France doesn't surrender

Had the French fought on, Germany would have many problems. For one, they would have to fortify not only northern France against British attack, but Southern France against French landings. Had they not surrendered, there would have also probably have been an official liason with the Resistance, having them secure certain towns along the Southern coasts, for French troops and supplies to land.
 
?This isn't that weird TL where the Algerian France turns "Solvent Greenist"?


I think you're thinking of the epic thread "For All Time," where Bokassa ends up running the French empire and a Certain Type Of Meat becomes famously sourced from Africa...
 

Cook

Banned
One problem with France fighting on from North Africa would be that the commander of the Army would still be General Weygand. Following Dunkirk the British removed their generals and other officers that failed to perform from combat positions, either moving them to training and administration roles, or forcing their retirement; the French didn’t, the same incompetents who had lost the battle of France would then be conducting the Battle of North Africa.
 
Not to demean the Italians in any way :rolleyes:, but how incompetent do you have to be to lose to the Italian army? They got absolutely crushed by the British when they had 10-1 odds in their favor! But in all seriousness, to me at least, it's not a given that Italy even joins the war.
 
One problem with France fighting on from North Africa would be that the commander of the Army would still be General Weygand. Following Dunkirk the British removed their generals and other officers that failed to perform from combat positions, either moving them to training and administration roles, or forcing their retirement; the French didn’t, the same incompetents who had lost the battle of France would then be conducting the Battle of North Africa.
The British had the luxury to do so by the time they lost the battle of France it was to late to change the leadership of the army. And there is nothing that can stop them from changing the leaership mater in french Algeria.
 

Cook

Banned
Not to demean the Italians in any way , but how incompetent do you have to be to lose to the Italian army? They got absolutely crushed by the British when they had 10-1 odds in their favor! But in all seriousness, to me at least, it's not a given that Italy even joins the war.


Italy declared war on France on 10 June 1940, four days before the German Army entered Paris and six days before the Reynaud government fell, Petain became Prime Minister and sought an Armistice. And as has been stated before, with the French fighting on from North Africa there would be no possibility of Hitler ignoring the Mediterranean since that would be where the war was continuing.
 



Italy declared war on France on 10 June 1940, four days before the German Army entered Paris and six days before the Reynaud government fell, Petain became Prime Minister sought an Armistice. And as has been stated before, with the French fighting on from North Africa there would be no possibility of Hitler ignoring the Mediterranean since that would be where the war was continuing.

Oops, so it is a given that Italy joins the war. Well, this means Hitler has to send more men to north Africa, which has interesting effects on the invasions of Yugoslavia, Greece, and, of course, the Soviet Union. With Africa absorbing more military recourses, the invasion of Greece might even be butterflied away entirely. But I've been proven wrong before:eek:
 

Cook

Banned
And there is nothing that can stop them from changing the leaership mater in french Algeria.

Except a mechanism to do so; French ministerial control over the Army was not as powerful as that of the British. Weygand wasn’t even dismissed (or resign) even with the fall of France, when all common sense would say his dismissal should have been mandatory.
 

Cook

Banned
Oops, so it is a given that Italy joins the war. Well, this means Hitler has to send more men to north Africa, which has interesting effects on the invasions of Yugoslavia, Greece...

With German and Italian forces fighting for Mussolini’s long cherished claim to Tunisia and Algeria I think we can discount the likelihood of Italian invasion of Metaxas’s Greece, at least until North African success was more assured. It was the frustration of Italian claims to France’s Empire that led to Mussolini looking once again at Greece.
 
Wouldn´t the germans ans italians have a lot of problems to sen or suply troops in North Africa with the entire french and british mediterranean fleet toblock them?I mean, the italian fleet is doomed and Malta will more easily defended,resupliedand an even greater headache for the axis suply lines.
 

Cook

Banned
Wouldn´t the germans ans italians have a lot of problems to sen or suply troops in North Africa with the entire french and british mediterranean fleet toblock them?I mean, the italian fleet is doomed and Malta will more easily defended,resupliedand an even greater headache for the axis suply lines.

That is certainly the question isn’t it? It would all depend on what forces the Germans diverted south, how much air power and in what time frame.
 
The British had the luxury to do so by the time they lost the battle of France it was to late to change the leadership of the army. And there is nothing that can stop them from changing the leaership mater in french Algeria.

During the first weeks of WWI, a lot of french generals were discharged and sent to reserves duties, words were even invented for it : limoger or limogeage as most of these high officers were sent to Limoges, a big city in central France with a lot of garrisons.

So it isn't ASB...
 
Top