Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

Reader mode

kelgar04

My biggest concern here with any former Vichy forces is how quickly they can be made available I mean they will need to both be shook out an required due to the limitations the Germans and Italiand put on them they will need a lot of heavy equipment. Also need to keep units near the border at the very least for a period of time to ensure loyalty.

Also there is going to be a bloody fight in the Free French High Com and Govt or at least what passes for it outside of Charlie Gaul. I mean let's face it if a more palatable alternative to him is presented to the British and Americans they will probably take it, also the man doesn't have many friends amongst the incoming Vichy defectors, this will not be pretty.
 

X Oristos

kelgar04 said:
My biggest concern here with any former Vichy forces is how quickly they can be made available I mean they will need to both be shook out an required due to the limitations the Germans and Italiand put on them they will need a lot of heavy equipment.
Click to expand...

I think the good thing is that they are not needed, not for many months. The Allies lack lift capacity to land at Sicily for the next few months- at the very least until summer 1942. What makes sense to me is that the rebuilding of the French Army will be a slow affair.
 

Bougnas

I don't get some of the theorycrafting here.
OTL is proof enough that the French were able to remobilize relatively quickly in NA and had time to reequip before getting into battles in Italy and Southern France (Tunisia campaign being short and small enough that the French could fight with limited forces).

If, as it is likely to happen, Weygand goes to the Allies, then the ITTL scenario is more favourable to him due to the Axis being far weaker in NA and the British being far stronger, enough to offset the lack of US support from the other side and the slightly smaller Armée d'Afrique in late 1941 (127k regulars authorized+60-75k ish "auxiliaries" minimum). US production is smaller so less able to rearm the French, but the British have reduced material losses, higher production in some areas and less American LL needs in areas, which allow some help to trickle down to the French.

NA French and Free French political dynamics also differ little from OTL. The NA French are in general hostile to the Gaullists, and Weygand is a Giraud-like figure (respected as a leader). It's likely however that unlike OTL Giraud, Weygand is more in line with the Wallies geopolitically and doesn't subordinate himself to De Gaulle, in which case the OTL fight for power in the Free French Army will go the opposite way ITTL.

Sadly, for the 100k soldiers in Vichy France, the situation won't change much from OTL. A substantial amount of armament was hidden from the Germans but fighting was only acceptable if the Allies landed in Southern France proper. A solitary, hopeless battle was not in the plans.
 

kelgar04

X Oristos said:
I think the good thing is that they are not needed, not for many months. The Allies lack lift capacity to land at Sicily for the next few months- at the very least until summer 1942. What makes sense to me is that the rebuilding of the French Army will be a slow affair.
Click to expand...
So I guess that all that captured Italian gear will get some use then at least until the French can get their hands on British or American gear.

Though I wonder how the hell they will pay for their own lend lease. Guess the British could front them a loan at least until they get the gold from Dakar.
 

yulzari1

Writing as one whose mother was in French North Africa at this time as one of many refugees from France and who was active in the resistance passing on Information to the allies perhaps I can make some comments.

The German and Italian Armistice Commissions were present in some numbers and busy checking on French forces but principally on supplies to be taken to France for German use. Food was in short supply and leather going as well. Of course many other things too. In neutral French ships going to neutral France they were safe from interdiction. The French authorities were active in supervision of their own people and a large proportion dubious about Commonwealth behaviour. The armed forces actively planning and locating themselves to fight them were they to enter their territory. The overall aim was to preserve France and the fear was that France would be lost to the Germans. This fear drove everything and was the atmosphere in which they all played the traditional French sport of politics, especially personal politics. Whilst not armed as well as the Commonwealth forces they were a very real army of not inconsiderable size and trained and disciplined. De Gaulle was of no consequence and a deserter from his duty with the army of France.

Thus the logic was that an armed Commonwealth invasion had to be opposed to save France. To take the long term view that France could only be saved by a defeat of Germany was desirable but not immediately worth the risk.IOTL enacting Case Anton resolved all of this. The armed forces knew that they could not win a campaign against the Commonwealth but could act as a very real deterrent making an invasion a costly and protracted affair. At best they viewed the Free French as a small bunch of well intentioned pirates.

Of course all of this is a crude and simplistic description but worth setting alongside an OTL received impression. If this timeline has a Commonwealth invasion then it would be a proper campaign unless there is a POD from OTL on the enacting of Case Anton.

Now if this TL has the USA entering the war beforehand and able to deploy significant land forces then it would be much more like OTL. However, the timescale in TTL prevents that. Even if the USA declares war at this point it can play no active role whilst the Italian and rump German forces are caught upon the Tunisian border. Perhaps we can see a precedent in the fate of French troops in Britain at the time of the Armistice in 1940. By arrangement they were permitted to sail to North Africa as neutrals but under arms as serving soldiers in special convoy. In that case they had only their small arms etc. Maybe it could be similarly negotiated that Axis troops be interned under personal arms and shipped to France? It would save having an Anglo-French war in North Africa which would be the alternative at the moment and having Commonwealth forces tied up still in North Africa and not be deployable elsewhere for the moment. For the Germans it avoids the Allies taking North Africa and preserves it as a resource for German supplies. All for little cost and might keep Italy in the war for the moment and France remains as a buffer state against an allied invasion of the South of France. If there is an Anglo-French war it opens up the chance of making France an active Axis partner. Suddenly the thousands of French POWs in Germany become divisions of new Axis troops for the Eastern Front. The butterflies are milling about in confusion……. At this time and TL the Vichy government is the recognised government of France by the USA who maintain diplomatic relations and offices in both Metropolitan France and North Africa. Also with Germany. They can act as the negotiators acceptable to all sides so a negotiated solution is possible.
 
Last edited:

Sceonn

I don't think I've ever read an early Italy surrender. It be very interesting if they do so while still strong enough at home to resist Germany.
 
Last edited:

Thoresby

I think an Italy strong enough to resist the Germans at home is unlikely to surrender.
While obviously the details will differ considerably I think something along the lines of OTL, i.e. allied landings on Sicily and maybe Sardinia, landings on the mainland which draw in a considerable German military presence at the request of Mussolini, attempted/successful removal of Mussolini in order to make peace, chaos, German military occupation of much of the country.
 

Machiavelli Jr

yulzari1 said:
Now if this TL has the USA entering the war beforehand and able to deploy significant land forces then it would be much more like OTL. However, the timescale in TTL prevents that. Even if the USA declares war at this point it can play no active role whilst the Italian and rump German forces are caught upon the Tunisian border. Perhaps we can see a precedent in the fate of French troops in Britain at the time of the Armistice in 1940. By arrangement they were permitted to sail to North Africa as neutrals but under arms as serving soldiers in special convoy. In that case they had only their small arms etc. Maybe it could be similarly negotiated that Axis troops be interned under personal arms and shipped to France? It would save having an Anglo-French war in North Africa which would be the alternative at the moment and having Commonwealth forces tied up still in North Africa and not be deployable elsewhere for the moment. For the Germans it avoids the Allies taking North Africa and preserves it as a resource for German supplies. All for little cost and might keep Italy in the war for the moment and France remains as a buffer state against an allied invasion of the South of France. If there is an Anglo-French war it opens up the chance of making France an active Axis partner. Suddenly the thousands of French POWs in Germany become divisions of new Axis troops for the Eastern Front. The butterflies are milling about in confusion……. At this time and TL the Vichy government is the recognised government of France by the USA who maintain diplomatic relations and offices in both Metropolitan France and North Africa. Also with Germany. They can act as the negotiators acceptable to all sides so a negotiated solution is possible.
Click to expand...
If the French authorities ship a German army home with the intent of letting it go back to Germany and fight on, that's a massive breach of neutrality. I can't see the Brits casually saying "yeah that's fine" and letting French merchant traffic across the Med carry on unmolested, so the best outcome for Vichy is that the resources of North Africa, and what's left of the French merchant marine, are completely lost to them. Which may still beat the alternatives, but it's not exactly good news.
 
Last edited:

yulzari1

Machiavelli Jr said:
If the French authorities ship a German army home with the intent of letting it go back to Germany and fight on, that's a massive breach of neutrality. I can't see the Brits casually saying "yeah that's fine" and letting French merchant traffic across the Med carry on unmolested, so the best outcome for Vichy is that the resources of North Africa, and what's left of the French merchant marine, are completely lost to them. Which may still beat the alternatives, but it's not exactly good news.
Click to expand...
By the letter quite so, but I did say by negotiation and that includes the Commonwealth, even if by US proxy. The alternative is a yet another extension of the war in North Africa. It is a long way from Tunisia to the Atlantic and could well mean more losses to the Commonwealth than the number of returning Axis troops. Critically in time and opportunities lost elsewhere. Not to mention a war with France, possibly including the Axis scraping up enough oil for a sortie by the French fleet from Algeria and Toulon. By the letter France is quite within it’s rights to militarily oppose a Commonwealth invasion of it’s territory and declare war on them. The Italian fleet is still in being and active.Combine both the French and Italian fleets and you will have trouble traversing the Mediterranean at all. Not to mention their air forces ranging from both sides of the Sea. Gibraltar has already been bombed twice by the French and several times by the Italians IOTL. The last being in June 1944, three months before the last artillery strike on England. Politically it is a Commonwealth hot potato but the benefits might well outweigh the unpleasant taste of expediency. Skilled propaganda can display it as the cowardly running away of the Axis sheltering beneath the skirts of neutral France. If the Germans can throw in releasing substantial numbers of French POWs it would sweeten or further for the French who can display the return of them as a French diplomatic victory. Possibly the side with the least to gain is the Axis. How many troops would they get back? Not a few Italians may prefer a holiday in Canada or Australia……..

However, this is my envelope exploring. It is for the OP to show us the way in his ATL.
 
Last edited:

mundi_mundi

yulzari1 said:
By the letter quite so...
Click to expand...
This ^^^ and similarly X Oristos' post on the last page.

I don't think anyone's doubting that the Germans could pull off Case Anton & would if they felt they needed to, similarly to the Commonwealth & taking French North Africa. But as has been mentioned previously both of those will come with costs, be they logistical, human or political for Axis & Allies. So is there any chance that either side might look at the situation & decide it's not worth it?

The Axis first. As I understand it, we're taking a small number of German troops here. Searching my memory, ITL it was something like a division & change sent to NA before combat? Removing casualties, how many are left making a beeline for Tunisia? Several thousand maybe? I do have to wonder if there's not a chance that someone in the OKW might decide 'this isn't worth occupying Vichy over when we've got the Soviets to beat, let's not throw good money after bad etc.' Is it possible the Germans might accept the internment of the leftovers of the Afrika Korps (who certainly aren't the prestige force they were previously, so there's perhaps less 'pull' there too), even if they think in doing do it's just until they can lean on Vichy for their return at a more convenient time for the Reich? In return they keep a fairly compliant buffer state over whom they still have thousands of PoWs as leverage and don't have to worry about occupying another chunk of France. No gain, but they're arguably cutting their losses. Now, I don't know where that leaves the Italians. My SWAG is that it's maybe a case of more numbers, but potentially less risky for Vichy to thumb their noses at Italy as opposed to France, but I'm not all that sure.

For the Commonwealth, I'm taking is as read that anything other than internment of Axis troops that reach the border is going to be viewed as a breach of the laws & customs of war and anything less will be contested in one way or another. But isn't there the possibility that a diplomatic 'backroom deal' like what yulzari1 has suggested might be acceptable if the number of troops is low enough or it's carried out in such a way that the Allies can plausibly look the other way? In return they keep Vichy neutral, don't have the embuggerance of taking French NA and can potentially keep pressuring French colonies to lean Commonwealth over time. I think the attractiveness of not having to fight Vichy will skyrocket come 8 December as well, which is less than a week away.
 

Look More Closely Later

Machiavelli Jr said:
If the French authorities ship a German army home with the intent of letting it go back to Germany and fight on, that's a massive breach of neutrality...
Click to expand...
It's a straightforward 'Prisoner of War' swap, if German internees in Tunisia are exchanged for French Prisoners of War in wherever. Not exactly something which would look to me to be in the 'bombing Gibraltar' category of breach of neutrality (although it might well be the duty of in-timeline propagandists of the day to paint any P.O.W. swap as being whatever, as much as it would be their duty to paint anything as whatever.)
 

yulzari1

Look More Closely Later said:
It's a straightforward 'Prisoner of War' swap, if German internees in Tunisia are exchanged for French Prisoners of War in wherever. Not exactly something which would look to me to be in the 'bombing Gibraltar' category of breach of neutrality (although it might well be the duty of in-timeline propagandists of the day to paint any P.O.W. swap as being whatever, as much as it would be their duty to paint anything as whatever.)
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking it is not a POW swap as the Axis troops are internees not POWs. In a negotiated all parties deal a legal fig leaf could be the removal of the internees to Metropolitan France whence they magically vanish to board the returning trains that arrived full of French POWs. It would almost certainly include a release of Commonwealth internees as well. It would be a field day for the ‘weaselly words’ legal boys to phrase it all in cunning ambiguity.

Who does not benefit? North Africa is free of Axis armed forces (absent the Control Commission) with no further Commonwealth fighting. The Axis gets its troops back. The French avoid a war with the Commonwealth and further occupation of France. The Soviets even can get more Commonwealth supplies which would have gone to a further North African campaign.

Equally everybody is embarrassed. The Axis having to slink away back home helped by the defeated French. The French for helping the Axis who are occupying much of France. The Commonwealth for letting the Axis troops get away. The Soviets because it both releases Axis forces that would have been employed in North Africa and is the end of the only front where someone else is also actively fighting the Axis.

If the USA does enter the war I do wonder what they will want to do with their new army once they get it up to some speed. It has to be an opposed landing into the European mainland. The pressure will be on for Operation Sledgehammer in 1942.
 
Last edited:

pjmidd

yulzari1 said:
he pressure will be on for Operation Sledgehammer in 1942.
Click to expand...
Since Sledgehammer was to be mainly British troops , I doubt it. Lack of amphibious transport , air superiority , supply etc would kill it at the detailed planning stage as far as the UK is concerned. The US can press as per OTL but its more likely an earlier Husky would be tried. Even that has transport issue's but the size of forces/opposition means its just about possible. 1942 to be honest , just does not have the LST's etc for a major attack in Europe. Apart from maybe taking a few small islands, its 1943 before stuff is ready logistically.
 

MattII

pjmidd said:
Since Sledgehammer was to be mainly British troops , I doubt it. Lack of amphibious transport , air superiority , supply etc would kill it at the detailed planning stage as far as the UK is concerned. The US can press as per OTL but its more likely an earlier Husky would be tried. Even that has transport issue's but the size of forces/opposition means its just about possible. 1942 to be honest , just does not have the LST's etc for a major attack in Europe. Apart from maybe taking a few small islands, its 1943 before stuff is ready logistically.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You can run small operations sequentially (Rhodes, then Pantelleria, then maybe Dieppe), but nothing more than a few thousand men at time until at least next year.
 
Last edited:

kelgar04

Huh this timelines Rhodes, Pantelleria, or Dieppe could allow for those amphibious tanks to be tested in battle conditions.
 
Last edited:
marathag

marathag

Banned
pjmidd said:
Since Sledgehammer was to be mainly British troops , I doubt it.
Click to expand...
OTL, With rushing and stripping training units, the US could have had 2nd AD ready by November 1941, but just tanks were sent to help blunt the DAK's entrance into Egypt.

ATL, nothing close to that, with North Africa quiet as the New Year 1942 starts, so the US has hundreds of more tanks available Sledgehammer was to last ditch effort to relieve pressure on the Soviets, who would be asking for a 2nd front frequently as 1942 went on.

OTL Sledgehammer was shelved in early July, 1942, and Marshall was on record that Op. Round Up, the 1943 planned invasion of France could not happen if the British Green lit Op. Jupiter(Return to Norway, so L-L gets safely to the USSR) or Op. Gymnast(Early US attach into French North Africa) or massive transfer of troops to the Pacific to stop Japan

Still OTL, Sledgehammer was passed on, for 'Super-Gymnast' or Op. Torch, as it became for multiple landings all across North Africa, so no Sledgehammer

Before Torch was worked out, FDR was pushing Churchill that if Sledgehammer would not be done, 5 US Divisions should be sent to the Middle East, Persian Gulf to ensure that L-L supplies would make it to the USSR, and US Troops fight in the Caucasus. Uncle Joe was not a fan at all about US Troops in the East. L-L, certainly, Troops, Nyet.

So with the Western Mediterranean Neutral or even switching to the Allies, FDR will stick to his guns on US troops fighting somewhere in 1942, that takes the place of Sledgehammer or the now unnecessary Op. Gymnast
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top