France buys Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Philippines

1. Vichy France was supposed to be officially neutral according to the terms of the armistice

1. The Allies never considered Vichy French to be a legitimate government, just a German client state. Their 'neutrality' was ignored by the Allies, as shown by the British when they sank the French fleet at Mers-al-Kebir. As soon as war is declared in December 1941 by the Germans against the Americans, the Americans are going to seize Cuba and Puerto Rico.

2. Let's pretend the Vichy regime was an actual government and not a German protectorate/client state, Neutral countries, by their definition, are not allowed to discriminate between sides in a war. Under international law, U-Boats would have the right to dock in Cuban ports, as would American ships. Both sides are allowed safe harbour in neutral ports. Petain could simply say that they are doing what a neutral country is supposed to do when their neighbours are fighting-Help everyone, repel no one. He could say that the Pan-American Security Zone discriminates against Vichy France's neutral status.
 

Lusitania

Donor
1. The Allies never considered Vichy French to be a legitimate government, just a German client state. Their 'neutrality' was ignored by the Allies, as shown by the British when they sank the French fleet at Mers-al-Kebir. As soon as war is declared in December 1941 by the Germans against the Americans, the Americans are going to seize Cuba and Puerto Rico.

2. Let's pretend the Vichy regime was an actual government and not a German protectorate/client state, Neutral countries, by their definition, are not allowed to discriminate between sides in a war. Under international law, U-Boats would have the right to dock in Cuban ports, as would American ships. Both sides are allowed safe harbour in neutral ports. Petain could simply say that they are doing what a neutral country is supposed to do when their neighbours are fighting-Help everyone, repel no one. He could say that the Pan-American Security Zone discriminates against Vichy France's neutral status.

The issue is that we are talking about an event that happens 100+ in future which chances are never happens as per iotl.

Even if WW2 happens the American presence in pacific is that much smaller and chances not even have Hawaii. Therefore there is no Pearl Harbor and potentially no entry if US in war.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Why wouldn't they have Hawaii?
The presence of France in the pacific with both Guam and Philippines would change the dynamics of the region and Britain may decide that Hawaii is strategic as link between British Columbia and Australia. So that is one possibility, the second is that France may get it to bolster its presence in Pacific to counter British influence. \

These two plus very good chance that France in this circumstance is country that builds the canal (Nicaragua) we could see the stronger French presence in Caribbean lead to it moving against Haiti, Dominican Republic and of course there is Mexico and Nicaragua which more than likely French aligned countries.

This is why have stated that with the POD of France taking over all of Spains colonies in 1930s-1940 much of the history will change especially when we talking about 1900+
 
1. The Allies never considered Vichy French to be a legitimate government, just a German client state. Their 'neutrality' was ignored by the Allies, as shown by the British when they sank the French fleet at Mers-al-Kebir.

No, they did recognize it at first and tried to have relations with it, especially the US. That was part of why Roosevelt and de Gaulle had such a terrible relationship. Roosevelt thought de Gaulle was an unnecessary distraction when he was trying to get Vichy to move back to the Allies. Not until about 1942 did he recognize that this was not going to happen (and then he tried to support other Free French leaders besides de Gaulle because their relationship was already toxic).
 
1. The Allies never considered Vichy French to be a legitimate government, just a German client state. Their 'neutrality' was ignored by the Allies, as shown by the British when they sank the French fleet at Mers-al-Kebir. As soon as war is declared in December 1941 by the Germans against the Americans, the Americans are going to seize Cuba and Puerto Rico.

The discussion was referring to the Americans:

During World War II, I could see the US occupying Puerto Rico and Cuba to prevent them from falling into German hands, like how the British invaded Iceland in OTL's 1940..

I don't think that would be likely. OTL the US did not occupy any of France's possessions in the Americas. At first, Roosevelt recognized Pétain's government and snubbed the Free French. It was not clear in the beginning where Pétain stood. The US thought he (a hero from the previous war) could be persuaded to eventually rejoin the Allies. When de Gaulle's forces liberated St-Pierre and Miquelon in December 1941, the US government was initially angry over this.

Eventually Roosevelt switched his support to Free France. The US backed the FFL as it liberated the Antilles and Guyana. I would expect the same for Cuba/PR.

Cuba and Puerto Rico are close to the Gulf of Mexico, which was swarming with at least 20 U-Boats during the war. During the 'Second Happy Time' which took place after the US entered the war, the Germans sank 609 ships totalling 3.1 million tons, which was roughly one quarter of all shipping during the entire war.

Seeing as how Petain was willing to hand over Indochina and all of it's ports to Japan, who's to say Petain won't give U-Boats and their crews permission to rearm and refuel in Cuban ports, which are 90 miles from the mainland United States?

The Americans did not join the Allies until December 1941, so whether the Allies considered the Vichy French to be legitimate had no bearing on my post since as funnyhat noted, the Americans at first apparently did recognize Pétain's government and thus the Vichy French. The Americans did have contingency plans in OTL to invade the French West Indies but never put them into effect because such plans were never truly necessary.

Additionally the Vichy French didn't really willingly hand over Indochina. The Japanese invaded (even though they had secured more or less what they wanted in negotiations prior where they basically strong-armed the Vichy French into giving them what they want, although the Vichy French did secure a reduction in the amount of Japanese troops which were to be stationed in Tonkin) and they and the Vichy French fought for a few days. Japan wasn't a party to the armistice between Germany and France, but Germany (naturally) was. So to get Pétain to give U-boat rearming and refueling rights to the Germans would require the Germans to either conclude a different armistice (which would not produce an officially neutral Vichy France, which is something Hitler desired partly as a way to induce the UK to negotiate an end to the war and to relieve Germany of occupation duties across the entirety of France and to attempt to take the French colonial empire out of the equation for the Allies (really at this point just the UK and governments in exile and their colonies) in the war against Germany) or require Germany to push to violate its own armistice agreement that it concluded for its own strategic and tactical reasons to do something like Japan did, except unlike Japan, Germany would be in no position to enforce any rights it was to grant itself if it did so, since no German expeditionary force was going to be capable of landing in the Caribbean and taking control of French territories there to ensure U-boat rearming and refueling rights.

Because if such rights were granted, there is little doubt that the UK would have occupied any French territories it considered could be such a threat, much as the British occupied Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire in 1940 (and were only replaced by American troops after the Americans entered the war in 1942 since the British were occupying the islands with the agreement of the Dutch government in exile in London).

Now besides the British potentially occupying any French territories before U-boats could make it to them to rearm and refuel, even IF the British failed to occupy them for some reason, the Americans are very likely to interpret the Vichy French granting rearming and refueling rights (basically basing rights) to German U-boats in the Caribbean as a belligerent act and will very likely also either get:

1. the other American republics to back it in occupying Cuba and Puerto Rico (and probably the other French territories) as some of the Latin American republics might wish to see those territories become independent (perhaps Cuba and Puerto Rico) or annexed (Brazil might have an interest in French Guiana)

2. the other American republics to back it in effectively blockading the French territories (in such a way as to make it difficult for U-boats to enter the ports via stepped up neutrality patrols and escort activity) and thus rendering the U-boat rights useless.

EDIT: For further clarity, we have to bear in mind that the American (and particularly Roosevelt's) policy from 1939 onwards was benevolent neutrality towards Britain. In OTL the Caribbean ended up with only Allied or Allied-controlled colonies (the British West Indies, the Dutch West Indies) or colonies controlled by an officially neutral regime (the French West Indies) even if that regime was for most purposes in Europe a German client state. This suited the Americans and the Germans just fine since it meant that effectively there were only Allied (British controlled) or neutral colonies in the Caribbean which the Americans did not see as a potential threat and for the Germans it meant that the resources of the French colonies were no longer at the disposal of the British unless the British wanted to risk seizing them by force (with all the resultant losses they could incur and the bad blood it would engender between themselves and the French and thus help push the French closer to them).

For the Germans to be able to rearm U-boats in Vichy French colonies would mean that either:

(a) German torpedoes would need to be supplied and stocked in the French Caribbean colonies (which in essence means German basing rights and the French colonies no longer being officially neutral)

(b) German U-boats rearming using French torpedoes (if that was even possible).

Either scenario gives the British a good reason to bring World War II to the Caribbean in a major way, which is something the Americans wanted to avoid (they wanted Britain to win, but to do so without bringing large scale fighting to the Americas in any way).

Additionally the Americans and their Latin American allies operated the Pan-American Security Zone in this very environment of only Allied and neutral colonies in the Caribbean (at the time of the declaration, so there was precisely zero risk of U-boats being based within the Caribbean, which is what rearming and refueling rights will do). Vichy French acquiescence of German U-boat rearming and refueling rights would change that equation and likely spur them to strengthen their declaration concerning the Pan-American Security Zone and strengthen their military coordination and response to it. For instance the Declaration itself stated:

"There is no doubt that the Governments of the American Republics must foresee those dangers and as a measure of self-protection insist that the waters to a reasonable distance from their coasts shall remain free from the commission of hostile acts or from the undertaking of belligerent activities by nations engaged in a war in which the said governments are not involved.

For these reasons the Governments of the American Republics Resolve and Hereby Declare:

1. As a measure of continental self-protection, the American Republics, so long as they maintain their neutrality, are as of inherent right entitled to have those waters adjacent to the American continent, which they regard as of primary concern and direct utility in their relations, free from the commission of any hostile act by any non-American belligerent nation, whether such hostile act be attempted Or made from land, sea or air. Such waters shall be defined as follows. All waters comprised within the limits set forth hereafter except the territorial waters of Canada and of the undisputed colonies and possessions of European countries within these limits:"

And then goes on to define a very extensive zone comprising waters approximately 200-300 nautical miles offshore.

The trick here is that territorial waters in 1939 were traditionally 3 nautical miles offshore. If between the time of the Panama Declaration of 1939 and the Havana Conference of July 1940, the American Republics decided to more strictly interpret the declaration they might decide that they are well within their rights to force submarines to surface and remain on the surface when transiting the zone, which would in essence restrict the area of operations of the U-boats to just 3 miles offshore of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana.

German acquisition of basing rights (even if they don't outright call it that) would likely result in something similar to the Havana Conference of 1940 occurring (either around the same time or earlier) wherein the US and Latin American republics agreed to prevent the colonies of European powers falling into Axis hands as part of the Monroe Doctrine. That in itself would give the Americans reason enough to occupy the French islands shortly after the Germans acquired any rights to rearm and refuel U-boats out of any of them.
 
Last edited:
The Monroe Doctrine was in place by then. It didn't (or wasn't) applied to existing colonial holdings, but I imagine that the US would have taken a dim view of the would-be purchase of Cuba. It wouldn't surprise me if the inevitable chaos of transition from Spanish to French rule would have led to at least one significant attempt at a filibuster in Cuba. Puerto Rico, on the other hand, would be more of a long shot: possible, but not likely. And the US had minimal-to-no interest in the Philippines in that period IIRC.
 
Top