Belligerent Vichy France: Post-War Effects

[Aranfan]

The premise of this thread is that Hitler was slightly more lenient on France at the peace table and De Gualle caught a German bullet with his heart during the fighting, leading to no Free French and Vichy declaring war on Britain when the French fleet is sunk.

This butterflies Stalin into being more prepared for Hitler's betrayal, which counterbalances the superior-to-OTL Axis Manpower. The Axis and the USSR eventually stalemate along roughly the '42-'43 lines of OTL.

Hitler still declares war on the US after Pearl Harbor, but belligerent Vichy means that they only puts boots on the ground in 46 when their march to Berlin is heralded by Nuclear Fire.

The Pacific Theater isn't terribly different from OTL, except at the end where FDR (only having to worry about a one front war instead of a two front war means he lives longer) makes the decision to save the Bombs for Germany and Operation Downfall goes ahead.

And so, in October of '46 FDR, Churchill, and Stalin (who managed to grab most of Belarus and the Ukraine once America entered the war in Europe) meet in captured Berlin to look upon a shackled but composed and defiant Hitler, and decide the fate of a Europe that has felt the agony of up to 12 nuclear bombs cast in anger.


My question is how the course of human events is likely to unfold from here.

 

[ketz3r]

Twelve nukes? Can't see the Yanks doing something like that. One maybe, but I assume that's all it would take for the German generals to overthrow Hitler.

Should they really go through with it... not even the red menace would unite the Europeans under the American flag.

 

[Aranfan]

Edited to be "Up to 12 nukes".

 

[Cook]

No Post War French Empire for starters.

Algerian independence in ’46.

A mad scramble for independence and power in Indo-China with at least four new nations trying to establish themselves and define their boundries.

 

[Blue Max]

First question: What is the Soviet Zone of Occupation in Europe?

Second Question: The United States would definitely try to make a move in Europe in 1944, hitting Norway if France was out of the question...what did WW2 look like in terms of campaigns?

No matter what happens, the view of France being seen as an enemy country, as well as Italy sticking in the war until the nukes come out, would lead to greater distrust in Europe in General.

What would probably happen is that the United States' sphere of influence would probably expand to include Scandinavia, East Asia (Including Japan), but have little sympathy for many European nations. It would see unlikely that a cold war would follow, given how the Soviet Union has suffered even heavier losses and be in no position to make a move for Europe, the United States may well only opt to aid the United Kingdom and a few select friends in Europe instead of the whole continent.

World History would be profoundly altered by the Soviet Union never emerging as a major player and the United States at least partially withdrawing to isolationism. There would be further differences--Israel would never exist. Even assuming that SS Einsatzgruppen never follow Rommel into Palestine and wreck shop, the Holocaust would have been able to run many more deaths--perhaps another Million Jews, and things might look rather grim for the Poles who are next on the list.

I'm not sure that there is a Marshall Plan, or that there would be any real cold war. Indeed, given the situation at hand, Europe would be a bombed out wreck in 1946--to an even greater degree than it was in 1918.

This looks the incubation grounds for a new ideology. Fascism has been crushed, Communism has been savagely bloodied, and Democracy has led to depression, appeasement, and after all else, apathy.

The confrontation between this new ideology and the ruling nations of the world may be peaceful politicking and backroom backstabbing--or it may be nuclear war.

This won't be a disaster for everyone. The United States will enjoy a larger, more successful prosperity as it doesn't need to maintain vast numbers of troops, nukes and its military industrial complex. Vietnam will become a free nation, as Ho Chi Minh will eagerly agree to an Anti-French, Anti-Chinese posturing, assuming the ROC loses the Chinese Civil War.

As for the name, the posturing and the beliefs of that ideology--that is where authorial license and imagination begin...

 

[lothaw]

Yeah, France would basicly be Italy in reverse.

No security council seat for France in the UN, they lose their whole empire. Petain would be the arch-traitor of the west instead of just a tragic hero.

France's reputation for surrendering would be increased when Vichy eventually capitulates to the west.

Heck, if Vichy is still a going concern in 1945, I could see a nuke hitting one of their cities.

 

[Aranfan]

I'd think Marshall Aid might still go through, America wants markets after all, and a recovered Europe is the best external market they can get.

Edit: Also, Max, you got your ideologies mixed up. I think you meant Capitalism when you said Democracy.

 

[Blue Max]

I'd think Marshall Aid might still go through, America wants markets after all, and a recovered Europe is the best external market they can get.

Edit: Also, Max, you got your ideologies mixed up. I think you meant Capitalism when you said Democracy.

Not sure on this; I think I meant Democracy.

While democratic governments will be built in Europe, I'm not sure that the United States will really intend to support them fully. Part of the problem is that the transition towards democracy generally doesn't work at the barrel of a gun. Nations like Poland, Austria, Romania and even Germany have only limited flirtations with democratic government at this point in History.

West Germany can be described as a puppet regime in many regards into the 1950s and later; this scenario would add other unstable governments in Eastern Europe, France and Italy to the mix--which would enlarge the scope of the problem.

In 1948, Robert Taft made a strong showing in the Republican Primaries. Given the war has taken a far higher cost for the United States, that Europe is even greater mess and Communism is also on the ebb, I think we may well see the election of Robert Taft as President of the United States.

It does seem very hard to believe that the United States would really want to police an entire continent of nations. Even in OTL, Germany and Austria were the only two nations the USA occupied in Europe; Italy was allied, and France was essentially neutral turned allied. In this scenario, the United States would find Italy and France hostile to their efforts, as is Germany, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and perhaps Austria.

This is a far larger undertaking, and one without the urgency of OTL as well--the Soviets are going to be in such bad shape that they can't hope to storm into Poland again.

Europe is, in 1948, a pile of fragile democratic states supported only loosely by a United States. The temptation to walk away from it, and deal only with a few "Friends" would be irresistible. Even beneath the veneer of calm, many national grudges would remain.

This is why Democracy in Europe will break, once again. Germany's next generation of leadership will have done all kinds of dirty work in the war that came before; a similar situation will follow in France, Italy, and Eastern Europe. It won't be as bad as 1933 again, but Europe will probably be a major mess and the United States is probably going to elect Taft and press the "Snooze" button.

 

[juanml82]

Twelve nukes? Can't see the Yanks doing something like that. One maybe, but I assume that's all it would take for the German generals to overthrow Hitler.

Should they really go through with it... not even the red menace would unite the Europeans under the American flag.

I don't know. How many 1000 bombers raids did the W. Allies performed and nobody overthrew Hitler? 12 might be a bit extreme - then again, their immediate destructive power won't be as hard as in Japan due more solid buildings. But Germany won't surrender with just one. Heck, they could even retort to chemical bombing against the UK in a wild bet to try to make peace with the British, maybe with no other condition than stopping the nuclear bombardment. In turn, of course, the allies can counter with both nukes and 1000 bombing raids with gas.
As if OTL WWII was nasty enough...

The USSR can grow again, even if it takes time, and communist parties can end up winning elections in Western Europe - in Italy it should be plausible - if the USA abandons the continent. And the USA still needs trading partners.

 

[Blue Max]

I don't know. How many 1000 bombers raids did the W. Allies performed and nobody overthrew Hitler? 12 might be a bit extreme - then again, their immediate destructive power won't be as hard as in Japan due more solid buildings. But Germany won't surrender with just one. Heck, they could even retort to chemical bombing against the UK in a wild bet to try to make peace with the British, maybe with no other condition than stopping the nuclear bombardment. In turn, of course, the allies can counter with both nukes and 1000 bombing raids with gas.
As if OTL WWII was nasty enough...

The USSR can grow again, even if it takes time, and communist parties can end up winning elections in Western Europe - in Italy it should be plausible - if the USA abandons the continent. And the USA still needs trading partners.

If the Germans throw VX against the UK, wouldn't they start using Anthrax against Das Reich?

If this is the case, Europe may be even more spectacularly messed up I had considered.

As for the reds winning elections in Europe, I'm not so sure that a Soviet Alliance would prevail or whether it would simply begin the slow spiral into a third world war.

 

[juanml82]

If the Germans throw VX against the UK, wouldn't they start using Anthrax against Das Reich?

Sure. That might prevent Hitler from using gas against the UK and just endure the nukes (for some time) as they did with the massive bombing raids of 1945.
OTOH, if Hitler feels against the wall and with a chance to finish the war that way... how knows?

 

[DuQuense]

and De Gualle caught a German bullet with his heart during the fighting, leading to no Free French .

De Gaulle wasn't the only Free French Leader, just the best known, However I can see a different Leader, meaning a weaker and less organised Free French.

The premise of this thread is that Hitler was slightly more lenient on France at the peace table and Vichy declaring war on Britain when the French fleet is sunk

While I don't see much room for Leniency from Germany, I can see slightly different Diplomacy, during the Collapse, and post sinking of the Fleet leading to Vichy France DoWing GB.
This probably leads to Vichy France regaining the Northern Half [German zone] by 1944

This means the US Occupies French Caribbean/Guiana in December '41.
Operation Torch goes in as OTL/ or one month? late. But ends up Fighting the French in Algeria, Morocco.

This delays the Surrenders in NAfrica several Months, with a delay in the Italian Campaigns.
This Campaign is more likely to include the Sardinia/Corsica option instead of Anzio.

However IOTL the British & Americans Had planned for the Occupation of France post Normandy. .
Plans for de Fascistization of France were prepared. Zones of occupation had been agreed, and millions of Occupation Script Francs printed.

The only thing that prevented this is the Organisation/Speed that the Free French had prepared under De Gaulle.
In some cases The Free French appointed Mayor and Staff would be setting up while the Fighting was going on outside, And the Germany Mayor and Staff were still -Packing/Moving Out -down the Hall.

So Normandy/South France goes as Planned, except the Allies are fighting Vichy French forces along with the Germans.

The War goes slower in West Europe, & with France fighting the Allies Germany can send more troops East to attack the Russians,
Doesn't Matter - The Russians have a few more Causalities, But the Russians still reach their Zone Borders and stop, before the US/GB reach theirs.
There is no French Zone in Germany, and the French don't get those small Border changes they did OTL.
?Not sure what this means for A-L?

The Focus turns to the Pacific, The Bombs are Dropped, Japan surrenders.

By 1948 proposals are made to reunite the Zones in France and in Germany, Leading in 1949 to the new - Republic of France - and the - Republic of West Germany.

In 1950 France, WGermany, Italy, SKorea, and Japan, are all operating under US/GB imposed Constitutions.

 

[Blue Max]

IDK, this all sounds rather fishy to me...

WW2 isn't going to look like OTL very much in this scenario. I'm not sure whether Aranfan is adopting Irioth/General Zod/Eurofed's Cherrypicked PoDs to roll back the Soviet Union, but even without those in mind, D-Day can't work against a hostile Vichy France.

Vichy French Forces introduce new questions in the Middle East, where Henri Dentz may well prove enough of a distraction to allow the DAK at least a victory in Egypt. Backwater campaigns in Africa would also be fought, although with little at stake.

The French Navy after Mers e Kabir isn't going to be overly strong, but a stronger situation in North Africa would be an obvious development--we might well see French forces march with the DAK into Egypt. A climatic battle in Tunisia will not be earned until months later. I'm unsure that an attack on Sicily/Napoli could be made with Axis armies in Libya and Egypt.

There is also the considerable possibility that Nationalist Spain feels emboldened enough to join the Axis powers in this scenario as well.

Historically, Italy threw down the cards in 1943 with defeat imminent; but with the Soviet Union battered badly, Germany can also certainly dedicate some forces to guarding Italian Territory. In this case, we'd be looking at a 1944 invasion of Italy, against heavier forces than OTL--such a setting may well lead to a disaster at Salerno.

D-Day in 1944, given this change in logistics, would fail. There would be no 101st airborne division flying the day before into several hostile divisions. Indeed, Vichy France would have several times the forces that the OTL Germans had to safeguard themselves. The Invasion force is at best blocked off with little means to supply, at worst it's crushed and thousands of prisoners taken.

When I spoke of a "Downfall Style Campaign" in Irioth's last Nonnazi Germanwank WWII, I was referencing the cold war doctrines of the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Such means would be needed to defeat the Ground forces of Western Europe without massive Allied loss of life. I would have to think that the Allies would attempt Norway instead of Normandy in 1944/5, convince the Swedes to allow transit rights and push the Finns into a peace deal. It wouldn't end the war, but it would at least be a reasonable move given how heavily garrisoned France would be ITTL.

Then attempt an invasion of France in 1946 spearheaded with 20Kt sledgehammers.

Don't forget, either, that the war in the Pacific would be very different here in one other regard--the Soviet Union will not launch August Storm with the Germans sitting in their front yard. Some kind of ANZAC/US/Chinese campaign to retake both the Chinese coast, Manchuria and Korea is in order, and this will be happening around 1946-7 as well.

Now I think about this, this would mean no North Korea and no PRC

 

[Aranfan]

I imagined the Soviets getting to the Vistula/Dniester once America started throwing around Nukes.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

No French zone in occupied Germany, no French seat on the Security Council, the US probably encourages Ho Chi Minh as the only option and France never regains much of her colonial empire, even for a short period.

Post-war restrictions mean no French carrier, no French nuclear capacity, no French space program...France is generally treated as a conquered enemy after WWII instead of an ally. Whether France can survive the 1950s without De Gaulle's reforms as something more than an enlarged Greece is uncertain.


Also French military involvment won't matter much barring Hitler being generous beyond belief, like a near total removal of all restrictions on the French military. Which will not happen.

 

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

IDK, this all sounds rather fishy to me...

WW2 isn't going to look like OTL very much in this scenario. I'm not sure whether Aranfan is adopting Irioth/General Zod/Eurofed's Cherrypicked PoDs to roll back the Soviet Union, but even without those in mind, D-Day can't work against a hostile Vichy France.

Vichy French Forces introduce new questions in the Middle East, where Henri Dentz may well prove enough of a distraction to allow the DAK at least a victory in Egypt. Backwater campaigns in Africa would also be fought, although with little at stake.

The French Navy after Mers e Kabir isn't going to be overly strong, but a stronger situation in North Africa would be an obvious development--we might well see French forces march with the DAK into Egypt. A climatic battle in Tunisia will not be earned until months later. I'm unsure that an attack on Sicily/Napoli could be made with Axis armies in Libya and Egypt.

There is also the considerable possibility that Nationalist Spain feels emboldened enough to join the Axis powers in this scenario as well.

Historically, Italy threw down the cards in 1943 with defeat imminent; but with the Soviet Union battered badly, Germany can also certainly dedicate some forces to guarding Italian Territory. In this case, we'd be looking at a 1944 invasion of Italy, against heavier forces than OTL--such a setting may well lead to a disaster at Salerno.

D-Day in 1944, given this change in logistics, would fail. There would be no 101st airborne division flying the day before into several hostile divisions. Indeed, Vichy France would have several times the forces that the OTL Germans had to safeguard themselves. The Invasion force is at best blocked off with little means to supply, at worst it's crushed and thousands of prisoners taken.

When I spoke of a "Downfall Style Campaign" in Irioth's last Nonnazi Germanwank WWII, I was referencing the cold war doctrines of the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Such means would be needed to defeat the Ground forces of Western Europe without massive Allied loss of life. I would have to think that the Allies would attempt Norway instead of Normandy in 1944/5, convince the Swedes to allow transit rights and push the Finns into a peace deal. It wouldn't end the war, but it would at least be a reasonable move given how heavily garrisoned France would be ITTL.

Then attempt an invasion of France in 1946 spearheaded with 20Kt sledgehammers.

Don't forget, either, that the war in the Pacific would be very different here in one other regard--the Soviet Union will not launch August Storm with the Germans sitting in their front yard. Some kind of ANZAC/US/Chinese campaign to retake both the Chinese coast, Manchuria and Korea is in order, and this will be happening around 1946-7 as well.

Now I think about this, this would mean no North Korea and no PRC

According to britwank dogma a belligerent Vichy France would not have mattered at all. For you see, French armies are crap, even worst than that of the Italians in every aspect.
There could not have been more axis forces in north africa, because of logistics and the fact that there are no ports in Algeria and Marocco. Hitler would have done his best to prevent airbases being established in northern Marocco to interfer with english fleets entering the western mediterranean. In fact, he would have suspected an allied plot to stab him in the back and occupied all of France, convinced Mússolini to move his armies against against French north africa, allowing the empire to attack into Lybia from Egypte.
Then imperial forces would be able to stop the Japanes in Vietnam in early 42 and helped the US reconquer the Phillipines in early 43 and.... Well, if you don´t believe the above scenario, you are clearly a German-wanker! I kid you not!

 

[Blue Max]

According to britwank dogma a belligerent Vichy France would not have mattered at all. For you see, French armies are crap, even worst than that of the Italians in every aspect.
There could not have been more axis forces in north africa, because of logistics and the fact that there are no ports in Algeria and Marocco. Hitler would have done his best to prevent airbases being established in northern Marocco to interfer with english fleets entering the western mediterranean. In fact, he would have suspected an allied plot to stab him in the back and occupied all of France, convinced Mússolini to move his armies against against French north africa, allowing the empire to attack into Lybia from Egypte.
Then imperial forces would be able to stop the Japanes in Vietnam in early 42 and helped the US reconquer the Phillipines in early 43 and.... Well, if you don´t believe the above scenario, you are clearly a German-wanker! I kid you not!

This post doesn't hold up to scrutiny in the slightest. France's Airforce and its tank design is definitely superior to the Italians, to say nothing of the Japanese. Not that I think it was seriously considered...

That said, Hitler mistrusting France is a good point. The case could definitely be made that Vichy would still be only a minor participant even as a belligerent power. The question would then become how involved Vichy was in fighting for Germany--and whether an invasion of France would lead to Vichy throwing a dozen divisions at the beachhead...

Vichy Forces in OTL weren't poorly geared but their morale was very low--WW2 had aspects of a French Civil War on its hands. ITTL, Vichy Forces would fight somewhat more dedicatedly for the Axis powers. I doubt any of the other critiques you've presented are true.

 

[usertron2020]

Healthy FDR?

FDR lives longer? If I remember right he died of a cerebral embolism,

kind of a time bomb to the brain if you understand. He had been president

for 12 years 87 days and was a man with NO sense of his own

mortality. He wanted to be Secretary-General of the UN after his

fourth term was up! I won't judge the rest of this thread but I just

can't see FDR staying alive one more day.