Operation Torch takes Algeria but not Morocco. Vichy France declares war. What happens next?

[Edward9]

The point of departure is Admiral Darlan is not in Algeria. Instead of Vichy France joining the Allies on 9 November Petain give a "Day of Infamy" speech. He condemns England and America for attacking without a declaration of war and declares war on England and America. Hitler allows the French Navy to arm which is reported to the Allies through French spies. Ultra intercepts and spies report the Italian Navy is preparing to sail. The Allies withdraw the invasion fleet in response. Only Algeria has been secured. Fighting continues in Morocco and the Allies have unloaded only 25% supplies which were supposed to be landed during the initial invasion the previous day. Rough waves are preventing further unloading on 9 November. The fleet must leave today or 10 November at the latest. Over half the landing craft were destroyed on 8 November.

I have contradicting information about the forces available to Vichy France. If someone ha reliable numbers those would be appreciated. If not, and it becomes relevant to the discussion, I will post my best guess. I believe with drawing the invasion fleet is the most likely outcome but am open to arguments it would stick around. What would happen both immediately in North Africa and in the long term with Vichy France as an enemy of the Allies?

 

[yulzari]

If he declares war on England how will he identify the neutral Scots, Welsh and Irish?

 

[Garrison]

France won't be declaring war without permission from Berlin and there is no chance Hitler will let the French fleet mobilize when there's no guarantee parts of it won't just defect when it gets to sea. For that matter would it even be able to mobilize in time to do any good? Those ships and their crews haven't exactly been a priority for resources over the intervening years. As for the Italian Fleet why is it suddenly going to sortie now when it hasn't done do so to try and cut allied supply lines in the aftermath of Operation Supercharge, what's going to persuade them to come out and fight the RN and USN forces in the Med? The Axis forces in North Africa are facing defeat regardless, if Hitler throws away more troops trying to hold on to it, well Stalin will be happy. Vichy France is not going to be allowed to conduct its own operations and I can't see Hitler changing his mind about simply occupying the rest of France, Vichy has proven to be a disappointing ally and he isn't going to trust it to conduct its own military operations.

 

[Zheng He]

Why would the Allies withdraw their naval forces? The Allies deployed powerful naval forces for TORCH, if the Italians want to come out and fight, the Allies, particularly the British will give them a fight. Also, why does the Morocco invasion fail? That's the most exposed Vichy colony, that is the one most likely to fall. Also, in terms of naval forces available to Vichy France. I don't think the French ships in Toulon were in very good material condition. Most had been sitting pier side for two years and are not ready for any sort of serious operations.

 

[jlckansas]

The further west the Italian fleet goes the better it is for the allies. Lack of air cover plus the ships the US and UK have just means they get sunk faster.

 

[nbcman]

Why would the Allies withdraw their naval forces? The Allies deployed powerful naval forces for TORCH, if the Italians want to come out and fight, the Allies, particularly the British will give them a fight. Also, why does the Morocco invasion fail? That's the most exposed Vichy colony, that is the one most likely to fall. Also, in terms of naval forces available to Vichy France. I don't think the French ships in Toulon were in very good material condition. Most had been sitting pier side for two years and are not ready for any sort of serious operations.

This. The Vichy French ships that fought the Allied naval forces in the Atlantic were outmatched and contained IOTL. The Vichy French and RM ships in the Med aren't going to get out of the Med past the other Allied forces and Gibraltar.
For reference to the OP, here is the size of the Allied naval contingent for Op Torch from Naval-History.net

The Western Task Force was more than strong enough to handle the Vichy Fleet elements in Casablanca. And if Richelieu tried to sail up from Dakar, it would be a long and slow trip assuming her engines were even working in late 1942 as they weren't working during the Battle of Dakar (she had to be pushed by tugs to allow her main battery to fire) due to damage from Operation Catapult.

 

[Aber]

This. The Vichy French ships that fought the Allied naval forces in the Atlantic were outmatched and contained IOTL. The Vichy French and RM ships in the Med aren't going to get out of the Med past the other Allied forces and Gibraltar.
For reference to the OP, here is the size of the Allied naval contingent for Op Torch from Naval-History.net

You missed a key part in your quote:

British Force H reinforced by Home Fleet and under the command of Vice-Adm Sir Neville Syfret, covered the Algerian landings. Their main task was to hold off any attack by the Italian fleet. Strength included three capital ships, three fleet carriers, three cruisers and 17 destroyers.

Any intervention by the Italian fleet would struggle against Nelson, Duke of York, Renown, Victorious and Formidable.

 

[Intosh]

If you look at geography, it make no sense to attack only French Algeria and leave behind French Morocco.

So first thing to do is to secure French Morocco.

 

[Analytical Engine]

If you look at geography, it make no sense to attack only French Algeria and leave behind French Morocco.

Exactly: (A) its right next to Algeria, (B) it's on the way to Algeria, and (C) would act as a danger to the Allies' rear.

Unless French Morocco explicitly declares neutrality (in which case it is ignoring the Vichy government's orders), and the WAllies believes that it will remain neutral, they are invading Morocco.

 

[SwampTiger]

Aber, you left out HMS Furious form Force H.

 

[Zheng He]

In this scenario what happens to the French colonies in the West Indies that were still nominally loyal to Vichy. They were dependent on imports from the US (books have been written on this topic) and if Vichy declares war those colonies are going to have to declare neutrality or declare outright for Free France and if they don't they get blockaded at the very least, if not curb stomped good and hard.

 

[Edward9]

If he declares war on England how will he identify the neutral Scots, Welsh and Irish?

I did not understand this at first. I think you are quibbling by use of England rather than the United Kingdom. I feel my point was clear. However declaring war on England is not technically inaccurate. I refer not to the English people but the monarchy of England. In answer to your question: the Army is "Her Majesty's Army" and Her Majesty's is the Queen of England so is England's army. The Scots, Welsh, and Irish serving in England's army would be at war as well. Their countries are part of the domain of the monarchy of England so declaring war on England is also declaring war on their other domains. This would be similar to stating William Wallace was at war with York referring to the Duke of York. To be at war with the Duke of York is to automatically be at war with the county of York as well. So also to be at war with the Monarch of England is to be at war with all their territory as well.

 

[ArtosStark]

I did not understand this at first. I think you are quibbling by use of England rather than the United Kingdom. I feel my point was clear. However declaring war on England is not technically inaccurate. I refer not to the English people but the monarchy of England. In answer to your question: the Army is "Her Majesty's Army" and Her Majesty's is the Queen of England so is England's army. The Scots, Welsh, and Irish serving in England's army would be at war as well. Their countries are part of the domain of the monarchy of England so declaring war on England is also declaring war on their other domains. This would be similar to stating William Wallace was at war with York referring to the Duke of York. To be at war with the Duke of York is to automatically be at war with the county of York as well. So also to be at war with the Monarch of England is to be at war with all their territory as well.

Well yes, and no. Though I think that was mostly a tongue in cheek way of reminding you that Britain is not just England, the country can matter. For instance, during WW2 King George VI was at war with Germany as the sovereign of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but also (at least arguably) not at war with Germany as sovereign of The Irish Free State. There is also the weird incident of George VI as monarch of India being, for a short time, technically at war with himself as monarch of Pakistan.

 

[yulzari]

I did not understand this at first. I think you are quibbling by use of England rather than the United Kingdom. I feel my point was clear. However declaring war on England is not technically inaccurate. I refer not to the English people but the monarchy of England. In answer to your question: the Army is "Her Majesty's Army" and Her Majesty's is the Queen of England so is England's army. The Scots, Welsh, and Irish serving in England's army would be at war as well. Their countries are part of the domain of the monarchy of England so declaring war on England is also declaring war on their other domains. This would be similar to stating William Wallace was at war with York referring to the Duke of York. To be at war with the Duke of York is to automatically be at war with the county of York as well. So also to be at war with the Monarch of England is to be at war with all their territory as well.

Er no. England is a separate nation within the United Kingdom. It has no army or other forces. The Army is not "his Majesty's Army" but is Parliament's army. I am assuming that you are not British and not familiar with British history, and why should you be? You may wish to look up both the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Union of 1707. The last monarch to argue the point had his head cut off by Parliament in 1649.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Er no. England is a separate nation within the United Kingdom. It has no army or other forces. The Army is not "his Majesty's Army" but is Parliament's army. I am assuming that you are not British and not familiar with British history, and why should you be? You may wish to look up both the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Union of 1707. The last monarch to argue the point had his head cut off by Parliament in 1649.

"England" was used as a synonym for "Britain" or "United Kingdom" until comparatively recently, even outside the UK itself. Some people still use the term "England" in that way.

 

[ArtosStark]

"England" was used as a synonym for "Britain" or "United Kingdom" until comparatively recently, even outside the UK itself. Some people still use the term "England" in that way.

True, but it’s a bit like calling someone Prussian when you hear them speaking German.

 

[Edward9]

France won't be declaring war without permission from Berlin and there is no chance Hitler will let the French fleet mobilize when there's no guarantee parts of it won't just defect when it gets to sea. For that matter would it even be able to mobilize in time to do any good? Those ships and their crews haven't exactly been a priority for resources over the intervening years. As for the Italian Fleet why is it suddenly going to sortie now when it hasn't done do so to try and cut allied supply lines in the aftermath of Operation Supercharge, what's going to persuade them to come out and fight the RN and USN forces in the Med? The Axis forces in North Africa are facing defeat regardless, if Hitler throws away more troops trying to hold on to it, well Stalin will be happy. Vichy France is not going to be allowed to conduct its own operations and I can't see Hitler changing his mind about simply occupying the rest of France, Vichy has proven to be a disappointing ally and he isn't going to trust it to conduct its own military operations.

Your first point is a addressed by the statement "Hitler allows the French fleet to rearm." Why would Hitler not allow the French fleet to mobilize? Granted Hitler was leery of French rearmament but the historical record provides precedent. The only reason Vichy was allowed to keep an army was to defend the colonies. After Operation Catapult the French attacked Gibraltar and Hitler increased their military privileges. Hitler allowed them to build 1,000 D.520 fighters which were used to fight the British in Syria. Hitler put strong pressure on Vichy France to declare was on the Allies and promised substantial rewards if they did so including rearmament and release of prisoners of war. Your claim Hitler would not allow the French to fight the Allies is without historical precedent and contrary to Hitler's stated and actual actions. Why would the French fleet defect? There was huge resentment against the British for their attacks on French territory. De Gaulle was not recognized as legitimate by most Vichy French and even if he were he was not involved in Operation Torch nor were any of the Free French. It was strictly America and England. If they ships wanted to defect they had enough fuel to reach Gibraltar and could have done so at any time. Yes the Vichy France had the potential to make a difference both with their navy and their airforce especially against convoy ships.

The Italian fleet would be more inclined to fight as part of a two pronged assault. the Italian and French fleet would have numerical superiority in every category but aircraft carriers. It is also in Italy and Germany's best interest to have Vichy France join their cause and is the best chance to save the North Africa campaign (if this was possible). The ability to use Vichy airbases would be a substantial advantage to the Germans and Italians in a naval battle and the Vichy air force would be involved as well. Also I did not say the Italians attacked. Even if they had no intention of attacking it is in their best interest to appear to mobilize even if they have no intention of attacking. The reason Hitler conquered Vichy was due to their failure to fight in North Africa. In this scenario they are fighting, even if they lose, and this removes the reason for Hitler's invasion. Without a two front war the defeat in North Africa is not assured (if it goes that way) and France's location offers the potential to close the Mediterranean enough to cause severe logistics problems. Without a two front war Hitler's commitment of the 5th army may have been enough to alter the North Africa campaign not including the 12.5 Vichy divisions stationed in North Africa. Would the Allies lose North Africa for sure? No. A look at the just the German Italian forces indicates an Axis victory is possible without a two front war. Add in at least 12 French divisions and it is a different campaign than the one that occurred historically and that is worth discussing. This presupposes Algeria is retaken and my replies to people who address this part of the battle will show why it was perhaps a possibility that a two front war would not occur.

 

[ArtosStark]

AIUI the Italian’s had, by this point, a critical shortage of fuel for their Navy. One of the reasons they were relatively ineffective despite their numbers. Sallying to Algeria or Morocco in any kind of force for any major campaign is probably going to be beyond them by this point. Which means The MN would be doing this alone.
And the Vichy French didn’t like the British after Catapult, sure. But they were not exactly fond of the Germans either. Particularly in North Africa.

 

[CV(N)-6]

Your first point is a addressed by the statement "Hitler allows the French fleet to rearm." Why would Hitler not allow the French fleet to mobilize? Granted Hitler was leery of French rearmament but the historical record provides precedent. The only reason Vichy was allowed to keep an army was to defend the colonies. After Operation Catapult the French attacked Gibraltar and Hitler increased their military privileges. Hitler allowed them to build 1,000 D.520 fighters which were used to fight the British in Syria. Hitler put strong pressure on Vichy France to declare was on the Allies and promised substantial rewards if they did so including rearmament and release of prisoners of war. Your claim Hitler would not allow the French to fight the Allies is without historical precedent and contrary to Hitler's stated and actual actions. Why would the French fleet defect? There was huge resentment against the British for their attacks on French territory. De Gaulle was not recognized as legitimate by most Vichy French and even if he were he was not involved in Operation Torch nor were any of the Free French. It was strictly America and England. If they ships wanted to defect they had enough fuel to reach Gibraltar and could have done so at any time. Yes the Vichy France had the potential to make a difference both with their navy and their airforce especially against convoy ships.

The Italian fleet would be more inclined to fight as part of a two pronged assault. the Italian and French fleet would have numerical superiority in every category but aircraft carriers. It is also in Italy and Germany's best interest to have Vichy France join their cause and is the best chance to save the North Africa campaign (if this was possible). The ability to use Vichy airbases would be a substantial advantage to the Germans and Italians in a naval battle and the Vichy air force would be involved as well. Also I did not say the Italians attacked. Even if they had no intention of attacking it is in their best interest to appear to mobilize even if they have no intention of attacking. The reason Hitler conquered Vichy was due to their failure to fight in North Africa. In this scenario they are fighting, even if they lose, and this removes the reason for Hitler's invasion. Without a two front war the defeat in North Africa is not assured (if it goes that way) and France's location offers the potential to close the Mediterranean enough to cause severe logistics problems. Without a two front war Hitler's commitment of the 5th army may have been enough to alter the North Africa campaign not including the 12.5 Vichy divisions stationed in North Africa. Would the Allies lose North Africa for sure? No. A look at the just the German Italian forces indicates an Axis victory is possible without a two front war. Add in at least 12 French divisions and it is a different campaign than the one that occurred historically and that is worth discussing. This presupposes Algeria is retaken and my replies to people who address this part of the battle will show why it was perhaps a possibility that a two front war would not occur.

The Allies aren’t scared of a death charge from a Vichy Fleet that has shitty aa and has hardly gone to sea since 1940, nor an Italian Fleet that doesn’t have the fuel to sortie, so they wouldn’t abandon Algeria or Morocco. Until substantial numbers of Italian/German Aircraft get to the French airbases, it’s the Vichy Airforce, fighting with out of date Aircraft, against crack Allied pilots in far better aircraft. The extra French divisions are also equipped with crappy weapons and would be rolled over by modern Allied units.

Also: superiority in everything but having 0 carriers vs double digits is a nice way for your fleet to be sunk.

 

[Belisarius II]

Er no. England is a separate nation within the United Kingdom. It has no army or other forces. The Army is not "his Majesty's Army" but is Parliament's army. I am assuming that you are not British and not familiar with British history, and why should you be? You may wish to look up both the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Union of 1707. The last monarch to argue the point had his head cut off by Parliament in 1649.

The Queen is the Commander in Chief of the UK's Armed Forces. Charles I was beheaded over other Constitution Issues.