war in 1940 the addition of the French fleet will be of tremendous importance. First in the Med. (making any major Axis operations in NA impossible) but next in the Far East, where the British now can spare resources for defence, and the Japanese are not allowed inside Thailand and French Indochina without a fight. A small detail like the British occupying the Isthmus of Kra in southern Thailand, like was planned in the case of Japan entering Thailand/FIC, would make a later Japanese invasion of Malaya and Singapore much more difficult. Combined with more resources for defence, I'd call it an impossible job for the Japanese.
Consequences are already now bigger than I can comprehend...
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
In the weeks before France fell in June 1940 there was a heavy "fight" in the French government over the issue of going on from overseas territories. The Prime Minister actually wanted this, but was in minority in a crucial meeting in June and he stepped back.
The probable reasons are several, but here are a couple:
1. The French and British repeatedly misunderstood each other (sloppy diplomacy)
2. The French felt let down by the British (not sending more fighters, withdrawing to Dunkirk etc.)
3. The French really didn't imagine that the British would keep up the fight
4. The Americans had remained silent on repeated pleas to enter the war
5. The German peace terms were much more lenient that the French had anticipated.
I think it is inside plausability to change enough of those to have a few ministers vote differently on that meeting in June 1940 (and if nothing else works then bribe/threat them...).
If the French stay in the war in 1940 the addition of the French fleet will be of tremendous importance. First in the Med. (making any major Axis operations in NA impossible) but next in the Far East, where the British now can spare resources for defence, and the Japanese are not allowed inside Thailand and French Indochina without a fight. A small detail like the British occupying the Isthmus of Kra in southern Thailand, like was planned in the case of Japan entering Thailand/FIC, would make a later Japanese invasion of Malaya and Singapore much more difficult. Combined with more resources for defence, I'd call it an impossible job for the Japanese.
Consequences are already now bigger than I can comprehend...
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Grey Wolf
Donor
You HAVE to make a distinction between the French government deciding to do this and the Free French. If Reynard's government was able to fight on, then De Gaulle is a relatively minor figure at first - he is NOT a political figure if the government continues. Sure, he may well rise up the ranks and a purge similar to those carried out in the early months of WW1 seems likely to strip out a whole layer of the army command, and boost those who at least made a good showing. Of course, if the government goes to Algiers then the Algiers and other colonial forces (e.g. Senegal) are going to be completely integrated into the French army command.
Regarding France, I do not see Petain as agreeing to be a complete vassal in an occupied France. OTL it was the idea that Vichy was to remain unoccupied and free of direct German control that convinced him to become its president. Its more likely that in a completely occupied France, the Germans would elevate Laval to president, and some functionary as Prime Minister
The situation with France would now be analogous to those of Norway and the Netherlands where the government has gone into exile and collaborators rule as German puppets. OTL France, within Vichy, had more in common with Belgium where the King and government remained.
Grey Wolf
Regarding France, I do not see Petain as agreeing to be a complete vassal in an occupied France. OTL it was the idea that Vichy was to remain unoccupied and free of direct German control that convinced him to become its president. Its more likely that in a completely occupied France, the Germans would elevate Laval to president, and some functionary as Prime Minister
The situation with France would now be analogous to those of Norway and the Netherlands where the government has gone into exile and collaborators rule as German puppets. OTL France, within Vichy, had more in common with Belgium where the King and government remained.
Grey Wolf
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
An interesting alternative to the others
I agree regarding De Gaulle's position. I also agree that it's possible that the occupation of France won't get knocked down to Polish and Soviet levels, but simply down to Norway and Low Countries levels, in other words, France doesn't suffer much for the actions of its men fighting abroad. Most of the board felt that French resistance would provoke Hitler to make French untermenschen
Grey Wolf said:
I agree regarding De Gaulle's position. I also agree that it's possible that the occupation of France won't get knocked down to Polish and Soviet levels, but simply down to Norway and Low Countries levels, in other words, France doesn't suffer much for the actions of its men fighting abroad. Most of the board felt that French resistance would provoke Hitler to make French untermenschen
Grey Wolf: Quite correct about the distinction. Also, an interesting issue. If some of the colonies don't go over to Free France, or some of the fleet, would this be a deterrent to Hitler to some degree?
Admiral Matt: Wasn't talking about Nazi concern for human life but rather the concern of doing more harm than good. For instance, French men used as labor in Germany are clearly NOT working the mines and factories of France. Also, sorry, but the sight you suggested has some serious factual and historical flaws, sounds like the author was buying the excuses racked up by the French leadership in the last days.
For instance, the RAF did not have the number of fighters claimed, barely half that as the Battle of France ended.
It was the French who determined the size and scope of the British army and paid the price. For 20 years England based it's army size on the French alliance and were endlessly reassured that France could hold alone. With only months of change, the BEF managed to somehow find 15 divisions including the vast bulk of their best men and officers for France in time for the war.
The idea of the counter-offensive against the Germans by the time of Dunkirk was a fraud circulated by French officers who failed their responsibilities and wished to blame someone else. The 'Northern Prong' would have involved the French First Army providing more than they had remaining and Weygand KNEW this, yet stood by his plan. The King of Belgium was attacked for similar reasons, as France was 'totally surprised' by the surrender, while the BEF had already taken every plausible measure to respond to the 'total surprise'.
For further detail, I strongly praise 'The Nine Days of Dunkirk' which is extremely harsh to the French(factually so) and which also makes the case that the RAF failed at Dunkirk. I believe the estimate was the RAF performence at Dunkirk was later calculated at less than 30% of the RAF fighters and bombers making ONE sortie per day.
Redbeard: The moderation of German terms is an interesting topic. For instance, it took the French months to realize that Alsace-Lorraine was not mentioned in the treaty simply because the Nazis took the provinces without reference to Paris.
Admiral Matt: Wasn't talking about Nazi concern for human life but rather the concern of doing more harm than good. For instance, French men used as labor in Germany are clearly NOT working the mines and factories of France. Also, sorry, but the sight you suggested has some serious factual and historical flaws, sounds like the author was buying the excuses racked up by the French leadership in the last days.
For instance, the RAF did not have the number of fighters claimed, barely half that as the Battle of France ended.
It was the French who determined the size and scope of the British army and paid the price. For 20 years England based it's army size on the French alliance and were endlessly reassured that France could hold alone. With only months of change, the BEF managed to somehow find 15 divisions including the vast bulk of their best men and officers for France in time for the war.
The idea of the counter-offensive against the Germans by the time of Dunkirk was a fraud circulated by French officers who failed their responsibilities and wished to blame someone else. The 'Northern Prong' would have involved the French First Army providing more than they had remaining and Weygand KNEW this, yet stood by his plan. The King of Belgium was attacked for similar reasons, as France was 'totally surprised' by the surrender, while the BEF had already taken every plausible measure to respond to the 'total surprise'.
For further detail, I strongly praise 'The Nine Days of Dunkirk' which is extremely harsh to the French(factually so) and which also makes the case that the RAF failed at Dunkirk. I believe the estimate was the RAF performence at Dunkirk was later calculated at less than 30% of the RAF fighters and bombers making ONE sortie per day.
Redbeard: The moderation of German terms is an interesting topic. For instance, it took the French months to realize that Alsace-Lorraine was not mentioned in the treaty simply because the Nazis took the provinces without reference to Paris.
Meh.
Just posted it because it was on the same subject. As for whether he's right or not, whatever.
Just posted it because it was on the same subject. As for whether he's right or not, whatever.