Vichy in the World War II

Martel said:
Darlan met with General Clark before the invasion (where they were both nearly arrested by French police!). FDR had offered medical help to Darlan's son who was also a polio sufferer. Darlan had been in contact with the Americans for some time before the invasion and was not accdientally in North Africa. Both the Americans and Darlan hoped to undercut British and Gaullist influence by providing an alternative. Darlan was a bad choice and of course Churchill more or less encouraged the Resistance to kill him.

Darlan did have contacts with US generals, and also with Admiral Leahy, the short-sighted US ambassador in Vichy. But my sources still say he still gave instructions to fight stubbornly in the first days of Torch. He had to be neutralized so a cease-fire could be agreed upon, after which he realized it was best to turn coats. What are your sources to say he was actually involved in the planning of Torch?

Darlan's assassination was plotted by the Count of Paris, who had met de Gaulle a couple of weeks beforehand. Some say de Gaulle let the Count dream of a new Restoration, to motivate him to help him against his opponents... Not sure if Churchill had anything to do with this. Curious to know your source as well.
 
Iñaki said:
Well, you have reason about the conditions of the armistice in Vichy Siria, the brits struck the deal with Vichy to ship the troops back to France, sorry my memory is not very good sometimes.:)

But... refering to more than a quarter of them,... errr

according to the very good book "Histoire de l´armee française de 1914 a nos jours" (History of the french army from 1914 until nowdays) of Philippe Mason of 35000 men that Vichy had in Siria (and you can discount the 1000 kias that Vichy had in the combats) only 2000 french soldiers join De Gaulle -yes you can add 2500 native troops but for this the logical thing is to remain in Syria and they join by pure logic not by believing in De Gaulle- and for the Vichy men that fight in Syria they think with hate about de gaullists, the Vichy soldiers of the old garrison of Syria that later were transported to the Vichy North Africa contributed to an atmosphere of antidegaullism and antibritish (these things become important when Operation Torch begins and the allies find the first days a hard resistance from the Vichy troops).

And well we have Hitler´s Europe of Arnold J. Toynbee (hmm Philippe Mason and Toynbe is possible that studied in the same school . A great amount of information in the two books!:cool: ) Toynbee say that of 38000 soldiers and officials of Vichy in Syria more than 35000 were shipped back to France.

So the most part of Vichy garrison not only remained loyal to Vichy also contributed in the future to a feeling of antidegaullism and antibritish when Operation Torch began.

I re-cheked my sources. It is a quarter of the soldiers the Gaullists had had a chance to contact. In the very limited amount of time they had (literally a couple of days), they couldn't reach out to all of the contingents, and even for the ones they could visit, they hardly had the time than give one or two speeches.
 
In this case yes, I agree,:) also is admited too by the french author Philippe Masson (and other authors) that there were great difficulties for De Gaulle to convince the brits about the possiblity of the Free French to make attempts to Vichy french in Syria to join Free France.

And well we know: the relations between Free France and the british was not good in Syria, De Gaulle and the british clash about the administration of Syria so if the brits and De Gaulle had had more good relations and brits had given more opportunities to De Gaulle to talk with the Vichy soldiers
is very possible so that more vichy soldiers had joined to Free France to fight against Germany.

But we have to consider that an important part of the french troops that joined De Gaulle were natives (this by logic prefered to remain in Syria with De Gaulle, there was any incentive for them to go to Metropolitan France or North Africa) also Vichy soldiers that fights very hard against the invasion of Syria by british and free french knew that Free France had helped the british in this invasion of Syria so I suppose that a majority of Vichy soldiers did not consider very well to the free french. (well the fact is that Vichy soldiers of Syria that go to North Africa after shipped back to France helped to reinforce the will to resist the first days against Torch).

But well is very possible that if De Gaulle had had more opportunities and time to talk with the Vichy soldiers, a 25-35% (more or less)- the quarter that you say -(although we had had to see how many of this soldiers were native or french to know exactly the loyalty of the french soldiers of Vichy)of this had joined to him, but the majority had prefered remain loyal to Vichy.
 
On one hand, if French Central Africa had not gone over to De Gaulle the Free or Fighting French movement might have been moribund from the start.

On the other, with a bit more perseverance on the part of local commanders, Dakar and therefore much of French Africa would have fallen to the Allies in 1940, and I believe that there were six cruisers(3 heavy, 3 light) and a not fully complete battleship there as potential spoils.

If that had happened, Hitler would have had no choice but to either deploy massively to North Africa or give Vichy France a chance to rearm, once the colonies started toppling and De Gaulle could field an infantry corps and could take on a battleship or two.

The question, of course, is what else a resurgent France might be up to. Once the French have some kind of air power, 15-20 divisions in North Africa, and the fleet as well, do they begin sending feelers once the US is in the war?
 
Originally posted by Grimm Reaper
If that had happened, Hitler would have had no choice but to either deploy massively to North Africa or give Vichy France a chance to rearm, once the colonies started toppling and De Gaulle could field an infantry corps and could take on a battleship or two.

Interesting, so we could have Rommel in Algeria fighting against the british and Free French and possibly two France fighting in differents sides: Vichy allied with the Axis and Free France allied with the allies, soo I would not like to be France in this ATL, a lot of clash and civil war between french,
whoa... this could be worse than Greece in 1944-45.:( :eek:

Imagine you Vichy France accusing of traitors Free France and fighting against them and brits with the help of Germany and Italy.

And Free France accusing of traitors Vichy France and figthing against them and the Axis with the help of british and later Americans.

So civil war in France that worse when the Allies will disembark in France.:( :eek:

(Dialogue between a Vichy french and a Free French when the allies disembark near Marsella in june 1944 (ATL the allies disembark in Provence not in Normandy):

-Vichy French: You traitor, you help these invaders and the communists against our beloved marshall Petain . Die!

-Free French: Me traitor! You are the traitor, you help the germans and this collaborationist regime. Die you!)

I only could say: My god!:( :eek:
 
Grimm Reaper said:
On one hand, if French Central Africa had not gone over to De Gaulle the Free or Fighting French movement might have been moribund from the start.

On the other, with a bit more perseverance on the part of local commanders, Dakar and therefore much of French Africa would have fallen to the Allies in 1940, and I believe that there were six cruisers(3 heavy, 3 light) and a not fully complete battleship there as potential spoils.

If that had happened, Hitler would have had no choice but to either deploy massively to North Africa or give Vichy France a chance to rearm, once the colonies started toppling and De Gaulle could field an infantry corps and could take on a battleship or two.

The question, of course, is what else a resurgent France might be up to. Once the French have some kind of air power, 15-20 divisions in North Africa, and the fleet as well, do they begin sending feelers once the US is in the war?

To get Senegal and French North Africa on de Gaulle's side (+ the excellent troops from the Narvik expedition who were still in the UK), simply avoid Mers-el-Kébir...
 
Grimm Reaper said:
On the other, with a bit more perseverance on the part of local commanders, Dakar and therefore much of French Africa would have fallen to the Allies in 1940, and I believe that there were six cruisers(3 heavy, 3 light) and a not fully complete battleship there as potential spoils.
Historically, the battleship Richelieu was engaged and damaged by the British before being captured. It was then sent to the States for refitting. It fought in the Pacific War.
 
benedict XVII said:
What are your sources to say he was actually involved in the planning of Torch?

Darlan's assassination was plotted by the Count of Paris, who had met de Gaulle a couple of weeks beforehand. Some say de Gaulle let the Count dream of a new Restoration, to motivate him to help him against his opponents... Not sure if Churchill had anything to do with this. Curious to know your source as well.
Darlan wasn't involved in planning Torch (which was going to happen with or without him). He was informed about some type of Allied operations in North Africa and to some extent help keep the resistance light in Algiers. The Americans were clearly trying to get him to agree to bring the administration of French North Africa along with him. Exactly how much they told him isn't clear, but he knew that something big was in the works and had been told pretty early on (he moved to Algiers in June I think). My main source is a speech given by General Clark a few weeks after the assassination in which he defended the deals cut with the Vichyites. Also the meetings between Clark and Darlan shortly before the invasion are pretty well known. I doubt they were discussing the weather.
As far as Churchill's involvement in Darlan's assassination, historians are unclear on exactly how much he was involved. The best work on it is called Assassination in Algiers, though I don't remember the author. Also Churchill's description of the assassination in his Memoirs doesn't explicitly say that he was involved, but his opinion on the deal was pretty clear. The SOE must have known his opinion and taken steps to move forward with it. Also the assassin's cell had contact with the SOE.
 
Interesting, so we could have Rommel in Algeria fighting against the british and Free French and possibly two France fighting in differents sides: Vichy allied with the Axis and Free France allied with the allies
Actually, I was thinking of O'Connor having to fight Vichy attacks from Syria while trying to hammer the Italians into the ground. It might not have needed Rommel to bolster Graziani, just Vichy being Axis. It could a) free Italian forces from the French frontier, b) enable Hitler to close the Med, & c) provide more (Vichy) manpower in Russia (out of the 1.6 million PWs, for instance)... OK, French tanks were pretty crappy, but in NAf, they didn't have to be real good, & even on EFront, a Char B or H35/H39 wouldn't be totally useless.

Oh...BUMP.:eek::eek:
 
Top