Normandy without Torch - How does Vichy France react?

I'm with the last post, until the overthrow of Mussolini in mid 1943. I'd think it unlikely he would be overthrown in 1943 absent the political disaster of losing Sicilly.

One of the possibilities in this scenario is a Allied army entering Marsailles/Toulon with the aid of the Vichy government, in the same week as a invasion of NW Europe. Bourdeux is a secondary possibility in this, but the Marsailles/Toulon superport cluster is the critical prize. The ability to offload the combat forces, support, and supplies effectively triples the arrival rate of Allied forces by 1943 standards. If the Vichy government dithers the leading Allied forces headed in to the Mediterrainian can land on Sardinia/Corsica as a base for further ops against France & Italy.
 
It's an interesting scenario. I finished reading the biography today. The events of Operation Torch were interesting. According to the book Weygand, at this point forcibly retired, was recalled for his advice on what to do. His response was the complete opposite from that of Darlan, Laval and most of the Cabinet - he suggested French North Africa should go over completely to the Allied side at the outset. Petain obviously dismissed this advice, although there remains the possibility of a secret telegram to Darlan advising him to do it if there was no other option.
 
It's an interesting scenario. I finished reading the biography today. The events of Operation Torch were interesting. According to the book Weygand, at this point forcibly retired, was recalled for his advice on what to do. His response was the complete opposite from that of Darlan, Laval and most of the Cabinet - he suggested French North Africa should go over completely to the Allied side at the outset. Petain obviously dismissed this advice, although there remains the possibility of a secret telegram to Darlan advising him to do it if there was no other option.

Vichy politics are very interesting reads. Keeping southern France unoccupied and exerting some sort of leverage over the German occuption of the rest justified its creation June 1940 (France suffered far less under occuption than lets say Poland). And by having two governments they could play both sides and go with whomever was winning.

If Torch would have happened one month later and the full extent of Stalingrad (November 18th) and the complete British victory more obvious (Torbruk recaptured November 13th), and even the obvious Pacific tide turning on New Guinea and Guadacanal. I think the French would have not resisted and maybe even a sucessful pro Allied coup would have happened simultaneously in North West Africa.
 
I'm with the last post, until the overthrow of Mussolini in mid 1943. I'd think it unlikely he would be overthrown in 1943 absent the political disaster of losing Sicilly.

One of the possibilities in this scenario is a Allied army entering Marsailles/Toulon with the aid of the Vichy government, in the same week as a invasion of NW Europe. Bourdeux is a secondary possibility in this, but the Marsailles/Toulon superport cluster is the critical prize. The ability to offload the combat forces, support, and supplies effectively triples the arrival rate of Allied forces by 1943 standards. If the Vichy government dithers the leading Allied forces headed in to the Mediterrainian can land on Sardinia/Corsica as a base for further ops against France & Italy.

Mussolini's position would be interesting. If Libya was lost, Allied air raids were occuring, the Italian force in Russia suffering losses (even if less due to butterflies), AND the Allies were ashore in Europe, his political position would be in deep trouble, even if Sicily were still controlled.

If the Allies could offer comfortable exile in Spain I think Mussolini would take it. And it would be worth it for the Allies if they could turn Italy in one stroke. But I expect the Allies wouldn't because democracies just can't work that way, once you declare someone evil you just can't deal with them anymore.

If Vichy went full coup/revolt in Southern France with the resistance coming out joined by whatever police and military were still around it would be interesting. The Germans would be occuped with the invasion to do something right away. The British / Americans would send in a few batallions of free french and americans to help organize things. If Italy is in revolt too it gets easier for the French.
 
I think there would be some kind of negotiation with Italy in such a scenario. I think the Allies (Western at least) were happy to give Italy special treatment because it was 'less bad' than Nazi Germany, hence why Italy wasn't charged with War Crimes after WW2 (to the protest of Ethiopia).

In such a scenario I wonder how much sooner the war would end and whether there is any chance of a successful coup against the Nazi's which would obviously change the post war situation.

It's all about timing. If Vichy goes over the Allied side soon enough they have escaped the worst aspects of their collaboration policies and might be able to argue their government prevented the polonisation of France.
 
Mussolini's position would be interesting. If Libya was lost, Allied air raids were occuring, the Italian force in Russia suffering losses (even if less due to butterflies), AND the Allies were ashore in Europe, his political position would be in deep trouble, even if Sicily were still controlled.

If the Allies could offer comfortable exile in Spain I think Mussolini would take it.

I'd probablly be thinking this way if I had not read a bit on Italian politics of 1940-43. Essentially Mussolini had so throughly taken over the government it took extreme pressure for the other Facist leaders to actually discuss replacing Mussolini. The others were not willing to 'talk treason' until enough of them had seen the disaster was long underway & irreversable. Mussolini himself went unwillingly. It took the King himself to make him understand he was finished & even then he was very happy to accept German rescue and patronage. The members of the Facist Grand Council who led his dismissal had every good reason to organize his arrest after the audience with the King, and the subsequent secret imprisonment. They might have been better off handing him over to the Allies, out of reach of any rescue by Germans or italian Facists, but Mussolini was very unlikely to leave Italy willingly. To the end he thought himself the true and popular leader of true Italians.

And sending him to Spain in 1943 would have been risking handing him over to the Germans.
 
I'd probablly be thinking this way if I had not read a bit on Italian politics of 1940-43. Essentially Mussolini had so throughly taken over the government it took extreme pressure for the other Facist leaders to actually discuss replacing Mussolini. The others were not willing to 'talk treason' until enough of them had seen the disaster was long underway & irreversable. Mussolini himself went unwillingly. It took the King himself to make him understand he was finished & even then he was very happy to accept German rescue and patronage. The members of the Facist Grand Council who led his dismissal had every good reason to organize his arrest after the audience with the King, and the subsequent secret imprisonment. They might have been better off handing him over to the Allies, out of reach of any rescue by Germans or italian Facists, but Mussolini was very unlikely to leave Italy willingly. To the end he thought himself the true and popular leader of true Italians.

And sending him to Spain in 1943 would have been risking handing him over to the Germans.

You make a good point, although I'm inclined to think Mussolini himself would be open to a negotiated peace treaty with Allied troops in France. In his more candid moments during the war he was quite open about how much the war was a disaster and he deeply regretted getting involved. I'm unsure how he would react if told that a pre-condition of any negotiation was that he must retire, but I've no doubt he would try to initiate the discussions in the first place. Italy would still lose its colonial empire I'm sure, though it might get to keep part of its fleet intact.
 
I see the point, if Mussolini is willing to negotiate then so be it. He can be personally dealt with later if anyone cares.

In the summer of 1943 he became stubborn for whatever reason and his former political allies felt forced to remove him from power as a obstacle. Had he seen the light then as you say he would have survived in power somewhat longer. Eisenhower & his bosses did not really care who led the Italians as long as the quit fighting the Allies.
 
Top