France Never Surrenders

Gurroruo

Inspired by the Chat thread on French surrender monkeys.

What if France doesn't surrender and instead opts to fight on in Africa? Is my umbrella question. Under the umbrella are several more questions, answer as many as you can.

What's France's plan for withdrawal to North Africa?

What happens next in the war, do the Nazis turn south and focus on the Mediterranean, do they leave it to the Italians and focus on Barbarossa, Or maybe the Germans focus on Britain and leave French Africa to the Italians?

How would the French war effort in Africa fare? This question includes fighting in Libya and East Africa, Africa in general.

How might this affect the German occupation of France?

Would Japan be still take over Indochina, or would the fact that they know its not going to be an easy fight and that doing so would incur the wrath of Britain, DEI, and Australia deter them? Which begs the question, if Japan doesn't get involved in the European colonies and instead continues to focus on the Chinese war how does that go? And how does this affect the U.S. sanctions of the Japanese?

Finally I refer you back to the umbrella question, What if France doesn't surrender and instead opts to fight on in Africa?, as a general question in search any other useful information you may have but I failed to ask.

-Gurroruo
 
Colonel Levnekov

Colonel Levnekov

No occupation on the mainland.

With that, that means that Germany will have to keep fighting through Africa to make the French surrender. That might also mean a longer, and more dedicated campaign in Africa.

However, this would also affect Barbarossa, so a (slightly) weaker force on the Eastern Front?

Which if America enters the war as OTL, the Soviets might be even further west than OTL...
 

Carl Schwamberger

Not a uncommon question on the Alt Hist forums. Tho not as common as many.

There are several forks in the outcomes starting in June 1940. Here a a few of the larger ones.

1. Battle of Britian, or Battle of Africa? Hitler has a choice here. Does he attempt to pursue and finish off the French in North Africa? Or does he dismiss them as weak & irelevant& attempt to attack the British isles?

2. Does the French government split? the reason Reynaud gave up on moving the government to Africa & resigned was only 15 or 20 % of the Deputies in the legislature supported continuing the war. As the catastrophe unfolded in June the majority became frantic about a armistice & starting peace negotiations with Germany. They hoped a cease fire would lead to a early peace treaty and avoid a extended occupation of France.

.... If Reynaud & a minority of the Deputies and cabinet do flee to Africa it is quite possible a portion of the Deputies will vote for a new government, which will start negotiating a cease fire. That leaves the generals and admirals having to choose which government is legit & serves the best interests of France. Worst case is two governments exist when the dust settles & the French portion of WWII turns into a civil war.

3. Would the US voters be inspired by the French still resisiting & there is less support for the islolationists, more active support to the Brits and French as 1940 plays out, more support for US preparation for war.

Thee a re a lot of lesser questions, but these are three of the bigger ones.
 

Corjomc

More French troops still fighting under a unified government make things more difficult for the Axis.

In Africa the Italian forces are in for more trouble. I wonder if Germany sends more troops than they did. Maybe Rommel doesn't become the Desert Fox because a larger force is sent with a higher ranked commander.

Is it possible that Germany thinks Africa is far too big a distraction because of the combined Anglo-French look dangerous when combined with their navy so the Germans leave it to Italy.

Does an all out keep fighting France butterfly away Paris being spared destruction by retreating Nazis?

Do the French accept Churchill's union idea?
 

jsb

I would search 'France Fights on' there is a large time line project (mostly in French) about it.
 

Gurroruo

Colonel Levnekov said:
No occupation on the mainland..
Click to expand...

What do you mean no occupation? Would the Germans not occupy France?

Carl Schwamberger said:
1. Battle of Britian, or Battle of Africa? Hitler has a choice here. Does he attempt to pursue and finish off the French in North Africa? Or does he dismiss them as weak & irelevant& attempt to attack the British isles?

2. Does the French government split? the reason Reynaud gave up on moving the government to Africa & resigned was only 15 or 20 % of the Deputies in the legislature supported continuing the war. As the catastrophe unfolded in June the majority became frantic about a armistice & starting peace negotiations with Germany. They hoped a cease fire would lead to a early peace treaty and avoid a extended occupation of France.

.... If Reynaud & a minority of the Deputies and cabinet do flee to Africa it is quite possible a portion of the Deputies will vote for a new government, which will start negotiating a cease fire. That leaves the generals and admirals having to choose which government is legit & serves the best interests of France. Worst case is two governments exist when the dust settles & the French portion of WWII turns into a civil war.

3. Would the US voters be inspired by the French still resisiting & there is less support for the islolationists, more active support to the Brits and French as 1940 plays out, more support for US preparation for war.

Thee a re a lot of lesser questions, but these are three of the bigger ones.
Click to expand...

Yes that is one of my questions, which do you you think more likely?

That could be interesting which way do you see the colonies going, as in which side do they support?

Another interesting point, maybe the Americans enter the war via the Atlantic instead of Pacific, could be a uboat attack on American supplies to Britain.

Corjomc said:
More French troops still fighting under a unified government make things more difficult for the Axis.

In Africa the Italian forces are in for more trouble. I wonder if Germany sends more troops than they did. Maybe Rommel doesn't become the Desert Fox because a larger force is sent with a higher ranked commander.

Is it possible that Germany thinks Africa is far too big a distraction because of the combined Anglo-French look dangerous when combined with their navy so the Germans leave it to Italy.

Does an all out keep fighting France butterfly away Paris being spared destruction by retreating Nazis?

Do the French accept Churchill's union idea?
Click to expand...

Who do you think would be assigned to Africa instead of Rommel?

Do you think that the Allies could seize Libya in such a situation?

The Nazis didn't really sack cities, most of the damage they dealt was during the occupation.

No, this the scenario I've set up involves the French continuing fight under their own government.
 
MrP

MrP

Banned
jsb said:
I would search 'France Fights on' there is a large time line project (mostly in French) about it.
Click to expand...
Best TL ever written on the topic. Two books published, with a third one to come, and even a graphic novel adaptation about to hit the shelves.

couvertureBD.png
 

Look More Closely Later

The Big Question

Gurroruo said:
...What happens next in the war, do the Nazis turn south and focus on the Mediterranean, do they leave it to the Italians and focus on Barbarossa, Or maybe the Germans focus on Britain and leave French Africa to the Italians?...
Click to expand...
The Big Question (or at least, perhaps, the first in a sequence of big questions) seems to me to be does Hitler convince himself that he has done enough damage to the British and French in the summer of 1940 for him to be able to attack Russia in 1941?

I think if during the late summer of 1940, say, there was an extremely bloody (successful or not) Axis attempt to seize Corsica, then Hitler might consider that it doesn't really matter much what the Allies do in Africa, since they're going to have as much trouble as the Axis carrying out an amphibious landing to try and force their way back onto mainland Europe any time soon, and that Barbarossa can thus safely go ahead.

If Hitler believes however that the French and British in Africa will be a serious potential threat to mainland Europe before late 1942, say (which should be long enough for Germany to crush Russia, probably, and get its tanks back west, to a 'Hitler' way of thinking), then he has a problem. (As for which matter do the British and French if Hitler fails to go east.)
 
Last edited:

Glenn239

Gurroruo said:
What's France's plan for withdrawal to North Africa?
Click to expand...

Fall back in a disorganised fashion towards Marseilles while being chopped to pieces by German mechanized formations and air power. Then, another Dunkirk, meaning the evacuation of men without supplies, but not to England, this time to poor North Africa also without supplies, factories or equipment.

What happens next in the war, do the Nazis turn south and focus on the Mediterranean, do they leave it to the Italians and focus on Barbarossa, Or maybe the Germans focus on Britain and leave French Africa to the Italians?
Click to expand...
Germany invades North Africa in the fall of 1940, rolling up the front to the Atlantic coast by October or November. Spain enters the war and the Axis fleets unify for action in the mid-Atlantic.

How would the French war effort in Africa fare? This question includes fighting in Libya and East Africa, Africa in general.
Click to expand...
Poorly.

How might this affect the German occupation of France?
Click to expand...
Depends on whether you are looking at it from the perspective of the looter or the lootie.

Would Japan be still take over Indochina, or would the fact that they know its not going to be an easy fight and that doing so would incur the wrath of Britain, DEI, and Australia deter them?
Click to expand...
They might be deterred, at least for a while.
 

Gurroruo

Look More Closely Later said:
The Big Question (or at least, perhaps, the first in a sequence of big questions) seems to me to be does Hitler convince himself that he has done enough damage to the British and French in the summer of 1940 for him to be able to attack Russia in 1941?

I think if during the late summer of 1940, say, there was an extremely bloody (successful or not) Axis attempt to seize Corsica, then Hitler might consider that it doesn't really matter much what the Allies do in Africa, since they're going to have as much trouble as the Axis carrying out an amphibious landing to try and force their way back onto mainland Europe any time soon, and that Barbarossa can thus safely go ahead.

If Hitler believes however that the French and British in Africa will be a serious potential threat to mainland Europe before late 1942, say (which should be long enough for Germany to crush Russia, probably, and get its tanks back west, to a 'Hitler' way of thinking), then he has a problem. (As for which matter do the British and French if Hitler fails to go east.)
Click to expand...

That's great input.

Glenn239 said:
Fall back in a disorganised fashion towards Marseilles while being chopped to pieces by German mechanized formations and air power. Then, another Dunkirk, meaning the evacuation of men without supplies, but not to England, this time to poor North Africa also without supplies, factories or equipment.

Germany invades North Africa in the fall of 1940, rolling up the front to the Atlantic coast by October or November. Spain enters the war and the Axis fleets unify for action in the mid-Atlantic.

Poorly.

Depends on whether you are looking at it from the perspective of the looter or the lootie.

They might be deterred, at least for a while.
Click to expand...

While much of one of the French armies was already being evacuated with supplies and armor in tow. But yeah moving factories will be tough, especially with most of France's factory region overrun.

Germany invades North Africa in fall of 1940? Their plan was to invade Britain with river barges. Germany has absolutely no amphibious ships at this time of any sort. Meanwhile the French navy in the Med is very strong and it combined with the British Med Fleet is more than a much for the Italians who operated on a fleet in being doctrine. I simply can't see a German invasion, especially with how terrible logistics would be. And Spain joining the Axis. That is overused way too much without knowledge of Spain's situation. Spain at this time had just come out of a terrible civil war with many casualties. During this war Spain in fact lost its whole gold reserve to Moscow and Paris. Now Franco was trying to reconstruct his nation whilst also keeping control of Spain. Meanwhile all, absolutely all of Spain's oil came from the Allies as well as their grain. And considering the Germans were dependent on the Soviets for raw materials they are in no position to replace the Allies as trade partners. This is why OTL when Hitler offered a good deal to the Spanish they refused, but to not offend Hitler they made the most ridiculous counter offer you could imagine. In brief Spain will not join the Axis.

^

Um Lootie please

Thanks, I thought so too.
 

ObssesedNuker

Glenn239 said:
Fall back in a disorganised fashion towards Marseilles while being chopped to pieces by German mechanized formations and air power. Then, another Dunkirk, meaning the evacuation of men without supplies, but not to England, this time to poor North Africa also without supplies, factories or equipment.
Click to expand...

Of course, the British likely ship them equipment and supplies via the French Atlantic and Med ports.

Germany invades North Africa in the fall of 1940, rolling up the front to the Atlantic coast by October or November.
Click to expand...
How do the Germans magically solve the logistical issues involved in advancing that far? What happens when the British collapse the Italian resistance in Eastern Libya and roll into the German rear areas? How do they bypass the issue of the French fleet joining the British in interdicting the Italian shipping lanes?

Spain enters the war and the Axis fleets unify for action in the mid-Atlantic.
Click to expand...
Why does Spain do this when Franco was so desperate to avoid entering the war?
 

RodentRevolution

Banned
ObssesedNuker said:
Of course, the British likely ship them equipment and supplies via the French Atlantic and Med ports.

How do the Germans magically solve the logistical issues involved in advancing that far? What happens when the British collapse the Italian resistance in Eastern Libya and roll into the German rear areas? How do they bypass the issue of the French fleet joining the British in interdicting the Italian shipping lanes?

Why does Spain do this when Franco was so desperate to avoid entering the war?
Click to expand...

Further what about the fact that French already have a fully equipped field army in North Africa?

Is it not rather more likely that North Africa goes under complete Allied control from Atlantic to Indian Ocean about 1-2 years earlier?

One butterfly may be that the British don't get to try out certain pieces of US kit as the Americans have a legitimate French Government to send the stuff to.
 

Gurroruo

RodentRevolution said:
Further what about the fact that French already have a fully equipped field army in North Africa?

Is it not rather more likely that North Africa goes under complete Allied control from Atlantic to Indian Ocean about 1-2 years earlier?

One butterfly may be that the British don't get to try out certain pieces of US kit as the Americans have a legitimate French Government to send the stuff to.
Click to expand...

Yep

As long as Malta holds yes, because the holding of Mala guarantees terrible logistics for the Axis in Italy. If Hitler decided against sending troops to the theater than a year at most before the Italians are destroyed. I wonder about the affect on Eastern Africa.

That's a good point and would have some effects on the Allied reentrancement to the continent whether in Italy or France.
 

nbcman

Donor
There would be butterflies in the Pacific. No Vichy France could prevent Japan from easily occupying Indochina which could save Malaya and Burma plus the Dutch Indies. If the Japanese decided to take Indochina by force it could lead to US sanctions or even war.
 

John Farson

Banned
nbcman said:
There would be butterflies in the Pacific. No Vichy France could prevent Japan from easily occupying Indochina which could save Malaya and Burma plus the Dutch Indies. If the Japanese decided to take Indochina by force it could lead to US sanctions or even war.
Click to expand...

Also, no Vichy France means the Allies suddenly have considerably more ships to handle the Italian Navy in the Mediterranean, freeing up more RN ships to the Far East and Singapore. Also, no need to expend forces to capture places like Syria, Madagascar and so on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top