North Africa in a France wins 1940 TL

The plane with the General and the War Plans Does Not Crash.
May 1940 Germans crash thru Belgium, into the prepared French.
By early June it is apparent that the French are holding, Italy stays out. declared Neutral but selling everything possible to Germany.
In July France starts pushing Germany back. Italy is under pressure from Britain/France.
August is a slugging match in NFrance/SBelgium [poor little Belgium], Italy informs Germany that all Sales are Cash & Carry.

?How long till the war ends?????????

I don't see the Allies taking on the Soviets to get back East Poland so East Prussia is given to Poland as compensation.
new eastern border [http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/eastfront1/oobbarbarossa.htm ]
I see the Poles Finishing/Upgrading the German - East Wall-.


??What happens in North Africa after the War?????

No French Defeat, no Vichy control of Algeria, no Humiliation of the French for the Algerians to take hope from.
Italy didn't join the War
Italy still controls Libya, [Governor Balboa] & Ethiopia.
Britain never had problems in Egypt, But the Italian influence in Cairo will continue to increase.
No Holocaust, But the British protectorate over Palestine will expire by 1950, and the Jews under Ben Gurion are restless.
So are the Iraqis, and the Iranians.
 
I'm not so sure Italy dictating Germany anything. OTL Italy needed German coal to keep her industry running and Britain did what it could to block the Italian shipping of coal from Germany!
ITTL I could see the Allies putting the squeeze hard onto Musso not to trade with Germany or get her ships blockaded. Of course over land communications exist but you move much more coal by one shipload than in a number of trainloads.
And what to the Germans want to buy in Italy? (I may be overlooking something...) Oil is in Romania. And a lot of other goods coming in from USSR.

Of course seeing Germany doing badly Stalin may close the conveyor but he isn't probably ready until 1941/2.

No Holocaust? I'm not so sure on this - we may see another kind of Wannsee conference and anyway with a British blockade of Germany a resettling of Jews overseas will prove difficult.

The Brits may still have a rebellion on their hands in Iraq during TTL.
 
I'm not so sure Italy dictating Germany anything. OTL Italy needed German coal to keep her industry running and Britain did what it could to block the Italian shipping of coal from Germany!
ITTL I could see the Allies putting the squeeze hard onto Musso not to trade with Germany or get her ships blockaded. Of course over land communications exist but you move much more coal by one shipload than in a number of trainloads.

This is very true - however, the French and British won't want to push Italt so hard they join the war.

And what to the Germans want to buy in Italy? (I may be overlooking something...) Oil is in Romania. And a lot of other goods coming in from USSR.

Aluminium, I think.

Of course seeing Germany doing badly Stalin may close the conveyor but he isn't probably ready until 1941/2.

The war may not last that long. I'm not sure the 1940 German military or economy can cope with a sustained war.

No Holocaust? I'm not so sure on this - we may see another kind of Wannsee conference and anyway with a British blockade of Germany a resettling of Jews overseas will prove difficult.

I'm not sure that the German state will have the time and resources to spare for this if the Western Allies are grinding into the Ruhr.

The Brits may still have a rebellion on their hands in Iraq during TTL.

With no possibility of foreign aid, the Iraqis would be crazy to try it. It's also possible that without any others threats to British security in the Middle East, the British are more concilliatory.
 
I'm not so sure Italy dictating Germany anything. OTL Italy needed German coal to keep her industry running and Britain did what it could to block the Italian shipping of coal from Germany!
This is a neutral Italy, that the Allies don't want to push to far. and if the War is going badly, there is not much the Germans can do, when the Italians start demanding Cash & Carry.
Italy could buy it's coal from GB or the US.

?I was more wondering about post war NAfrica, 1945 ~1960? 1970?
 
I was more wondering about post war NAfrica, 1945 ~1960? 1970?

Well, personally I think that decolonization was inevitable. Even with a shorter and less destructive WW2, sooner or later europen countries would have conceded indipendence to their african colonies.
This doesn't mean that we would have a situation like OTL, anyway. With the right leadership, the secessions of the african possessions could be less bloody and longer, giving so time enough to groom a proper political elites. This way, we could hopefully avoid the long streak of dictators that have marred Africa.

North Africa is interesting since there's the only colony that could stay into european hands: Libya. If Mussolini keep up the immigrant flow, italians could become the main ethnic group by the early fifties and once discovered oil, nothing short of a war will ever dislodge fascists from there (this, of course, if Fascism survives the drive to indipendence of Ethiopia and Somalia, which is not sure).

Depending on the post WW2 political asset, fascist Italy could play a soothing role or a destabilizing one. Generally speaking I see a more subdued Israel, with no real support in Europe. On the other hand a longer presence of France and UK could probably butterfly away the first arab-israel war (if not all of them). Algeria would get a sort of indipendence/autonomy anyway, the indigenous element being too great for the french to pull a "libyan stunt". How bloody things will get, will essentially depends on Paris smartness, though without having to restore their honour by the WW2 humiliation, the french could decide to let things play smoothly.
 
In July France starts pushing Germany back. Italy is under pressure from Britain/France.
French mobilization potential isnt enough to stand long war; french population isnt ready for long war; I suppose, that Paris will fall in 1941- but Germany will be too exhausted to attack USSR immediately; so year 1942\1943?
 
French mobilization potential isn't enough to stand long war; French population isn't ready for long war; I suppose, that Paris will fall in 1941- but Germany will be too exhausted to attack USSR immediately; so year 1942\1943?
While France may not have been ready, neither was Germany.
It took Germany 6 months after Poland to replace the Supplies and Ammo expended in the 6 week polish campaign.
So 2 months into the French War, Germany is out of it's stockpile, while Britain and the US are expanding their Supplies/Equipment headed to France.
Bombers flying from French fields can strike anywhere in Germany, with Fighter escort.

This isn't the Eastern Front where the Germans have half of Russia to take 3 years retreating.
Here the fighting is taking place right on the Border, as soon as the Germans start retreating, the French will be in Germany.

I see Berlin falling by summer 1941.
====

With a Italian Christian Libya stuck between Muslim Egypt and Muslim Algeria, ?would Italy be the Lesser Satan, to GB's Greater Satan? [US still stuck in Isolation mode]

?Can GB, France, Italy, hold the Suez in the face of Egyptian nationalism? [Italy taking TTL's place of Israel]

With a slower decolonization, ?can France hold Algeria? ?Would the Bahhists win in Iraq, or could the King survive? ?How about Spanish Morocco?
 
With less pressure (and a bit more sense..) a deal could have been struck over the canal, something like the arrangement in Panama.
 
One thing that's really important to remember is how much "face" matters in geopolitics. The various anti-colonial movements were enormously encouraged by the humiliations suffered by the colonial powers, and both France and Britain's will and capacity to fight were shattered by the war. For example, the insurgencies in both French Indochina and the NEI were only possible because of the Japanese occupation, without them they'd never have got going.

With a swift German defeat, I can easily the British and French being able to co-opt native elites and destroy insurgencies well enough to keep many of their African colonies almost indefinitely. Part of this is that with all the colonial powers holding on, the OTL scenario of insurgents being given refuge and bases in neighbouring states can't arise, as they can co-operate to prevent this.
 
Last edited:
While France may not have been ready, neither was Germany.
It took Germany 6 months after Poland to replace the Supplies and Ammo expended in the 6 week polish campaign.
So 2 months into the French War, Germany is out of it's stockpile, while Britain and the US are expanding their Supplies/Equipment headed to France.
Bombers flying from French fields can strike anywhere in Germany, with Fighter escort.
Ehmmm... The weather in Autumn-Winter 1939\40 wasn't favourable to the offencive action- Luftwaffe weren't able to take part in it. Or, and also Anglo-French strategic bomber forces aren't so numerous, like in 1943-45- GB entered the war with only 488 bombers(60 of them were modern), which could reach Ruhr...maybe. French Air Force looks more powerful - they had 1300 bombers-but only 31 of them were modern
 
Averting the Bf108 crash may not be enough to avert an Ardennes Offensive and OTL-style BoF. It appears that plans for a more aggressive not-yet-so-named sickle-strike were already in the works before this crash. Such certainly fits with Hitler's uber-agressive desires.

According to the never-wrong wikipedia, at least:
On 10 January 1940, a German Messerschmitt Bf 108 made a forced landing at Maasmechelen, north of Maastricht, in Belgium (the so-called "Mechelen Incident"). Among the occupants of the aircraft was a Luftwaffe major, Hellmuth Reinberger, who was carrying a copy of the latest version of Aufmarschanweisung N°2. Reinberger was unable to destroy the documents, which quickly fell into the hands of the Belgian intelligence services.[20] It has often been suggested that this incident was the cause of a drastic change in German plans, but this is incorrect; in fact a reformulation of them on 30 January, Aufmarschanweisung N°3, Fall Gelb, conformed to the earlier versions.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gelb#German_strategy

Also, from the Mechelen Incident page:
However, the importance of the incident has also been vehemently denied.[28] Hitler was already hesitant about the original plan from its very beginning. The postponement was one out of many and even on this occasion more to be attributed to the weather conditions than to the disclosing of the content of the documents. As the plan was rather traditional and predictable, no fundamental secrets were compromised and as such there was no direct need for a change. Hitler's demand for surprise referred not to a surprising new strategy but to a shortened approach and concentration phase, so that a tactical surprise could be gained before the enemy could react; to this end the armoured divisions were located further west and organisation improved. There was no direct change in strategic thinking and when an improved concept was finished, within a continuous process of amendments, on 30 January, this Aufmarschanweisung N°3, Fall Gelb did not fundamentally differ from earlier versions. In this view only the fact that some of Von Manstein's friends managed to bring his proposals to the attention of Hitler, really caused a fundamental turn. The main consequence of the incident would have been that it disclosed, not the German plan, but the way the allies would deploy in case of an invasion, allowing the Germans to adapt their attack accordingly.[29]

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechelen_Incident#Results
 
Top