WI: Darlan is not countermanded

After Mers-el-Kebir, Admiral Darlan was incensed at the British. He ordered French ships in the Med to sortie and attack British shipping, and even to intercept Sommeville's ships. In OTL, Petain countermanded the orders, and instead broke off relations with the UK*. What happens if, for whatever reason, he is not able or simply chooses not to cancel the orders? How will it affect the war to have French ships hunting British shipping in the Med? What can the British send after them? More importantly, how will this effect Anglo-Vichy and US-Vichy relations?

Bruce, Robert B. "Petain: Verdun to Vichy". p. 99-100
 
The RAF and RN submariners would do their best to sink the Vichy fleet before they could even leave their Algerian ports. The British weren't really that squeamish about it IOTL, so I figure they'd try to pull off a French Taranto if they could afford the diversion of resources.
 
This would have major butterfly effects IMO. I don’t know how much military effect it would have had. Maybe this would have closed off the Mediterranean completely for the British? At any rate, it would have some big diplomatic repercussions.

You’d have a shooting war between two former allies. England would no longer be the plucky underdog standing up to nasty Germany, she’d be the back-stabbing perfidious Albion again. Americans would not be pleased as they were much more pro-France at the time than pro-British. England was their old enemy after all while France had helped America gain their independence. So could Roosevelt still push his lend-lease through to support England if those weapons were used against France? Unlikely IMO.

Military, England was pretty stretched in mid-to-late 1940. Adding the French could well have been the tipping point. The relationship between France and Germany would also change. Most likely, the Germans would not cripple French military power and perhaps even allow them some kind of junior ally status.

OTL, England was hard pressed keeping 2 run down panzer divisions at bay in North Africa from 1941 onwards. Imagine if just a few French troops were added to that mix. Either England loses the battle for North Africa or it is forced to invest more strength which leaves it weak elsewhere…

And with French aircraft gunning for British ships & aircraft in the Med, supporting Malta is out the window. Which means the Axis have much better supply lines.

Long term, would America still be welcomed as liberators if they were allied to the English?

In short, it would have grave consequences but you could spin it any way you like.
 
France ends WWII treated as a conquered member of the Axis, no occupation zone in Germany for France, possibly French colonies are never returned...all this requires Hitler to permit France to rearm, which is itself extremely unlikely.
 
France ends WWII treated as a conquered member of the Axis, no occupation zone in Germany for France, possibly French colonies are never returned...all this requires Hitler to permit France to rearm, which is itself extremely unlikely.

Agree up to the "..." Vichy France was not really disarmed by Germany. I suspect Hitler might welcome Vichy France as a fully armed ally and even offer in return a promise that German occupation zones necessary for the war would be returned to France upon victory over Britain. While Hitler admired Mussolini personally, there is no doubt he admired French military capabilities far more.
 
There is the distinct possibility of French ships turning themselves over to the British. The French servicemen were't exactly happy at the idea of attacking their recent allies to help the despised Germans.

There was the...interesting..air attack on (undefended) Gribraltar; many of the bombs were 'accidentally' dropped at sea (its a bloody big rock, its a bit difficult to miss....), and of those that hit, many of the fuses had been sabotaged by the ground crews.

I suspect Petain was thinking of this when he decided to leave well alone.
 

Archibald

Banned
There is the distinct possibility of French ships turning themselves over to the British. The French servicemen were't exactly happy at the idea of attacking their recent allies to help the despised Germans.
Good point. Between June 18 (De Gaulle call) and July 10 1940 (full powers to Pétain) options were still open. As for Darlan he was, above all, an opportunist. Hard to guess what this man decision would have been. But Darlan was neither anti-German nor anti-British.
For example, in France fights on, (and despite all his flaws) he makes a very normal career as an admiral of the French Navy, period.
 

Cook

Banned
After Mers-el-Kebir, Admiral Darlan was incensed at the British. He ordered French ships in the Med to sortie and attack British shipping, and even to intercept Sommeville's ships. In OTL, Petain countermanded the orders, and instead broke off relations with the UK.
Darlan’s orders were not countermanded until after the Rigault de Genouilly had made a torpedo attack on the Hood (missing), there had been a string of other clashes between British and Vichy naval vessels, several air battles and the French air force had bombed Gibraltar two days in a row, damaging the docks and forcing the fleet to make a run for the sea. Royal Navy officers, inexperienced with the limited accuracy of high altitude bombing, initially reported that they believed many of the Vichy air crew weren’t enthusiastic about their mission because half of the bombs fell in to harbour and sea beyond, after more experience with bombing that assessment was revised.

While Vichy did not declare war on Britain, it did spend the next two and a half years fighting the British anyway. That they did not declare war stems more from clumsy diplomacy by the Germans than from Vichy caution; there were many in Petain’s cabinet who wanted a declaration of war, Laval and Darlan being the most prominent, but without Germany finalising a peace treaty with Vichy there was a limit to how far they could go formally.
You’d have a shooting war between two former allies. England would no longer be the plucky underdog standing up to nasty Germany, she’d be the back-stabbing perfidious Albion again. Americans would not be pleased as they were much more pro-France at the time than pro-British.
They weren’t; Roosevelt fully agreed with the British action act Mers-el-Kebir, he told the French Ambassidor, Count de St Quentin that “even if there was only the remote possibility of seeing your fleet pass into German hands, the British government had reason to act as it did. I would not have acted otherwise.”
There is the distinct possibility of French ships turning themselves over to the British.
There was no possibility of French ships being handed over to the British; Darlan’s orders were greeted enthusiastically by the fleet. The Vichy ships that defended Dakar in September, including the Richelieu and L’Audacieux had passed out of the Mediterranean following Mers-el-Kebir and had fired on the British at Gibraltar while doing so. After sinking Vichy vessels and downing several aircraft at Dakar, when the British went to rescue the survivors floating in the water they were greeted with shouts of ‘vive Petain!’ and ‘vive Hitler!’

The person for whom things were most difficult after Mers-el-Kebir was de Gaulle, who found it even harder to recruit for the Free French than he had before.

But Darlan was neither anti-German nor anti-British.
Darlan was a vehement Anglophobe and the most enthusiastic collaborator.
 
Last edited:
ranoncles said:
This would have major butterfly effects IMO. I don’t know how much military effect it would have had.

Adding the French could well have been the tipping point. The relationship between France and Germany would also change. Most likely, the Germans would not cripple French military power and perhaps even allow them some kind of junior ally status.
I've thought about Vichy becoming a full-fledged ally, on a par with Romania. If it happens, the effect on Britain is life-threatening: it frees Dakar for U-boats.:eek::eek::eek::eek: It opens the South Atlantic & Caribbean in ways Dönitz could scarcely dream of OTL.

What does this do to Coastal Command? Does it mean squadrons of Stirlings in Newfoundland & Bermuda? (I know, this is an old dream of mine.:p) Does it mean the U.S. is drawn into the European war, thanks to more U-boat sinkings of U.S. merchants, sooner?

Does it mean Yamamoto accelerates planning for Pearl Harbor? Or gambles, instead, on the Southern Option without it?

Does this mean invasion of Egypt from Vichy Syria?:eek: Closing the Med from Vichy Morocco? The fall of Malta?

ranoncles said:
would America still be welcomed as liberators if they were allied to the English?
Seeing they're freeing France from the Nazis, I don't see why not.
Grimm Reaper said:
France ends WWII treated as a conquered member of the Axis, no occupation zone in Germany for France
Vichy might be, but that doesn't mean there's not still a Free French government, which would deserve one. It does mean the U.S. is going to want another figurehead for its Free French leader, presuming FDR & Winston still can't stand Le Grand Charles.:rolleyes: It does appear Free France would have to be a more equal parnter, tho. That being so, an equal French occupation zone in Germany postwar is likely IMO.
Grimm Reaper said:
possibly French colonies are never returned
With France an active Axis partner, I'd agree. Which means U.S. refuses to turn back Vietnam.:cool: This avoids the 10,000 Day War.:cool::cool: (And butterflies Oliver Stone's career.:eek::cool: It also butterflies Bolan.:eek: {Which might lead to Joe Copp a lot earlier, tho.:cool:})
 
Top