WI: No Free French in WWII
- Thread starter Aranfan
- Start date
In the main direction of the war - very little difference. maybe a slight plus effect with Churchill & FDR having less distractions from de Gaulle.
IMO less likely for the side-shows of Dakar and Madagasscar (?) to go ahead, and would the British take-over Syria without Free French help - though the 'Vichy' fighting may have been less!?
Still think the Torch landings would go ahead, and therefore here also less 'Allied' ex-Vichy French conflict with 'Free French' e.g. Darlan lives!
Question is - how less would the resistance be in France without the inspiration of the Free French?
Post war the French may not be so anti-'anglo-saxon' - because of de Gaulle's attitude to Churchill & FDR.
IMO less likely for the side-shows of Dakar and Madagasscar (?) to go ahead, and would the British take-over Syria without Free French help - though the 'Vichy' fighting may have been less!?
Still think the Torch landings would go ahead, and therefore here also less 'Allied' ex-Vichy French conflict with 'Free French' e.g. Darlan lives!
Question is - how less would the resistance be in France without the inspiration of the Free French?
Post war the French may not be so anti-'anglo-saxon' - because of de Gaulle's attitude to Churchill & FDR.
Personally, I think the affect on the outcome and campaigns of WW2 would be minimal.
A major long-range impact might be an entirely different attitude toward France by the victorious allies. Rather than being considered an equal allied power, France would be considered at the end of the war at best a liberated occupied nation and at worst a collaborator with the 3rd Reich, possibly even more more loathesome than Franco's Spain. France would certailnly not become an initial member of the wartime United Nations, and would therefore not earn a place on the Security Council, which might comprise only the USA, USSR, China, and UK. French colonies and offshore territories occupied by the British and US during the war might be placed into UN mandate immediately upon the close of the war, and not returned to French control. This might affect the whole post-war Algerian independence movement and developments in Indochina, There may not be any major Vietnamese conflict involving the USA, for example, since Indochina would be a UN mandate en route to independence, presumabely under the Viet Minh.
Then whole result might be a significally weaker, less independent, and less influential France today. A France without its own nuclear force and in many other ways much less powerful.
THis might also affect the probability and potential for post-war European unification and British involvement with this. In OTL, the US, UK, and even USSR could support Franco-German rapprochement because France was a confirmed ally in WW2. It could be assumed that France would act to counterbalance any risk of renewed German friskiness. If this occured in the context of a France which had been in effect a compliant German semi-ally in WW2, the major powers might suspiciously see this as a dangerous potential consolidation West German power in Europe - a sort of "lose the war, win the peace" thing for Germany.
A major long-range impact might be an entirely different attitude toward France by the victorious allies. Rather than being considered an equal allied power, France would be considered at the end of the war at best a liberated occupied nation and at worst a collaborator with the 3rd Reich, possibly even more more loathesome than Franco's Spain. France would certailnly not become an initial member of the wartime United Nations, and would therefore not earn a place on the Security Council, which might comprise only the USA, USSR, China, and UK. French colonies and offshore territories occupied by the British and US during the war might be placed into UN mandate immediately upon the close of the war, and not returned to French control. This might affect the whole post-war Algerian independence movement and developments in Indochina, There may not be any major Vietnamese conflict involving the USA, for example, since Indochina would be a UN mandate en route to independence, presumabely under the Viet Minh.
Then whole result might be a significally weaker, less independent, and less influential France today. A France without its own nuclear force and in many other ways much less powerful.
THis might also affect the probability and potential for post-war European unification and British involvement with this. In OTL, the US, UK, and even USSR could support Franco-German rapprochement because France was a confirmed ally in WW2. It could be assumed that France would act to counterbalance any risk of renewed German friskiness. If this occured in the context of a France which had been in effect a compliant German semi-ally in WW2, the major powers might suspiciously see this as a dangerous potential consolidation West German power in Europe - a sort of "lose the war, win the peace" thing for Germany.
Last edited:
While it really doesn't change the outcome, it could make things more interesting. Maybe a higher price is paid by the allies to keep shipping lanes open in the North Atlantic? My quick count on wiki showed 42 vessels in the Free French Navy but 12 were on loan from the UK, one from the US and several others were obsolete or sail ships etc. Now if somehow the UK destruction of the teeth of the French fleet were to go away, then it would be a much more formidable aquisition.
Cook
Banned
Syria was conquered in June-July 1941 in Operation Exporter by the Australian 7th Division plus two Free French Brigades and an Indian Brigade.
So yes, without the Free French Syria would most definitely still have been taken.
I assume that there would be some sort of Free France or France government in exile (at least in Moscow 
) sooner or later. My interpretation of the thread is, that there is no "De Gaulle-FF" directly in June 1940, contesting Vichy for control of the French colonies.
At the very latest, summer 1944 would see a pro-Allied French Government, but the probable date for that would be after the liberation of Algiers in the course of Operation Torch.
An even worse one?
Internally, the French could still create enough myths about a nation completely being part of the Resistance.
Well, at least France fought in 1939 and 1940. So to say. And then it was occupied/neutral. Or one could say it was a compliant semi-ally of the Axis in OTL already.
French would fight again 1944 onwards- even Italians fought against Germany at that point.
For who were the Free French? A useful fraction of renegades, handily with some troops willing to fight, but with a leader who was a pain in the...
They were at times seen as useful by the other Allies, but often enough as an utter nuisance.
Concerning the UN, how about a comparison with Denmark? Denmark didn't have a government in exile either, resisted for two hours in 1940 and yet it was a founding member of the United Nations in 1945. But you are right, I see the Security Council seat for France gone (which might much later on pave the way for a European seat).
Of course, the situation would be wholly different if France joined the Axis as a belligerent power. But that would be a different thread.
I cannot see the French empire being dissolved akin to the Italian colonial possessions. I am sure that Britain wouldn't allow that to happen as this would put an immense pressure upon it to immediately let go of its colonies as well.
I still assume that France would become a nuclear power in the medium run, as long as it wouldn't be explicitly forbidden to do so (which I do not see). Also, a weaker France might even more so try to strengthen its influence through European unification. Also, there is much more to European unification than a mean to control (West-)Germany, though this idea came back to the surface at the time of re-unification. It was even more a mean to strengthen the Western European economies, raise the level of national income and thus to fight Communism- and also to prevent any new wars among the European nations.
Happened anyways. Ask Maggie.
) sooner or later. My interpretation of the thread is, that there is no "De Gaulle-FF" directly in June 1940, contesting Vichy for control of the French colonies.At the very latest, summer 1944 would see a pro-Allied French Government, but the probable date for that would be after the liberation of Algiers in the course of Operation Torch.
An even worse one?
Internally, the French could still create enough myths about a nation completely being part of the Resistance.
Well, at least France fought in 1939 and 1940. So to say.
And then it was occupied/neutral. Or one could say it was a compliant semi-ally of the Axis in OTL already. French would fight again 1944 onwards- even Italians fought against Germany at that point.
For who were the Free French? A useful fraction of renegades, handily with some troops willing to fight, but with a leader who was a pain in the...
They were at times seen as useful by the other Allies, but often enough as an utter nuisance.
Concerning the UN, how about a comparison with Denmark? Denmark didn't have a government in exile either, resisted for two hours in 1940 and yet it was a founding member of the United Nations in 1945. But you are right, I see the Security Council seat for France gone (which might much later on pave the way for a European seat).
Of course, the situation would be wholly different if France joined the Axis as a belligerent power. But that would be a different thread.
I cannot see the French empire being dissolved akin to the Italian colonial possessions. I am sure that Britain wouldn't allow that to happen as this would put an immense pressure upon it to immediately let go of its colonies as well.
I still assume that France would become a nuclear power in the medium run, as long as it wouldn't be explicitly forbidden to do so (which I do not see). Also, a weaker France might even more so try to strengthen its influence through European unification. Also, there is much more to European unification than a mean to control (West-)Germany, though this idea came back to the surface at the time of re-unification. It was even more a mean to strengthen the Western European economies, raise the level of national income and thus to fight Communism- and also to prevent any new wars among the European nations.
Happened anyways.
Ask Maggie.Allow me the correction: Italy was in a slightly different position, with the monarchist who sided with the allies, while the R.S.I. fought for the axis till the end. No matter the mith about resistance build after war, the correct term is civil war.
A little side question. With no Free France, could the americans ignore North Africa altogether and push to land in Europe earlier than OTL. Maybe not in France, but what about freeing Norway?
Answer : the Resistance would have been more or less the same, but with less efficiency and less legitimacy. And it would have been heavily communist.
Curiously, here we think that FDR's (and to a lesser extent Churchill's)attitude to France and De Gaulle justified Gaullist policies towards the USA and UK in the 1960's. Funny, isn't it ? Anyway, you give us too many occasions to be anti 'anglo-saxon'. I can assure you that the 2003-2004 francophobia period is not and won't be forgotten.
You odn't think the loss of intelligence from France and hundreds of thousands of troops would change the outcome at all?
Cook
Banned
The British offer of an Anglo-French Union in June 16, 1940 gives you a very good opportunity to have an OTL without the Free French.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/400616a.html
There would not have been a Royal Navy attack on the French Navy in Oran, the French Fleet would instead have been combined with the Royal Navy and operated against the Axis throughout the War.
All overseas French possessions would have come under the command of the new Joint Government, including North Africa.
There would have been no Armistice and no Vichy Government, unless Germany chose to set up a puppet regime as an alternative.
This would mean that Axis forces may have been needed to invade Tunisia and Algeria in 1940 or 1941.
Thinking in the longer term would the Anglo-French Union survive after the War?
The Union may have formed the seed to a European Union in the late 1940’s, early 1950’s.
The De-Colonialisation period would be interesting.
Britain’s withdraw from Empire was mostly less bloody than Frances. This could mean a rift in the Union over independence of Algeria. Or different tactics used in French Indo-China.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/400616a.html
There would not have been a Royal Navy attack on the French Navy in Oran, the French Fleet would instead have been combined with the Royal Navy and operated against the Axis throughout the War.
All overseas French possessions would have come under the command of the new Joint Government, including North Africa.
There would have been no Armistice and no Vichy Government, unless Germany chose to set up a puppet regime as an alternative.
This would mean that Axis forces may have been needed to invade Tunisia and Algeria in 1940 or 1941.
Thinking in the longer term would the Anglo-French Union survive after the War?
The Union may have formed the seed to a European Union in the late 1940’s, early 1950’s.
The De-Colonialisation period would be interesting.
Britain’s withdraw from Empire was mostly less bloody than Frances. This could mean a rift in the Union over independence of Algeria. Or different tactics used in French Indo-China.