WI: The Franco-British Union goes ahead in 1940?

I came across this recently and was intrigued by what might have happened had it gone ahead.

To lay it out for anyone that hasn't come across it before, a couple of days after the fall of Paris on 14 June 1940 a proposal was drafted to merge Great Britain and France into one country. Churchill was initially sceptical, but was persuaded of it by Charles de Gaulle and the British Cabinet voted in favour. The French Prime Minister, Paul Reynaud, was strongly in favour of it and the French President, Albert Lebrun was also supportive. A British delegation was prepared to travel to Concarneau for a formal meeting of the two governments, but the plan was scuttled by a faction in the French government led by Philippe Petain (later leader of Vichy France) who favoured an armistice with Germany.

It seems like this was very close to happening so my thought is that it wouldn't take a dramatic shift for it to go ahead, perhaps had the proposal been made immediately after the fall of Paris rather than a couple of days later, or maybe if Petain wasn't around to argue against it (he was 84).

So if the proposal did go ahead, and the Franco-British Union was born at Concarneau in June 1940, what effects would that have?

I presume it would not stop the fall of metropolitan France, but it would mean that there would be no armistice so French military forces in the colonies would continue fighting. The [Franco]-British position would thus be strengthened, for example by the merging of the French fleet and the Royal Navy (with no British attack on French naval bases in North Africa). How much do you think this would change the course of the war?

With this precedent there, would the same offer be made to other allied countries too (Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, and later maybe Greece), and if so, would they accept? If Poland and Czechoslovakia did join a British-led United Europe, what would that mean for relations with the Soviet Union and the aftermath of the war?

What would the general political consequences after the war? Would the Union stay together, or would it quickly fall apart back into it's constituent countries?
 
I feel as if this leads to a similar war, with the only difference being Torch probably is just a mass reinforcement of French North Africa. Once they land, Rommel probably bugs out of Africa after this, saving 200,000 men from being captured. These men go to the Eastern front to slow the Russian advance. The Western front proceeds very similarly to otl, perhaps a bit faster due to the increased French support. This leads to a good shot of the Western Allies taking Berlin in May of 45 because of a slowed Eastern front. An interesting note would be that De Gaulle would be at the head of a much larger army than OTL, as the reason he wasn't in charge sooner was American infulence. I personally think the countries still break up after the war, but does result in a Concervative victory in the 45 election due to a more successful war, with the Union Jack over the Reichstag. And with a Concervative victory, Israel has a more successful 1948 war. (Churchill was a Zionist.) This may or may not lead to an Egyptian defeat in 1956, and that comes with the possibility of a more permanent Franco-British union. Overall, this is one of my favorite PODs.
 
I'm not sure I agree with the above poster. There's a likelihood bordering on certainty that France's colonies will go Free France, rather than Vichy (assuming there's a Vichy or an equivalent thereof in this scenario). Given the hilarious incompetence of the Italians, I could see British success in the early Western Desert Campaign being followed up by a concurrent Anglo-French invasion from Tunisia, wrapping up North Africa by late 1940/early 1941. What happens next is anyone's guess: likely Anglo-French reinforcements that prevent the fall of Crete. From there peripheral tactics until the Americans come in and decide they won't go into the Balkans, unless the Anglo-French haven't already and whether or not they've pulled in the Turks.
 

Deleted member 94680

For the OP the proposal wasn’t for an United Europe, but rather for France and Britain to become a single country.

On 14 June British diplomat Robert Vansittart and Morton wrote with Monnet and his deputy René Pleven a draft "Franco-British Union" proposal. ....
Reynaud supporter Charles de Gaulle had arrived in London earlier that day, however, and Monnet told him about the proposed union. De Gaulle convinced Churchill that "some dramatic move was essential to give Reynaud the support which he needed to keep his Government in the war". The Frenchman then called Reynaud and told him that the British prime minister proposed a union between their countries, an idea which Reynaud immediately supported. De Gaulle, Monnet, Vansittart, and Pleven quickly agreed to a document proclaiming a joint citizenship, foreign trade, currency, war cabinet, and military command. ...
The final "Declaration of union" approved by the British War Cabinet stated that:


France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France.

Churchill and De Gaulle called Reynaud to tell him about the document, and they arranged for a joint meeting of the two governments in Concarneau the next day.
From the wiki page

For what it’s worth, massively radical as it was, I can’t see it being extended to other countries.
 
It's hard to see where this would go long term, because of the incredibly radical nature of the proposal, and the fact that Britain and France, whilst allies in WW2, were natural and historic enemies, and had each been brought up to hate the other. There's a reason why we still say "pardon my French" today when we swear. So in essence, regardless of how the war goes ITTL, I cannot see this union continuing post war. Of course, it might well lead to a different formation of the European Coal & Steel Community. Maybe even extremely long term - no Brexit?

Anyway, the immediate and obvious effect is the strengthening of the Royal Navy, which now has the French fleet to add. Also, with north Africa now in allied hands, are Italy going to try and invade Egypt? Whether they do or don't, we have to presume surely that sooner or later the Italians are going to be squeezed out of Libya. We might therefore have never seen the "Dessert Fox". A stronger allied fleet in the med might also go some way to preventing the loss of Crete or even deterring the airborne invasion. The likelihood is that the German invasion of the Balkans is as OTL, with the ensuing delay to Barbarrossa.

So the allies can take north Africa earlier, but realistically they're not going to have the strength to invade Italy until the US arrives in numbers, which is going to be roughly as OTL. I cannot see the numbers in terms of German troop dispositions changing dramatically enough here so as to change the overall course of the war on the eastern front - even if all the men and materiel from OTL El Alamein are transferred to TTL Stalingrad, it just means more mouths to feed and more casualties.

The interesting scenario will be the far east. If the RN now has more ships, it has more to spare in the far east. Will Japan be deterred from striking south? Will it be enough to see them head north into the USSR? Most likely not, but could Britain prevent the fall of Singapore ITTL with a stronger navy, or even perhaps stronger armed forces in the region?

I personally think the countries still break up after the war, but does result in a Concervative victory in the 45 election due to a more successful war, with the Union Jack over the Reichstag.
Absolutely no chance. Labour won the 1945 general election IOTL despite Churchill being seen as the man who won the war, because Labour offered a progressive programme of welfare reform that resonated with the working classes, who had bore the brunt of the fighting and suffered and poverty throughout the conflict. The image of the Union Jack over one building or another isn't going to change this.
 
From what I gather, the existence of this proposal was more or less the last nail in the coffin for Reynaud, as the members of France's parliament did not wish for her to become in effect a British subject
 

Ramontxo

Donor
The Japanese takeover of French Indochina is now quite a different enterprise and probably butterflied. In the best case Japan doesn't commit sepukku and stay out of the war AND the USA still goes in...
 
I feel as if this leads to a similar war, with the only difference being Torch probably is just a mass reinforcement of French North Africa. Once they land, Rommel probably bugs out of Africa after this, saving 200,000 men from being captured. These men go to the Eastern front to slow the Russian advance. The Western front proceeds very similarly to otl, perhaps a bit faster due to the increased French support. This leads to a good shot of the Western Allies taking Berlin in May of 45 because of a slowed Eastern front. An interesting note would be that De Gaulle would be at the head of a much larger army than OTL, as the reason he wasn't in charge sooner was American infulence. I personally think the countries still break up after the war, but does result in a Concervative victory in the 45 election due to a more successful war, with the Union Jack over the Reichstag. And with a Concervative victory, Israel has a more successful 1948 war. (Churchill was a Zionist.) This may or may not lead to an Egyptian defeat in 1956, and that comes with the possibility of a more permanent Franco-British union. Overall, this is one of my favorite PODs.

Not sure De Gaulle ends up as any sort of analogue to his OTL job. There's a bunch of French generals with seniority over him in a scenario where France Fights On. Sure, a lot of them haven't exactly covered themselves with glory, but some have done okay. Plus he also has to contest with British generals too now. Oh he'd probably end up with something, I'd just caution against assuming he'll end up in as prominent a role.
'
 
It's hard to see where this would go long term, because of the incredibly radical nature of the proposal, and the fact that Britain and France, whilst allies in WW2, were natural and historic enemies, and had each been brought up to hate the other. There's a reason why we still say "pardon my French" today when we swear. So in essence, regardless of how the war goes ITTL, I cannot see this union continuing post war. Of course, it might well lead to a different formation of the European Coal & Steel Community. Maybe even extremely long term - no Brexit?

Indeed it would be hard to think of 2 countries less comparable that Britain and France.
On the plus side it would save a lot of money later developing too separate nuclear programmes.
They now have the largest empire in the world.
Will they form a Federal Union.
Anglo-French_Flag.png
 
Last edited:
No Vichy and no armistice has been discussed here, and while there are alot of butterflies, its pretty much a net positive to the Allies, allowing them to clear the Axis out of Africa earlier, use of the French navy and merchant marine, and some unpredictable effects in the Far East.

Politically, the union would most likely evolve into something similar to the European Union, but there are two big changes due to Britain being one of the founding members, and the union being conceived as a political/ military union right from the start. It also gains prestige for winning the war, even if/ when Germany is admitted later.
 
Indeed it would be hard to think of 2 countries less comparable that Britain and France.
On the plus side it would save a lot of money later developing too separate nuclear programmes.
They now have the largest empire in the world.
Will they from a Federal Union.
Anglo-French_Flag.png
Yes and no Britain and France have a complicated and long history, but it is our shared history. We as nations have a pretty good record since 1815 of telling those who would gate crash our relationship to sod off when it has actually mattered. And at the end of the day we have a lot of interests in common. After a shared victory it is certainly possible that these interests become closer especially if it the only way to remain a front rank world power.
 
Politically, the union would most likely evolve into something similar to the European Union, but there are two big changes due to Britain being one of the founding members, and the union being conceived as a political/ military union right from the start. It also gains prestige for winning the war, even if/ when Germany is admitted later.


There is no doubt in my mind that this breaks up immediately after the war. It was always to be a temporary thing, and the fact remains that the French population still blamed England for the war in 1941. There is no way this lasts, but I see it still letting them cooperate more, perhaps with a joint Nuclear program as said above.
 
For the OP the proposal wasn’t for an United Europe, but rather for France and Britain to become a single country.
I know, I was more curious if with the precedent having been set of the unification of the two most powerful European allied powers whether there might later be moves to expand it to encompass more of the Allies. Mostly any such expansion would be symbolic, but I could see a potential strategic advantage to inviting the Netherlands to join, since that would bring all of South-East Asia under unified control.

If it remained just a union of Britain and France, then as several other people have said I wouldn't see it lasting much beyond the conclusion of the war, though it might set the stage for something like the European Economic Community with Britain and France as founding members, with perhaps also greater military cooperation. Part of the reason I'm curious about the possibility of the initial Franco-British Union expanding into more of a United Europe is that would seem to be more likely to give it some chance at lasting after the war.

I definitely agree that a stronger Allied showing in North Africa and the Mediterranean is likely. I wonder, if the Italians are doing even worse in North Africa than OTL, would the Germans ever send Rommel to Africa, or would they just give it up as a lost cause and not bother reinforcing the Italians?

The Japanese takeover of French Indochina is now quite a different enterprise and probably butterflied.
That's an important point, particularly as Sendo said with the combined Franco-British fleet being significantly stronger. How much would this make the Japanese re-think their Pacific strategy?
 
That's an important point, particularly as Sendo said with the combined Franco-British fleet being significantly stronger. How much would this make the Japanese re-think their Pacific strategy?

They were fully prepared to go against America. The Franco-British Union fleet is made of decadent westerners, who will fold like paper before our bushido etc etc.
 
I know, I was more curious if with the precedent having been set of the unification of the two most powerful European allied powers whether there might later be moves to expand it to encompass more of the Allies. Mostly any such expansion would be symbolic, but I could see a potential strategic advantage to inviting the Netherlands to join, since that would bring all of South-East Asia under unified control.

If it remained just a union of Britain and France, then as several other people have said I wouldn't see it lasting much beyond the conclusion of the war, though it might set the stage for something like the European Economic Community with Britain and France as founding members, with perhaps also greater military cooperation. Part of the reason I'm curious about the possibility of the initial Franco-British Union expanding into more of a United Europe is that would seem to be more likely to give it some chance at lasting after the war.

I definitely agree that a stronger Allied showing in North Africa and the Mediterranean is likely. I wonder, if the Italians are doing even worse in North Africa than OTL, would the Germans ever send Rommel to Africa, or would they just give it up as a lost cause and not bother reinforcing the Italians?


That's an important point, particularly as Sendo said with the combined Franco-British fleet being significantly stronger. How much would this make the Japanese re-think their Pacific strategy?

That's a fair point, Rommel probably doesn't go to NA anymore. What does that mean for the eastern front? Quite a lot actually. Not Rommel himself per say, more like 5th Panzer Army staying in Russia will lead to a better showing for the Germans. Do thy win? probably not, but it is more likely now. But I think it delays the Soviets 5-6 months. But what does that mean for the WA? Well, instead of Torch we get Operation Jupiter (the invasion of Norway.) Does it succeed? Certainly, but with heavy losses. This not only teaches the allies the lessons they learn in Tunisia 6 months earlier, it also cuts off Hitler's Iron Ore supply, which could be devastating IF the allies capture Narvik. What happens from here is anybody's guess.
 
This will have a major impact on the war, not only will the NA theater be vastly different (Italy is basically screwed there), but the Axis will have to think what to do about Corsica. I guess they will invade that before Greece.
 
France falls, the French navy evacuates to North Africa, Germany sets up a puppet French Government that says the agreement in nonsense and the French colonies divide up as to which side to support. The European war then continues as before. Japan probably still attacks the US and European colonies as the US will find some other excuse to impose an oil embargo on Japan but the timing is likely to be different. Libya is crushed in a pincer between Egypt and French North Africa by the end of 1940.
 
This will have a major impact on the war, not only will the NA theater be vastly different (Italy is basically screwed there), but the Axis will have to think what to do about Corsica. I guess they will invade that before Greece.
If it gets through by getting on the table earlier, Italy probably doesn't enter the war full stop. There just isn't the appetite for a prolonged war - and the Franco-British Union is proof that Britain is not going to bow out, no matter the losses on the continent. Mussolini is going to sit this one out.
 
If it gets through by getting on the table earlier, Italy probably doesn't enter the war full stop. There just isn't the appetite for a prolonged war - and the Franco-British Union is proof that Britain is not going to bow out, no matter the losses on the continent. Mussolini is going to sit this one out.
The proposal for the Franco-British Union was made after the Italian's entered the war as a last ditch effort to prevent the French from surrendering.
 
Top