Post-WWII Political Effects of France Fighting On?

Deleted member 1487

You've been through this question before & seen the evidence.
AFAIK it was only in relation to a post-PH world where the US was at war with Japan, i.e. OTL, not a situation where there isn't escalations in Asia due to no Japanese occupation of Indochina and no resulting ABCD Line, plus the Allies doing better as a result of France not really surrendering and helping successfully drive the Italians out of North Africa and then no Greek invasion by the Italians. That's a very different geo-political situation from what we've discussed; IOTL in fact prior to Pearl Harbor FDR and Churchill were despairing that the US wouldn't be able to get into the war no matter how many incidents happened in the Atlantic, which Richard Overy notes in his book "Why the Allies Won".

Beyond that Hitler had half the vote in this, he considered three times (possibly more) declaring war & did so on the third round. Since the US participation in the Battle of the Atlantic was escalating at a increasing pace he'd had provocation enough within a few months. US military officers and technicians were already serving out of uniform with the Brits and Chinese. That activity was growing & Hilter knew it. The US was starting that autum to execute a plan to establish a large scale participation in construction and improvement of the Persian Gulf ports and Persian railway. Plans were on the table for the US to occupy the Azores & other Portuguese Atlantic islands were it necessary to prosecute the anti submarine campaign. Given his temper & declining mental health odds are Hitler would be provoked shortly.
Potentially yes, potentially no. IOTL based on Kershaw's bio of Hitler it would seem Hitler was not really thinking about expanding the war against the US given how the situation in Russia was playing out IOTL and it was the Japanese attack that convinced him that by DoWing the US he could get the Japanese to attack Russia and that the US would be distracted in the Pacific and leave the Atlantic alone for a while. He turned out to be dead wrong on all accounts. So my point is that absent a Japanese attack Hitler was not really planning to expand the war in the Atlantic despite US provocation due to the war with Russia going badly.

I wonder ITTL if Japan isn't going to attack the US due to no ABCD Line if they would then go for the Northern Option to help finish off the USSR. The Germans would be pushing for that and there were certainly factions in Japan that were interested; without the resources constraints caused by the expanded embargo there isn't a Southern Strike faction to compete against, so a limited Northern Strike option isn't off the table.
 
In other words two French governments will exist & the Germans would be smart to take advantage of this.

Bottom line here is a 'Armistice' government remaining in France will intially be very popular, and even after three years of war would remain popular amoung some groups in France.

Among other things the colonial govenors will not have a clear government to follow. The Armistice group in France or the War group in Algeria? Odds are the colonies will go both ways & several remain with the Armistice government.

Carl, thanks for all the posts.

any idea on the potential split in colonies and/or fleet? my first thought was since all the capital ships had evacuated IOTL that they might all remain under FFO group?

also a majority of (remaining) bombers were evacuated (or at least ordered to evacuate)
 
any idea on the potential split in colonies and/or fleet? my first thought was since all the capital ships had evacuated IOTL that they might all remain under FFO group?

also a majority of (remaining) bombers were evacuated (or at least ordered to evacuate)

What the colonies spliting? With the legitimate government still on board I can't see that happening.

And it won't.

was referring to any split that might occur if Reynaud led a minority of ministers and legislature abroad to continue fighting and Petain led a government in France.

there was a split historically between Free French colonies (small number initially) and Vichy-controlled ones.

are you both saying emphatically that all the colonies would remain with Reynaud when majority of ministers and legislators remained behind?
 
Getting back to the original question, the big difference is a much smaller role for DeGaulle. He is not the leader of the Free French. He does not lead a provisional post war government.
 
Top