The Franco-British Union keeps France fighting

[lionhead]

Only recently i have discovered this part of the Battle of France so i don't know a lot about it.

At first this idea of a Franco-British Union looked to me like France never actually surrendered to the Germans in 1940, but that a sort of coup happened and Phillip Petain, the collaborator, took power and forced France into an armistice.

Here are my thoughts: The real cabinet of France, led by Reynaud was actually trying to keep on fighting. But, then the proposal was "rejected" by the "cabinet" and Reynaud resigned(or was forced to, could be), paving the way for Petain. He and his fellow collaborators then quickly signed the armistice. That sounds like a coup to me.... I know this is overreacting to what actually happened, but i am trying to reignite France's spirit to continue fighting, instead of an all out decision to surrender.

What if though, De Gaulle arrived earlier in the UK and made the British war cabinet reinstate the proposal for an Franco-British Union early enough. What if then the French cabinet, on lets say 13th of June make it decide to continue fighting unquestionably while also prepare to meet with the British in Concarneau(but not immediately decide to form a Union) and caused opposers of the plan like Petain to actually stage a violent coup, but fail and be arrested and/or executed? Or just siimply let them stay quiet for the remainder of the war.

Was Petain capable and/or willing to staging a coup at all? If not were there others?

But, with Petain out of the way and France ready to keep on fighting, what would that mean for the rest of the invasion?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

there is a PoD in there somewhere, but I cant spot it at the moment.

To refine the events slightly:

But, then the proposal was "rejected" by the "cabinet" and Reynaud resigned

The real obstacle was the Chamber of Deputies. The majority favored imeadiate cease fire & a informal vote or poll taken a day or two before Renaud resigned showed a overwhelming majority wanted the fighting to end. While some Deputies were already finding their way to Africa, or at least to the ports the rest were busy calling for a end to the disaster. About half the cabinet were still willing to depart, but Renaud was exhausted, and clearly saw that removing only part of the cabinet & a minority of the Deputies could lead to a split in the French government with two opposed groups. It was not at all clear who the colonial govenors and French citizens in the colonies would support.

In general the French population had no stomach for fighiting on. more than half the metropolitan population was already in German occupied territory and had no say in the matter. Several million of the remainder were now refugees, camping along road sides & with relatives, or in hotels if they were lucky. The economy was in free fall, business at a standstill, banks unable to operate, ect... ect...

There was also a misunderstanding of the nature of the nazi government. Across the board from Petain down to the local wine shop owner or socialist laborer expected a cease fire to be soon followed by peace negotiations and a treaty by the end of the year or next spring. After all the Germans were a civilized people and expected to follow modern standards of behavior.

So, while there were a minority ready to fight on the majority were eager to end the misery & return to a normal life ASAP. Odds are Renaud fleeing to Africa with a half cabinet & eighty or fewer Deputies (out of over 500) would split France three years sooner than OTL, and split more violently.

 

[Shaby]

Well, Metropolitan France was as good as lost either way. However, the Desert War may be averted if the French manage to take Tripoli and link up with the British advancing from Egypt. It might make Italy more dependent on the Germans earlier.

All this combined may be a mixed blessing. Granted, resistance in France will probably be a lot more active, French fleet in Allied service may make a large difference, especially in the Pacific. Which brings us to one of the major butterflies...

Without Vichy, the French probably do not surrender Indochina to the Japanese. This makes their initial operation very hard to impossible. Without the North African theatre, the British are able to put more and better forces in Malaya.

As for Eastern front, the question is whether Hitler will feel secure enough to even attempt Barbarossa. Would Romanian and Bulgarians let the Germans use their territory? Yugoslavia would probably think a bit longer before trying to get into Tripartite pact. In fact the Churchill's idea of Balkan front may be realized.

If that happens, Hitler may get more bargaining material for his deals with Stalin and the Anglo-French may be tempted to do Operation Pike.

That is plenty to think about. Churchill may have been right in his observation that it may have been lucky that his idea never came to pass...

 

[Devilking1994]

Their are two story's about this iv read iv contacted both author's and they both are coming back sooner or later to them they just have a lot to do ATM in RL

The Franco-British Union: It's birth and growth in the Second World War
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=329965

The Sword of Freedom: A Franco-British Union TL
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=158718

Both of these story's are really good and i think they could do with more support.

 

[lionhead]

Alright, thanks for the links.

So the general idea is that France was beaten anyway and no continued fighting on the mainland of France was not going to happen? A truce was going to happen anyway, but could be later and without a Vichy regime.

No Vichy does indeed make a few problems for the Germans and the Japanese. Interesting to think about.

It would drain german troops more if the fighting continued for a few more days or weeks if Reynaud doesn't resign and Petain doesn't become the new prime minister. Would that give the Germans troubles in the long run(i'm sure not with Yugoslavia)?

How useful is the French fleet going to be anyway? Will it be deployed in the mediterranean? Or go to the Pacific once Japan attacks? That would be interesting, a strengthening to the ABDACOM.

 

[Hashoosh]

Alright, thanks for the links.

So the general idea is that France was beaten anyway and no continued fighting on the mainland of France was not going to happen? A truce was going to happen anyway, but could be later and without a Vichy regime.

No Vichy does indeed make a few problems for the Germans and the Japanese. Interesting to think about.

It would drain german troops more if the fighting continued for a few more days or weeks if Reynaud doesn't resign and Petain doesn't become the new prime minister. Would that give the Germans troubles in the long run(i'm sure not with Yugoslavia)?

How useful is the French fleet going to be anyway? Will it be deployed in the mediterranean? Or go to the Pacific once Japan attacks? That would be interesting, a strengthening to the ABDACOM.

The French have a great fleet for Mediterranean operations, but their destroyers and I think their cruisers are too short-legged for convoy operations in the Atlantic or operations in the Pacific. The biggest impact is going to be on the Mediterranean War, which the Italians are likely to lose rapidly if they have to face the MN and RN from 1940 onwards. This in turn could lead to more British strength being present in the Far East in December '41.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I see the Allies taking Libya in July 1940. hHitler decides not to rescue the Italians. So since there is nothing going in Europe, they build up Commonwealth forces in Burma, Malaya and New Guinea and are able to drive off the Japanese attacks on all three places. The Japanese are further handicapped by not being able to attack from French Indo China. The US enters the war in Europe in the November 1942 attack on Sicily. The invasion of Normandy is in October 1943. Germany surrenders in September 1944. jJapan surrenders in December 1944. In the election of 1944, FDR and the Democrats do better.

 

[Shaby]

Would there ever be war with the Japanese? Without occupation of Indochina US wouldn't impose sanctions on them, so they wouldn't attack US.

 

[lionhead]

The French have a great fleet for Mediterranean operations, but their destroyers and I think their cruisers are too short-legged for convoy operations in the Atlantic or operations in the Pacific. The biggest impact is going to be on the Mediterranean War, which the Italians are likely to lose rapidly if they have to face the MN and RN from 1940 onwards. This in turn could lead to more British strength being present in the Far East in December '41.

I see the Allies taking Libya in July 1940. hHitler decides not to rescue the Italians. So since there is nothing going in Europe, they build up Commonwealth forces in Burma, Malaya and New Guinea and are able to drive off the Japanese attacks on all three places. The Japanese are further handicapped by not being able to attack from French Indo China. The US enters the war in Europe in the November 1942 attack on Sicily. The invasion of Normandy is in October 1943. Germany surrenders in September 1944. jJapan surrenders in December 1944. In the election of 1944, FDR and the Democrats do better.

I agree the French fleet would serve best in the meds. However if their presense would be so dramatically different for the war there i doubt. I don't think the British would become so bold as to start actual fleet operations to fight the Italian navy and thus gain control of the Meds so early that they could invade Sicily as early as that. It would mean less cacualties and better relieve of Malta, but nothing much more than that i think.

Ab tter Burma Campaign is also very likely. One made more succesfull if Indochina will be used by the Allies instead of Japan.

 

[Hashoosh]

I agree the French fleet would serve best in the meds. However if their presense would be so dramatically different for the war there i doubt. I don't think the British would become so bold as to start actual fleet operations to fight the Italian navy and thus gain control of the Meds so early that they could invade Sicily as early as that. It would mean less cacualties and better relieve of Malta, but nothing much more than that i think.

Ab tter Burma Campaign is also very likely. One made more succesfull if Indochina will be used by the Allies instead of Japan.

You don't think the British would be bold enough to pursue fleet ops? When they did while simultaneously also not having the MN as part of their force?

I agree that they probably wouldn't be taking Sicily in 1940, but they would certainly be evicting the Italians from Libya by strangling their supply and attacking from Tunisia. They could also cut off Sardinia from the mainland pretty easily, operating out of Corsica and Tunisia.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

Ab tter Burma Campaign is also very likely. One made more succesfull if Indochina will be used by the Allies instead of Japan.

Would there ever be war with the Japanese? Without occupation of Indochina US wouldn't impose sanctions on them, so they wouldn't attack US.

Political and military developments in Asia/Pacifica are going to be a lot different. There may not even be a war with Japan. OTL the critical turn towards war in the Pacific was the Japanese occupation of French Indo China. That event shocked a lot of isolationists in the US & enabled Roosevelt to organize the new embargos that forced Japans hand.

If Renaud forms a Free French government, still fighting allied with Britain, the first priority is going to be securing the colonies. There is very little Germany and collaborationist government can do about this.

Japanese entry into Indo China in this situation would be a declaration of war on the Allied French and British. OTL Germany gave the Japanese 'permission' and directed Petains government to allow it. With Renauds Free French controlling Indo China it becomes impossible for Japan to send soldiers there without a fight.

So, either a Pacific war starts 12 to 6 months early, or it does not start until much later or not at all as Japans government sees it cant win. No occupation as in OTL & no embargos in 1941 keeps tensions far lower & leaves Japan mired in fighting China.

The French have a great fleet for Mediterranean operations, but their destroyers and I think their cruisers are too short-legged for convoy operations in the Atlantic or operations in the Pacific. ....

Partly. A portion was designed for service globally. After all they did have a colonial empire to protect. A look at where the warships were based in 1940 reveals some of that. Otherwise a ship by ship examination of capabilites and design specs would sort it out. The South China Sea shares some of the characteristics of the Mediterranean, so its not like warships sent there would be operating in the winter gales of the north Atlantic.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

You don't think the British would be bold enough to pursue fleet ops? When they did while simultaneously also not having the MN as part of their force?

I agree that they probably wouldn't be taking Sicily in 1940, but they would certainly be evicting the Italians from Libya by strangling their supply and attacking from Tunisia. They could also cut off Sardinia from the mainland pretty easily, operating out of Corsica and Tunisia.

I'm imagining a Italian attack on Corsica. Wish I had time to make a board game of it

 

[lionhead]

You don't think the British would be bold enough to pursue fleet ops? When they did while simultaneously also not having the MN as part of their force?

I agree that they probably wouldn't be taking Sicily in 1940, but they would certainly be evicting the Italians from Libya by strangling their supply and attacking from Tunisia. They could also cut off Sardinia from the mainland pretty easily, operating out of Corsica and Tunisia.

Well Italy still had their fleet-in-being doctrine which worked at first. The British can't engage them directly. With the French fleet added i don't think that changes. The Italian fleet would crush the French one i think(?).

Corsica is not really good place to conduct operations from, with the Italian airforce and German one so close and no air or naval bases to fall back on.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Well Italy still had their fleet-in-being doctrine which worked at first. The British can't engage them directly. With the French fleet added i don't think that changes. The Italian fleet would crush the French one i think(?).

Looking at the numbers I'd think the Italians would be well advised to remain in port. Just the French fleet looks like a match. Add in the Brit navy and the Italian fleet had better at home. There is also the question of quality of leaders and training between the French & Italian navies.

Corsica is not really good place to conduct operations from, with the Italian airforce and German one so close and no air or naval bases to fall back on.

Yeah Corsica can be a bit exposed & isolated. Conversely France had built a number of large all weather airfields in Tunisia. They could support several hundred aircraft operating against Italian ships in the central Med from Tunisia. Their air base system extended west across Algeria & Morrocco. that included a completed assembly support facility for US made aircraft in Morrocco, and a near completed assembly/support facility in Algeria. If the Axis attempt to suppress the Tunisian airfields the Allies can rebase west out of reach and surge in aircraft to the Tunisian airfields on a as needed basis.

With the Tunisian airfields in Allied hands Malta becomes far less important, perhaps even irrelevant ( appologies to Malta fanatics)

 

[Look More Closely Later]

Malta

Didn't Malta have a rather large naval base? French North Africa being Allied means, it seems to me, that said Maltese naval base becomes the front-line of all Mediterranean naval activities against Italy.

 

[Hashoosh]

Didn't Malta have a rather large naval base? French North Africa being Allied means, it seems to me, that said Maltese naval base becomes the front-line of all Mediterranean naval activities against Italy.

It wasn't that large IIRC, more of a forward base for raiders (especially submarines) than a fleet base. The British would be operating out of Alexandria or Gibraltar (I think) with the French out of Algiers and Tunis. Tunis is so close to Malta that it doesn't matter either way, but has the added advantage of not being an island easily interdicted.

That said, once the Italians are out of Libya and fighting the MN (who are no slouches and probably a match on their own) and RN Med. fleet they're going to face economic ruin. Italy absolutely needs to be able to control its coastline, and it won't be doing much of that at this point.

 

[Glenn239]

I'm doubting there's much benefit to the Allies in the scenario being contemplated. One of the difficulties Germany had in getting Spain into the war was the inability to promise large swaths of Algeria, because Vichy had been allowed to keep these. Now with no Vichy regime to deal with Hitler can promise all of Morocco to Spain and partition Algeria between Italy and Spain. That opens up an inevitable and total Allied debacle - the fall of Gibraltar and all of French North Africa.

Best case scenario for the British is that the Anglo-French defeat in Africa is so total that Hitler is still able to turn and attack the Soviets in 1941. Worst case scenario for the Allies is that their defences are effective such that Barbarossa is postponed.

 

[lionhead]

Looking at the numbers I'd think the Italians would be well advised to remain in port. Just the French fleet looks like a match. Add in the Brit navy and the Italian fleet had better at home. There is also the question of quality of leaders and training between the French & Italian navies.



Yeah Corsica can be a bit exposed & isolated. Conversely France had built a number of large all weather airfields in Tunisia. They could support several hundred aircraft operating against Italian ships in the central Med from Tunisia. Their air base system extended west across Algeria & Morrocco. that included a completed assembly support facility for US made aircraft in Morrocco, and a near completed assembly/support facility in Algeria. If the Axis attempt to suppress the Tunisian airfields the Allies can rebase west out of reach and surge in aircraft to the Tunisian airfields on a as needed basis.

With the Tunisian airfields in Allied hands Malta becomes far less important, perhaps even irrelevant ( appologies to Malta fanatics)

Agreed, Tunesia and Algeria would be useful for the North African campagin. The French Fleet could be its own fleet-in-being against the Italians and so help secure the mediterranean earlier for the Allies. I stand corrected.

I'm doubting there's much benefit to the Allies in the scenario being contemplated. One of the difficulties Germany had in getting Spain into the war was the inability to promise large swaths of Algeria, because Vichy had been allowed to keep these. Now with no Vichy regime to deal with Hitler can promise all of Morocco to Spain and partition Algeria between Italy and Spain. That opens up an inevitable and total Allied debacle - the fall of Gibraltar and all of French North Africa.

Best case scenario for the British is that the Anglo-French defeat in Africa is so total that Hitler is still able to turn and attack the Soviets in 1941. Worst case scenario for the Allies is that their defences are effective such that Barbarossa is postponed

Spain in the war on the side of the Axis is not good news for the Axis, but for the allies. Spain had no capability to fight a war against the Allies.

Sure they would take Gibraltar and might cut the allies off temporary. But in the meds thats not going to be a much use as you might think, since they have the upper hand in the sea anyway. The Spanish navy is not going to be a problem. Spain taking all of Algeria is not going to hapen, they don't ahve the manpower or spirit to do it. Supplies might be cut off, but through Africa the Allies can get the reinforcements they need, difficult but possible. Soon enough the British will invade Spain and defeat the Spanish on their hometurf, easily, and thus force the Germans to guard the Pyrenees heavily to prevent a breakthrough. The Allies take back Gibraltar and even take the Balearic islands and Tangier, further strengetning their hold on the meds.

The only problem it causes for the Allies is the supply lines towards the Pacific just expanded tenfold. That would cause problems if the Japanese attack. But they got the USA to help with that. Plus India on itself is not completely helpless.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Conversely Franco is very aware all his petroleum and the balance of Spains grain requirement comes from the Americas. He was also aware Germany could make up the loss of either if Spain enters the war against Britain. I dont know who Spain depended on for investment capitol, but if any came from outside Spain it would not be from credit & cash poor Germany & Italy.

A promise of Morroco hardly guarantees replacing any petroleum, Argentinian or Kansas wheat, or bank credits from New York. It does guarantee interferance with seaborne trade, SOE operations in Spain, the cost of garrisoning Morroco, air attacks on Spain, the British and USS occupation of the Atlantic islands, and a variety of other anoyances.

Nuetrality is the least risky gamble for Franco.

:Edit: It is correct Germany can provide all the coal Spain would ever want

 

[Look More Closely Later]

It wasn't that large IIRC, more of a forward base for raiders (especially submarines) than a fleet base. The British would be operating out of Alexandria or Gibraltar (I think) with the French out of Algiers and Tunis. Tunis is so close to Malta that it doesn't matter either way, but has the added advantage of not being an island easily interdicted.

That said, once the Italians are out of Libya and fighting the MN (who are no slouches and probably a match on their own) and RN Med. fleet they're going to face economic ruin. Italy absolutely needs to be able to control its coastline, and it won't be doing much of that at this point.

Wikipedia, for what that's worth, says that the Royal Navy's Mediterranean fleet operated out of Malta until the mid-1930's when the fleet was moved due to worries about vulnerability to Italian air-power.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Fleet
So it would seem to me that if (with Tunisia) it could be considered that there is sufficient air-cover to protect Malta, that it could be used as a major naval base. Highly inconvenient for the Italians around Pantelleria/Lampedusa/etc and Sicily.