So, what if the plane that was carryng Le Grand Charles to London in 1940 crashed?
No Free France?
No Free France?
WI: No De Gaulle?
- Thread starter Mister Mister
- Start date
There would still be a Free France. She was knocked but not out. France still had her colonies in Africa and the San Pierre and Miquelon in the Western Hemisphere. The idea of resisting the Germans and the Vichy puppet government was there. Without De Gaulle, I suppose another charismatic person would take his place. Since I am not so familiar with French politics, anyone is free to correct me.
It's an interesting question; if de Gaulle died and this event delayed the creation of a Free France - like movement, Vichy officials could perhaps prevent the early defections, such as Eboue's by eliminating/neutralising officials harbouring real or suspected anti-Vichy feelings or by chance (for example, Eboue could probably be removed from his position on account of his colour, since the new government wouldn't be open to the idea of people like him holding administrative posts of significance); furthermore, early Free French operations such as Leclerc's attack on Duala on 27 August 1940 would most likely not happen, meaning that Chad and Camerun could remain under Vichy's control -for the time being at least. Together with some other changes (such as not moving Boisson to French West Africa so quickly or finding a proper replacement for him immediately - and certainly not Husson), Vichy could manage to maintain control over French Equatorial Africa - at least in the immediate future.
A Vichy-controlled AEF in 1940 could have other knock-on effects. For one, the British would have to commit more forces in the defence of thr Sudan and Nigeria, which may not be that dramatic a change, but it could have some consequences. Furthermore, the governor-general of the Belgian Congo, Pierre Ryckmans, might be more hesitant to join the Allies; combined with overtures and greater efforts of the remaining government officials in Belgium and Leopold III to maintain metropolitan control over the colony, perhaps there could be enough uncertainty and pressure that could force Ryckmans to declare neutrality instead. This in turn could impede Allied progress in certain areas, such as the atomic bomb programme, although the problem may not be that great, since no-one would probably object to the Belgian authorities selling uranium to the Allies and I doubt the Germans, even with a neutral Congo, could tap these resources or have a breakthrough in nuclear fission research.
A Vichy-controlled AEF in 1940 could have other knock-on effects. For one, the British would have to commit more forces in the defence of thr Sudan and Nigeria, which may not be that dramatic a change, but it could have some consequences. Furthermore, the governor-general of the Belgian Congo, Pierre Ryckmans, might be more hesitant to join the Allies; combined with overtures and greater efforts of the remaining government officials in Belgium and Leopold III to maintain metropolitan control over the colony, perhaps there could be enough uncertainty and pressure that could force Ryckmans to declare neutrality instead. This in turn could impede Allied progress in certain areas, such as the atomic bomb programme, although the problem may not be that great, since no-one would probably object to the Belgian authorities selling uranium to the Allies and I doubt the Germans, even with a neutral Congo, could tap these resources or have a breakthrough in nuclear fission research.
You get a different Free France but you will get one. All the occupied/fallen countries had a military in exile to one degree or another.
People will still flee France and will still want to liberate there homeland. And it was supplied and paid for by other countries. Add in that DeGaulle was not THAT significant before the fall of France. It is mot like he was the President of France or some other major historical Figure. His fame comes more from what he did in WW2 then anything else.
On the plus side, perhaps France does better after WW2 as i have alway thought that some of Frances positions after WW2 were as much DeGaulle‘s position more then what was neccisarily best for France. He always seamed to have a inferiority complex. I alwas wondered if this was a result of Degaulle and Free France being in a position where it had to depend on others such as GB and the USA to supply it and to do most of the heavy lifting of liberating France and French territory. Thus creating an inferiority complex. I also have wondered if the story of the French Underground is in part fueled by Frances need to feel like it had more say or input in it”s liberation and was not just a victim.
So i imagine that someone else could/would have stepped up. Do not get me Wrong DeGaulle did a good job with Free France. But it is not like he did something so amazing that only he could pull it off. If he had broght the French Fleet over or Or got the African colonies to joine the Wallies or something. But he didnt. He basicly did his job as a General. presumably other. Generals could have don this or other senior officers.
People will still flee France and will still want to liberate there homeland. And it was supplied and paid for by other countries. Add in that DeGaulle was not THAT significant before the fall of France. It is mot like he was the President of France or some other major historical Figure. His fame comes more from what he did in WW2 then anything else.
On the plus side, perhaps France does better after WW2 as i have alway thought that some of Frances positions after WW2 were as much DeGaulle‘s position more then what was neccisarily best for France. He always seamed to have a inferiority complex. I alwas wondered if this was a result of Degaulle and Free France being in a position where it had to depend on others such as GB and the USA to supply it and to do most of the heavy lifting of liberating France and French territory. Thus creating an inferiority complex. I also have wondered if the story of the French Underground is in part fueled by Frances need to feel like it had more say or input in it”s liberation and was not just a victim.
So i imagine that someone else could/would have stepped up. Do not get me Wrong DeGaulle did a good job with Free France. But it is not like he did something so amazing that only he could pull it off. If he had broght the French Fleet over or Or got the African colonies to joine the Wallies or something. But he didnt. He basicly did his job as a General. presumably other. Generals could have don this or other senior officers.
I agree that there will still be a Free France movement, France will be liberated, and the 4th Republic established similar to OTL. I am more interested in the impact of no DeGaulle on 1958. He was not the indispensable man in 1940, 1944, or 1946. I believe he was in 1958. Thoughts anyone?
Perhaps France would not withdraw from NATO (or an equivalent) integrated command. Remember De Gaulle wanted an independent foreign policy free from American or British influence.
Doug M's assessment of De Gaulle is pretty off really : De Gaulle was not considered "legitimate " with the US administration and as a result he was sideline from nearly all the planning and strategy for France's liberation.Until that was done France's military input was small ( 265,000 or so) but still significant as it was largely on the back of the North African French Army that was recruited after Operation Torch.Once France was liberated then a supplementary was raised in France bring up the total to aroun 450,000 men and filling in some of the gaps that the Allies had.
On the diplomatic front everyone must realise that the US maintained diplomatic relations with Vichy right up to late 1942...again undermining DeGaulle.
So the reasons an causes for DeGaulle's independent foreign policy can be traced back to then...
After the war was ended he quickly retired from the political scene until 1958 when he was appointed Prime Minister by President Coty.By that point France has lost badly in Indochina and was still fighting in Algeria, the 4th republic was highly unstable and reform was urgently required.That gave the 5th Republic that was accepted by referendum and he became president, negotiated an end to the Algerian war and inspire France to become a great nation again.
No De Gaulle...very different out come I think.I think his influence was cruicial and that is why he is such a figure of reference still today in France..
Firstly I cannot see anyone else standing up to the US so France is kept under US military control till it is liberated end 44,maybe till VE day.( This was the original US plan right the way up to D Day ). You possibly get a strong communist uprising towards early 45 or V day as the French Communists were the strongest element in the Resistance.Post war they could easily legitimatly take over and then Indochina and Algeria might get independence with minimal fighting.Another possibility if external forces become overbearing is a mass Communist uprising (like Greece for example ) maybe with support from Russia post VE day.Could get very messy and who knows if the US will hang around?
On the diplomatic front everyone must realise that the US maintained diplomatic relations with Vichy right up to late 1942...again undermining DeGaulle.
So the reasons an causes for DeGaulle's independent foreign policy can be traced back to then...
After the war was ended he quickly retired from the political scene until 1958 when he was appointed Prime Minister by President Coty.By that point France has lost badly in Indochina and was still fighting in Algeria, the 4th republic was highly unstable and reform was urgently required.That gave the 5th Republic that was accepted by referendum and he became president, negotiated an end to the Algerian war and inspire France to become a great nation again.
No De Gaulle...very different out come I think.I think his influence was cruicial and that is why he is such a figure of reference still today in France..
Firstly I cannot see anyone else standing up to the US so France is kept under US military control till it is liberated end 44,maybe till VE day.( This was the original US plan right the way up to D Day ). You possibly get a strong communist uprising towards early 45 or V day as the French Communists were the strongest element in the Resistance.Post war they could easily legitimatly take over and then Indochina and Algeria might get independence with minimal fighting.Another possibility if external forces become overbearing is a mass Communist uprising (like Greece for example ) maybe with support from Russia post VE day.Could get very messy and who knows if the US will hang around?
Last edited:
More than likely and the out come would be disastrous.After 4 years of German occupation any foreign power directly interfering would not be tolerated and the attack by the British at Mars el- khebir would be even more of a friction point than it already was and still is.
Unless someone equally important leads, there will be no Free France. Granted that De Gaulle was very presumptuous, but he had been elevated to a prominent position and had impressed Churchill. With him gone, there is no comparable figure that I know of. All of the other prominent Frenchmen of the time were associated with the defeat, with appeasement, or with some particular political faction that many other French disliked. Or were Jews (Leon Blum, Georges Mandel), which carried a whole raft of disabilities for the role.
Again, one must note how presumptuous De Gaulle's actions were. He asserted that the Pétain government (then in Bordeaux, later in Vichy) was illegitimate (despite the consent of the National Assembly). While Britain broke relations with Vichy, hardly anyone else did (not the USSR, US, or even Canada). It required great boldness and self-confidence for De Gaulle to launch "Free France".
I agree that eventually some sort of anti-Vichy committee in exile would be formed, but it would be much less active than OTL's Free France.
Again, one must note how presumptuous De Gaulle's actions were. He asserted that the Pétain government (then in Bordeaux, later in Vichy) was illegitimate (despite the consent of the National Assembly). While Britain broke relations with Vichy, hardly anyone else did (not the USSR, US, or even Canada). It required great boldness and self-confidence for De Gaulle to launch "Free France".
I agree that eventually some sort of anti-Vichy committee in exile would be formed, but it would be much less active than OTL's Free France.
There are alternatives to De Gaulle, but as it's been aptly pointed out, De Gaulle's actions in June 1940 - which earned him a ton of criticism and even resulted in other relevant individuals not wanting to work with him - provided a key boost in the long term. Without his forceful personality, an alt-Free France would most likely be even more of a junior Allied partner and probably eventually taken over by those who later abandon Vichy (Giraud, Darlan, etc.).
If De Gaulle dies on his flight to London and the rest of events stay as OTL, it seems possible that Jean Monnet - then in London - could be persuaded to lead some sort of exile committee, but on a much smaller scale. There's also the officers who first joined the Free French ranks (like Admiral Émile Muselier, who'd be guaranteed to implode following Mers-el-Kebir), though it's not like they attempted to take over De Gaulle's role even if they outranked him.
Now, if butterflies are allowed to develop after De Gaulle dies, there's always the possibility that, in the absence of De Gaulle's declaration, General Nogues in North Africa could end up following his initial instincts to oppose the Armistice and lead the alt-Free French efforts. And/or that recently minister Georges Mandel either evades arrest by Nogues in Morocco or is elevated alongside him if the General does not choose to follow Vichy. Having a higher profile than the rather obscure De Gaulle, Mandel would be a natural fit to lead a credible government in exile.
Dimissing the North Africa scenario, I'd say weaker Free France, longer ability by Vichy to hold onto its colonial posessions for a bit longer, and it's made far more likely that a Vichy defector ends up running the show later on. France is not guaranteed to miss De Gaulle in 1945-1946, but it's certainly possible someone could have handled the difficult domestic situation worse, and/or that there's a less clean break with the Third Republic.
Hard to say about 1958. Without De Gaulle around as an enigmatic figure causing so much rampant speculation on either side, it's safe to say the crisis probably plays out differently, particularly in terms of how it starts.
If De Gaulle dies on his flight to London and the rest of events stay as OTL, it seems possible that Jean Monnet - then in London - could be persuaded to lead some sort of exile committee, but on a much smaller scale. There's also the officers who first joined the Free French ranks (like Admiral Émile Muselier, who'd be guaranteed to implode following Mers-el-Kebir), though it's not like they attempted to take over De Gaulle's role even if they outranked him.
Now, if butterflies are allowed to develop after De Gaulle dies, there's always the possibility that, in the absence of De Gaulle's declaration, General Nogues in North Africa could end up following his initial instincts to oppose the Armistice and lead the alt-Free French efforts. And/or that recently minister Georges Mandel either evades arrest by Nogues in Morocco or is elevated alongside him if the General does not choose to follow Vichy. Having a higher profile than the rather obscure De Gaulle, Mandel would be a natural fit to lead a credible government in exile.
Dimissing the North Africa scenario, I'd say weaker Free France, longer ability by Vichy to hold onto its colonial posessions for a bit longer, and it's made far more likely that a Vichy defector ends up running the show later on. France is not guaranteed to miss De Gaulle in 1945-1946, but it's certainly possible someone could have handled the difficult domestic situation worse, and/or that there's a less clean break with the Third Republic.
Hard to say about 1958. Without De Gaulle around as an enigmatic figure causing so much rampant speculation on either side, it's safe to say the crisis probably plays out differently, particularly in terms of how it starts.
I feel its important to avoid presentism on this one: in June 1940 De Gaulle was a virtual unknown, a Brigage General and a mere undersecretary. Churchill's reasoning to recognise him was basically ''you know what, at this point why not?''
Its only when it became evident that Britain wasn't going anywhere and Free France started to built itself a significant territorial base that his stock started to rise.
Monnet is a possibility but IMO the favourite would be Georges Catroux, the former governor of French Indochina and an army general who rallied Free France very quickly. In OTL he was very much a loyal lieutenant for De Gaulle, accomplishing whatever tasks he was given without too much fuss and not getting too involved in politics. In many ways he might have been the Free French leader the Wallies wanted: discret, following the lead of first London and then Washington and simply being a caretaker, a rebuilder of the armed forces, an admistrator and a chairman until free elections can be held.
The leader they would have wanted might or might not turn out to be they would have needed, however, as Catroux's lesser charisma and political acumen would have probably meant a resistance that was less galvanised and less well held in reins then with De Gaulle, so pros and cons for the Wallies.
Its only when it became evident that Britain wasn't going anywhere and Free France started to built itself a significant territorial base that his stock started to rise.
Monnet is a possibility but IMO the favourite would be Georges Catroux, the former governor of French Indochina and an army general who rallied Free France very quickly. In OTL he was very much a loyal lieutenant for De Gaulle, accomplishing whatever tasks he was given without too much fuss and not getting too involved in politics. In many ways he might have been the Free French leader the Wallies wanted: discret, following the lead of first London and then Washington and simply being a caretaker, a rebuilder of the armed forces, an admistrator and a chairman until free elections can be held.
The leader they would have wanted might or might not turn out to be they would have needed, however, as Catroux's lesser charisma and political acumen would have probably meant a resistance that was less galvanised and less well held in reins then with De Gaulle, so pros and cons for the Wallies.
Without the consent of a substantial portion of the Assembly which was evaluating resistance in North Africa or was not yet in Bordeaux and wasn't even recalled for the vote (largely left-wing and opposed to Pétain), and with the consent itself being only on having the powers to write the constitution, not to fucking run the country and negociate the armistice.
Let's be honest, even July 1940 was functionally a coup. Pétain LIED. This is no better than Palpatine being elected Emperor in a single vote.
He could try but I doubt he would really succeed with much of the French military, political system, population and Allied leaderships fed up with dictatorial military bullshit.
That was discredited with Pétain. More likely France goes the Italian way but without sanctions since it wouldn't really be a former Axis member.
But De Gaulle asserted that Pétain's government was illegitimate on 19June. At that time, Pétain was "President of the Council of Ministers" (prime minister), appointed by President Lebrun on the recommendation of the incumbent, Paul Reynaud, on 16 June. Nothing had changed by 19 June. De Gaulle described Pétain's call for an armistice as treason, and called on the armed forces to refuse orders from the lawful government.
Doing so at that time seems a lot like an attempted coup d'état. Whatever the moral issues, De Gaulle was legally way out there. In the end he pulled it off, more credit to him, and as I noted, I doubt that anyone else would have or could have.
TDM
Kicked
Honestly I think the biggest changes would come after the war*. DeGaulle may have ended up the face of free France during the war but I don't think he caused anything to happen that wouldn't have happened one way or another
*for all the negative connotations of it at the time and in general, DeGaulle's pride ended up being the synonymous with / emblematic for French national pride post war, and I think France kind of needed that!
*for all the negative connotations of it at the time and in general, DeGaulle's pride ended up being the synonymous with / emblematic for French national pride post war, and I think France kind of needed that!
Last edited:
In that case yeah. Funny how he anticipated things would go to shit but not for the same reason (dictatorial state instead of simple armistice). To be fair the politicians never really wanted an armistice either but preferred capitulation since it would give them free reign to do what they want about the conflict. Pétain and Weygand forced their hand so that the honor of the army wouldn't be sullied (and really, so they have an army to take over a government they felt had been discredited).
Darlan's increasing willingness to give concessions for pretty minor payback suggests he had lost hope and self belief not long after the armistice. It doesn't give me confidence that he has the kind of character and self belief to lead the free French (or anyone else for that matter)..
Not to mention that the usual game was for the war winner to impose minor boundary changes and a swinging reparations payment then back to normal. The politicians were lining up things for the aftermath not the present. What they did not expect was to be left with everything still up in the air in an Armistice and the Germans still in charge. De Gaulle cut the Gordian Knot.