Paul Reynard and a number of French politicians wanted to continue the fight from Algeria. In a scenario where Italy is neutral and the French government moves to Algiers with their Navy and as many soldiers as the British and the French can ferry over to North Africa, what does the war look like? What are the Wallies’ options?
British and French options if France fights on from Algeria in 1940?
- Thread starter Lee-Sensei
- Start date
One major difference is that you now have the French navy still in the war. Originally, the deal was that the Royal Navy would watch the Atlantic and the French would watch the Mediterranean. However, after the armistice, the Royal Navy was forced to move warships the the Mediterranean and create a new squadron called "Force H". Had the French remained the war, the Royal Navy would greatly be relieved and the French would watch the Italians. The French warships would also be useful against the Germans as the Dunkirques were designed specifically to destroy the German pocket battleships. The Richelieu would counter the Bismarcks. France would also finish the Joffre class carriers either in British or American shipyards, giving the Allies 2 more carriers. More importantly, the British being greatly relieved cannow send a decent fleet to the Far East, which could save the Allies during the early stages of the Pacific theater. Perhaps Rommel would give up sooner, due to the Italians having 3-4 times more ships facing it. Allies would also have additional more of course. France has around 144 divisions in 1940. If the French successfully retreat to Algeria, about 60-100 divisions could be saved. This would be crucial for the Allies. Perhaps the British army could have more troops in the Pacific, critical to the Allied war effort. With a bigger allied navy and army, we could potentially see an earlier d day. Of course, post war Britain would be in less debt since the gold France evacuated OTl would be used to pay for cash and carry/lend lease.
Hopefully the extra French troops in NA combined with the MN cutting off supplies more effectively than the RN could from the besieged Malta means NA will be over sooner, possibly meaning no Rommel in Africa, and if the continent is consolidated by the Allies, they are in a very good position, especially if the Italian fleet is hit even harder than OTL. Admiral Bloonbeard also mentioned the increase of British military in Asia. However, one problem is that this is a quick evacuation, so there won't be much in the way of spare parts for France, so they need a NA victory ASAP. Richelieu could be finished in UK shipyards with Jean Bart as a spare parts hulk, but the Joffre's aren't in any condition to launch, and as OTL showed, French ships were too short ranged to operate outside of the Med, not to mention the stability issues on the DD's. Once the spare parts problem starts to catch up to the French forces, they will have to switch to UK/US equipment, which is time consuming and expensive. I would say this is certainly a better result, but not as easy as some people think.
Italy is neutral in this scenario. I was just think about options for Britain and France to attack Germany. The Mediterranean is clear in this scenario. Would the Germans try to use French bases in the south to attack Allied shipping?
Deleted member 1487
This probably guarantees Hitler has to attack Spain to go after the French in North Africa. If nothing else they would have to do it to close the Straits of Gibraltar to cut off easy supply to the main French bases in the Mediterranean. It also means no L-L, as the French have the gold to keep paying for purchases and the US wouldn't provide it until the British proved they were actually out of money IOTL.
I’d read that France was in financial difficulties in the 1930’s. We’re they really that well off?
Deleted member 1487
It's complicated, but basically France was in trouble because they clung to the gold standard way too long to the point it actually made them insolvent because they were so focused on building up their gold reserves that they actually had as much or more than the US and IIRC about 25% of the entire world's supply. After their budget basically imploded in 1936 they decided to free float their currency and start liquidating their multi-billion dollar (in 1940 value!) gold reserves to finance rearmament.
French Gold In World War II
This story is about one of the world’s largest gold hoards stored in one of the largest most secure vaults ever built. The French stored their 2,500 tons of gold in their secure underground vault in Paris. When the Germans began their offensive, the French started to remove its gold as a precaution.
www.gold-eagle.com
Hitler’s Gold – Part 1
“Nazi Gold” is a true legend. Where it came from and what happened to it has, over the years, taken on the mantle of a near-mystical fable. However, there is nothing supernatural about it. Na…
rwhiston.wordpress.com
Last edited by a moderator:
Of Spain resists the Germans it seems like the British would send a division of two to Morocco to help stiffen the French and Spanish there. I can't see the Germans assault crossing into Africa with no navy at all. The British Gibraltar naval units could go to Casablanca. It seems like it ends there. I don't see the Germans invading hostile Spain.
The Germans would probably just occupy all of France extend their looting, impose a harsh occupation and hope the French come to their senses and deal eventually.
if the Germans by threats and indictments convince the Spanish to cooperate and quickly control both sides of the straits with air and guns I could see a major campaign in Morroco to the limits of the German ability to supply.
The Germans would probably just occupy all of France extend their looting, impose a harsh occupation and hope the French come to their senses and deal eventually.
if the Germans by threats and indictments convince the Spanish to cooperate and quickly control both sides of the straits with air and guns I could see a major campaign in Morroco to the limits of the German ability to supply.
Deleted member 1487
Depending on when it would go down they might not have two divisions to send. Assuming they did though they'd probably go to Portugal first and try to make sure Iberia didn't fall first and failing that then they'd probably evacuate to Morocco. I'd imagine the French would also send troops too to Spain, because they could not actually survive the fall of Gibraltar. Remember in 1942 the Allies were panicked about Germany convincing Spain to join the war and cut off Operation Torch:
Operation Torch - Wikipedia
Driftless
Donor
The destroyers and their kin were short legged, but the Dunkerques, Algerie', and some of the light cruisers had a decent sailing range.
Last edited:
thaddeus
Donor
think with France still in the fight,Germany would have few Med options and Spain would be much more reluctant to enter the war. (would they really try to invade? and bring the British back on the Continent?)
my view the Nazi regime would have to pivot back to Eastern Europe, and the territorials changes made peacefully in the Second Vienna Awards, might require force here?
Last edited:
UK does better in general - they won't be concerned about Greece even if Italy goes to war with it so long as Italy remains neutral, and no North African front which frees up substantial amounts of manpower. At worst they have to keep a few divisions on both ends of Libya in case the Italians later do end up trying something, but France can help with that.
As mentioned UK is free to send extra naval resources to SE Asia, which combined with extra manpower might result in Japan never getting past Indochina. Otherwise the Allies end up fighting in French Indochina, Thailand and Indonesia and as a result China does better because the Burma Road is never under any real threat.
I would suspect in such a scenario Corsica would remain under Allied control, which means following US entry into the war we might get to see Operation Roundup (or if they're insane Operation Sledgehammer). How capable the Allies are of such a landing in 1943 is up to question, but if they do land successfully according to several posters on this forum the power of naval gunfire and air superiority is enough to keep them there indefinitely (no idea on the validity of these statements). If such an invasion succeeded Kursk megafails - roll credits.
As mentioned UK is free to send extra naval resources to SE Asia, which combined with extra manpower might result in Japan never getting past Indochina. Otherwise the Allies end up fighting in French Indochina, Thailand and Indonesia and as a result China does better because the Burma Road is never under any real threat.
I would suspect in such a scenario Corsica would remain under Allied control, which means following US entry into the war we might get to see Operation Roundup (or if they're insane Operation Sledgehammer). How capable the Allies are of such a landing in 1943 is up to question, but if they do land successfully according to several posters on this forum the power of naval gunfire and air superiority is enough to keep them there indefinitely (no idea on the validity of these statements). If such an invasion succeeded Kursk megafails - roll credits.
Deleted member 1487
How does the elephant fight the whale?
Why would Germany allow Corsica to remain in French hands for years as a threat against mainland France?
I would suspect Japan never enters the war at all, if they figure out that Singapore can't fall with the extra British air/land and sea power in the region.
In addition in this TL Indochina remains outside of Japanese occupation and is another supply source for China
Also the Burma road never has its temporary closure since Britain is much less threatened.
Perhaps Japan just loses in China or projects a future loss and is forced to make peace with China.
I just don't see Corsica falling to the Germans, with Italy neutral it would have to be a paratrooper invasion and there is no reason the French can't stick and supply a significant force there.
Spain's position is interesting as the German army will be rolling up on the entire length of the Pyrenees in about middle July 1940. Germany can offer a bunch, an occupation zone in France, a share of the looting, The promise of the whole of French Morocco and Algeria, and a major military intervention to help them take it.
Spain can't resist a German invasion. And in this TL the Germans can support a rising of the colonial peoples without risking annoying the Italians.
Britain can't offer much to help the Spanish resist, unlike 1808, German air power makes an insurrection and British intervention hard. The most like result of resistance is a brutal German occupation for years, and the loss of her colonial empire.
The case for and against Spain vis a vis Nazi Germany is a complicated one. Even in OTL, with France essentially 'vichy-fied', the British on the run from Dunkirk, AND Italy under Mussolini joining the Axis, Spain still refused to join Hitler or side with the allies.
ITTL, there's no Italy and France is still in the fight, along with some potent naval forces. I will leave just how potent they are to those more in the know, but if the axis can a have a fleet in being...
Geographically speaking, the Pyrenees' are a fantastic natural barrier which can certainly blunt and reduce the effectiveness of the Heer, but will do very little to slow the Luftwaffe, and say what you will about them, but Goering certainly created an intimidating force.
However, the question you have to ask, is what does attacking Spain get Germany? Hitler showed no interest in the Med until he was led there by Benny. And for all the action that took place there, it has often been labelled as a side-show comparatively speaking to the eastern front. While stomping through Spain and gutting Gibraltar does very much hamper (and probably completely isolate) British holdings in the Med, what are you maintaining this with, and why is Hitler committing to this when his focus is primarily on the USSR?
I just can't see Spain under Franco, or anyone, allowing Germany access to Gibraltar when the axis is less than what it was in OTL, and when its in a geographical area that is outside the focus of the German High Command.
I do admit that it's within the realms of possibility for Germany to outright invade and defeat Spain. The only reason why I can see Germany committing to this is if the UK became the primary target in Hitler's crosshairs. But we know from OTL that this was not the case.
ITTL, there's no Italy and France is still in the fight, along with some potent naval forces. I will leave just how potent they are to those more in the know, but if the axis can a have a fleet in being...
Geographically speaking, the Pyrenees' are a fantastic natural barrier which can certainly blunt and reduce the effectiveness of the Heer, but will do very little to slow the Luftwaffe, and say what you will about them, but Goering certainly created an intimidating force.
However, the question you have to ask, is what does attacking Spain get Germany? Hitler showed no interest in the Med until he was led there by Benny. And for all the action that took place there, it has often been labelled as a side-show comparatively speaking to the eastern front. While stomping through Spain and gutting Gibraltar does very much hamper (and probably completely isolate) British holdings in the Med, what are you maintaining this with, and why is Hitler committing to this when his focus is primarily on the USSR?
I just can't see Spain under Franco, or anyone, allowing Germany access to Gibraltar when the axis is less than what it was in OTL, and when its in a geographical area that is outside the focus of the German High Command.
I do admit that it's within the realms of possibility for Germany to outright invade and defeat Spain. The only reason why I can see Germany committing to this is if the UK became the primary target in Hitler's crosshairs. But we know from OTL that this was not the case.
Driftless
Donor
Plus, wouldn't the Germans make some move against Portugal as well? To leave it un-occupied would be risking a future counter-invasion path for the Allies.
That and having to come up with garrisons for a very large area in Spain, Portugal, Norway, and Denmark would be a big drain on manpower. Historically Norway alone was a ruinous resource pit for the Heer. None of those countries was central to Nazi strategic policy, such as it was....
That and having to come up with garrisons for a very large area in Spain, Portugal, Norway, and Denmark would be a big drain on manpower. Historically Norway alone was a ruinous resource pit for the Heer. None of those countries was central to Nazi strategic policy, such as it was....
Deleted member 1487
Hitler didn't really have an entry point into the Mediterranean until Mussolini entered the war, then it was 'his' domain until he needed help. Prior to that Admiral Raeder was pressuring Hitler to get Spain into the war, in fact he pushed that instead of Sea Lion:
Erich Raeder during World War II - Wikipedia
There were plenty of benefits which have already been stated in this thread. If you consider that in 1940 the only goal was defeating Britain it would be in service to that end.
Hitler didn't decide on invading the USSR for sure until December 1940 and in the meantime was kicking around several strategic ideas.
BTW this isn't OTL, this is and ATL where the French and their fleet are still a threat, Italy is neutral and Hitler needs to deal with them, because unlike OTL France hasn't surrendered and Italy isn't helping distract the British. So the strategic concerns and considerations are quite a bit different. In fact ITTL the Battle of Britain may well not happen due to the concerns about the French, putting Spain in the crosshairs.
That said though the big sticking point IOTL between Hitler and Franco was the problem of French territory. Franco wanted several colonies that Hitler didn't want to give because it would upset Vichy and Hitler wanted a passive France; ITTL France isn't passive and still a belligerent after June, so there wouldn't be any reason not to give Franco everything he asked for unlike OTL:
Meeting at Hendaye - Wikipedia
Not necessarily unless Spain declared war. Neutral, but heavily intimidated Portugal was still more useful than an occupied one. If the British want to try invading through Portugal...good luck. Trying to move up the peninsula would be like advancing in Italy.
Occupying Europe was actually pretty light on manpower compared to Barbarossa, so it wouldn't be a problem so long as they refrained from also trying to invade the USSR. Though since ITTL they wouldn't be invading Greece or occupied in North Africa they'd have a pretty substantial manpower surplus compared to OTL to use in Spain.
Where do you get the Norway was a ruinous resource pit? It was incredibly valuable, so they occupied it accordingly and inflicted pretty heavy losses with forces based there on the Allied convoys.
Driftless
Donor
Occupation of Norway
The air and naval forces used against the convoys had good value. However, as I understand the situation, even the need for the Narvik ore port was offset by other contingencies that the Swedes and Germans worked out over time so that the very long and dangerous route down the coast, and across the Skaggerak wasn't as necessary.
Many of those 300,000 would have been more useful elsewhere. IF Norway were not occupied, the RN would still accompany convoys to the Soviets, so I don't know that you can count that as a trade-off. On the whole, I'd call the heavy Heer force in Norway a mis-use of resources.
With Spain as friendly neutral and the Pyrenes as a defensive barrier, the Nazi's didn't worry much about the Allies coming across from that direction, so the commitment of occupation force for France remains as OTL. If the Germans decided to invade Spain with the goal of closing that end of the Med, then they'd have to commit an additional and substantial force to garrison the Iberian Pennisula. Personally, I think they'd need to neutralize Portugal too and either that's invading, or parking a substantial force on the border and overflights to make sure the Portuguese got the message of whose in charge.
To the point I first raised up-thread, the Germans would be committing a ton of troops, along with vehicles, airplanes, food, clothing, fuel, ammunition, etc on their already strained supply train to get those resources to those garrisons in Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Yugoslavia. France, back areas of Russia, Ukraine, and whoever else I left out. To be sure, some of the garrison forces would be made up from Italians and other German allies and co-belligerents, but those fellows still need basic supplies, just as German soldiers would. That's a huge number of soldiers playing the role of heavily armed policemen, rather than regular Army.
Does anyone have an accurate number of how many Germans were committed to occupation garrison work?
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
How many of those 300k were crack troops?
Norway was extremely valuable due to it's mining resources, for instance it was the only significant source of the ultra vital Molybdenum. Plus it provided vital naval and air bases to control the North Sea and protect Denmark, while also ensuring the Baltic remained German lake closed to the Wallies. Having to put 500k men in Spain would be no worse than what they put into Greece+North Africa/the Central Mediterranean IOTL anyway.
The invasion of Russia isn't a given ITTL anyway, especially with the French still in and Italy out. Without that occupying all of Europe outside the USSR is entirely sustainable provided they maintain trade with the USSR.
Driftless
Donor
That's still 300,000 mouths to feed on the frontier of the Nazi empire. Would the Reich crumble if Norway were abandoned? Norway and some of the other adventures were diversions of resource. An invasion of the Iberian Peninsula would be similar.
They'd still be side-shows, and I'd bet the German commanders of Barbarossa would give their firstborn to have 500k more soldiers available.
And the invasion of Russia might either be put off indefinitely? I have my doubts that Hitler would be keen on that thought. My general understanding is that going East was always a strategic goal. Beating the French and the British was a strategic goal. Everything else was a means to those ends, so how much do you invest in maintaining those secondary means?