AHC/WI: Axis Vichy France?

[NOMISYRRUC]

If any of the air force is intact & capable of moving east then that might be more useful than ground forces.

This is an extract from Extract from The Air Forces of the World, by William Green and John Fricker

By June 17, 1940, when Marshal Pétain sought terms of surrender from the Germans, Paris had been occupied and Guerdian's armoured forces had thrust forward as far as Dijon and Saône. The Armée de l' Air was still fighting, and on June 23rd, when the French Government capitulated, had more operational aircraft than at the start of the German offensive. During June 18th-20th the D.520 fighters of GCI/3, II/3, III/3, III/6 and II/7, and the Hawk 75As of GCIII/2, I/4, II/4, I/5 and II/5 had been ordered to North Africa, but the remainder of the Armée de l' Air elements based in France at the time of the capitulation awaited disbandment in accordance with the terms of the Armistice.

On July 3rd the Royal Navy launched an attack on the French Fleet at Mers el Kébir to prevent its possible use by the Axis powers. In the hope that the Mers el Kébir clash would develop into a Franco-British war, the German Government rescinded its demand for the disbandment of all Armée de l' Air elements, and agreed to the retention of some units for the protection of France's North African possessions.

The forces retained, subsequently referred to as the Vichy Air Force, included 6 Groupes de Chasse, with Bloch M.B.151s, 152s and 155s; two Escardrilles de Chasse de Nuit, with Potez 631s; four Groupes de Bombardement with LeO451s; two Groupes de Bombardement d' Assault with Breguet 693s; three Groupes du Reconnaissance with Potez 63-11s, and one Groupe de Transport with Farman 222s and Amiot 143s. All these units were divided into the 1° and 2° Régions Aériennes. Fighter pilots were allowed to fly four hours each month, and bomber and reconnaissance pilots six hours. The German Armistice Commission also permitted production of the Dewoitine D.520 fighter to continue at Toluse, this type later re-equipping several Vichy Groupes de Chasse.

In North Africa, which was designated Commandment Superior de l' Air en Afrique du Nord, were based four Groupes de Chase with D.520s and two with Hawk 75As; five Groupes de Bombardement with LeO451s and four with DB-7s; two Groupes de Reconnaissance with M.B.174s and 175s, two with Potez 63-11s. and one with Martin 167s; and one Groupe de Transport flying Potez 54s and 65s. In French West Africa the Vichy Air Force had one Hawk 75A-equipped Groupe de Chase; three Groupes de Bombardement flying Martin 167s, and one Groupe de Reconnaissance flying Potez 63-11s. In Madagascar were stationed a mixed squadron of Potez 25s and 63-11s, and in Syria and the Lebanon were one M.S.406 Groupe, one Martin 167 Groupe de Bombardement, one Potez 63-11 Groupe, and six squadrons with obsolete Bloch M.B.200s, Potez 25s and 29s. A number of the units were not at their full establishments but, nevertheless, the Vichy Air Force was quite a sizeable component with between 700 and 800 combat aircraft.

I don't know how easy it would be to move some of it to the Eastern Front.

 

[Vrykon]

Question, if France government rallies the axis, could we see a large scale mutiny in the French army?
I mean, a lot of Pétain's rethoric was that he was the shield of France against complete invasion, which probably kept a lot of people in check. But if they rally, that could be a spark that would make a lot of the army either go the colonies (which would probably declare themselves part of Free France) or go into open rebellion.

Is that a possibility?

Depends under what circumstances they join and who are they fighting.
After Torch, yes definitely.
If the WAllies somehow made peace or were defeated, and French troops where send to the USSR, probably not.

 

[Enigmajones]

This is interesting, even though there were French fighters in the Eastern Front.

 

[phx1138]

The Japanese still take French Indo-China

Why? If Vichy is Axis, Japan can simply cut a deal to have access across it. That butterflies the U.S. steel & oil embargoes & (probably) the attack on Pearl.

Moreover, it gives U-boats access to Dakar. That's scary dangerous for convoys.

It also gives the Germans access to the ex-French Army, with about 1.5 million POWs in German hands; how many would sign up to fight in SU?

It also turns over Syria to the Axis, & Britain is already at her limit fighting Italy in North Africa. Does this mean sending French, rather than German, troops to shore up Italy?

It also gives fuller access to French industrial capacity. (IDK if France contributed to German production OTL...)

In all, this is very bad news for the Brits.

Does it encourage (enable) FDR to be more aggressive in ref surplussing off equipment? Say, 100 DDs, rather than 50? Does it enable him to ask for an increase in shipbuilding sooner? Say, a start on Benson repeats & increased building of Gars? (Too much to ask for an "Improved Benson" that's nearer the late Fletcher or early Sumner &/or Gato?)

Does this force the Brits to base Stirlings (or something) in Newfoundland by (say) September 1940? (That's bad for U-boats...)

 

[Shaby]

Why? If Vichy is Axis, Japan can simply cut a deal to have access across it. That butterflies the U.S. steel & oil embargoes & (probably) the attack on Pearl.

I'd think the US would be alarmed by the Japanese moving their ships that far south regardless of whether the Vichy retains nominal control of the territory or not. It was the Japanese moving south in general they objected, not merely occupation of territory.

Moreover, it gives U-boats access to Dakar. That's scary dangerous for convoys.

If they can keep the subs operational in the long term, if the captains cooperate, if Dakar remains in Vichy hands after that, if the convoys don't start doing something differently. Lots of ifs there.

It also gives the Germans access to the ex-French Army, with about 1.5 million POWs in German hands; how many would sign up to fight in SU?

Why do you think they'd fight any more effectively than the Ostheer?

It also turns over Syria to the Axis, & Britain is already at her limit fighting Italy in North Africa. Does this mean sending French, rather than German, troops to shore up Italy?

For how long does Syria remain Vichy in this eventuality?

It also gives fuller access to French industrial capacity. (IDK if France contributed to German production OTL...)

In all, this is very bad news for the Brits.

Does it encourage (enable) FDR to be more aggressive in ref surplussing off equipment? Say, 100 DDs, rather than 50? Does it enable him to ask for an increase in shipbuilding sooner? Say, a start on Benson repeats & increased building of Gars? (Too much to ask for an "Improved Benson" that's nearer the late Fletcher or early Sumner &/or Gato?)

Does this force the Brits to base Stirlings (or something) in Newfoundland by (say) September 1940? (That's bad for U-boats...)

IMHO, the moment Vichy declares war on the British, many or even majority of their colonies go Free French. The fleet would not gladly work for the Germans. And yes, US reaction would be more substantial.

 

[phx1138]

I'd think the US would be alarmed by the Japanese moving their ships that far south regardless of whether the Vichy retains nominal control of the territory or not. It was the Japanese moving south in general they objected, not merely occupation of territory.

Maybe. In this instance, however, it's only a troop transport issue, not an IJN task force determined to invade & occupy. And they're moving through IndoChina, not staying.

If they can keep the subs operational in the long term, if the captains cooperate, if Dakar remains in Vichy hands after that, if the convoys don't start doing something differently. Lots of ifs there.

Not trivial problems, I agree. Neither trivial for the Brits to deal with, given how many other things HMG has to manage. As already noted, it's conceivable this produces a different RAF/Coastal Command/RN reaction. It is, in the short term at least, still a nightmare. If the Brits prove unable to reduce Dakar...

Why do you think they'd fight any more effectively than the Ostheer?

They need not be better or even, necessarily, as good, to be of considerable value.

For how long does Syria remain Vichy in this eventuality?

Long enough to bugger the Brits in Egypt, I'd guess. There was a strong anti-British constituency among Arabs, AIUI, which could be played on.

IMHO, the moment Vichy declares war on the British, many or even majority of their colonies go Free French. The fleet would not gladly work for the Germans. And yes, US reaction would be more substantial.

Which is not impossible. IMO, it's hard to know for sure.

 

[thaddeus]

from neutral to army group in USSR? seems a little far fetched

seems as though the OTL agreements (never adopted) more realistic, called for German access to Syria, Tunisia, and Dakar, with coordinated defense if attacked.

(would not need proper base at Dakar, just allowing auxiliary cruisers to refuel and in turn refuel u-boats would have huge impact)

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
It also gives the Germans access to the ex-French Army, with about 1.5 million POWs in German hands; how many would sign up to fight in SU?

Willingly? I'm guessing 10% to 20%. The Germans could force far more, but: Their morale & leadership would have been abysmal. If not screened out the communists & socialists among them would have deserted to the Red Army. Adding French corps does nothing to solve the German logistics failure in the east. May even make it worse.

The same consideration applies to sending Frenchmen to fight with the Italians, ect... Most are not going to like it at all, and Germany wrung the maximum logistics support out of France in 1941-42 OTL. There is nothing much too find in the corners even if a French leader declares for the Axis. French industry is a aid to the Axis in the longer run, but in 1941 there may even be a net loss to Axis capability on land.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
Does it encourage (enable) FDR to be more aggressive in ref surplussing off equipment? Say, 100 DDs, rather than 50? Does it enable him to ask for an increase in shipbuilding sooner? Say, a start on Benson repeats & increased building of Gars? (Too much to ask for an "Improved Benson" that's nearer the late Fletcher or early Sumner &/or Gato?)

...

Think the US citizenry, and Congress here, not FDR. The collapse of France in June 1940 caused a near panic in the US. The War Powers Acts were enacted by Congress, a blank check handed to the Army & Navy for equipment purchasing, the National Guard were called to Federal service and the Army/Navy Reservists ordered to active service. The old war plans from the 1920s were trashed & the military leaders reformed their staff and started serious war planning.

All that occurred from the French dropping out of the war into enforced neutrality. Think about the reaction if France changes sides. There would be no talk or planning for demobilizing in 1941 if the emergency passed. Military preparation in the US would further accelerate with a hostile France.

 

[phx1138]

Think the US citizenry, and Congress here, not FDR. The collapse of France in June 1940 caused a near panic in the US. The War Powers Acts were enacted by Congress, a blank check handed to the Army & Navy for equipment purchasing, the National Guard were called to Federal service and the Army/Navy Reservists ordered to active service. The old war plans from the 1920s were trashed & the military leaders reformed their staff and started serious war planning.

All that occurred from the French dropping out of the war into enforced neutrality. Think about the reaction if France changes sides. There would be no talk or planning for demobilizing in 1941 if the emergency passed. Military preparation in the US would further accelerate with a hostile France.

I was using FDR as shorthand. And you've made my point: the U.S. would react even more strongly, with more aid to Britain & an earlier acceleration of war production (like the building of subs & DDs). This might end up changing the number of B-17s sent to P.I., too.

As to what it does to the U.S. approach to Japan, IDK. It might end up with the Pac Fleet not moved to Hawaii, since most of it is in the Atlantic... OTOH, there might be even more fleet subs in Manila.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Why would they be in so much better position?

Because Germany and Italy have a nation with 40,000,000 people which is also the second most industrialised nation in Western Europe on their side.

 

[Shaby]

Because Germany and Italy have a nation with 40,000,000 people which is also the second most industrialised nation in Western Europe on their side.

Provided you can get those 40 million people to cooperate. What good is this industry (already employed to the maximum capacity possible OTL anyway) if there are no resources to feed it with?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Unless the colonies say "Sc*ew you Vichy, we will not fight for the Germans."

I wrote:

If Vichy France had joined the Axis in the second half of 1940 and no more French colonies went over to the Free French, then:

-The British would have forcibly taken most of the French Empire that was loyal to Vichy by the end of 1941. The exceptions would be the two most important ones, i.e. French North Africa and French West Africa. However, taking the Vichy colonies would have diverted resources from other operations.

IOTL:
New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the New Hebrides declared for the Free French in the Summer of 1940. No change ITTL. When Hitler and Mussolini were told the fear that the news that these incredibly powerful nations were fighting against them must have made them sh*t their pants!

French China was in Free French hands from June 1940 to February 1943 when the Japanese took over. No change ITTL.

Cameroon and all of French Equatorial Africa (except Gabon) had gone over to Free France by August 1940. Furthermore Gabon had been taken over by the Free French in November 1940. No change ITTL.

The Free French took over St Pierre and Miquelon in November 1941. No change ITTL.

I don't know what happened to French India, but it would have been taken over by the British in June 1940 ITTL.

The British would have taken over the French colonies in the Indian Ocean (Madagascar, Reunion and the Comoros Islands) earlier ITTL. However, the resources they needed to do it might have stooped them doing something else.

The French West Indies (French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique) declared for Vichy and didn't join the Free French until 1943. If they didn't declare for Free France earlier ITTL the British would have occupied them by the end of 1940. However, in common with the French Indian Ocean colonies they might have to cancel other operations to find the resources to do it.

The British invaded Syria and the Lebanon anyway and all other things being equal, no change ITTL.

This leaves the two most important ones, French North Africa and French West Africa which declared for Vichy and both still do ITTL.

The old battleship Lorraine and 3 cruisers at Alexandria didn't go over to the Free French until well into 1943. The same would happen ITTL or the British would have tried to take them over. So I'll concede on that one, the WAllies get the use of these ships sooner, but that is more than compensated for by the larger number of French ships that Vichy has in the Western Mediterranean and that are fighting with France.

Summary

If the colonies do say "Sc*ew you Vichy, we will not fight for the Germans," the result is not much difference from the real world.

 

[Kung Fucious]

Bump up the jamp, bump it up

 

[thaddeus]

attempting to come up with POD

a neutral Italy, assume a drift apart from 1938 onwards?

after the British attack the French fleet Italians attempt a grab of territories, Djibouti, Tunisia, and Corsica? (probably, or certainly not able to seize Tunisia as that was well prepared for, not sure about the other two?)

not sure the British reaction, probably muted even if negative?

in this case the Germans don't have concern about Italian prerogatives so they COULD release some of the French ships for action.

 

[Imladrik]

However, the biggest contribution would be made by the French submarines. They had 78 in September 1939 and another 38 under construction. They could have sunk millions of tons of British merchant ships to the end of 1942.

French Submarine were not made for the atlantic, they were made for the mediterannean. Only a few of them were oceanic submarines. The French Navy had no reason to build huge numbers of oceanic submarines because their planned enemies were the Kriegsmarine (easily dealt with with the help of the british) and the Regia Marina (which was restricted to the Mediterranean.

 

[Imladrik]

Moreover, it gives U-boats access to Dakar. That's scary dangerous for convoys.

Most important convoys were too far north for dakar to be of any use. And it could be easily taken by the British

It also gives the Germans access to the ex-French Army, with about 1.5 million POWs in German hands; how many would sign up to fight in SU?

Stalag or death in russian cold for an hated enemy ? I guess they would probably find one or two thousand or even ten thousand traitors in the mix, but i think most of the PoWs would choose the stalag. But probably not a lot more that the OTL LVF.

It also turns over Syria to the Axis, & Britain is already at her limit fighting Italy in North Africa. Does this mean sending French, rather than German, troops to shore up Italy?

You realize that the UK and Free France took Syria without a problem OTL in a situation that wouldn't be very different ?

It also gives fuller access to French industrial capacity. (IDK if France contributed to German production OTL...)

like one fifth of the European axis industrial production ? Not much more to squeeze here.

snip

Except an axis Vichy would probably mean that the military leaders of the colonies would not follow Vichy. They followed Vichy because it was more or less a continuity of the previous regime and that it was non-belligerent. With non belligerence gone, you can be quite sure that people like Nogues wouldn't follow Pétain. Also, if Vichy is in the Axis, it would be the american who would occupy the Caribbean and St Pierre et Miquelon, not the British.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

French Submarine were not made for the atlantic, they were made for the mediterannean. Only a few of them were oceanic submarines. The French Navy had no reason to build huge numbers of oceanic submarines because their planned enemies were the Kriegsmarine (easily dealt with with the help of the british) and the Regia Marina (which was restricted to the Mediterranean.

Which means the Germans don't have to transfer U-boats to the Mediterranean and therefore concentrate them on the Atlantic.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Most important convoys were too far north for dakar to be of any use. And it could be easily taken by the British

Do you know that they did try to take Dakar and and the attempt failed. Among other things it was defended by a brand new battleship.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Except an axis Vichy would probably mean that the military leaders of the colonies would not follow Vichy. They followed Vichy because it was more or less a continuity of the previous regime and that it was non-belligerent. With non belligerence gone, you can be quite sure that people like Nogues wouldn't follow Pétain. Also, if Vichy is in the Axis, it would be the american who would occupy the Caribbean and St Pierre et Miquelon, not the British.

I have already answered that in one of my replies to Shaby.