The Free French without Generale de Gaulle

My question is two fold. Firstly, what would be some good PODs for removing de Gaulle from a position of leadership among the upper echelons of the Free French forces? And secondly, what sort of a role would the Free French play in the European and North African theatres without de Gaulle's rather assertive and ambitious agenda?
 
My question is two fold. Firstly, what would be some good PODs for removing de Gaulle from a position of leadership among the upper echelons of the Free French forces? And secondly, what sort of a role would the Free French play in the European and North African theatres without de Gaulle's rather assertive and ambitious agenda?

There where quite a few struggles between the Free French officers. Both the Americans and the British would have preferred general Henri Giroud, who was much more agreeable. Perhaps the Anglosaxons would have demanded that he should be in command.

Another possibility could be the defection of Admiral Darlan. He was a highranking Vichy official, who was captured during Operation Torch, defected and was appointed High Commissioner of French Northern Africa. The man was assasinated before doing anything and was considered a pompous opportunist by the allies, but as High Commissioner he had quite some power, on paper at least.
 
There where quite a few struggles between the Free French officers. Both the Americans and the British would have preferred general Henri Giroud, who was much more agreeable. Perhaps the Anglosaxons would have demanded that he should be in command.

Another possibility could be the defection of Admiral Darlan. He was a highranking Vichy official, who was captured during Operation Torch, defected and was appointed High Commissioner of French Northern Africa. The man was assasinated before doing anything and was considered a pompous opportunist by the allies, but as High Commissioner he had quite some power, on paper at least.
But giroud had no support, and darlan was pretty dicy politically.

I suspect in this case the free french are much weaker, france doesnt get a zone in germany, and may not get a seat on the security council.

The allies were lucky to get de gaulle, as churchill realised, even if he was a royal pain to deal with.
 
If Georges Mandel defects to the Free French in late June 1940 as he was pressured to do by Churchill and others. He would then likely emerge as the clear leader of the Free French.

De Gaulle would likely remain as military leader though, but having a politician as leader would also change a lot of other things.
 
It's him that put the whole thing together without him there would have been no Free France just some french units under british leadership or separate and independent movement. Without him today France would be weaker.
 
Last edited:
If Georges Mandel defects to the Free French in late June 1940 as he was pressured to do by Churchill and others. He would then likely emerge as the clear leader of the Free French.

De Gaulle would likely remain as military leader though, but having a politician as leader would also change a lot of other things.
Well if the Genocide is to be believed he was held along with Paul Reynaud, Edouard Daladier and General Maurice Gamelin - quite a bag - all together early on and Churchill tried to arrange a rescue but it never happened. So as a point of departure what happens if thanks to an inside man or two a successful commando raid goes ahead and all four of them are spirited away to the UK? That leaves things much more open I'd think.
 
Top