Allies Lose Patience with De Gaulle in 1943

Apologies if this has already been debated but I'm intrigued by what might have happened to post-war Europe if the Allies had lost patience with De Gaulle's posturing and unreasonable demands in 1942-43 and he suffered a Sikorsky-like flight.

If this lead to the marginalisation of identifiable French participation in Normandy and the liberation ( French units not so badged but fully integrated like the Poles, Dutch etc) what would have happened to the occupation of Germany and Austria with only UK, US and USSR?

Is there a danger of a communist take over of France? What happens later with Algeria? What about UK entry into EEC in 1963- or earlier?
 
Le Grande Charles emigrates to Canada and leads the Quebec separatists? Trying to incorporate the "Sikorsky flight" concept, which I assume is horizontal and not vertical...
 
The Americans never liked de Gaulle and were very reluctant to support him, being much more pro-Vichy and then pro-Giraud, who was politically out-manoeuvred by de Gaulle. The allies couldn't have prevented this while maintaining the position that the French committee of National liberation represented France rather than the US-UK. They could have limited the authority of the French committee more than they did, although this would be hard to justify. If de Gaulle had died during the war (as Sikorsky did) then I would expect Giraud to step into his shoes but that this would have minimal impact on the war or immediately afterwards (when de Gaulle was sidelined in any case), the main impact would probably be in 1958-68.

Basically, the Free French were in the position where they had very little ability to affect the war or its outcome so they tended to make stands on points of principle as the only way to get concessions, doing so in the knowledge that the arguments provoked wouldn't really affect the war (since the allies could ignore/overrule them if need be) but would put their opposition on record. Giraud behaved in exactly this way over Torch, and there is no reason to think he would have behaved differently elsewhere, it's just that he wasn't as effective a politician.
 
If this lead to the marginalisation of identifiable French participation in Normandy and the liberation ( French units not so badged but fully integrated like the Poles, Dutch etc)

I think it's too late for it . In 1943, the Free French already have an Army, a fleet and an air force , and an important capital in Algiers . By 1943, the Free French already are important , more important than the Belgian and the Dutch and the Polish united and they even have a government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Committee_of_National_Liberation

Don't think that the Free French were a military dictatorship of De Gaulle, at the beginning maybe but by 1943, there was politician inside :p

And unlike Sikorsky, De Gaulle for all is trouble his important . Inside France, all the Resistance movement (even the communist ones) support him and his death (especially if he is replaced by Giraud or a Politician) won't help the morale . If they could permit the death of Sikorsky (the Polish aren't this important especially when i guess Churchill knew that Poland will fall inside Soviet influence) , they couldn't really permit the death of the one that is the image of French Resistance
 
Last edited:
I'm in the ''accident until proven otherwise'' for Sikorski. I would also caution against the temptation of making the Poles weaker and less important then they where. Until 1944 they had more forces in their free army then the french AND an overall more organised resistance.

As for the matter at hand, Giraud is probably the strongest possibility and its likely the americans will keep their policy of poking him until he made nice democratic sounding noises like they did in OTL. Unlike what the common believe in some quarters would proclaim the americans had no real sympathy for Vichy but mainly saw Darland, Giraud and others has the key to most of the french forces still afoot (an argument can be made that their plots served De Gaulle pretty well to: it allowed him to ultamitely get his hands on an Armée d'Afrique pretty much intact). Its likely a Giraud-led France in exile would be made to slowly but surely move toward old style republicanism with a carrot and stick approach by the americans (wheter its De Gaulle or Giraud the french still depend on the US for supplies and more modern equipment at that point).

The most noticeable change during WWII would be back in occupied France. On one hand Giraud is far less inspiring as a leader then De Gaulle so the morale will be lower among the rank and files of the resistance but on the other Giraud will make many figures in the government (civil servants, officers, etc...) feel more confortable about defecting so overall its likely you would have a resistance who would have less popular groundswell lifting it up (relatively speaking, by 1944 the germans are still gonna be massively unpopular) but would be more organised.
 
I'm in the ''accident until proven otherwise'' for Sikorski. I would also caution against the temptation of making the Poles weaker and less important then they where. Until 1944 they had more forces in their free army then the french AND an overall more organised resistance.
.

Well, i would said until 1943, they had more forces since we can count the Armé d'Afrique inside the Free French . The problem with their resistance is that it is on the Eastern Front unlike the French Ones .

But well, yes i agree, Giraud will be the one leading the Free French .
 
...

If this lead to the marginalisation of identifiable French participation in Normandy and the liberation ( French units not so badged but fully integrated like the Poles, Dutch etc) what would have happened to the occupation of Germany and Austria with only UK, US and USSR?

... Is there a danger of a communist take over of France? ...

This loses effective French counter Intel vs Facist organizations and Intel agents. The Axis did try to set up a spy and sabatoge network in Africa. They had some small success in French territory, until mid 43 when a unified or focused & pro Allied security ran down the active agents.

It also risks the rapid stand up of a effective French field army. By the end of the year rearmed and combat effective corps were joining the battle. The four reinforced French divisions that attacked through the Arrunci Mountains were important to breaking the German defense.
 
Well, i would said until 1943, they had more forces since we can count the Armé d'Afrique inside the Free French . The problem with their resistance is that it is on the Eastern Front unlike the French Ones .

But well, yes i agree, Giraud will be the one leading the Free French .

Giraud was politically lost. Before Op TORCH was executed he had lost Eisenhower & the Brits. The only unifying leader I can see in 1943 would a surviving Darlan.
 
Well, i would said until 1943, they had more forces since we can count the Armé d'Afrique inside the Free French . The problem with their resistance is that it is on the Eastern Front unlike the French Ones .

But well, yes i agree, Giraud will be the one leading the Free French .

Even in early 1943 they where bigger. Most of the original Armée d'Afrique went to France in 39-40 and shared the faith of the forces there. Her rearmement only ended in 1944 just before Dragon, by witch point it capped at 410k most of the material probably came fairly late as well (priority for Overlord and all that). Comparatively, the Poles had a 195K total who was completely under arms by 1943. If the french surpassed the poles in 1943 it likely was at the tail-end of the year (the non-Armée d'Afrique FFL where drops in the bucket really).

They also provided far more then the french in term of air forces until fairly late in 1943 as well.
 
Last edited:
Giraud was politically lost. Before Op TORCH was executed he had lost Eisenhower & the Brits. The only unifying leader I can see in 1943 would a surviving Darlan.

Well, Darlan has a leader won't help the American and the Brits . He will just create more problem than De Gaulle for them .
 

Tovarich

Banned
I except some of the French forces would break rank in order to try and liberate some areas on their own.

I'm no soldier, but wouldn't that be suicidal?

Eg, some FF break off from Normandy to take an area they don't know has a concentration of German armour, and if they miraculously do take it then they're hit by heavy naval shells from the RN who in turn have no idea the FF are there?
 
I'm no soldier, but wouldn't that be suicidal?

Eg, some FF break off from Normandy to take an area they don't know has a concentration of German armour, and if they miraculously do take it then they're hit by heavy naval shells from the RN who in turn have no idea the FF are there?

The liberation of Paris by the French armored division was against orders and policy but the French soldiers did it anyway, dragging the reluctant Americans along with them. Earlier in 1943 Operations BRIMSTONE and FIREBRAND were insisted on by the FF leaders, pushing a slower to act SACMED into executing those ops. After the DRAGOON operation the French corps took off for Toloun & Marseilles ahead of schedule, leaving the US 7th Army & 6th AG to approve & support a fait accompli.
 
The liberation of Paris by the French armored division was against orders and policy but the French soldiers did it anyway, dragging the reluctant Americans along with them. Earlier in 1943 Operations BRIMSTONE and FIREBRAND were insisted on by the FF leaders, pushing a slower to act SACMED into executing those ops. After the DRAGOON operation the French corps took off for Toloun & Marseilles ahead of schedule, leaving the US 7th Army & 6th AG to approve & support a fait accompli.
Well, not so much dragging as the US Army putting a hold on their moves into Germany for a short time so they could prevent everyone in Paris from being slaughtered.

I'm no soldier, but wouldn't that be suicidal?

Eg, some FF break off from Normandy to take an area they don't know has a concentration of German armour, and if they miraculously do take it then they're hit by heavy naval shells from the RN who in turn have no idea the FF are there?
I imagine they would go for either a big target with symbolic value or just liberate some towns out of a sense of pride and patriotism. Though as half the army was African and Arab (who all basically got pay cuts and deportation after the war so De Gaulle and Paris could pretend it was all the doing of himself and the Metropole) and I would imagine the African and Arabs to keep more on target with their orders. Though the Americans were a tad racist, such as how they told the French that if they wanted a all-French parade in Paris, it had to be white. Meaning getting rid of Black African soldiers and replacing them with Spaniards who may or may not have worked with Fascists. I think the Germans came to prefer the Republicans over the Falangists.
 

Tovarich

Banned
Though the Americans were a tad racist, such as how they told the French that if they wanted a all-French parade in Paris, it had to be white. Meaning getting rid of Black African soldiers and replacing them with Spaniards who may or may not have worked with Fascists. I think the Germans came to prefer the Republicans over the Falangists.

Wow, thus making both the Americans and Free French even less deserving of the word 'Free' than I already thought.

(I admit I've no idea if the Communist Resistance were any better in that respect, and as a Brit I can't get on the moral high horse there anyway.)
 
Wow, thus making both the Americans and Free French even less deserving of the word 'Free' than I already thought.

(I admit I've no idea if the Communist Resistance were any better in that respect, and as a Brit I can't get on the moral high horse there anyway.)
//Well, they did offer to support the Germans gladly when they occupied the area and went into revolt upon the orders of Moscow. So there is that.
 
Giraud was dumb as hell, prepares for many goofs. then again, maybe that's the reason why Roosevelt liked him so much.

Roosevelt ''liked'' him because he tought he might make the french forces, and other officials in place, in Africa and elsewhere rally to the allies or join the resistance, or that he had a better shot at it then De Gaulle at the very least. Its kind off hard to argue with the second part.
 
Top