What if Admiral Darlan threw his lot in with Nazi Germany?

Andrew Hudson

In July 1940 Britain carried out Operation Catalpult which involved the siezure of French ships in British harbours, the negotiated demilitraisation of the French ships in Alexandria and an aultimatum to the French fleet in North Africa;
(a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans.
(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.
If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.
(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance — where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.
If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.


As the options were rejected, Britain opened fire with tragic consequences. France launched a retliatory air raid on Gibraltar and an unofficial war developed between Britain and the Vichy regime which put a price of De Gualle's head. However Admiral Darlan was an Anglophobe and although he gave the orders to scuttle his ships in 1942 to prevent them from falling into German hands it was only after the Americans had landed in North Africa and he had decided to throw his lot in with the winning side as it was becoming clear that the allies were winning by October 1942.

Suppose the Germans had wooed Darlan and he had used his ships in support of the Germans including 2 battelecruisers more heavily Armed than Scharnost and Gniesnau and a lot of the Itlaian battelships? Would this have changed the outcome i.e cutting off Malta or escaping inot the Atlantic to attack convoys?
 

Geekhis Khan

Well, the French fleet plus the Italian fleet will seriously challenge UK superiority in the Med. The UK in this case needs to take out the French fleet fast. Darlan better not keep his ships in port or you'll see a Taranto-style raid.

If scrambled and coordinated with the Italians then the RN position in the Med is seriously threatened. Now the RM is emboldened and likely out of port. The RN may have to pull back the Indian and Pacific ships and weaken the Home Fleet in order to defend the Med or else write off the Med and keep it bottled up, making the long Cape journey for shipping.

Either way bad for the RN.
 

Grimm Reaper

In late 1942? Never happen.

The Italian fleet is already crippled and hopelessly outclassed by the RN, not to mention US involvment, and the Kriegsmarine has nothing above a stolen destroyer or two in the Med.


In 1940? Between French capital ships in British ports including Alexandria and the ones isolated in West Africa, plus the inevitable British strikes, not much above cruiser level will remain and even French cruisers will be dramatically reduced in number. This also probably means the British abandon the pretense that De Gaulle matters and France is treated as a minor Axis at war's end.
 

HMS Warspite

In a worse case scenario for the Alied cause, the combined French/Italian Fleet in the Mediteranean, would outnumber the British even more, but would likely not be very decisive on its own. The British still had the upperhand in their aircraft carriers, against neither French, nor Italians could do much. Although the new fast battleships of the Dunkerque class were potentially stron, they remained vulnerable to British attacks, as they were not so heavily protected as the unfinished larger Richelieu clas ships. All British heavy gunnery on the available capital ships coudl defeat this protection. Underwaterprotection was another point of concern, as the relatively lightly built French battleships were vulnerable to torpedoattacks. (They had been constructed mainly with the Mediteranean in mind, and not the heavy seas of the North Atlantic.)

The most logical way the war would have been fought was almost identical as the historical one, although now the French fleet too was mainly left inactive in its homeports most of the time, out of fear being struck by carrier based aircraft, especially after the Taranto Attack. The British would continue to challance the Mediteranean dominance at sea and in the air.
 

Geekhis Khan

Grimm Reaper said:
In late 1942? Never happen.

The Italian fleet is already crippled and hopelessly outclassed by the RN, not to mention US involvment, and the Kriegsmarine has nothing above a stolen destroyer or two in the Med.


In 1940? Between French capital ships in British ports including Alexandria and the ones isolated in West Africa, plus the inevitable British strikes, not much above cruiser level will remain and even French cruisers will be dramatically reduced in number. This also probably means the British abandon the pretense that De Gaulle matters and France is treated as a minor Axis at war's end.
Click to expand...

Didn't notice the "42" POD. Yea, not much hope there.

In 40, which I'd assumed in my prior post, then I'd give them more credit than you. Air power's a lethal weapon, but the Med's a tight space where land aircraft can help alleviate that if used wisely. Even without French ships the Axis put up a fair challenge in the med before 42.
 

esl

Andrew Hudson said:
In July 1940 Britain carried out Operation Catalpult which involved the siezure of French ships in British harbours, the negotiated demilitraisation of the French ships in Alexandria and an aultimatum to the French fleet in North Africa;
(a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans.
(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.
If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.
(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance — where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.
If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.


As the options were rejected, Britain opened fire with tragic consequences. France launched a retliatory air raid on Gibraltar and an unofficial war developed between Britain and the Vichy regime which put a price of De Gualle's head. However Admiral Darlan was an Anglophobe and although he gave the orders to scuttle his ships in 1942 to prevent them from falling into German hands it was only after the Americans had landed in North Africa and he had decided to throw his lot in with the winning side as it was becoming clear that the allies were winning by October 1942.

Suppose the Germans had wooed Darlan and he had used his ships in support of the Germans including 2 battelecruisers more heavily Armed than Scharnost and Gniesnau and a lot of the Itlaian battelships? Would this have changed the outcome i.e cutting off Malta or escaping inot the Atlantic to attack convoys?
Click to expand...


The moment of decision is then in 1940 ,not in 1942 after the Torch landings . That was the historical moment of decision. If the Hitler can convince Darlan to act ,it would have been in 1940, not wait until 1942. So the real POD is what would happen from 1940 on.

The French fleet was very much angered and divided in the summer of 1940 after the British attack. By 1942 this French reaction had largely subsided. Historically the Germans were able still to 'steal' 1/4 of all the allied ships/warships in 1940 as they stormed across Europe, adding about 100 warships to their fleet in 1940/41. When the Germans tried to seize the French Fleet in 1942 they only got about 1/10th of this fleet and even that took 6 months to a year to rehabilitate. When a similar situation happened against the Italians in 1943 amoungst the chaos of their historical collapse, 2/3 of the Italian fleet fell into German hands or under German control. If this alternative POD happens in 1940 on the heels of the British attack, then its likely the bulk of the French fleet would instead fall under German control, from that point on.

Individual capital ships, don't win wars by themselves , most such naval actions are decided by naval leadership and agressive command. Most of the real campaigning in war was done by lesser warships from Crusiers and Destroyers and Subs on down.
 
Last edited:

jacobus

It's hard to believe the French sailors would have participated in the war against Britain with much enthusiasm. I think most of them thought their war was over, and they were just glad to be out of it. But some ships did join the Free French forces, and continued to resist. There were also warships from some of the other occupied countries that refused to give up, and kept up the fight as part of the Allied forces.
I wonder why the Germans accepted this? Refusal to surrender, by any warship, is a violation of the ceasefire agreements.
 

HJ Tulp

jacobus said:
It's hard to believe the French sailors would have participated in the war against Britain with much enthusiasm. I think most of them thought their war was over, and they were just glad to be out of it. But some ships did join the Free French forces, and continued to resist. There were also warships from some of the other occupied countries that refused to give up, and kept up the fight as part of the Allied forces.
I wonder why the Germans accepted this? Refusal to surrender, by any warship, is a violation of the ceasefire agreements.
Click to expand...

Accepted what? I know that the Dutch Caputilation agreement only specified the surrender of the mainland Army and then not even all of it. What could the Germans have done against Vichy what they didn't do OTL?
 

jacobus

Against Vichy, there was nothing to be done; the Vichy regime remained officially neutral, as it was supposed to. But there were Free French forces, as well as elements of Czech, Greek, Norwegian, and Polish forces who refused to surrender; they fled to the UK, and continued the fight. I was just wondering why the German authorities tolerated this?
The home countries of these exile forces were under occupation, and the Germans had seized the personnel records of their armed forces, so they knew which individuals, units and vessels hadn't turned themselves in. With their families as hostages, couldn't the Germans have coerced these men into surrendering?
 

Grimm Reaper

esl, in 1940 the vast majority of the French fleet is in North Africa or in British ports, the Germans will find it impossible to get the ships in North Africa until(if) they return home and impossible to get the ships in the UK or Alexandria, including one third of the French battleships and cruisers, at all.

That's one third counting the incomplete Richelieu.

And after Operation Catapult almost every other French capital ship is sunk or damaged.

Demanding the French ships in North Africa return home to be seized tells the Vichy regime that last French assets on the board are about to be lost as surrendering the fleet also puts the colonies at risk of British seizure and why would Vichy agree to this for no gain?




In fact two of the French cruisers and ten of the destroyers WERE later handed over to the Axis without noticeable result.
 

Geekhis Khan

Grimm Reaper said:
esl, in 1940 the vast majority of the French fleet is in North Africa or in British ports, the Germans will find it impossible to get the ships in North Africa until(if) they return home and impossible to get the ships in the UK or Alexandria, including one third of the French battleships and cruisers, at all.

That's one third counting the incomplete Richelieu.

And after Operation Catapult almost every other French capital ship is sunk or damaged.

Demanding the French ships in North Africa return home to be seized tells the Vichy regime that last French assets on the board are about to be lost as surrendering the fleet also puts the colonies at risk of British seizure and why would Vichy agree to this for no gain?




In fact two of the French cruisers and ten of the destroyers WERE later handed over to the Axis without noticeable result.
Click to expand...

Those are great points. There'd need to be some earlier POD that left them vulnerable to Axis capture, but not UK destruction. Any ideas?
 

Markus

Banned
Andrew Hudson said:
Suppose the Germans had wooed Darlan and he had used his ships in support of the Germans including 2 battelecruisers more heavily Armed than Scharnost and Gniesnau and a lot of the Itlaian battelships?
Click to expand...

How? What´s in it for Darlan in return for loosing much of his remaining naval strenght?
 

HJ Tulp

jacobus said:
Against Vichy, there was nothing to be done; the Vichy regime remained officially neutral, as it was supposed to. But there were Free French forces, as well as elements of Czech, Greek, Norwegian, and Polish forces who refused to surrender; they fled to the UK, and continued the fight. I was just wondering why the German authorities tolerated this?
The home countries of these exile forces were under occupation, and the Germans had seized the personnel records of their armed forces, so they knew which individuals, units and vessels hadn't turned themselves in. With their families as hostages, couldn't the Germans have coerced these men into surrendering?
Click to expand...

I know that the Germans did stop the payment of sailors of the Dutch Merchant Navy (that sailed for the Allies) to the families. From what I know that didn't stop the money from reaching the families though. One of the more succesfull things the Resistance did.

About using the families as hostages: I think that atleast in the beginning the Germans were trying to get the people of the occupied nations on their side. Furthermore, most of those countries (except Denmark and France) never signed a peace. The Free Soldiers weren't committing any crimes against international law or anything like that.
 

esl

Grimm Reaper said:
esl, in 1940 the vast majority of the French fleet is in North Africa or in British ports, the Germans will find it impossible to get the ships in North Africa until(if) they return home and impossible to get the ships in the UK or Alexandria, including one third of the French battleships and cruisers, at all.

That's one third counting the incomplete Richelieu.

And after Operation Catapult almost every other French capital ship is sunk or damaged.

Demanding the French ships in North Africa return home to be seized tells the Vichy regime that last French assets on the board are about to be lost as surrendering the fleet also puts the colonies at risk of British seizure and why would Vichy agree to this for no gain?




In fact two of the French cruisers and ten of the destroyers WERE later handed over to the Axis without noticeable result.
Click to expand...

Actually 2/3 of the 600 vessels in the French Fleet were in France. As to the rest, the Germans would have been in a position to crew these captured French vessels in a matter of a year given the huge growth in the KM personnel....180k in 1939 to 400k in 1940 and 600-800k for the rest of the war.
 

Grimm Reaper

esl, you managed to completely avoid the question, as to how the Germans are supposed to get either the French ships in British custody or even the return of the ships in French North Africa, many of them damaged or sunk, when the French know exactly why they're being ordered back to Toulon.

Then the Germans still can't grab those ships unless they also dissolve the Vichy French unoccupied zone, which is likely to cause the ships and North Africa to go in exactly the pro-British direction Hitler feared. After all, you can't seize ships requiring thousands of people to run them if you don't have the people on the ships and how does Vichy keep any shred of credibility if it allows the surrender of the fleet AND so many German occupiers in the supposed unoccupied zone?


What do the statistics about manpower you offered even have to do with the issues being raised? Nothing that I can see.


As to the French fleet's disposition, how many of the ships you mention still in French waters were battleships? Cruisers? Destroyers? Subs(Germany didn't need these so much)? Were of the slightest relevance when it came to combat, sea control, etc.?
 

esl

Grimm Reaper said:
esl, you managed to completely avoid the question, as to how the Germans are supposed to get either the French ships in British custody or even the return of the ships in French North Africa, many of them damaged or sunk, when the French know exactly why they're being ordered back to Toulon.

Then the Germans still can't grab those ships unless they also dissolve the Vichy French unoccupied zone, which is likely to cause the ships and North Africa to go in exactly the pro-British direction Hitler feared. After all, you can't seize ships requiring thousands of people to run them if you don't have the people on the ships and how does Vichy keep any shred of credibility if it allows the surrender of the fleet AND so many German occupiers in the supposed unoccupied zone?


What do the statistics about manpower you offered even have to do with the issues being raised? Nothing that I can see.


As to the French fleet's disposition, how many of the ships you mention still in French waters were battleships? Cruisers? Destroyers? Subs(Germany didn't need these so much)? Were of the slightest relevance when it came to combat, sea control, etc.?
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in the politics, only the Potential . As the thread postulates Darlan is wooed into joining forces with the Germans or atleast 'allow' the fleet to fall into German hands.

Also comments about 'sea control' and what you 'see' are equally irrellevant. Its clear the Germans made much better usage of their warships in the earlier years and while your opinion is they would be of no value, they would see it otherwise, especially in the Med from 1940 on :D


In raw figures when the Germans moved on the French fleet in late 1942....

1/3 of the Capital ships and Cruisers fell into German hands while 1/2 of the Subs and Destroyers also fell into German hands. The bulk of the lesser craft fell into German hands.

However the bulk of these vessels that fell into German hands were historically scuttled and took better part of a year to raise, some so badly damaged they were deemed to be not worth the effort.

In this ATL , with no time to prepare plus an admiral that has no intention of helping the British, the reverse could/should happen. The bulk of the fleet in French waters would fall into German hands intact, while those in other waters would be scuttled to avoid falling into 'enemy hands'.
 

Grimm Reaper

esl, I think your habit of insults, deliberate habit of inventing a fantasy of your own instead of responding to questions about the subject actually under discussion, combined with your general ignorance of naval matters has rendered you a suitable candidate for my ignore list.
 

Andrew Hudson

The POD would have to be 1940 shortly after the attack at Mers El Kabir or after Dakar so that the French sailors were still feeling hostility towards perfidious Albion.Also it looked liked Nazi Germany was winning the war, which is why Mussolini threw his lot it. In 1942 it was obvious that the allies were winning so Darlan tried to throw his lot in with the Americans but was assassinated by probably a Guallist or British agent as both Britain and De Gaulle had scores to settle with Darlan, De Gualle probably had the greater incentive.
 

Cockroach

esl said:
In raw figures when the Germans moved on the French fleet in late 1942....

1/3 of the Capital ships and Cruisers fell into German hands...
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Neglecting to menton that the capital ships and cruisers that fell into German hands were thoroughly wrecked or actually sunk in shallow waters. Applying your standards I'd be able to claim that Gneisenau, Admiral Scheer, Lützow, Admiral Hipper, Seydlitz, Emden, Köln and perhaps even Tirpitz fell into allied hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top