Admiral François Darlan not assassinated in 1942.

Archibald

Banned
This is an excellent whatif. First, the reasons behind Darlan assassination are still unclear. The murderer was caught but remained an enigma... and died pretty fast.

Darlan was a curious man and france fate with him at the cotrols is rather unpredictible. What is sure is that
- he had massive ego (and you thought De Gaulle was bad ? he was worse)
- he wasn't in politics before 1940 - the French combat fleet was his baby
- Mers el Kebir was a major trauma
- he build one of the best fleet in France history
- hence its destruction by the British made him anglophobic
- Vichy happily jumped on that and surely, he become a major figure in the government.
- after 1940 he become a political opportunist.
- in the sense he would go where the wind blow - to Vichy or to Roosevelt, if that give him political power

So it is hard to guess. He might turn into some kind of authoritarian Franco / Carrero-Blanco / Pinochet dictator. Or he could become irrelevant like Giraud. but he could as well pull a De gaulle and not go authoritarian.

Most TLs have Darlan screwing France, becoming Roosevelt's Franco - kind of authoritarian nutjob lasting in power until the 50's.

France Fights On kept Darlan as far away as possible from any politics. He remained at the control of the French combat fleet with good results. And that was it. Which says how much he remains such a controversial figure even today.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Vichy happily jumped on that and surely, he become a major figure in the government.

I think that someone as close to Petain and Vichy as he was would ruin his chances of challenging De Gaulle.

after 1940 he become a political opportunist in the sense he would go where the wind blow - to Vichy or to Roosevelt, if that give him political power

His Anglophobia would ultimately attract him to a position where he would object to any foreign intervention in France's interests (which would be Darlan's interests), particularly from the perfidious Churchill.

He might turn into some kind of authoritarian Franco / Carrero-Blanco / Pinochet dictator. Or he could become irrelevant like Giraud. but he could as well pull a De Gaulle and not go authoritarian.

Both were authoritarians of kind, so a world where DG was sidelined and Darlan was in charge would only be marginally worse than OTL - provided France does not descend into a left-right civil war

I think Darlan would even less likely to sacrifice Algeria and French North Africa on the altar of political expediency, than de Gaulle.
 
Darlans hesitation to commit to the Allies at the start of Op TORCH in november 1942 cost the US Army alone 312 dead from fighting the French & close to 2000 US/Commonwealth KIA, WIA in those three days. Worse it cost the the Allies a extended campaign in Tunisia, delaying the seizure of Sicilly, Sardinia, and Corsica by 3-5 months. The knock on effects after that I'll leave to others. At the time Darlan was regarded by some Allied leaders as the best hope for leadership of a Allied France. While some US leaders favored Giraud his political skill were worse than Darlans, and his judgement outside military ops seems to have been very poor. Darlans future depended on how firmly he committed to a Allied France & progressing French participation. Had he continued waffling and clogging negotiations as he had in November he'd have likely joined Giraud in the back row of the photo ops. Admiral of the French Navy as was proposed earlier in this thread.
 
Probably the worst case for the Allies . Darlan was the second of Petain . Don't expect the French resistance to obey him
 
Not the Communists, but Petains crowd played a double game with the resistance. & The worst of the repression was 1943-44, after Darlan would be out of Petains government.
 
This is an excellent whatif. First, the reasons behind Darlan assassination are still unclear. The murderer was caught but remained an enigma... and died pretty fast.

Bonnier de la Chappelle was captured on the spot, tried and executed in two days. The most accepted theory today is that he was part of a monarchist group, who thought that removing Darlan would create an opportunity for the current Bourbon pretender to achieve some position of influence. Some reports had him acting as though he expected a reprieve or mock execution.
 
Darlan would have been a very troublesome figure for the Allies - possibly. He would have been a severe problem for De Gaulle. He had clear control over the French apparatus in North Africa. Whether he could establish control over other French colonies was not settled in his brief tenure. West Africa would probably go with him; the West Indies, perhaps. Equatorial Africa was Free French, as were the Pacific colonies. Madagascar and Syria had been seized by the Allies, and presumably turned over to Free France. Indochina was under Japanese control, and AFAIK its authorities remained loyal to Vichy.

The key questions are:

  1. What were Darlan's goals? What did he want to achieve?
  2. What policies would Darlan have followed as ruler of French North Africa? Would he have obstructed or aided the Allied forces? I have read that substantial Allied forces were tied down insuring there was no unrest in Morocco and Algeria. With Darlan's cooperation, these troops might be deployed to the front in Tunisia.
  3. How would Darlan deal with Free France? He has real authority, much more than they do, but they have more "legitimacy" in the eyes of the Allied public, and enough authority not to be casually overridden.
 
...
The key questions are:

  1. What were Darlan's goals? What did he want to achieve?

Darlan, like Petain, had the long term goal of restoring French power. So, every negotiation he had with the other Allies would have had that behind it. No different that DeGualle in principle.

What policies would Darlan have followed as ruler of French North Africa? Would he have obstructed or aided the Allied forces? I have read that substantial Allied forces were tied down insuring there was no unrest in Morocco and Algeria. With Darlan's cooperation, these troops might be deployed to the front in Tunisia.

Only for a short period. Concerns about Spanish intervention (unfounded) were a greater reason for the US I Armored Corps in Morocco. Logistics had more to do with the slow redeployment from Algeria to Tunisia. Once Darlan got the local governors to stop fighting the US & British soldiers the 'keeping order' concern faded.

How would Darlan deal with Free France? He has real authority, much more than they do, but they have more "legitimacy" in the eyes of the Allied public, and enough authority not to be casually overridden.

One of the core points in Darlans negotiations was the goal of collecting all French territories under a single new French government. In that he had the thin legitimacy of Petains permission to take the colonies to the Allied side. Both suspected a Allied invasion of NW African was near & hoped that Darlan as the appointed leader of French NW Africa could start a new French government independent of the captive Vichy government. Remember that the US ambassador Leahey had been in discussion with Darlan a few months earlier on this subject.

I'd recommend reading Paxtons 'Vichy France' and Jacksons 'The Dark Years' for some information on this. Or finding some French language histories.
 
Top