Philippe Petain is ill-regarded in France today, for his role in the pro-nazi Vichy Regime. Prior to that he was a fierce French patriot and nationalist- the Lion of Verdun. So, what if, after the capitulation of the 3rd Republic, he made his way to Algiers with Charles De Gaulle, the up and coming general, and was a joint leader of the resistance? He can have similar political views, hell he can have the same, but he refuses to cooperate with the German jackboots. What does this mean for the Resistance? Would it prompt in fighting? If so, which faction would Britain and America favor? What about Vichy? who else could Germany prop up as a scape-goat, or was Petain the only real option? What could this mean for post war france?
 
Philippe Petain is ill-regarded in France today, for his role in the pro-nazi Vichy Regime. Prior to that he was a fierce French patriot and nationalist- the Lion of Verdun. So, what if, after the capitulation of the 3rd Republic, he made his way to Algiers with Charles De Gaulle, the up and coming general, and was a joint leader of the resistance? He can have similar political views, hell he can have the same, but he refuses to cooperate with the German jackboots. What does this mean for the Resistance? Would it prompt in fighting? If so, which faction would Britain and America favor? What about Vichy? who else could Germany prop up as a scape-goat, or was Petain the only real option? What could this mean for post war france?
It strengthens the French Resistance marginally simply because whatever puppet government is set up has less legitimacy. Petain is thought of much better.
 
Well Petain was elected by the government, so if he refuses to collaborate, others will get on the band-wagon too. Of course, a refusal to cooperate with the Nazis probably means Case Anton happens a lot earlier, but if Petain hadn't already given up, he'd probably have retreated.
 
Last edited:
Well with France fully occupied the French Empire would remain in the war led from Algeria. The French Navy either blows up its immobile ships in France or bolts to North Africa and Britain, the same is true for the French Air Force. The war in North Africa ends by mid 1941.
 
It depends on if Admiral Darlan sees Petain's authority in Algiers as legitimate. If he does, the French Navy will go to North Africa with the government's gold, the U.S. will have a place to send the planes that the French government had ordered, the Army and Navy can organize a withdrawal of soldiers and of essential civilians and military factory equipment across the Med, most of the French Empire will declare allegiance to Petain, and the U.S. will see the Allies as having a chance of turning things around. France's well-deserved punishment of Italy will begin within months in coordination with the British. Question: will the Germans, desperate to stop the withdrawal, postpone its attack on Britain and thus give the RAF time to better prepare?
 
If the French government retreats to North Africa, the entire North African Campaign is over in early 1941.
 
Well with France fully occupied the French Empire would remain in the war led from Algeria. The French Navy either blows up its immobile ships in France or bolts to North Africa and Britain, the same is true for the French Air Force. The war in North Africa ends by mid 1941.
1941? Why not 1940?
 
Because the British forces in Egypt aren't large enough for an offensive yet and the French in North Africa will need to reorganise any forces that make it to them from France before they can launch an attack.
 
With Petain and De Gaulle, it could go a number of ways -
  • Intense rivalry splitting the French into factions
  • De Gaulle gains supremacy with Petain as either a figurehead or mentor of sorts or possibly sidelined.
  • Petain retains the lead role but is somewhat tarred by being more senior in his role in the fall of France.
  • Both manage to work together. While both maintain similar views, they both have quite substantial egos...
I tend to think option B - De Gaulle was good at marketing himself and had demonstrated an ability and willingness to fight the Nazis. Petain is seen as ‘the old guard’ that led to failure and the fall of France, but is still respected, if only for siding with the Free French.

Not wanting to derail the thread, but with such a big move to Algeria to support liberating France, the post war situation there will be interesting...
 
With Petain and De Gaulle, it could go a number of ways -
  • Intense rivalry splitting the French into factions
  • De Gaulle gains supremacy with Petain as either a figurehead or mentor of sorts or possibly sidelined.
  • Petain retains the lead role but is somewhat tarred by being more senior in his role in the fall of France.
  • Both manage to work together. While both maintain similar views, they both have quite substantial egos...
I tend to think option B - De Gaulle was good at marketing himself and had demonstrated an ability and willingness to fight the Nazis. Petain is seen as ‘the old guard’ that led to failure and the fall of France, but is still respected, if only for siding with the Free French.
Petain has a history in the 30s of trying to improve the army in numbers and quality, but being repeatedly blocked by the government, so he's probably going to be seen at least somewhat favourably. He's also someone who's willing to work with others, unlike De Gaulle, who was an egotist.
 
Petain has a history in the 30s of trying to improve the army in numbers and quality, but being repeatedly blocked by the government, so he's probably going to be seen at least somewhat favourably. He's also someone who's willing to work with others, unlike De Gaulle, who was an egotist.
He did the reverse, not asking for much as war minister
 
He did the reverse, not asking for much as war minister
He asked for more money for the army, and for an extension of the length of conscription from 2 years to 3. He also overrode Daladier's proposal to reduce the number of officers, and improved recruitment of specialists. And remember, he was only Minister of War for 9 months or so, so he had a pretty good track record.
 
He asked for more money for the army, and for an extension of the length of conscription from 2 years to 3. He also overrode Daladier's proposal to reduce the number of officers, and improved recruitment of specialists. And remember, he was only Minister of War for 9 months or so, so he had a pretty good track record.
Hmm didn't know that, thanks
 
Yeah, he did what he could, but he was sort of limited in what he could do by the rest of the government. Of course, he was 84, so it's quite possible he would have ended up getting side-lined anyway. But his reputation would have been much more positive at least.
 

Garrison

Donor
Philippe Petain is ill-regarded in France today, for his role in the pro-nazi Vichy Regime. Prior to that he was a fierce French patriot and nationalist- the Lion of Verdun. So, what if, after the capitulation of the 3rd Republic, he made his way to Algiers with Charles De Gaulle, the up and coming general, and was a joint leader of the resistance? He can have similar political views, hell he can have the same, but he refuses to cooperate with the German jackboots. What does this mean for the Resistance? Would it prompt in fighting? If so, which faction would Britain and America favor? What about Vichy? who else could Germany prop up as a scape-goat, or was Petain the only real option? What could this mean for post war france?
The problem is that when you look at his WWI record alongside WWII Petain seems to be something of a fatalist, if he had his way in 1918 during the Spring Offensive Germany might well have won. I fear he would be far to negative an influence to last long with DeGaulle, not to mention Churchill and Roosevelt. If he was more willing to fight then France probably doesn't formally surrender and instead retreats to Algeria, with Petain as the senior government figure, at least until he decides all is lost again.
 
Yeah, he did what he could, but he was sort of limited in what he could do by the rest of the government. Of course, he was 84, so it's quite possible he would have ended up getting side-lined anyway. But his reputation would have been much more positive at least.
More on his policies (and his desires before and after his term as war minister) here (in French): https://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/61817?lang=fr

He indeed did a very positive if incomplete job, completely reversing (or attempting to reverse) the previous defensive policy focused on fortifications and reserves at the expense of the professional forces:
- he convinced Barthou to work with him to revitalize the alliances with Poland and the eastern european states, and to bring Italy back on the Entente's side, while warning Britain about its lack of involvement.

- he financed or tried to finance major equipment acquisitions to create strong armored and air forces that could go on the offensive beyond the fortifications, aknowledging the fact that Luxemburg would likely not be neutral ground. He always sought after WW1 to create a mobile force and did not believe in fortifications (not only them).

- he wanted to improve cooperation between the three branches, and between the armed forces and the industry by creating a place for a commander of all branches (never done due to the opposition of the three branches), and a sort of equivalent to the Ministry of Supply (not done either). This lack of coordination partially explains the late and difficult rearmament.

- he wanted to reinforce the professionalism of the army and get around the issue of the hollow classes of 34 and later, reinforcing the role of NCOs, improving reserve training, increasing the standing army size and bringing part of the 1933 class back. He was in favor of greater military/patriotic education, to keep morale high and increase recruit skill.

Budgetary constraints, lack of political support and action (Doumergue completely failed as Président du Conseil here, also failing to enact constitutional reforms), opposition from army branches screwed him over.
 
Yeah, he did what he could, but he was sort of limited in what he could do by the rest of the government. Of course, he was 84, so it's quite possible he would have ended up getting side-lined anyway. But his reputation would have been much more positive at least.
I think this hits the nail on the head - 84 year old hero (but associated with the failure of the defeated government) vs ‘young’ dashing hero with an ego leads to his effective sidelining, though remembered in a more positive light. Would this have given more weight to the Free French cause, leading to the colonies siding with them over the Vichy regime, perhaps avoiding the unpleasantness of Meers-el-Kebir?
 
Top