Alternate Allied Invasion of France

Not much of a occupation. IIRC there were all of three static divisions from LaRochelle to the Spanish border.

Which is still an occupation, and being in the occupied zone allowed German armies to get in there even sooner that they could have in others parts before Attilla.

As for Vichy Army, may I point again how much of a bad joke it was in metropolitain France?

Most of officers that remained were selected on ideological bases, troops transportation was inexistant, weapons in such bad state that it would be less about supplying an army than creating one out of nowhere...
Even giving the double of weapons of this plan wouldn't make it less likely to fall against even second-hand German units.
 
Couple questions

1. got a source for all this. I've been loking for a good one & come up with some third rate bits. Not that I doubt this happned, I'd like to rad a reliable account of it wtih some details.

2. Was it Brooke who was the decison maker on this in 1941 or Dill? Brooke did not replace Dill as CIGS until 1942.

BBC?

I guess we could move on Dill being sacked, or have Dill agree to it.
 
Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberger
Couple questions

1. got a source for all this. I've been loking for a good one & come up with some third rate bits. Not that I doubt this happned, I'd like to rad a reliable account of it wtih some details.

2. Was it Brooke who was the decison maker on this in 1941 or Dill? Brooke did not replace Dill as CIGS until 1942.



Someone els refered me to a BBC program, that proved to be a false lead & my attempts at searching fruitless. Can you identify a specific program?


I guess we could move on Dill being sacked, or have Dill agree to it.

The version i've had this came to Dill via a Brit officer or diplomat in contact with Vichy French leaders. Dill pursued it to see if any thing could be gained, but kept it from Churchill.

I dont have anything about what Brooke thought of this specifically, but I notice that invasion plans of the British were stalled after Brooke took over, and then put away for a year until COSSAC was established in 1943.

There are a lot of vague and conflicting stories about British plans in 1941-42, and the Churchill version looks unreliable after sixty years. For some reason detailed and reliable sources are eluding me.
 
I know Churchill had a lot of influence, but did he have the power to up and fire Brooke over this.

He was able to remove Dill as CIGS, but turning around and replacing Brooke after just a few months may not have been practical. maybe after ten months or a year? There are experts here on British cabinet politics who could clarify this.


I think that at the least it was the Vichy Goverment keeping its options open.

They certainly were. In 1942 the US ambassador to France, Admiral Leahey, found Petains government open to discussions about reentering the war. Darlan was premier at the time & his response to Leaheay is suposed to have been "If you come with three divisions we will fight you, if you come with twenty we will join you." It looks like he was telling Leahey that the Allies needed to invade with maximum force and not some sort of poorly prepared & weak probe. The confusion of the French leaders when Operation Torch was executed shows how divided they were, and how many of them tried to have it both ways. Some like General Barre or Lattre de Tassigny attempted to fight the Germans with their commands in November 1942. Others like Nougues resisted the Allies. To many others like Darlan dithered, hoping somehow nuetrality could preserved even as entire Allied and Axis armies were marching into French territory. The inability of Petain & his subordinate leaders to decisively commit one way or another in 1942 doomed his government to irrelevancy for the remainder of the war.


Yes British troops had fought the Vichy and Churchill disliked their failure to oppose the Germans very much. But if Brooke went around Churchill and convinced the U.S. to support the plan, how would Churchill react? Refuse to allow the operation when American loans float the British economy and American goods float the British war effort? I'm sure if Roosevelt pushed hard enough he would be able to get the invasion, I mean OTL the British postwar felt like the Americans had skinned them with the many concessions forced upon them, so it wouldn't be too hard to see Roosevelt coerce Churchill to accept the invasion. And if Brooke supports it as well Churchill's position to argue is even weaker.

Churchill did prevail in stopping plans for a 1943 invasion. At the January 1943 SYMBOL Confrence @ Casablanca he talked Roosevelt into going against the advice of Marshal and committing to the Mediterranean campaign that Brooke argued for. What would have happened had Roosevelt come down solidly on the side of Marshal I cant say, other than the confrence would have lasted a lot longer ; )



Sorry for not being clear enough in the OP but I intend this to be 1943 invasion, but the decision for the invasion to occur would be in early 1942 so that the U.S. can prepare for the invasion by moving men, planes, and material to Britain.

Marshal thought a decision for a 1943 invasion had been made at the previous joint chiefs confrence (QUADRANT). He had been steering the US mobilization towards a 1943 invasion of NW Europe through all of 1942, despite the emergencies in the Pacific, USSR, and Africa. He was suprised and angered when Brooke came to the SYMBOL Confrence in January 43 in direct opposition, and supported by Churchill. Pogue in his biography of Marshal, Grigg in his analysis of the SYMBOL Confrence, and Atkinson in 'Day of Battle' all examine this pivotal meeting in some detail, including previous US plans.
 
Last edited:
He was able to remove Dill as CIGS, but turning around and replacing Brooke after just a few months may not have been practical. maybe after ten months or a year? There are experts here on British cabinet politics who could clarify this.




They certainly were. In 1942 the US ambassador to France, Admiral Leahey, found Petains government open to discussions about reentering the war. Darlan was premier at the time & his response to Leaheay is suposed to have been "If you come with three divisions we will fight you, if you come with twenty we will join you." It looks like he was telling Leahey that the Allies needed to invade with maximum force and not some sort of poorly prepared & weak probe. The confusion of the French leaders when Operation Torch was executed shows how divided they were, and how many of them tried to have it both ways. Some like General Barre or Lattre de Tassigny attempted to fight the Germans with their commands in November 1942. Others like Nougues resisted the Allies. To many others like Darlan dithered, hoping somehow nuetrality could preserved even as entire Allied and Axis armies were marching into French territory. The inability of Petain & his subordinate leaders to decisively commit one way or another in 1942 doomed his government to irrelevancy for the remainder of the war.




Churchill did prevail in stopping plans for a 1943 invasion. At the January 1943 SYMBOL Confrence @ Casablanca he talked Roosevelt into going against the advice of Marshal and committing to the Mediterranean campaign that Brooke argued for. What would have happened had Roosevelt come down solidly on the side of Marshal I cant say, other than the confrence would have lasted a lot longer ; )



Sorry for not being clear enough in the OP but I intend this to be 1943 invasion, but the decision for the invasion to occur would be in early 1942 so that the U.S. can prepare for the invasion by moving men, planes, and material to Britain.
[/QUOTE]
He had Wedemeyer ( an AMERICAN) sent to China for demanding it, so no, you have to kill or incapacitate the Entire British home command for that to happen.
 
Someone els refered me to a BBC program, that proved to be a false lead & my attempts at searching fruitless. Can you identify a specific program?




The version i've had this came to Dill via a Brit officer or diplomat in contact with Vichy French leaders. Dill pursued it to see if any thing could be gained, but kept it from Churchill.

I dont have anything about what Brooke thought of this specifically, but I notice that invasion plans of the British were stalled after Brooke took over, and then put away for a year until COSSAC was established in 1943.

There are a lot of vague and conflicting stories about British plans in 1941-42, and the Churchill version looks unreliable after sixty years. For some reason detailed and reliable sources are eluding me.

Umm here: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17390290

Okay that makes sense

He was able to remove Dill as CIGS, but turning around and replacing Brooke after just a few months may not have been practical. maybe after ten months or a year? There are experts here on British cabinet politics who could clarify this.

They certainly were. In 1942 the US ambassador to France, Admiral Leahey, found Petains government open to discussions about reentering the war. Darlan was premier at the time & his response to Leaheay is suposed to have been "If you come with three divisions we will fight you, if you come with twenty we will join you." It looks like he was telling Leahey that the Allies needed to invade with maximum force and not some sort of poorly prepared & weak probe. The confusion of the French leaders when Operation Torch was executed shows how divided they were, and how many of them tried to have it both ways. Some like General Barre or Lattre de Tassigny attempted to fight the Germans with their commands in November 1942. Others like Nougues resisted the Allies. To many others like Darlan dithered, hoping somehow nuetrality could preserved even as entire Allied and Axis armies were marching into French territory. The inability of Petain & his subordinate leaders to decisively commit one way or another in 1942 doomed his government to irrelevancy for the remainder of the war.

Churchill did prevail in stopping plans for a 1943 invasion. At the January 1943 SYMBOL Confrence @ Casablanca he talked Roosevelt into going against the advice of Marshal and committing to the Mediterranean campaign that Brooke argued for. What would have happened had Roosevelt come down solidly on the side of Marshal I cant say, other than the confrence would have lasted a lot longer ; )

Thanks for this reply. I didn't know about Petain's offer to America, which makes this all the more interesting.
 
Last edited:
...

Thanks for this reply. I didn't know about Petain's offer to America, which makes this all the more interesting.

It may have been more Darlan than Petain. All I have on this are secondary English language sources. I'd like to see at least a French expert who may have seen Darlans version of this, if not actual minutes of the discussion.
 
It may have been more Darlan than Petain. All I have on this are secondary English language sources. I'd like to see at least a French expert who may have seen Darlans version of this, if not actual minutes of the discussion.

Oh, okay. Just to posit a question how do you think postwar would look if the Vichy helped liberate France? Would there be a civil war between the Vichy and Free France or what?
 
Just looked at the article. A landing at New Rochelle and Bordeaux? Come on those two of the main home ports of the German U-boat fleet. I think the article was leaked 12 days early.
 
He had Wedemeyer ( an AMERICAN) sent to China for demanding it, so no, you have to kill or incapacitate the Entire British home command for that to happen.

Wedemyer was not ordered to China until October 1944. His leaving War Plans Division in 1941 had more to do with his personal effort to move out of what he thought of as a dead end staff job and gain a combat command. In his post war writing he made large claims for his role in the WPD, leaving the impression he was in charge. Actually his role was more clerical. One of several field grade officers in WPD writing staff studies and looking up information. Several Generals whos names I forget were sucessively chiefs of WPD.
 
Last edited:
Oh, okay. Just to posit a question how do you think postwar would look if the Vichy helped liberate France? Would there be a civil war between the Vichy and Free France or what?

There were several low level civil wars going on among the French. In November 1942 military leaders like Barre were engaged in borderline treason when they fought or attempted to fight the Axis armies. Others like Nougues busied themselves arresting and locking up any officers they thought might favor the Allied invasion of Africa. Another example would be the long running tension between the Communist underground and the Gaullist supported elements. The claims there was betrayal to the Germans by each side seem to have some credibility in at least a few cases. In 1944/45 the induction of thousands of former FFI underground fighters into the French Army may have had to do with getting anti Gaullists and Communists under control or under guard.

My take is had Petain gone uneviqually to the Allied side in November 1942 French leaders like Darlan would have controlled the Allied French forces & DeGualle would have been forced to fight to the top against more formidable opposition. As it was the Collapse of Petains group at the critical moment left a near vacuum in French political leadership. Barre, Tassigny, Juin, Giraud were excellent military leaders but lacked DeGualles political skills.
 
There were several low level civil wars going on among the French. In November 1942 military leaders like Barre were engaged in borderline treason when they fought or attempted to fight the Axis armies. Others like Nougues busied themselves arresting and locking up any officers they thought might favor the Allied invasion of Africa. Another example would be the long running tension between the Communist underground and the Gaullist supported elements. The claims there was betrayal to the Germans by each side seem to have some credibility in at least a few cases. In 1944/45 the induction of thousands of former FFI underground fighters into the French Army may have had to do with getting anti Gaullists and Communists under control or under guard.

My take is had Petain gone uneviqually to the Allied side in November 1942 French leaders like Darlan would have controlled the Allied French forces & DeGualle would have been forced to fight to the top against more formidable opposition. As it was the Collapse of Petains group at the critical moment left a near vacuum in French political leadership. Barre, Tassigny, Juin, Giraud were excellent military leaders but lacked DeGualles political skills.

So do you think that after the war there would be a full scale civil war or more than poltical plays for power until one side comes out on top?
 
Top