Didn't Roosevelt and de Gaulle meet at Casablanca in early 1943? That's about a year before Roosevelt's death?
WI: Petain Joined The Resistance With De Gaulle?
- Thread starter AltoRegnant
- Start date
God I hate De Gaulle with a burning passion sidelining is a positive for me. Also would this allow for a earlier Italian invasion to take pressure of the Soviet Union? Also I think one reasons why FDR trusted stalin is because he thought Stalin trusted him and would listen to him, they did have a good relationship so who knows.
the difference being, Petain becomes the head of the government-in-exile, which means that there is no question over legitimacy.
IIRC Roosevelts view of DeGualle was based on reports from the military & state department reps that worked with him 1942-1944. Those were not favorable.
Of course reports on Giraud & Darlan were unfavorable as well. The other really capable French political/military leaders were pretty well neutered by latter 1942.
Of course reports on Giraud & Darlan were unfavorable as well. The other really capable French political/military leaders were pretty well neutered by latter 1942.
I recommend reading Simon Berthon's War Between the Allies about the conplicated relationship between Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaulle.
Simply put, De Gaulle was reluctantly recognised as leader of Free France by Churchill since he was just a colonel with no political or military authority to represent a government-in-exile. Now, despite the Mers-El-Kebir incident, Britain kept open channels with Vichy during 1941 and also supported De Gaulle as a counterweight to Vichy collaboration with Nazi Germany. Churchill tried to work with De Gaulle during the rest of the war, but he also had conflicts with him based on the fact that he saw France's post-war interests and his personal standing in the Alliance more important then the Allied strategic goals. When De Gaulle once said that the French people saw him as a new Joan of Arc, Churchill replied that the British had to burn the last one.
The Americans did not broke off diplomatic relations with Vichy until May 1942. Why, do you ask, did the Allies still sought to drive Vichy France into the Allied camp? Vichy France was the legitimate government of France(as recognised by President Chirac in 1995), with no official bounds to Germany(no foreign troops on it's soil), so why not try to negotiate a change of sides with the legitimate government of France and negotiate with some fleeing officers, who could easily be clasiffied as traitors with no authority, not legitimized by anything until Germany fully occupied France in 1942(apart from slowly taking over the French colonial empire).
Roosevelt hated De Gaulle since he saw him for what he was: a conservative, nationalist, imperialist European, a man looking back to the 19th century and colonialism, which Roosevelt hated and already had to deal with them in Churchill. So Roosevelt tried to spite De Gaulle at every step: keeping relations with Vichy until the last moment, prompting General Henri Giraud against De Gaulle, proposing Allied occupation zones in France and UN mandate on Indochina, refusing to recognize De Gaulle as leader of Free France until after Liberation and refusing to admit De Gaulle at Yalta.
Last edited:
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
IIRC De Gaulle always thought it was Churchill who tried to block him, instead of FDR. After the war realations between De Gaulle & Churchill remained poor on a personal level, until De Gaulle found out later the Churchill had often been his defender with FDR. Recall this from a documentary around 5 years ago.
Driftless
Donor
I've been reading a number of US-focused WW1 histories lately, and Petain was held in generally higher regard than other allied leaders, by the US generals. To them, Petain was usually generously supportive compared to others. So, maybe a bit of carryover of "positive vibes" for Petain by US WW2 leaders at the beginning?
It would be interesting to see who the Germans place in charge of the rump France
As much as Laval's villainy is exaggerated to create a scapegoat after the war; I don't see anyone else being able to step up to the role.
The French fascists were too few and, from my reading into them, too incompetent to lead a government.
As much as Laval's villainy is exaggerated to create a scapegoat after the war; I don't see anyone else being able to step up to the role.
The French fascists were too few and, from my reading into them, too incompetent to lead a government.
Laval, he was an opportunist, I highly doubt he will follow the rest of the government.
If Petain is for fighting on, the political situation is totally different than OTL. Without Petain there will likely be someone else willing to sign the Armistice but they will not have the same uniting power that Petain did. Him supporting the government position, or even taking over and then advocating fighting on, creates a real split in the French Government, rather than the OTL situation of the perceived legitimate government cooperating with the Germans.
This probably means that Darlan takes the Fleet to NA. AIUI this gets General Nogues on board for fighting on, gaining the Free French NA, which probably leads to French West Africa following along. AIUI the resident Generals in Syria, Eritrea, and Indochina were in favour of fighting on, so it seems likely they join up as well. Madagascar probably follows suit through a lack of other options.
With North Africa in FF hands, guys like Mandel and Campinchi remain in play, as well as guys like Reynaud and Daladier.
So in general, you have a smaller, but probably better respected government in control of the colonies and a less well known but probably larger government in Vichy France.
On the whole, probably better for the Allies. And possibly France.
This probably means that Darlan takes the Fleet to NA. AIUI this gets General Nogues on board for fighting on, gaining the Free French NA, which probably leads to French West Africa following along. AIUI the resident Generals in Syria, Eritrea, and Indochina were in favour of fighting on, so it seems likely they join up as well. Madagascar probably follows suit through a lack of other options.
With North Africa in FF hands, guys like Mandel and Campinchi remain in play, as well as guys like Reynaud and Daladier.
So in general, you have a smaller, but probably better respected government in control of the colonies and a less well known but probably larger government in Vichy France.
On the whole, probably better for the Allies. And possibly France.
Reference to a resident General of Eritrea along with those of Syria and Indochina is wrong; Eritrea was an Italian colony (the Eritrean Governate of Italian East Africa). The French colony bordering it on the south was called French Somaliland, which today is the Republic of Djibouti.
Last edited:
Thank you. Apologies. Typing on my phone with my toddler sleeping on my other arm. I didn’t take the time to check my facts and blanked on the name.
Well, in drafting my comment I put Djibouti as north of Eritrea; I was saved by Wikipedia at the last second.