Though, the Free France has to be factored. The free france mean that the De Gaulle's pro-Allied government would claim that they were legitimate.
Vichy France join the Axis 1940
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
And would get some following, given how divided France was before the war. But given full German cooperation (and this is the deal killer) the pro Axis narrative could be powerful. Powerful enough to overcome anti German feeling and sustain a war effort, I don't think so, neither did most of the Petain followers, and in OTL only the Navy wanted to retaliate. In fact, in 1942 a faction within the Vichy government approached Britain with a plan to assist an allied landing in the south of France, according to a recent article in Guerres et Histoire magazine.
If this happens, IMO, several things follow immediately. Japanese efforts against ROC in southern China are going to be significantly enabled, now able to cross IndoChina without interference. That means the invasion that sparked the U.S. embargos doesn't happen. It also means Britain has to do more about building a Burma Road, or Railway, much sooner.
The other big thing is, it blows up British ops in Africa. Italy is likely still to fold up, but now, there will be Vichy aid from (frex) Syria, rather than German. Just how serious that is for British ops in Africa, IDK, but it doesn't look good. It also likely means a Brit/Commonwealth invasion of Madagascar is mandatory.
No (or less) German involvement in Africa means it's worse for the Sovs, with X Fliegerkorps available to attack Sov oil (rather than busy bombing Malta). Basing U-boats at (frex) Dakar is a nightmare of Allied convoy escort.
And this is at a time when RN & RCN are already at full stretch... There's also a chance (maybe not a good one) for Vichy troops in SU...
Does Vichy control of Syria mean German access to Mid East oil is better?
Does the increased "reach" of U-boats encourage more Type IXs being built? Maybe (because they'll be operating farther from home more of the time). Does it mean the Brits will have to shift a/c from Bomber Command to Coastal Command? Maybe--& maybe even to Newfoundland (both a good thing for Britain). Does it make war with Japan less likely? In the near term, at least, yes, IMO it does--& that's good for Britain, too, & not only for the greater number of VLRs available. Does it get bad enough the Brits have to change their approach to bombing Germany? IDK. Does it mean the Brits will need new weapons & equipment to cope with U-boats? Likely--at a minimum, it should see ASV in Coastal Command first (if not kept out of Bomber Command's hands entire).
Does it mean the U.S. never actually enters the war? It might...
Does Germany apparently doing better move Venezuela or Brazil to join the Axis, & provide oil or other supplies?
The other big thing is, it blows up British ops in Africa. Italy is likely still to fold up, but now, there will be Vichy aid from (frex) Syria, rather than German. Just how serious that is for British ops in Africa, IDK, but it doesn't look good. It also likely means a Brit/Commonwealth invasion of Madagascar is mandatory.
No (or less) German involvement in Africa means it's worse for the Sovs, with X Fliegerkorps available to attack Sov oil (rather than busy bombing Malta). Basing U-boats at (frex) Dakar is a nightmare of Allied convoy escort.
And this is at a time when RN & RCN are already at full stretch... There's also a chance (maybe not a good one) for Vichy troops in SU...Does Vichy control of Syria mean German access to Mid East oil is better?
Does the increased "reach" of U-boats encourage more Type IXs being built? Maybe (because they'll be operating farther from home more of the time). Does it mean the Brits will have to shift a/c from Bomber Command to Coastal Command? Maybe--& maybe even to Newfoundland (both a good thing for Britain). Does it make war with Japan less likely? In the near term, at least, yes, IMO it does--& that's good for Britain, too, & not only for the greater number of VLRs available. Does it get bad enough the Brits have to change their approach to bombing Germany? IDK. Does it mean the Brits will need new weapons & equipment to cope with U-boats? Likely--at a minimum, it should see ASV in Coastal Command first (if not kept out of Bomber Command's hands entire).
Does it mean the U.S. never actually enters the war? It might...
Does Germany apparently doing better move Venezuela or Brazil to join the Axis, & provide oil or other supplies?
Last edited:
There is a lot I agree with here.If this happens, IMO, several things follow immediately. Japanese efforts against ROC in southern China are going to be significantly enabled, now able to cross IndoChina without interference. That means the invasion that sparked the U.S. embargos doesn't happen. It also means Britain has to do more about building a Burma Road, or Railway, much sooner.
The other big thing is, it blows up British ops in Africa. Italy is likely still to fold up, but now, there will be Vichy aid from (frex) Syria, rather than German. Just how serious that is for British ops in Africa, IDK, but it doesn't look good. It also likely means a Brit/Commonwealth invasion of Madagascar is mandatory.
No (or less) German involvement in Africa means it's worse for the Sovs, with X Fliegerkorps available to attack Sov oil (rather than busy bombing Malta). Basing U-boats at (frex) Dakar is a nightmare of Allied convoy escort.
Does Vichy control of Syria mean German access to Mid East oil is better?
Does the increased "reach" of U-boats encourage more Type IXs being built? Maybe (because they'll be operating farther from home more of the time). Does it mean the Brits will have to shift a/c from Bomber Command to Coastal Command? Maybe--& maybe even to Newfoundland (both a good thing for Britain). Does it make war with Japan less likely? In the near term, at least, yes, IMO it does--& that's good for Britain, too, & not only for the greater number of VLRs available. Does it get bad enough the Brits have to change their approach to bombing Germany? IDK. Does it mean the Brits will need new weapons & equipment to cope with U-boats? Likely--at a minimum, it should see ASV in Coastal Command first (if not kept out of Bomber Command's hands entire).
Does it mean the U.S. never actually enters the war? It might...
Does Germany apparently doing better move Venezuela or Brazil to join the Axis, & provide oil or other supplies?
1: Maybe no Pearl Harbor (no Japanese Invasion of Indochina)
2: French assistance in North Africa
3: many more German bases and 70 more submarines.
And quite a few surface ships.
Each of these might tip the scales long-term.
Ramontxo
Donor
Ejem that is something I have hear before but as a rumour (another one is that it was trying to enter the masons and being rejected what made him later on so antimasonic) have you any (reliable) source for this?
If this does happen and Assuming the war runs in such a way that the US the USSR and Britain are involved per RTL then ultimately I think the Axis still lose but it will be harder.
The big difference will be post war. As France will be treated as the Enemy. I don’t care what DeGaul and the Free French Do. France will be viewed as the enemy and will be treated badly, probably worse then Germany, Thier was a bit (not a lot but some) of a belief that the German people didn’t realize what a monster Hitter was until he was in and it was too late. France will be viewed differently. They knew how bad Hitler and Germany was and yet they joined up anyway.
This will sink the “story” put forward about the Free French and the Resistance and all of that.
So after the war France will be punished in some way. Not exactly sure how but it will happen.
On another note... one of the greatest Films of all time will most likely not be made and if it is it will be RADICALLY different. Casablanca treated the French very nicely and the mostly friendly relationship between Rick and Louis will be actively hostile in this film and it will end with Ruck shooting Louis. So it WONT. be the classic that it is today. And many (most?) of the classic lines will be gone as it will lose much of it’s humor
The big difference will be post war. As France will be treated as the Enemy. I don’t care what DeGaul and the Free French Do. France will be viewed as the enemy and will be treated badly, probably worse then Germany, Thier was a bit (not a lot but some) of a belief that the German people didn’t realize what a monster Hitter was until he was in and it was too late. France will be viewed differently. They knew how bad Hitler and Germany was and yet they joined up anyway.
This will sink the “story” put forward about the Free French and the Resistance and all of that.
So after the war France will be punished in some way. Not exactly sure how but it will happen.
On another note... one of the greatest Films of all time will most likely not be made and if it is it will be RADICALLY different. Casablanca treated the French very nicely and the mostly friendly relationship between Rick and Louis will be actively hostile in this film and it will end with Ruck shooting Louis. So it WONT. be the classic that it is today. And many (most?) of the classic lines will be gone as it will lose much of it’s humor
Fair enough Ramontxo- & I do have what I
think is a reliable source for my statement re
Franco. It is John Toland’s biography ADOLF
HITLER, p. 887 of the 1977, Ballantine pa-
perbacks edition. In a footnote on the same
page Toland adds that this was known in the
diplomatic community but that it was highly
unlikely Hitler’s own diplomats told him this.
In his endnotes, Toland cites two sources for
the information re Franco. First, an interview
with the famed German commando Otto
Skorzeny. The second was a 1947 book by
Sir Samuel Hoare, COMPLACENT DICTATOR.
Hoare was a notorious appeaser in the 30’s
but he had also served as British Foreign
Secretary & was in 1940 Britan’s Ambassa-
dor to Spain. So whatever you think of his
political judgement, I think it is safe to say he had some pretty good sources of infor-
nation.
Without the IndoChiha hassles, it's virtually certain there's no need for that, isn't it? Or do you believe the China Lobby could get a series of (increasingly tough) sanctions, matching OTL's, but over a longer period?
If there's to be war with the U.S. (which I wouldn't absolutely rule out, but would disfavor as boring
), I'd say it's more likely to be over a Panay Incident of sorts. Provided better U.S. diplomacy can't get a negotiated settlement.Maybe booting the Italians out of the supervised zone and giving Marseilles back to France would bring them into the Axis?
One huge possible knock-on: in 1939-1040, France was a full partner in breaking Enigma. The Polish team which had broken Enigma in the 1930s escaped to France in 1939, and resumed work under French supervision, and in close collaboration with Bletchley Park. The Allies re-broke Enigma in March 1940, and read thousands of messages over the next three months, about half at each site.
The Polish-French group fled to North Africa during the Battle of France. After the capitulation, they returned to unoccupied France and resumed work, still under control of French intelligence. This continued until after TORCH.
IOW, Vichy France had the ULTRA secret. I've never learned who was privy: the top men in the Deuxième Bureau, one supposes, but almost certainly not Pétain or Laval. Maybe Darlan, who was a senior military figure (c-in-c of the Navy, Minister of Marine, Minister of Defence, and also Prime Minister). In fact he controlled the new intelligence agency which replaced the DB in 1940.
But he was clearly playing both sides, appeared pro-German for a time, and was probably considered untrustworthy by the professionals. OTL whoever had it sat on it, perhaps to preserve some degree of French independence from Germany.
But if France is at war with Britain, in alliance with Germany, the leak becomes dangerous to France as well. It seems likely that the French would tell the Germans.
The Polish-French group fled to North Africa during the Battle of France. After the capitulation, they returned to unoccupied France and resumed work, still under control of French intelligence. This continued until after TORCH.
IOW, Vichy France had the ULTRA secret. I've never learned who was privy: the top men in the Deuxième Bureau, one supposes, but almost certainly not Pétain or Laval. Maybe Darlan, who was a senior military figure (c-in-c of the Navy, Minister of Marine, Minister of Defence, and also Prime Minister). In fact he controlled the new intelligence agency which replaced the DB in 1940.
But he was clearly playing both sides, appeared pro-German for a time, and was probably considered untrustworthy by the professionals. OTL whoever had it sat on it, perhaps to preserve some degree of French independence from Germany.
But if France is at war with Britain, in alliance with Germany, the leak becomes dangerous to France as well. It seems likely that the French would tell the Germans.
Vichy France outright joining the Axis has very interesting knock off potential for the US depending on the status of various French colonies. If the French colonies in the Caribbean and Latin America declare for Vichy I would imagine FDR pushes for the US to take action against said colonies. Active blockade operations at the very least and possible outright invasions under the mantra of hemispheric defense and he can probably get away with it. The US won't declare war on Vichy France, it will just grab the colonies citing the Monroe Doctrine or something like that. If the Axis powers want to declare war on the US over this, that is there business.
French colonies in West Africa are interesting as well because West Africa is just a short hop across the Atlantic to Brazil. You can bet FDR will play that up as well.
French colonies in West Africa are interesting as well because West Africa is just a short hop across the Atlantic to Brazil. You can bet FDR will play that up as well.
Again this is not the quotation that I am looking for. However, it is a British assessment of the consequences of Mers-el-Kébir driving France into war against them. It is from Page 141 of the Mediterranean and Middle East Volume I.
I'm repeating it here because I think that the statement that the Vichy Government had 30 destroyers under its control after Mers-el-Kébir. I think the total was 46. The French Navy had 70 destroyers at the start of the war. Of that total 11 were sunk or scuttled before the Armistice; 10 in British ports were seized by the British; and 3 were part of the French Squadron at Alexandria. That leaves a balance of 46 under Vichy control.
I've tried to work out the location of France's cruisers and destroyers in July 1940. The result is in the following table:
Note that the 4 cruisers and 30 destroyers listed as being in the Mediterranean means that they were somewhere in the Mediterranean, but that I haven't been able to determine their exact location.
Therefore the total of 70 submarines might be wrong as well.
Bagnasco said that the French Navy had 77 operational submarines on 1st September 1939 made up of one cruiser (Scourf), 38 ocean going, 32 costal and, 6 minelaying boats. There were also 36 boats that were under construction or ready to be laid down. He also said that only one of them was commissioned before the Armistice
That raises the total to 78.
However, we have to deduct the 7 boats that Bagnaso wrote were seized by the British. They were turned over to the Free French (Scourf, Junon, Minerve, Rubis, Naraval, Ondine and Orion).
That reduces the total to 71, but there were also the French losses to the Armistice to deduct, which Bagnasco didn't mention.
I've got my copy of Conway's 1922-46 out and it looks as if the French had lost 6 submarines before the Armistice, which included 4 scuttled at Brest.
That would reduce the total to 65.
The above was originally part of Post 16.
I'm repeating it here because I think that the statement that the Vichy Government had 30 destroyers under its control after Mers-el-Kébir. I think the total was 46. The French Navy had 70 destroyers at the start of the war. Of that total 11 were sunk or scuttled before the Armistice; 10 in British ports were seized by the British; and 3 were part of the French Squadron at Alexandria. That leaves a balance of 46 under Vichy control.
I've tried to work out the location of France's cruisers and destroyers in July 1940. The result is in the following table:
Note that the 4 cruisers and 30 destroyers listed as being in the Mediterranean means that they were somewhere in the Mediterranean, but that I haven't been able to determine their exact location.
Therefore the total of 70 submarines might be wrong as well.
Bagnasco said that the French Navy had 77 operational submarines on 1st September 1939 made up of one cruiser (Scourf), 38 ocean going, 32 costal and, 6 minelaying boats. There were also 36 boats that were under construction or ready to be laid down. He also said that only one of them was commissioned before the Armistice
That raises the total to 78.
However, we have to deduct the 7 boats that Bagnaso wrote were seized by the British. They were turned over to the Free French (Scourf, Junon, Minerve, Rubis, Naraval, Ondine and Orion).
That reduces the total to 71, but there were also the French losses to the Armistice to deduct, which Bagnasco didn't mention.
I've got my copy of Conway's 1922-46 out and it looks as if the French had lost 6 submarines before the Armistice, which included 4 scuttled at Brest.
That would reduce the total to 65.
Last edited:
Do you recall which date or volume? I've been seeking sources for this activity.
OTL when Op ANTON was executed in November 1942 the 'Polish Section' destroyed the equipment and docs & the French & Polish cryptographers fled. Some of the Poles made it to and through Spain to Portugal and then Britain. Possiblly the same might occur were the French government to 'Go Axis'
Don Quijote
Banned
Aha! I knew this would have some use beyond Nation Games - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/don-quijotes-orders-of-battle.456570/#post-17966261
It only covers the Mediterranean and Morocco, but the complete list on which I based mine is on this website. It lists the ships by class rather than location (though locations are given), and is approximately dated to 21st June 1940.