French Caribbean and Pacific Territory for Aircraft

[MerryPrankster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard_Daladier#Rearmament

Apparently the French offered to cede their Caribbean and Pacific territories to the United States in exchange for being able to buy aircraft on credit.

Given how the U.S. doesn't include these territories today, I'm assuming the deal never went through, but what if it had? Most of my thinking has been focused on the effects on the U.S., but it could easily have some major effects in WWII. If the Germans never get air superiority that'll put a big crimp in the Battle of France, but if the aircraft are mismanaged, lots of them falling into the hands of the Germans could be a real problem.

Re: New Caledonia, WWII doesn't look any different considering how it was an Allied naval base against the Japanese anyway. Given how biodiverse it is, I can imagine it being a cause celebre for the U.S. environmental movement.

Could the French Caribbean islands become U.S. states in their own right? Guadeloupe has 400,000 people there. Or is a Puerto Rico-type arrangement more realistic?

Given American racial attitudes during WWII, I could imagine statehood being delayed. Perhaps improving the status of the ex-French Caribbean becomes a big part of the civil rights movement, given how black the area is.

Also, there are a significant number of Hindus descended from Indian migrant workers IIRC. That could have effects of its own.

 

[Alternate History Geek]

Could the French Caribbean islands become U.S. states in their own right? Guadeloupe has 400,000 people there. Or is a Puerto Rico-type arrangement more realistic?

The entire French Caribbean would probably become a single state, maybe with Guadeloupe split off.

Seeing as US relations with French-speaking countries have been quite good for a long time, unlike US relations with Spanish-speaking countries, they would almost certainly get statehood, unlike PR.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I don't think Puerto Rio's statehood (or lack thereof) is the result of bad relations with Spanish-speaking countries, although good relations with French-speaking countries would definitely push statehood along.

 

[vultan]

Would French Guiana be included in the deal?

 

[Imladrik]

The problem is that this deal would never be accepted under any condition by the French Parliament. And what is funny is that even if this deal would be accepted, the aircraft wouldn't be used, as the problem wasn't aircraft production but pilot training (the French Aicraft industry was working at 25% capacity before WWII) due to the criminal incompetence of the French Air Force leaders. The myth that the French industry couldn't keep up was planted by Daladier (and the other Munichois like we call them in France) and the pro-nazi industrialist in France wanting to blame the Popular Front.

 

[Chris S]

While this deal is unlikely to pass in the French parliament, perhaps a deal that would be similar to the Anglo-American Destroyers-for-Bases deal (which came later in 1940) could have been thought up.

If so it could mean that a Franco-American Aircraft-for-Bases deal would see the US being given exclusive rights, powers and authority in the bases areas and in the adjacent waters and airspace and "the right, power and authority to assume military control and conduct military operations in any part of the colony outside the leased areas, in the surrounding waters, and in the air above to whatever extent the protection of American activities and national interest might require" as one of the early drafts of the Destroyers-for-Bases deal had envisioned before the British watered it down to remove the word "control", ensure that the powers granted to the US in the air and waters adjacent to bases would be used unreasonably or result in the interference of navigation and limited the extensive military authority granted to the US to act in the rest of the colony only to times of war and actual emergency.

Interestingly this could mean that the US would have the right to set up bases in Guadeloupe, St. Barthelemy, Martinique, French Guiana, maybe St. Pierre and Miquelon (if the term "Americas" was used rather than "Caribbean"), Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Clipperton Island.

As Vanuatu was an Anglo-French condominium the French would probably need British agreement to allow the Americans to set up bases there so Vanuatu would probably not be on the list.

Interestingly, depending on how the "Pacific" was defined, this might have included a right to establish bases in French Indochina and Kwang-Chou-Wan (China).......

What this means for the Pacific War...who knows? Perhaps an earlier Japanese attack against the Americans in order to get French Indochina? Or maybe the Japanese stay out of Indochina entirely until December 1941?

And perhaps this means that the US eventually occupies all of the French colonies at some point between 1940 and 1942 once France falls, the US enters the war or the Allies begin landings in Vichy loyal colonies and the Vichy government falls?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The rest of the story is the US Nuetrality Acts were disposed of by Congress in 1939 and the official policy became the 'Cash and Carry'. France was actually in good shape at that point in terms of gold reserves and that served to back up substantial orders for aircraft to be delivered in 1940-41. Britain also started placing large orders and discussing even larger ones. The problem at that point (mid 1939) was the US aircraft industry had been hit hard by the Depresion & had suffered a long stagnation. The French industry was actually in a beter position to start larger scale production than the US. So while the US industry had some nice looking prototypes to show the productions facilities lacked significant modern equipment and lacked enough of the skilled labor to set up production in a hurry. By May 1940 France had taken delivery of slightly over 300 aircraft, had another 300 or so enroute in June, and expected some 1,200 more to come out of the US factories in the remainder of 1940. That combined with the British orders rivaled several years of previous production of the US aircraft industry.

Getting the US to end the Nuetrality Acts a couple years earlier would at least create the possibility of the US industry retooling & preparing for projected orders much earlier. Thus when France and Britain hand over the check in 1939 then 300, 600, or 1,200 aircraft can be had that year & not the week after the Germans overrun the airfields.

Of course there is still the problem of pilot training.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
And perhaps this means that the US eventually occupies all of the French colonies at some point between 1940 and 1942 once France falls, the US enters the war or the Allies begin landings in Vichy loyal colonies and the Vichy government falls?

The US took Iceland into protective custody in early 1941, with the USN/Marines replacing Commonwealth soldiers garrisoning the place. One of my notions is the US slipping a corps across the Atlantic and with the French colonial governments cooperation landing them in Morrocan. Algerian, or even Tunisian ports, much as was done on Iceland. That occuring sometime in 1941 while the US was still nuetral would make the year more interesting

 

[PMN1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard_Daladier#Rearmament

If the Germans never get air superiority that'll put a big crimp in the Battle of France, but if the aircraft are mismanaged, lots of them falling into the hands of the Germans could be a real problem.
.

Wasn't there an article a while back that claimed row upon row of good aircraft were parked up on airfields in the south of France?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Wasn't there an article a while back that claimed row upon row of good aircraft were parked up on airfields in the south of France?

I don't know. I'm not very knowledgeable about this time period, but if it turns out there were more planes than pilots, that might be true.

 

[Imladrik]

Wasn't there an article a while back that claimed row upon row of good aircraft were parked up on airfields in the south of France?

Actually most american build aircrafts sold to France that were delivered before the surrender were still in crates. French aircrafts and their pilots were in the south of France because the air force generals didn't want to lose aircraft (and they almost refused to help the army). Yeah, they were champions.

 

[Chris S]

The US took Iceland into protective custody in early 1941, with the USN/Marines replacing Commonwealth soldiers garrisoning the place. One of my notions is the US slipping a corps across the Atlantic and with the French colonial governments cooperation landing them in Morrocan. Algerian, or even Tunisian ports, much as was done on Iceland. That occuring sometime in 1941 while the US was still nuetral would make the year more interesting

I'm not sure about Moroccan, Algerian or Tunisian ports, but the US might garrison the French colonies while still neutral.

EDIT: The Iceland example would be a bit different from the French colonies though since Iceland had considerably more autonomy than the French colonies and could agree to the US marines replacing the British forces there.

With regards to the individual colonies in the Pacific, if the US and France had a Aircraft-for-Bases deal then French Polynesia, New Caledonia and New Hebrides (Vanuatu) would probably not be occupied since they declared for the Free French fairly early. With Wallis and Futuna as well as the French West Indies, the situation would probably be a bit more delicate. As a neutral, the US would probably not want interfere in the colonies so long as the pro-Vichy governors did nothing to antagonize them or hinder the use of the American bases. Once the US is drawn into the war though there will be a need for use of Wallis and Futuna to serve in Allied operation and if the local government there hadn't sided with the Free French by then, the Americans would probably occupy both islands and then hand them over to Free French forces. The same would probably be true for Guadeloupe, St. Barthelemy, Martinique and French Guiana.

 

[Riain]

Wasn't there an article a while back that claimed row upon row of good aircraft were parked up on airfields in the south of France?

Yes, the number of aircraft available to France increased during the invasion. These aircraft were moved out of range, possibly to carry on the war once the lines stabilised or whatever, but in the end France collapsed so they were not used.

 

[Iori]

Assuming it goes through and the definition is of the French Caribbean Islands and Pacific Islands;

-Martinique and Guadeloupe are the major ones in which their's some chance of Statehood, however while I'd say their's about a 65% chance they'd remain U.S. terriory, it's probably more 50/50 on whether they'd remain Territories like Puerto Rico or become a State, however even if they do become a State, it's very likely not going to happen until 1980 onwards.

-Saint Martin I could see remaining a Territory, possibly with the U.S. trying to get the Netherlands to sell the other half of the island, though even with both halves it would likely not become a state as it speaks an English dialect (and thus is culturally distinct) so probably would'nt be merged with the aforementioned islands and does'nt have a large enough population (the whole island has less than 80,000 people).

-Saint Barthélemy would very likely remain a Territory as it's not really the kind of place that could be independent and is way to small population wise (less than 10,000) to become a State.

-French Polynesia would likely become independent along the same time as the Pacific Mnadates.

-New Caledonia would likely become independent in the 70's; it's the only part of France with a significant independence movement, and as part of the U.S. that support would grow as the European and Asian populations would agree with the Polynesian population.

-New Hebrides, if included, would just change from being an Angl-French Condominuium to being an Anglo-American one and would likely gain independence in the 70's or 80's.

 

[Chris S]

The rest of the story is the US Nuetrality Acts were disposed of by Congress in 1939 and the official policy became the 'Cash and Carry'. France was actually in good shape at that point in terms of gold reserves and that served to back up substantial orders for aircraft to be delivered in 1940-41. Britain also started placing large orders and discussing even larger ones. The problem at that point (mid 1939) was the US aircraft industry had been hit hard by the Depresion & had suffered a long stagnation. The French industry was actually in a beter position to start larger scale production than the US. So while the US industry had some nice looking prototypes to show the productions facilities lacked significant modern equipment and lacked enough of the skilled labor to set up production in a hurry. By May 1940 France had taken delivery of slightly over 300 aircraft, had another 300 or so enroute in June, and expected some 1,200 more to come out of the US factories in the remainder of 1940. That combined with the British orders rivaled several years of previous production of the US aircraft industry.

Getting the US to end the Nuetrality Acts a couple years earlier would at least create the possibility of the US industry retooling & preparing for projected orders much earlier. Thus when France and Britain hand over the check in 1939 then 300, 600, or 1,200 aircraft can be had that year & not the week after the Germans overrun the airfields.

Looking at the wikipedia article on the neutrality acts I'm left wondering why Daladier needed to get around the neutrality acts in 1938 and early 1939 since that that time France was not a belligerent. The Johnson Act of 1934 might have been a problem if France needed to raise money through loans in the US bond market in order to pay for the aircraft, but it doesn't seem as if the US neutrality acts would have barred France from purchasing the aircraft. Plus there was a "cash-and-carry" provision in the 1937 neutrality act although it applied only to materials that could not be used in a war effort.

 

[Chris S]

If instead of an annexation deal (which was very unlikely to get passed in the French parliament) we saw an Aircraft-for-Bases deal and the US had bases in Indochina, this might lead to an earlier entry of the US into the war. IOTL the Japanese believed an attack on the British and Dutch possessions in South East Asia would draw the Americans into the war anyway so they attacked the US possessions as well (plus the US Pacific possessions fitted in with their plans for empire in the Pacific and Asia).

So ITTL they might decide that attacking French Indochina will bring the US into the war anyway (and they may want the US bases for their own purposes) and since they needed northern French Indochina for the continued prosecution of the war in China, they might just end up attacking the US bases in Indochina as well as the Philippines, Guam and maybe Midway, though perhaps there may not be an attack on Hawaii in 1940 (or if there is then it would unfold differently since the November 1940 attack on Taranto by the Royal Navy with aircraft wouldn't have occurred yet for the Japanese to use as a model when attacking Pearl Harbour).

How would the war have progressed differently if the US had been brought into the war by October 1940?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Without Hitler hoping the Japanese will attack the USSR if he declares war on the US, the US and Germany will not be at war, at least not right away.

 

[Dahveed323]

I don't think Puerto Rio's statehood (or lack thereof) is the result of bad relations with Spanish-speaking countries, although good relations with French-speaking countries would definitely push statehood along.

Additional statehood just isn't practical. Hawaii and alaska were added as a result of their role in the war, something these islands would not enjoy.

Puerto rico is a result of ethno-linguistic prejudice against statehood, native division over the issue, and their economic weakness relative to even the poorest states ... all these factors exist vis a vis the rest of thecarribbean.

 

[katchen]

If DeGaulle had been captured by the Germans and there was no Free French and therefore the French do not remain an ally, the US would have to do something like annex the French Caribbean (and probably French Pacific Islands in order to protect the Monroe Doctrine. In that case, I could see the US even occupying French Indochina and giving it the same type of protectorate leading to independence that the Philippines enjoyed. Which would truly crowd the Japanese--in 1940.

 

[Iori]

If DeGaulle had been captured by the Germans and there was no Free French and therefore the French do not remain an ally, the US would have to do something like annex the French Caribbean (and probably French Pacific Islands in order to protect the Monroe Doctrine. In that case, I could see the US even occupying French Indochina and giving it the same type of protectorate leading to independence that the Philippines enjoyed. Which would truly crowd the Japanese--in 1940.

Not necessarily, IOTL the French Caribbean and Guiana remained under Vichy control until 1943.

Also, initially the U.S. recognized the Vichy regime; the advent of the Free French Forces was actually not received greatly by the Allies at first.