1940 WI: French Churchill and British Petain.

1940 WI: French Churchill and British Petain?

In 1940, after the defeat in Metropolitan France, a general with some military experience becomes leader of the French governement, kinda like Petain.

Unlike Petain, hovewer, he flee to Alger and vowes to continue the fight, even plan to move to tropical africa if necessary.


In London, someone else than Churchill takes power, a few weeks after the total occupation of France, the Anglo-Germanic peace treaty is signed. The British Empire doesn´t need to give anything to Germany nor Italy, except pay some minor reparations for some bombing against Germany in early 1940 and official apologies for declaring war back in September 1939.

By late 1940, the British Self Defence Force is strong enough to face any German naval invasion, even without the RAF and the Royal Navy to defend the southern coast of England from a theoretical German invasion. By spring 1941, the British governement focuses on economical rebuilding and reinforcing its presence in south-east asia, not as a sign of hostility against Japan but mererly as a deterrence. They make it clear to Tokyo that colonies of european countries not aligned with them is none of their business and make sure the chinese nationalists doesn´t get any weapons through India and Myanamar as a sign of good will.


Mussolini doesn´t have to worry about Egypt anymore but the French fleet in Tunisia kinda stand between Libya and mainland Italy.

Instead of the battle of Britain, we have a battle of Tunisia instead?

Does the governements-in-exile of Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Dutchland sides with Alger or with London? If the Dutch gov sides with Alger instead of London, Dutch indonesia is likely lost to the Japanese.

Luxemburg gov sides with France, since its country is directly annexed into the GDR, yes?


Suppose WW2 end roughly as it did IOTL, west controled by the Franco-Usa alliance and east controled by the SU, how would Britain far with the war being nearly 5 years shorter?
 
Last edited:
If Britain makes peace, so would France. France would have no realistic chance of holding out bereft of most of its industry and manpower.

If not, North Africa would be in Axis hands before the end of 1941. Any remaining French opposition farther away would have no impact on the course of the war. The governments in exile likely make what peace they can with Germany. Some individuals may seek exile in the US rather than live in a Nazi puppet state.

In either case, in June 1941 the Germans invade the Soviet Union, and the Soviets are on their own. They likely hold out until late 1943 or 1944 and accept some kind of compromise peace that gives up much of their western territories.

After the British makes peace, any support for American intervention drops to zero. FDR may not even seek re-election, and the new President comes into office knowing that his major challenge is dealing with a Nazi dominated Europe. No Lend Lease. The US probably increases its armed forces especially the navy and bomber forces.

In this scenario, there is likely no oil embargo against Japan, so the Japanese have no need to attack Britain, Netherlands, or US. Instead, when it appears the Soviet Union is collapsing, they attack the Soviet Far East for some easy pickings. Eventually, Nationalist China is slowly grounded up in a very long war of attrition.
 
Bad scenario for Europe millions peoples will die in death camps that wouldn't have died OTL.:(
And a German dominated Europe is bad for the UK.
 
There were two huge problems that caused the fall of France - their parliamentary system was ineffective, and set up so that changes of leadership could (and did) happen every few months. This kept the French government from being able to carry through any long-term policies, and from effectively carrying through many short-term ones.

Second, while many nations had adopted the type of flexible military planning originally used by Napoleon I and honed to a fine edge by Kaiser Wilhelm's general staff, the French military had one single plan - total war. Mobilization of all able-bodied males, conversion to a full wartime economy, etc. This was why the French were unable to do much about Alsace-Lorraine or Czechoslovakia - it's hard to slap someone down when your only weapon is overkill.

With no effective battle plans, the French folded every time the Germans prodded them. The Germans finally just rolled in and took what they wanted.

A military-backed party in the parliament could well have put a French Churchill in charge. The French weren't stupid - they knew what was coming just like everyone else, like watching some horror movie you can't turn off. A lot of the military saw it coming too, but the entire military and civil bureaucracy had committed to a battle plan that didn't make sense, and it takes time to change such things - more time than France had.

A good (though very long) description of all this can be found in William Shirer's "The Fall of the Second Republic".


As far as a British Petain... the Parliament was *quite* happy with Chamberlain. When he came back with "peace in our time", he was backed by almost the entire British government. He also got to carry the bag when Hitler gave Britain the finger for the last time and suddenly everyone was pretending they'd never liked him anyway.

Churchill was a borderline nutjob who had been running his "the Huns are coming! The Huns are coming!" record since the early 1930s. Most people just tuned him out. When Parliament made an example of Chamberlain, they put Churchill in, not to save the day, but to stick any shit to him that Chamberlain had avoided. Most of Parliament figured that Britain was going to have to make an "accomodation" with the Reich, and the stigma might as well go on Mad Winston instead of someone who might actually have some political career left. It's pretty obvious in retrospect that nobody really expected Churchill to pull a rabbit out of his hat; Hitler had already been talking about some kind of Anglo-German alliance, and some of the British royalty were quite fond of the idea.
 
TRX...

1) There was no crisis over Alsace-Lorraine involving Hitler.

2) Shirer's book was on the Third Republic.

3) Churchill took over from Chamberlain because he had been correct in his warnings and because, having been ignored all those years, he was the one least likely to be credibly blamed for the consequences.

4) Had most of Parliament been even reluctantly interested in an arrangement with Hitler then there would have been such an arrangement.

5) The only royal who may have had some interest in such an arrangement was the one who saw such an arrangement as the only way to regain the throne he abdicated earlier.


As for time needed...even while the evacuation of Dunkirk was beginning there was still time for the French to turn things around militarily, if only competent commanders had been in charge, instead of what they came up with, replacing proven incompetents with new commanders whose major efforts were wasting time and preparing to accuse potential scapegoats for their own failings.

Would a proper counteroffensive in May/June 1940 have saved France? Uncertain. Would it have had a good chance, even according to German commanders in the field, of isolating and possibly destroying Germany's panzer and mechanized units? Very much so.
 
Would a French Churchill retreat to Algiers?

I thought it would be more likely that the French do what they did 1870:
-evacuate what they can to the south
-leave a garnison and milita to defend Paris to the end
-try to continue the war from southern France & hope for a miracle
(IIRC this was more or less what Churchill asked Petain to do)

I know that this has little chance for success but still more as to fight from Algier:
-means abadoning allmost all of its industry and recruting base
-German & Italian fleets have a good chances to win control of the mediterrane once Britain is out of the war (if Franco doesn't let them through anyway)
-to my knowledge France lacked the railroads required to move a sizable number of troops by land between Algiers and French West Africa

Algiers is only a viable option if there is another power (UK, USA, USSR)
that supplies them, prevents Germany to put all its force in an attack on Africa and is strong enough to create some hope of eventually recapturing continental France.
 
Agreed with Grimm Petain gave up at a point when French armies though not capable of winning an outright victory, could still offer effective resistance and prolong the German campaign and inflict far more losses on the Heer compared to OTL.

The Germans may not have the power to overun France outright in 1940, if the French will to fight doesnt crumble. Also without Vichy puppets to co-oparate with whem the Germans will need to send far more troops to occupy the areas of France they control.

Still the Germans wont have to worry about Africa, even so Italy is hardly a strong ally and would need help to attack any French held land in North Africa.

We can also safely assume the Soviets will be far more alert once France is beaten and the British are out of the war (forthe short term at least). So the chances of German being able to wipe out 75% of the Red Army in a few weeks like OTL is nil. The Soviets will be ready to face any German invasion if Hitler has no ''second front'' to worry about.
 
I might add that a France which retreats to North Africa with the intent to carry on the fight brings with it hundreds of thousands of troops, a fleet which can face the Italian and German fleets combined, a massive gold reserve and much more, including the first 100 American-made fighters already in transit plus whatever can be salvaged from France itself.

This would likely have a powerful effect on British intentions to continue or yield.
 
Suppose WW2 end much like WW2 IOTL, eastern europe by the Soviet-Union and western europe by the US, French, Begian and Dutch (Invasion happened against southern Spain in latter 1943).

What would be the UK´s place after WW2? It would be much more powerfull than Vichy France, would the US-French alliance know about it having anthrax weapons? Not being economically crippled by debts and having 5 years of war, it would be able to crush independentist movements in its colonies, especially if it uses chemical weapons.
 

Fenlander

Banned
As an example of a possible "French Churchill", might I suggest Paul Reynaud. I've always felt he was grossly underrated IOTL, primarily as he arrived in office too late to actually do anything.
 

Hendryk

Banned
As an example of a possible "French Churchill", might I suggest Paul Reynaud.
Fantasque's TL "France fights on" is indeed based on the idea that Reynaud decides to continue the war from North Africa. It would be a stretch to call him Churchillian, but in that TL he does come out a man of grim resolve, even if he gets eventually upstaged by de Gaulle.
 
World map of late 1940 (or early 1941).

Governements of the commonwealth, Belgium, Denmark and Dutchland have left the war. Norway is still occupied, since the Free French are estimated to be able to still launch a naval operation.

France-fights-on.png
 
Last edited:
How did Tibet become part of India?

And for that matter, how are the Japanese occupying Indochina? The French would never acquiesce, and any move into the region would spark a war with the British as well (most likely also the Americans).

EDIT: And the Italian possessions would be jointly occupied by the Anglo-French, with the British probably having more troops for occupation.
 
How did Tibet become part of India?

It is taken over.

And for that matter, how are the Japanese occupying Indochina? The French would never acquiesce, and any move into the region would spark a war with the British as well (most likely also the Americans).

EDIT: And the Italian possessions would be jointly occupied by the Anglo-French, with the British probably having more troops for occupation.

Simple, the British Empire is no longer at war with Germany while France still is, Japan sides with Germany.
 

Hendryk

Banned
It is taken over.
It wasn't in OTL and I think the British would have more pressing priorities than to extend a faltering influence over barren Himalayan plateaus in TTL. What's the point of taking over Tibet when the independence of India and Burma is a mere few years away?
 
It wasn't in OTL and I think the British would have more pressing priorities than to extend a faltering influence over barren Himalayan plateaus in TTL. What's the point of taking over Tibet when the independence of India and Burma is a mere few years away?


Historically, India became independent in 1947, after the UK was at war for a long time.

In this case, the situation is quiet different, war with Germany ends in June 1940 and war with Japan is extremely unlikely, a state of affair that is not likely to change anytime soon. Perhapse India may become a dominion but certainly not independent in the near futur.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Historically, India became independent in 1947, after the UK was at war for a long time.

In this case, the situation is quiet different, war with Germany ends in June 1940 and war with Japan is extremely unlikely, a state of affair that is not likely to change anytime soon. Perhapse India may become a dominion but certainly not independent in the near futur.
India's independence was a foregone conclusion by 1940, and all Britain does by taking over Tibet is make an enemy of China. Let's not have this turn into yet another British Empirewank, those are a dime a dozen.
 
Top