Cook said:
As heads of an exile government, neither Daladier nor Mandel would have been perfect, but then an obscure Brigadier-General with no political experience and a prickly personality wasn't either. Daladier was a virtual manic depressive who sustained himself through the crisis of 1940 by drinking heavily; many witnesses describe him reeking of Absinthe during cabinet meetings, but his public image was stronger and inspired more respect than his private one. Mandel’s character was outstanding for the role of an exiled leader; he’s was calm, unflappable, resolute and determined, the only thing going against him was that he was a Jew, and this was something that the Vichy regime and the Germans would have used for maximum propaganda effect. The best scenario would have been for both Daladier and Mandel to have got to England, preferably with Campinchi as well; Daladier would have become the head of the provisional government with Mandel providing the reliable anchor and capable administration, while Campinchi would have been able to issue orders to the French Fleet with at least some confidence of outweighing the orders issued by Darlan.
None would have equalled the prestige of Petain, but they all had more political prestige, clout and public profile than de Gaulle had, with the possibility of more colonies and men joining the Free French cause.
Thanks for this. Very interesting indeed.
This really does change the complexion of the war. French crews for DDs & corvettes would be an enormous help, especially for RCN escort groups.
It makes me wonder if this has Winston treating Fr more as equal, & if it only encourages stupid adventures in Africa & Italy...
Do French colonies have any manufacturing capacity to make up losses? (Obviously access to French gold reserves mean more shipping & weapons from the U.S.) Which also suggests no Bengal famine.
It's likely Italy is thrown out of North Africa before Rommel &
DAK arrive.

It's probable the forces going ashore for Neptune will add at least one French division in place of an American one, tho it's possible a stronger French ally will want an earlier (1943?) invasion: this may even be possible with more French money & manpower.
It obviously means France will have an equal share of Berlin & Germany postwar... It also probably means France is more strongly allied with Britain & the U.S. against the Sovs.
Does it move Fr to make colonies more into commonwealths postwar? Hence no wars in Algeria & Vietnam...


I wonder if a stronger French presence doesn't mean Canada avoids the 1944 conscription crisis & the rise of the
FLQ, as well as the
October Crisis.
Take a look at it from the other side, tho: what does Hitler do? Does he occupy all of France? Does he even offer a pissed off Vichy the chance to become a genuine (if junior) ally?
