Would the need to occupy all of France and the continued fighting delay Barbarossa?
WI: 1940, French Government moves to Algieria
- Thread starter Kalwejt
- Start date
This is in some ways both good in bad. The Allies would be bolstered by additional forces, and the French Air Force could help Britain defend itself in the latter months. Unfortunately, only a fraction of the Italian Army in Libya would be destroyed (about 200,000) rather than the number by the time the Afrika Corps surrendered in Tunis (950,000 Axis soldiers lost). Therefore, while Italy will be humiliated, it will not collapse, and possibly could push Mussolini to reform his military more along German lines.
In the Pacific, this would prove in some ways disastrous. Without bases in French Indochina, I am sure that Japan would (begrudgingly) decide against a movement against the Southern Resource Zone, and attempt a takeover of the Northern Resource Zone (Soviet Far East), either with the Germans in 1941, or in 1942. A Soviet defeat does not bode well for the Allies in any situation, and the lack of Pearl Harbor keeps the United States out of the war for a few more years.
In the Pacific, this would prove in some ways disastrous. Without bases in French Indochina, I am sure that Japan would (begrudgingly) decide against a movement against the Southern Resource Zone, and attempt a takeover of the Northern Resource Zone (Soviet Far East), either with the Germans in 1941, or in 1942. A Soviet defeat does not bode well for the Allies in any situation, and the lack of Pearl Harbor keeps the United States out of the war for a few more years.
But the SOuthern Resource Zone, is already up and running, with oil. The NOrthern Resource Zone would not be productive without years of investment. ANd I'm not aware of oil being present in significant amount at that time.
Japanese intervention in Barbarossa? I don't think that's ever been done in an FFO type timiline, Kudos.
However, a fair proportion of the Red Army was stationed in the East for just such an eventuality and in the early stages of Barbarossa these troops were not shifted westward to support resistance against the German invasion on those grounds.
In OTL's Barbarossa the Germans caught the Soviets with their pants down wheras the Eastern forces were anticipating Japanese border raids. While they may be taken aback somewhat by the scale of the attack, I think it will mean a lot of Japanese casualties. I doubt this would mean that the Soviet Union would fall because, all things considered, Barbarossa will probably be delayed until 1942, meaning STAVKA will have had time to digest the findings of some earlier wargames meaning that the USSR would, in terms of doctrine and logistics, better prepared to resist a German invasion. Stalin being the cynical old bugger that he was, may be perpared to sacrifice some territory in the east in the sort term, leave a holding force there to tie down the Japanese and transfer a fair proportion of the forces in those regions to his western front.
However I really don't think the earlier ideas about the political union are feasible, considering that many of the prominent figures in France's Pro War Lobby including de Gaulle were decidedly anti-British.
However, a fair proportion of the Red Army was stationed in the East for just such an eventuality and in the early stages of Barbarossa these troops were not shifted westward to support resistance against the German invasion on those grounds.
In OTL's Barbarossa the Germans caught the Soviets with their pants down wheras the Eastern forces were anticipating Japanese border raids. While they may be taken aback somewhat by the scale of the attack, I think it will mean a lot of Japanese casualties. I doubt this would mean that the Soviet Union would fall because, all things considered, Barbarossa will probably be delayed until 1942, meaning STAVKA will have had time to digest the findings of some earlier wargames meaning that the USSR would, in terms of doctrine and logistics, better prepared to resist a German invasion. Stalin being the cynical old bugger that he was, may be perpared to sacrifice some territory in the east in the sort term, leave a holding force there to tie down the Japanese and transfer a fair proportion of the forces in those regions to his western front.
However I really don't think the earlier ideas about the political union are feasible, considering that many of the prominent figures in France's Pro War Lobby including de Gaulle were decidedly anti-British.
Blair152
Banned
I have proof. I have The History Of World War II. I got it for fifteen dollars when I lived in Maine. There were several chapters on the Battle of France.
One of them said that Petain wanted to surrender the French fortress city of
Verdun in 1916. Use your brains. Don't sit on them.
Hendryk
Banned
The Franco-British Union project almost made it through in OTL. De Gaulle personally tried to convince Reynaud to sign it, but Reynaud resigned the same day.
Ofcourse you could always try to write what you want in a coherent matter. It's very much possible that Petain want to retreat the army out of the Battle of Verdun. That's something different then surrendering and something completely different wanting France to surrender
@ Hendryk, I stand corrected on de Gaulle, thanks. Nevertheless, I think the idea of a political union with the UK would fall on its ass very quickly, but, I'm not an expert on the politics of the French Third Republic.
If we have anyone here who fits the bill we'd appreciate your thoughts on the Union idea.
On a general note, I'm all for making a TL based on this scenario but I think we need to establish the POD. I think we can rule out Reynaud's mistress being killed in a Car Crash, that's already been used at least twice.
If we have anyone here who fits the bill we'd appreciate your thoughts on the Union idea.
On a general note, I'm all for making a TL based on this scenario but I think we need to establish the POD. I think we can rule out Reynaud's mistress being killed in a Car Crash, that's already been used at least twice.
John Farson
Banned
Actually, that's not completely true. Fantasque and co recently hashed out the fall of Mussolini and Italy's surrender and defection to the Allies. It all takes place in November-December 1942, culminating in a German assault on Rome, which fails due to a bigger Italian military presence around the city as well as Allied reinforcements. I believe the TL is now at 27 December 1942. The Eastern Front and the Greek front should also follow.
Work on the Pacific theater is halted for the moment, though. There is going to be a big naval battle off Guadalcanal in December 1942, but the European team hasn't gotten around to doing it yet, partially because the siege of Singapore is still unresolved. Well, no, it's been established that in FFO Singapore under the command of Lord Gort falls on 21 September 1942 (as opposed to 15 February OTL), but the problem is that the last description of Singapore is on 31 July, meaning that there's 52 days missing from the narrative. Now anyone can see that a lot can happen during those 52 days, and this would impact other areas in the Pacific front. However, there has been a vigorous discussion of other aspects, such as the use of the atom bombs against Japan and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in FFO (it'll happen much earlier than OTL).
About APOD, one thing about it that rubs me raw about it right from the start is the idea that a number of French colonies would go over to Pétain and the other collaborationists despite the legitimate government being in Algiers. That's complete BS. Provided that there is a legitimate French government continuing the war from the empire, no French officer, government official or colonial official will go over to Pétain, Laval and their gang. Doing so would constitute high treason, and would immediately invite a firing squad. That MarkBailey et al have chosen to do so speaks volumes about their ignorance with regards to the matter. Either that, or they think it makes for a "sexier" story.
The French move in itself could improve the oil situation. The occupation of French Indochina precipitated the American oil embargo. The Italians are going to fall quickly, and it took until July 1941 for the Indochina moves and the embargo to be implemented. With the change in the French situation, I don't see that series of events happening.
Instead, Japan could see the Soviets in a position of weakness after a German attack, then strike. It doesn't improve their situation and may contribute to a later embargo, but there isn't as much of an urgency to go south in this scenario.
I think I can provide an idea - take the Sudeten crisis, for example. If Reynaud can successfully persuade Pierre-Étienne Flandin against German expansion eastward (thereby stopping the annexation of Czechoslovakia by the Nazis), that could be a start.
I started a time-line like this (France fights on from North Africa) a few years ago, but came to the conclusion that it wouldn't have worked out well from a French or Allied perspective. There were several problems (1) While the French had reasonably formidable forces in North Africa in terms of numbers, they had moved most of the forces in North Africa with substantial combat power to metropolitan France after the debacle in the north that culminated in Dunkirk. In order to have substantial combat power in North Africa, the French would have needed to (a) Keep those forces in North Africa instead of using them to try to help hold Weygend's cobbled-together line--which would have meant an even faster German advance in Metropolitan France, or (b) Get them, and other substantial French forces back to Africa. The problem there was that the Germans were substantially more mobile than the French. There was no guarantee that French front-line troops could make it to the French southern ports before the Germans took those ports.
The French could move aircraft to North Africa, and maybe a class of young men just called up to the army. Their major weapons (tanks, planes, and artillery) would be mostly British or American-made in a very short time. Why? Because they would be cut off from sources of spare parts. The reasonably formidable French aircraft that could get to North Africa would dwindle quickly as planes broke down and had to be cannibalized to keep a few in the air. Tanks: same thing. The French fleet would probably take a little longer to decline into near uselessness, but it would eventually.
The French did have substantial orders of US aircraft in the pipeline, and those would presumably go to the French instead of the British. The French would probably get some small arms and artillery from the big batch that the US sent the Brits. So they wouldn't be helpless. My point is that they wouldn't be particularly strong, and their French-made weapons would not for the most part be usable for long.
Sorry to rain on this particular parade, because it has long been one of my favorite what-ifs, but it does have issues.
The French could move aircraft to North Africa, and maybe a class of young men just called up to the army. Their major weapons (tanks, planes, and artillery) would be mostly British or American-made in a very short time. Why? Because they would be cut off from sources of spare parts. The reasonably formidable French aircraft that could get to North Africa would dwindle quickly as planes broke down and had to be cannibalized to keep a few in the air. Tanks: same thing. The French fleet would probably take a little longer to decline into near uselessness, but it would eventually.
The French did have substantial orders of US aircraft in the pipeline, and those would presumably go to the French instead of the British. The French would probably get some small arms and artillery from the big batch that the US sent the Brits. So they wouldn't be helpless. My point is that they wouldn't be particularly strong, and their French-made weapons would not for the most part be usable for long.
Sorry to rain on this particular parade, because it has long been one of my favorite what-ifs, but it does have issues.
Its not quite as bad as that.
In WW2, ships didnt depend on factory-built parts nearly so much as now - a lot of stuiff was fixed 'by hand' as it were. There will be a diminishing fleet with time, but it would still be very effective, especialy in the first year facing the Italian fleet.
Similarly, the air force will help take out the Italians in NA, then its US supplied aircraft.
As for the army, they do still ahve forces in NA, and FFO described a significant number of troops recovered from metroplolitan France - in addition, there were troops recovered to the UK.
FFO also has a significant number of craftsmen brought back, enough to set up (with US help) an arms industry in NA.
I'd see Italy getting shoved out of NA pretty quickly, allowing the French to consolidate - there isnt going to be much hapenning for a while after that, even with L-L and French money US arms productiuon was only just spooling up, but it would be a very substantial boost for the UK.
I dont know if Greece will hold, the limiting factors are aircraft and ships rather than men for an intervention, but I certainly dont think Creete will fall, and Malta is much safer
John Farson
Banned
Even if the only thing that resulted from France fighting on was Italy getting chased out of Africa with the French otherwise just sitting on their asses for the duration of the war (not bloody likely, though the French wouldn't be able to move around forces to the same extent as the Americans and the British; think of Belgium during WW I), the butterflies would still be big. For one thing, all the resources spent by the Anglo-Americans in chasing out Rommel from North Africa would now be spent elsewhere, and Crete at the very least would definitely hold. This could very well lead to Hitler postponing Barbarossa until '42. This would also have interesting effects for the Far East. In FFO Burma has held and Singapore falls much later. The presence of the Marine Nationale would also be a significant factor, even though it would be a wasting asset until metropolitan France were recovered.
All in all, I see this as the polar opposite of Blairwitch's "Manstein in Africa." Much, much better for the world that way.
Lack of available spares for existing french kit will be a problem. This is where Cash and Carry and Lend Lease become interesting ITTL.
Assuming that the French Government managed to get away with a fair portion of its currency reserves, they have the means to procure new equipment to replace the wearing out French kit, and France has placed several orders for aircraft before the surrender IOTL (these orders were subsequently requisisioned by the British).
Pride and lack of direction caused by the shock of the move to Algiers means that France will probably not a have a coordinated procurment strategy itinitially (this is partly alleviated by the OTL Franco-British Purchasing Commission), and so the point about relying on its own dwindling equipment stores still holds true to certain extent in terms of Armour, Motor Transport and Aircraft.
The situation for the Navy has its own set of challenges however. Again C&C and Lend Lease will provide the MN with some ships, although this means does not mean that as implied by the gradual deterioration proposal tabled earlier, that the French Fleet will be reduced to a convoy escort/ASW force. While some older Free French heavy surface areas were laid up as depot ships due to lack of men and spares we have a different situation here.
Many scenarios suggest that indigenous inhabitants of France's overseas possessions would be offered citizenship if they joined up. I genuinely belive that this would be only means with by which TTL's Government in Exile will be able to address its manpower issues.
So, we have a larger crew pool ITTL. However I think at least some ships will have to be used as depots for training purposes.
As to deterioration through lack of spares, keep in mind that even before formal US entry in to the war the Royal Navy was sending its ships to American shipyards for refits. With time the same arrangments may be possible for the French, however this does not solve the problem entirely.
It will eventually become necessary for French vessels to undergo large scale modernisations to cope with the demands of modern naval warfare as it stood during that period. This may also mean conversions for some of the old battleships into Shore Bombardment Ships (Large stable gun platforms rather than mobile fleet movements, or to put it anotherway, Superheavy Monitors).
Finally my usual piece, the Union Question. DeGaulle may have supported it but I have to say that it must have been very controversial. If we assume that for what ever reason Reynaud does not resign, he is nontheless in a very precarious position with Council of Ministers, and could be easily unseated by a vote of confidence. I therefore think that the motion for a union would either never be formally proposed to the Council for the reason that it would be a gift for the ultra nationalist elements of the peace faction. Or for the same reason, the proposal is quietly shelved in order to avoid another potentially fatal (for Reynaud) vote of confidence. On the other hand, I don't think that any other forum has ever done a serious timeline based on the Political Union scenario. So for the sake of originality I say we go ahead with it.
I don't know how to set up a poll on this forum but maybe we ought to put forward some PODs, arrange a vote, and then make a formal start to the timeline. No, wait, we need to think of a snappy title once we've voted on the premise.
Assuming that the French Government managed to get away with a fair portion of its currency reserves, they have the means to procure new equipment to replace the wearing out French kit, and France has placed several orders for aircraft before the surrender IOTL (these orders were subsequently requisisioned by the British).
Pride and lack of direction caused by the shock of the move to Algiers means that France will probably not a have a coordinated procurment strategy itinitially (this is partly alleviated by the OTL Franco-British Purchasing Commission), and so the point about relying on its own dwindling equipment stores still holds true to certain extent in terms of Armour, Motor Transport and Aircraft.
The situation for the Navy has its own set of challenges however. Again C&C and Lend Lease will provide the MN with some ships, although this means does not mean that as implied by the gradual deterioration proposal tabled earlier, that the French Fleet will be reduced to a convoy escort/ASW force. While some older Free French heavy surface areas were laid up as depot ships due to lack of men and spares we have a different situation here.
Many scenarios suggest that indigenous inhabitants of France's overseas possessions would be offered citizenship if they joined up. I genuinely belive that this would be only means with by which TTL's Government in Exile will be able to address its manpower issues.
So, we have a larger crew pool ITTL. However I think at least some ships will have to be used as depots for training purposes.
As to deterioration through lack of spares, keep in mind that even before formal US entry in to the war the Royal Navy was sending its ships to American shipyards for refits. With time the same arrangments may be possible for the French, however this does not solve the problem entirely.
It will eventually become necessary for French vessels to undergo large scale modernisations to cope with the demands of modern naval warfare as it stood during that period. This may also mean conversions for some of the old battleships into Shore Bombardment Ships (Large stable gun platforms rather than mobile fleet movements, or to put it anotherway, Superheavy Monitors).
Finally my usual piece, the Union Question. DeGaulle may have supported it but I have to say that it must have been very controversial. If we assume that for what ever reason Reynaud does not resign, he is nontheless in a very precarious position with Council of Ministers, and could be easily unseated by a vote of confidence. I therefore think that the motion for a union would either never be formally proposed to the Council for the reason that it would be a gift for the ultra nationalist elements of the peace faction. Or for the same reason, the proposal is quietly shelved in order to avoid another potentially fatal (for Reynaud) vote of confidence. On the other hand, I don't think that any other forum has ever done a serious timeline based on the Political Union scenario. So for the sake of originality I say we go ahead with it.
I don't know how to set up a poll on this forum but maybe we ought to put forward some PODs, arrange a vote, and then make a formal start to the timeline. No, wait, we need to think of a snappy title once we've voted on the premise
.