Paris Protocol deal reached 1941

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Protocols

A tenative deal was reached allowing the Germans use of bases but not really followed up.

the POD:
Rommels attack on Torbruk on April 30th 1941 succeeds and this impresses both the French and Hitler that Britain is weak enough to be beaten.

Lets say that Admiral Reader seizes the moment and convices Hitler if he delays Barbarossa one year, the French are willing to deal, and with the use of the French bases and if he gets cooperation from the Luftwaffe he can defeat the British by May of 1942 and Hitler can invade the Soviet Union then (with perhaps even Turkey joining in). Raeders sells this on the fact that beyond, the shipping war advantages, the Luftwaffe could make Gibralter unusable from French African bases, with Gibralter unusable, Malta if kept under air attack will fall, Rommel has retaken Cyrencia and Greece has fallen, Rommel has captured Tobruk and many supplies, Alexandria looks vulnerable. The Bismarck is about ready to raid. Iraq is in revolt. Condors based in Dakar can reach far into the Atlantic...

Lets say Hitler was thus willing to release significant numbers of POWs (lets say 20% of the 1.5 million French POWS immediately and 20% each May the deal is in place, plus 20% lower occupation costs, and a 20% reduction each year the deal is in place, Hilter also conceeds that France will get everything back in a final peace except Alsace Lorraine, and the French were willing to accept this deal.

With that the French agree to let the Germans use Dakar and Casablanca as submarine and air bases agains the Atlantic sea lanes. basically German aircraft, naval units, and air and naval personnel (including anti-aircraft) will be allowed in any Vichy colony (even including Syria) that they want to go, French units will defend these bases but otherwise won't attack Britain.

What could the Germans do in 1941 with French bases, and their armed forces fully committed against Britain, could they force Britain to the peace table???

----------------------------------------------------------

My own thought is this likely leads to war with the USA in a short period of time.
 
As I understand it, neither neutralising Gibraltar nor taking Malta really helps Rommel reach Alexandria, as the fundamental constraints are still the capacity of the North African ports, and the sheer distances involved.

Basing U-boats out of Dakar etc. is an interesting idea, but the logistics of resupply sound tricky. Plus it represents a diversion of effort from the main battle in the north Atlantic. I think Tooze commented that although the U-boats were capable of strangling the UK, they weren't capable of doing it quickly. I don't think enough merchant ships can be sunk before the US enters the war, at which point it's too late.

I would be interested to see people's opinions of a 1942 Barbarossa though. Would it gain OTL's level of surprise? How much stronger would the Red Army be with all those T34s?
 
Lets say that Admiral Reader seizes the moment and convices Hitler if he delays Barbarossa one year

If you are hoping for a realistic POD, it ends right here. Hitler is not going to cancel Barbarossa at the last moment because of some possible deal with the French.

Hitler did not see the Mediterranean Theatre as decisive. He felt by destroying the Soviet Union, he could convince the British to make peace. Hitler does not believe the war with Stalin will last more than 6 months. When he says kick the door and the whole house caves in, he really believes that. With this mindset, waiting a year accomplishes nothing except that it delays victory by a year.

Having said that, if the Germans do try to follow up on this, Germany probably gains very little. Taking Tobruk does not automatically lead to taking Alexandria. El Alamein, with its natural defensive position, just occurs earlier, and the British still probably hold. Britain still eliminates any collaborators in the French Syria campaign. German troops transiting to Dakar and Casablanca either backfires or fails to lead to any decisive advantage. Additional French units in Africa may join the Free French after thinking German troops means those colonies will be turned over to France, or eventual British and Free French forces land and take those areas in response to the Germans using them in wartime (it will probably take a while for Britain to stage troops to do so, but it will also take a long time for the Germans to build up those bases for their own use).

End result is the Germans get very little out of it. With no Barbarossa, the US may never hit Japan with the oil embargo. With no oil embargo, Japan never attacks. The Allies and the US escape the Pacific disasters of late 1941/early 1942. Delayed Barbarossa begins in May 1942, and does not go as successfully in 1941. By around this time, the British units never sent to the Pacific means the British drive the Germans out of North Africa soon afterwards. Sicily is invade in late 1942, by which time the German offensive is stalled in the middle of Belarus and Ukraine. With stalemate in Europe, and an extra year to prepare defenses in the Pacific, the US and Allies do not present a tempting target to the Japanese, and they never attack or if they do, they do not get the results they did IOTL.
 
As I understand it, neither neutralising Gibraltar nor taking Malta really helps Rommel reach Alexandria, as the fundamental constraints are still the capacity of the North African ports, and the sheer distances involved.

Yes but the German forces at Alam Halfa in August 1942 were larger than 1941 and the Germans were able to supply those, persumably extra German effort in Ju52s and MFPs and Siebel Ferries would occur here to carry supply forward.

Hitler thought Rommel could take Alexandria in OTL 1942 so its probable he might think he could do this in 1941.

Now likely your right if they get that far the British stick a division in downtown Alexandria and defend the port, its a big city, should be easy to defend for a long time.

There would be some value in dispersal of uboats and planes and at least Casablanca should be easy enough to supply since there is a railroad connection from Algeria. There were some road connections from North Africa to Dakar, but it would be a major expedition, maybe some reloads of torpedos could go across in a convoy.
 
If you are hoping for a realistic POD, it ends right here. Hitler is not going to cancel Barbarossa at the last moment because of some possible deal with the French.

Likely not, but since were talking about changing really the the whims of just one guy (Hitler), who could get enthused about such kinds of military victories, I don't think it falls in ASB territory and since the U.S. was worried about German explotation in French West Africa in the 40-41 time frame, Dakar's closeness to the western hemisphere etc.., its interesting to think about if it actually happened.

Agree that the numbers of subs and planes in 1941 might not be enough. In 1942 the numbers of subs are higher and their theaters of operation more diverse, where dispersal to these ports might have been useful.

I dind't understand though the no Barbarossa, no oil embargo connection, I always thought the oil emargo was in response to the Japanese move into southern Vichy IndoChina. That could still happen in this TL.
 
Now likely your right if they get that far the British stick a division in downtown Alexandria and defend the port, its a big city, should be easy to defend for a long time.

Here is where public opinion matters regarding how much Rommel can win over the citizens of Alexandria to side with his forces. He isn't the kind of general that would use Stalingrad tactics in a major city to try to fush out a division. But, he did plan to get the locals quite involved in the fight.

An extremely skilled general like Caesar was able to hold off the citizenry of Alexandria while keeping at bay an enemy army until more troops arrived. The real question will be how skilled the British general that gets left behind manages to be.
 
With that the French agree to let the Germans use Dakar and Casablanca as submarine and air bases agains the Atlantic sea lanes. basically German aircraft, naval units, and air and naval personnel (including anti-aircraft) will be allowed in any Vichy colony (even including Syria) that they want to go, French units will defend these bases but otherwise won't attack Britain.

What could the Germans do in 1941 with French bases, and their armed forces fully committed against Britain, could they force Britain to the peace table???

In actual history, the British were more than willing to violate the formal neutrality of Vichy, at the very spots you mention.
With these events taking place, Vichy France is no longer neutral, not even formally, as it's not complying with a neutral's duties. The British will have no diplomatic backtalk about their operations. De Gaulle will be able to play up his portrayal of Vichy as a German puppet. In the colonies, the switch over of the French to De Gaulle's government in exile will be massive.
And in the Atlantic, the attempted movement of Kriegsmarine resources to Dakar will turn into a battle, which the British can hardly lose.
Assuming that the Germans do manage to deploy some U-Boote in central western Africa, what then? They need to be supplied. They need a lifeline of torpedoes, men, batteries, spare parts. Carrying them overland is a lost cause. Trying to deliver them by sea or air gives the British fine chances of cutting that supply line with their own sea and air assets.

In short, the Germans are giving the British what the latter excel at: peripheral battles in places where the british logistics is fine and their continental enemy's logistics is stretched. That went well by a very narrow margin in Northern Norway. It won't, in central Africa or Iraq.
 
In actual history, the British were more than willing to violate the formal neutrality of Vichy, at the very spots you mention.
With these events taking place, Vichy France is no longer neutral, not even formally, as it's not complying with a neutral's duties. The British will have no diplomatic backtalk about their operations. De Gaulle will be able to play up his portrayal of Vichy as a German puppet. In the colonies, the switch over of the French to De Gaulle's government in exile will be massive.
And in the Atlantic, the attempted movement of Kriegsmarine resources to Dakar will turn into a battle, which the British can hardly lose.
Assuming that the Germans do manage to deploy some U-Boote in central western Africa, what then? They need to be supplied. They need a lifeline of torpedoes, men, batteries, spare parts. Carrying them overland is a lost cause. Trying to deliver them by sea or air gives the British fine chances of cutting that supply line with their own sea and air assets.

In short, the Germans are giving the British what the latter excel at: peripheral battles in places where the british logistics is fine and their continental enemy's logistics is stretched. That went well by a very narrow margin in Northern Norway. It won't, in central Africa or Iraq.

This is an interesting scenario. Is it possible that if heavy fighting occurs between Germans forces (and presumably Vichy forces) against British/Free French strikes could it result in Vichy formally entering the war? I know there was no real support for such an eventuality in the OTL Vichy, but things seem quite different here.
 
This is an interesting scenario. Is it possible that if heavy fighting occurs between Germans forces (and presumably Vichy forces) against British/Free French strikes could it result in Vichy formally entering the war? I know there was no real support for such an eventuality in the OTL Vichy, but things seem quite different here.

OTL: Darlan was willing to deal access to these areas for POWs and lower occupation costs but Hitler was disinterested. So its not a stretch for the Germans to be here if the Germans are motivated to pursue.

OTL: The Germans were able to run merchant shipping alll the way to Japan on a regular basis especially in the Winter of 41-42 so its not unreasonable they could slip a merchant ship or 2 into Dakar with torpedos, spare parts and fuel, personnel could be flow in and there was even limited bus traffic across the desert (there is a free Nook Book - Dakar outpost of two hemisphere written in 1941 which details the US concern about the area).

In a May 41 viewpoint, the Germans are winning and likely to be in occupation of France for many many years, here is an opportunity for France to get her people out of POW camps, lower occupation costs and guarantee a future in Europe without actually directly having to enter the war on Germany's side (although there is a big risk that just happens) so I don't think its unreasonable to expect a certain level of support from vichy officers, likely there will be defections to the Free French too.

Now for the Germans to really expoit such bases you probably need one of Wilking's Luftwaffe PODs with DO19s and a focus on attacking shipping where such extra bases would really contribute.
 
Here is where public opinion matters regarding how much Rommel can win over the citizens of Alexandria to side with his forces. He isn't the kind of general that would use Stalingrad tactics in a major city to try to fush out a division. But, he did plan to get the locals quite involved in the fight.

An extremely skilled general like Caesar was able to hold off the citizenry of Alexandria while keeping at bay an enemy army until more troops arrived. The real question will be how skilled the British general that gets left behind manages to be.

My guess is that most people / civilians are just going to be hiding, staying out of the way, or just not very helpful and that the British could keep the port area held and supplied for a long time although the port itself wouldn't be useful to the British as a naval base, the Germans couldn't use it either.
 
OTL: The Germans were able to run merchant shipping alll the way to Japan on a regular basis especially in the Winter of 41-42 so its not unreasonable they could slip a merchant ship or 2 into Dakar with torpedos, spare parts and fuel, personnel could be flow in.

There is a huge difference between a few stealthy blockade runners and the stream of shipping required to sustain a major military operation. One or two ships every few months won't do it.
 
OTL: The Germans were able to run merchant shipping alll the way to Japan on a regular basis especially in the Winter of 41-42 so its not unreasonable they could slip a merchant ship or 2 into Dakar with torpedos, spare parts and fuel,

Sure. So you want that a number of submarines, instead of being regularly resupplied in their bases in Germany, Norway or occupied France, survive on a hand-to-mouth status down there. Naturally, if there are say 10 submarines in Dakar, that's 10 submarines less in Europe, and the British can redeploy suitable ASW assets to their own Western African bases.

More in general, you have two sides. One has global, worldwide strategic lift capability and the ability to defend it. The other has not. Whose side is going to fare better if the battlefield gets wider and more scattered?

personnel could be flow in and there was even limited bus traffic across the desert (there is a free Nook Book - Dakar outpost of two hemisphere written in 1941 which details the US concern about the area).

Yeah. Naturally, Chad was in Free French hands, and if the Germans actually deploy troops in "neutral" Vichy territory, then the British have an interest in sending air assets down there, to patrol over those one or two open, unprotected, long long long desert trails.

More in general, you seem unaware that Vichy France ate at the Royal Navy's sufferance. The homeland imported foodstuffs from North Africa, and the Royal Navy could have cut that lifeline at any time. They didn't because they didn't want French civilians starving in Marseilles.
But if Vichy France goes actively hostile - and hosting German troops on its territory is a violation of a neutral's duties - the British may well not limit themselves to single operations against the Marine and against colonies.

I can quote the data concerning the traffic, if you wish.
 
The Soviets were in the process of rebuilding their military forces during late 1940 thur 1941 and was supposedly getting ready with more military units and military equipment in early 1942....

Like the T-34s and KV-1s and the MIG-1s & MIG-3s and LAGG-3s, PE-2s & YAK-7s
 
Yeah. Naturally, Chad was in Free French hands, and if the Germans actually deploy troops in "neutral" Vichy territory, then the British have an interest in sending air assets down there, to patrol over those one or two open, unprotected, long long long desert trails.

More in general, you seem unaware that Vichy France ate at the Royal Navy's sufferance. The homeland imported foodstuffs from North Africa, and the Royal Navy could have cut that lifeline at any time. They didn't because they didn't want French civilians starving in Marseilles.
But if Vichy France goes actively hostile - and hosting German troops on its territory is a violation of a neutral's duties - the British may well not limit themselves to single operations against the Marine and against colonies.

I can quote the data concerning the traffic, if you wish.

I understand the food issue. The reality is that Darlan did pursue the Paris Protocols, knowing the risks, allowed Axis access to Syria and really only the disinterest of Hitler in dealing further (probably wanted Vichy neutral and secure for Barabarossa) kept an expanded agreement from happening.

I don't know way Darlan was willing to deal in 1941 and risk conflict with Britain. Seems dumb in hindsight, but I am guessing from a May 41 viewpoint the Germans were going to be in occupation of France, the French paying brutal occupation fees and the 1.5 million French POWs stuck in Germany for many many years, so a deal to mitigate those must have seemed worthwhile pursuing even at the risk of conflict with Britain.

This book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hunt-Nazi-Spies-Espionage/dp/0226438937


indicates that Vichy politics was muddled, that the various departments of the government operated independently, some were more anti-German than others, most anti-Free French, others more anti-British, but Vichy in general tried to maintain a level of independence for France from Germany, so it could be that there is an inside Vichy political revolt against Darlan when the extent of this deal is known and thus nothing ever happens. Though it could be in May 41 viewpoint, if POWs are coming home, occupation costs reduced and some sort of assurances of a future are given that it helps Darlan and Vichy politically so it happens.

I am thinking if a deal did happen, Casablanca has decent access, roads and rail, from Algeria so that could be made a air/sub base and Dakar then just a forward refueling base, torpedo reload base only. Aircraft basing maybe more useful than sub basing, if the efficiency of the ports is low.

Gibralter could be kept under air attack from French bases so the ability to interfere with traffic to and from French North Africa might be limted (although unrestricted British submarines could hurt alot)

I imagine if this deal happens, even a neutral USA will soon be motivated to do much of the dirty work in securing the western hemisphere Vichy colonies (and maybe even Dakar)
 
Last edited:
The Soviets were in the process of rebuilding their military forces during late 1940 thur 1941 and was supposedly getting ready with more military units and military equipment in early 1942....

Like the T-34s and KV-1s and the MIG-1s & MIG-3s and LAGG-3s, PE-2s & YAK-7s

Yep, the Soviet war machine could be quite fearsome by June 1942. I don't know if the Germans understood that though. If they thought Barbarossa was to be easy in 1941, maybe 1942 would be a bit harder but they would be less occupied in the west themselves.

Reality is in OTL, Germany didn't have a whole bunch better to do by June 1941 but invade the Soviet Union.

Here I speculated that if something changed from OTL to convince the Germans they might actually have a chance at pursuing an in it to win it strategy against Britian, then it might be thought worthwhile in a May 41 perspective to delay Barbarossa for a year to pursue that and secure political agreements with Vichy to make that pursuit easier.

Overall I think the Germans could have bungled into war with the USA, the Vichy goverment might have bungled into a collaborationist stance (risking coups in the remaining Vichy colonies) and things ended up much worse for them OR they could have driven Britain out of most of the med sea in 1941, buterflies like USA entry keep them from attacking the Soviets in 1942 and they survive much longer than OTL (depending on USA nuke research and how its butterflied).
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, neither neutralising Gibraltar nor taking Malta really helps Rommel reach Alexandria, as the fundamental constraints are still the capacity of the North African ports, and the sheer distances involved.
That's true enough, but there were still months when Axis losses in transit were quite heavy (July 1941 saw a loss of about 20%, in September it was about 30%, and in November it was more than 60%), which would go considerably better for the Axis if Malta was gone.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
As I understand it, neither neutralising Gibraltar nor taking Malta really helps Rommel reach Alexandria, as the fundamental constraints are still the capacity of the North African ports, and the sheer distances involved.

Basing U-boats out of Dakar etc. is an interesting idea, but the logistics of resupply sound tricky. Plus it represents a diversion of effort from the main battle in the north Atlantic. I think Tooze commented that although the U-boats were capable of strangling the UK, they weren't capable of doing it quickly. I don't think enough merchant ships can be sunk before the US enters the war, at which point it's too late.

I would be interested to see people's opinions of a 1942 Barbarossa though. Would it gain OTL's level of surprise? How much stronger would the Red Army be with all those T34s?

Taking Malta and neutralizing Gibraltar help immensely. The will reduce the amount of air and submarine interdiction done by the Allies, so Rommel will be better supplied. The ports can be improved and railroads can be built. And with better land and sea successes, the supplies can be shipped to ports nearer to the front lines. We end up with a well supplied Africa Corp.

The US Army G-2 thought the West African strategy was the next logical step and the Axis could supply them. It would have put great strain on the RN by forcing them to escort ships over much longer distances. And with airpower in West Africa, convoys will need to travel longer distances.
 
Taking Malta and neutralizing Gibraltar help immensely. The will reduce the amount of air and submarine interdiction done by the Allies, so Rommel will be better supplied.

Neutralizing Gibraltar has little effect on the Italian convoys. Taking Malta, yes, though you'd have to factor the price paid.

The ports can be improved and railroads can be built. And with better land and sea successes, the supplies can be shipped to ports nearer to the front lines. We end up with a well supplied Africa Corp.

Well, sure, over a couple of years you might have a pan-Libyan rail line and big seaports. No hurry.

The US Army G-2 thought the West African strategy was the next logical step and the Axis could supply them. It would have put great strain on the RN by forcing them to escort ships over much longer distances. And with airpower in West Africa, convoys will need to travel longer distances.

First, I very much suspect the US Army was worried about West Africa because that's in their direction. There was wide-eyed talk about Brazil being so near to West Africa, too. It's not as we have to believe all that.

Second, the Germans have a finite number of U-boote and maritime bombers. If they want to deploy some out there, they will need to take them away from somewhere else. The British can do the same with ASW escorts and fighters.

Third, sure it's inconvenient for the British to have a small, beleaguered enemy force barely in supply at the end of that long LOC, right there. So maybe they'll do their thing, i.e. do away with it. Their naval supremacy guarantees that they can temporarily put together what they need, send it there, overcome the local defenses and achieve their objectives. It is exactly because we are talking about Dakar that we should all already be aware of that.
 
Top