no Free French

Doesn't that make them Free French, though? OTL there were Free Poles.
Well technically Petain and the Vichy government were recognised as the legitimate government, here with no switch to unrecognise them and their likely being based out of Algeria, the coastal areas being legally a part of metropolitan France, they would simply be the French government as I understand it.
 
I do have to wonder about whether they'd receive a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In recognition of the size of their Empire though, and to try and keep them within the Western sphere, I could see perhaps a compromise being hammered out of there being three veto wielding permanent members, two permanent members without vetoes in the form of France and China, and the rest run as it is now.

The United Nations (as the Allied Powers) would stay the "Big Three", the USA, the UK and the ROC, until (or "if") the USSR is added. That would do a lot to all those pondering alternative Pacific War timelines. Could be an odd future with a three-way or four-way Security Counsel. And then I ponder the effect of opening the Security Counsel to an oddly "neutral" or former belligerent France, veto or not, would the logic eventually compel the inclusion of India, Brazil, Japan or Germany based on population, wealth, etc.? Much food for thought.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Well technically Petain and the Vichy government were recognised as the legitimate government, here with no switch to unrecognise them and their likely being based out of Algeria, the coastal areas being legally a part of metropolitan France, they would simply be the French government as I understand it.
Ah, I see. Slightly "rules lawyer" of an answer, but that's no problem so long as we don't let it obscure other avenues of analysis.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
This is the most realistic response, actually;

Let's assume no bombardment at Oran, and the French Navy in Algeria either stays there or escapes to Toulon before the British can cut them off. Shortly thereafter, Hitler gets the idea to activate Operation Anton in order to seize or at least neutralize the French Fleet (perhaps at the insistence of Il Duce).

1) The Vichy French Army resists just long enough to allow the fleet to escape
2) Petain and his government go with them
3) "Vichy" in Metropolitan France collapses
4) Petain declares for the Allies
5) Petain orders every part of the French Empire to open their borders and welcome the Allies
6) France Fights On.:cool:
7) The Occupation in France soon looks not much better than Poland's:eek:. Though the lack of large scale collaborationists in France ITTL should IMO slow down the Holocaust in France somewhat.:confused:
Opinions?

This is the most realistic response, actually; there will be a "Free French" movement supported by the British no matter what, even if France is occupied/absorbed by Nazi Germany. The histories of the Czech and Belgian governments in exile make that clear.

The US even briefly considered trying to set up a "Free Austrian" force in 1942, but decided against it because of the inability to find anyone who could be considered to have any legitimacy as its erstwhile political leader.

Likewise, even with an "Axis" Slovakia, for example, the Allies recognized an Allied "Czechoslovakia" - same with Italy post 1943, obviously.

Best,
 
The United Nations (as the Allied Powers) would stay the "Big Three", the USA, the UK and the ROC, until (or "if") the USSR is added.
Until or if the USSR was added? Yeah, that's not going to happen. The UN grew out of the 'United Nations' of WWII hence why only those who had been members of the Allies could initially join. The USSR along with the US were the two global superpowers at the end of the war, being brutally honest it was them and then the UK some way behind in second place with France and China bringing up the rear. The Western Allies would have no reasonable excuse to exclude the Soviets from the UN and at the time the USSR was still massively popular with the public in the West thanks to the war, if they're not a member, and on a par with the US, then the whole organisation would be fatally flawed right from the beginning. Considering China's record during the war and that it was still in the middle of a civil war the idea they should get preferential treatment to the USSR is just silly.


And then I ponder the effect of opening the Security Counsel to an oddly "neutral" or former belligerent France, veto or not, would the logic eventually compel the inclusion of India, Brazil, Japan or Germany based on population, wealth, etc.? Much food for thought.
It could lead to people arguing for an expansion of non-veto permanent members as other countries rise or conversely that the whole idea of permanent members and vetoes are wrong and should be disposed of. The US, USSR/Russia, and the UK would simply veto that, if China and France didn't have a veto though then they could be vulnerable to be being demoted.
 
Top