WI: The Germans Capture de Gaulle?

What if when France falls de Gaulle and other high ranking officers are captured by the Germans instead of going to the UK? What would this mean for Free France and the British resistance against the Nazis? Does anyone know the circumstances of how he arrived in Britain? I heard somewhere he narrowly escaped the German Air Force with loads of Francs. Is that true? If so could we create a POD where he fails to pass them?
 
I don't think this would mean as much as anyone thinks.

Henri Giraud was seen as a rival to De Gaulle, and was actually preferred over him. In all likelihood, you get a different personality but a similar role in History--Paris has a Henri Giraud airport, for example. Giraud would probably be a better pal to the UK and the USA, and might have less ideas of dorking around in Indochina.

Free France had only a minor role in WW2; I doubt this would change any of the larger parameters of the fighting.
 
I agree with Blue Max. Everybody was a member of the resistance once the Germans were fighting on the Rhine. While the resistance were useful, especially in the run up towards D-Day, I don't think de Gaulle is vital.

SOE will be able to work with Giraud's Free French just as well, if not better than de Gaulle's.

So, the biggest thing - Germany, Austria, Berlin and Vienna are divided between the UK, US and USSR.

AFAIK, the Germans were genuinely surprised that the French were included in peace talks. This appears to have been under the auspices of Churchill and FDR - they wanted to stop him whining on at them!
 
Not likely.

First, Giraud was captured in 1940 in OTL, so you need two distinct PoD to get him free to take de Gaulle's place.

Second, De Gaulle was actually a minister of Renault governmant, the last legitimate government of the french thrid republic, so he had some legitimacy on both the military and civilian part; Something Giraud wouldn't have ( unless your PoD is way before 1940 and amounts to a brain exchange )

Third, Giraud was a legitimist and would have obeyed Petain in 1940.

Fourth Giraud had nothing like De Gaulle's charisma and would not have rallied as many people and territories.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that there is no free french except as individuals come to rally England and that internal french resistance is wholly communist related ( after Barbarossa, of course ).

The first major butterfly is in 42.

Prior to this, there are quite a few minor ones ( AOF doesn't rally the allies => british invasion?, less downed airmen come back, less information, more efficient U-boats.... ) but nothing really major.

OTOH, ITTL, Bir-Hakeim is taken in a couple days at most ( as were all the equivalent posts of the line ). Which means Romel is in front of Tobrouk two weeks earlier than OTL ( and in better shape ); Which means he captures enough stock to go to Egypt. So, Rommel is stopped on the Nyle at best ( and Palestine at worst ).

So, when Torch comes along ( if it does ), Mounty ( assuming he's still there ) has much more distance to go over before reaching the US troops ( as the south flank is wide open instead of covered ).

This pushes back the western allies and assuming a few additionnal delays to put more divisions in line to cover for the reduced french help ( eg, the french resistance would not likely save the allies the equivalent of 15 divisions - Eisenhower's estimate - and the french army will not provide 550,000 men to the allies by 1945 ITTL ) means the Red army stops on the Rhine. West Germany is the West Bank of the Rhine, plus a sector in Berlin.

Cold war see the soviet in Control of the whole of continental europe. They are then free to concentrate on Navy and airfleets instead of huge tanks divisions.

It's far fron sure that the Cold war will end up as OTL.
 
Not likely.

First, Giraud was captured in 1940 in OTL, so you need two distinct PoD to get him free to take de Gaulle's place.

Second, De Gaulle was actually a minister of Renault governmant, the last legitimate government of the french thrid republic, so he had some legitimacy on both the military and civilian part; Something Giraud wouldn't have ( unless your PoD is way before 1940 and amounts to a brain exchange )

Third, Giraud was a legitimist and would have obeyed Petain in 1940.

Fourth Giraud had nothing like De Gaulle's charisma and would not have rallied as many people and territories.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that there is no free french except as individuals come to rally England and that internal french resistance is wholly communist related ( after Barbarossa, of course ).

The first major butterfly is in 42.

Prior to this, there are quite a few minor ones ( AOF doesn't rally the allies => british invasion?, less downed airmen come back, less information, more efficient U-boats.... ) but nothing really major.

OTOH, ITTL, Bir-Hakeim is taken in a couple days at most ( as were all the equivalent posts of the line ). Which means Romel is in front of Tobrouk two weeks earlier than OTL ( and in better shape ); Which means he captures enough stock to go to Egypt. So, Rommel is stopped on the Nyle at best ( and Palestine at worst ).

So, when Torch comes along ( if it does ), Mounty ( assuming he's still there ) has much more distance to go over before reaching the US troops ( as the south flank is wide open instead of covered ).

This pushes back the western allies and assuming a few additionnal delays to put more divisions in line to cover for the reduced french help ( eg, the french resistance would not likely save the allies the equivalent of 15 divisions - Eisenhower's estimate - and the french army will not provide 550,000 men to the allies by 1945 ITTL ) means the Red army stops on the Rhine. West Germany is the West Bank of the Rhine, plus a sector in Berlin.

Cold war see the soviet in Control of the whole of continental europe. They are then free to concentrate on Navy and airfleets instead of huge tanks divisions.

It's far fron sure that the Cold war will end up as OTL.

So no de Gaulle means a more successful German African Campaign? Are you suggesting that without de Gaulle the Vichy French in North Africa will help the Germans more? Would the Liberation of France be put off and instead a concentration on Italy? Another thought; would the Communists be more successful in France leading to a FrenchSocialistRepublic allied to SU?
 
Yeah, Goebbels was MOST pissed off when Giraud escaped

Maybe some other commander would try to raise a Free French force, but it might not be independent, and may just act as an adjunct to British forces, a la the Poles and Czechs

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
So no de Gaulle means a more successful German African Campaign? Are you suggesting that without de Gaulle the Vichy French in North Africa will help the Germans more?


Yes and doesn't matter; respectively.

Without De Gaulle, Koenig's 13th DBLE will not be the force holding Bir-Hakeim ( two reasons, first, abscent De Gaulle, the 13 DBLE likely isn't free french, second, without De Gaulle, the free french ( if there are any ) are not put on the front line at that point; OTL, he had to REALLY insist to Churchill ), so Bir-Hakeim is held by secon line troops, as are all the fortifications around it ( the british were not expecting Rommel to attack here ). So, again like all other forts, it is taken in the first assault ( when the axis tanks breach the fort and come inside - per OTL - ).

That means Rommel is in front of Tobrouk 15 days earlier than OTL. Which means there are little fortification at Tobrouk. So no Siege of Tobrouk and Rommel captures a LOT of supplies and fuel ( what was in Tobrouk OTL, plus what hasn't been taken back, plus what hasn't been used in CRUSADER ) and a big chuck of the 8th army.

Which in turn, means the british have nothing to oppose Rommel before he reaches Egypt and Rommel has enough supplies and fuel to Reach Egypt.

Whether he can be stopped there or later is subject to butterflies. My opinion is Rommel will be stopped on the Nyle, Suez or in the Sinai, but he won't reach Palestinia.




Would the Liberation of France be put off and instead a concentration on


If, when ( if ) the US troops land in AOF, Rommel is on the nyle and trying to advance, instead of retreating in Lybia, it will, at a minimum, take more time to kick the Axis out of Africa ( and likely, Torch will be later than OTL, as the US will want more troops ).

This, in turn, means Italy is later than OTL ( and requires more US and british troops ), which in turn.... etc

So, bottom line, the western allies land later than OTL.

Another thought; would the Communists be more successful in
France leading to a FrenchSocialistRepublic allied to SU?

The communists would be THE resistance party ITTL. OTL, they had 25% of the vote. Abscent De Gaulle ( and especially with Giraud ) and with the 'martyrs' flag to raise, expect them to get 70%, especially in the regions they liberated by themselves.

And they will be somewhat aligned with Moscow, more or less depending who wins the power struggle inside the PCF. If it's Thorez, they will ask which color of socks to wear; if it's someone from the FFI, they may be more like Tito, but they will still be in the soviet camp, especially just after the US and Uk troops leave ( which they will ).
 
Yeah, Goebbels was MOST pissed off when Giraud escaped

Maybe some other commander would try to raise a Free French force, but it might not be independent, and may just act as an adjunct to British forces, a la the Poles and Czechs

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

One question and one point.

The question is who do you think will be the french commander in June 40? Admiral Muselier is about the only name which comes out of the top of my head. Do you have someone else?

The point is that basically anyone other than de Gaulle would have been worse from the PoV of raising french territories, troops and resistance ( because of less legitimacy and sheer charisma ) and much more obedient to british wishes and less likely to raise hell if he didn't get the political visility he sought. And the last point is just what got Koenig's troop to Bir-Hakeim.
 
Yes and doesn't matter; respectively.

Without De Gaulle, Koenig's 13th DBLE will not be the force holding Bir-Hakeim ( two reasons, first, abscent De Gaulle, the 13 DBLE likely isn't free french, second, without De Gaulle, the free french ( if there are any ) are not put on the front line at that point; OTL, he had to REALLY insist to Churchill ), so Bir-Hakeim is held by secon line troops, as are all the fortifications around it ( the british were not expecting Rommel to attack here ). So, again like all other forts, it is taken in the first assault ( when the axis tanks breach the fort and come inside - per OTL - ).

That means Rommel is in front of Tobrouk 15 days earlier than OTL. Which means there are little fortification at Tobrouk. So no Siege of Tobrouk and Rommel captures a LOT of supplies and fuel ( what was in Tobrouk OTL, plus what hasn't been taken back, plus what hasn't been used in CRUSADER ) and a big chuck of the 8th army.

Which in turn, means the british have nothing to oppose Rommel before he reaches Egypt and Rommel has enough supplies and fuel to Reach Egypt.

Whether he can be stopped there or later is subject to butterflies. My opinion is Rommel will be stopped on the Nyle, Suez or in the Sinai, but he won't reach Palestinia.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. If Rommel is on the Suez, could he block entry of allied ships into the Eastern Med? What about Syria and Lebanon? Would a weaker Free France movement make their capture more difficult, or if it succeeds would it be viewed even worse in France? Could France join Germany to free Syria and Lebanon or is that ASB?

If, when ( if ) the US troops land in AOF, Rommel is on the nyle and trying to advance, instead of retreating in Lybia, it will, at a minimum, take more time to kick the Axis out of Africa ( and likely, Torch will be later than OTL, as the US will want more troops ).

This, in turn, means Italy is later than OTL ( and requires more US and british troops ), which in turn.... etc

So, bottom line, the western allies land later than OTL.

Moral would be worse for Britain too without victorys in North Africa.

The communists would be THE resistance party ITTL. OTL, they had 25% of the vote. Abscent De Gaulle ( and especially with Giraud ) and with the 'martyrs' flag to raise, expect them to get 70%, especially in the regions they liberated by themselves.

And they will be somewhat aligned with Moscow, more or less depending who wins the power struggle inside the PCF. If it's Thorez, they will ask which color of socks to wear; if it's someone from the FFI, they may be more like Tito, but they will still be in the soviet camp, especially just after the US and Uk troops leave ( which they will ).

Does a communist France mean communist Low Countries too? This seems to me to be a cold war with a much stronger SU. If France can keep her colonies, could've they used them to send in more exotic products which in OTL many ordinary citizens missed (eg bananas)
 
Last edited:
One mustn’t overestimate the importance of De Gaulle and his free French. He and his band of deserters provided a very insignificant number of men to the allied cause, less than 7,000 in 1942. The legitimate French government numbered about 300,000 men at the same time and few colonies and administrators actually joined De Gaulle.

Many people consider his value to be in providing France with a voice at the victor’s table but the same could have been achieved by Vichy in exchange for military support in 1942. In fact, most of Vichy's high command would have liked another round against Germany if not for England's betrayal at Mers-el-Kebir and subsequent colony theft.



OTL, the French provided significant forces for the Tunisian campaign which crushed Rommel. They then provided significant forces for the Italian campaign and went on to provide much needed infantry forces in the latter part of the European campaign. In fact, the limit to French military power was the amount of equipment the allies could provide after 1943.

With the allies running out of men, the French were in a strong position and any competent politician could have done what De Gaulle did, perhaps even better due to less friction.
 
Regarding who else, well (I know its Wiki but )...the Wiki article on Free French Forces say he was SENT by Reynaud to Britain as his emissary, so presumably if he were not around to be sent, someone else would have been chosen and it would have been up to that person to have decided whether or not they recognised Petain's coup as legitimate, or whether they wanted to continue to represent Reynaud as the legitimate government in exile

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Ah, thanks for the clarification. If Rommel is on the Suez, could he block entry of allied ships into the Eastern Med?

That depends on exactly how far he manages to go and with what.

Obviously; if he manages to line the canal shore with his artillery, he can block the canal ( or even more easily, wreck it ).

Equally obviously if he is blocked before the nyle and only light recons patrols manage to see the Golf of Suez ( through infiltration in the deep desert ), there's little the can do.

My guess would be that it's more likely Rommel get bogged down in the nyle valley. OTOH if he manages to capture Alexandria, he has access to a good harbour, while the RN loses its base. I don't know if that's enough to get a logistics base sufficient for his need, though, given the state of the Italian merchant navy.


What about Syria and Lebanon? Would a weaker Free France movement make their capture more difficult,

I don't really think so. Few of the troops there even joined the FF after surrendering to the Imperial troops ( about 6,000, IIRC ).

[/B]
or if it succeeds would it be viewed even worse in France? Could France join Germany to free Syria and Lebanon or is that ASB?

Extremely Unlikely, IMO.

I don't really see the absence of De Gaulle changing anything significant there.

Moral would be worse for Britain too without victorys in North Africa.



Does a communist France mean communist Low Countries too?

Maybe not at first, but after a few years, I think so, yes. With the Red ARmy on one border and a Big Communist country on another, the low countries will come to an accomodation with the *soviet block. At best, it will be finlandisation, but, given their position, I think they will have to go a lot farther than this.


[/B]
This seems to me to be a cold war with a much stronger SU. If France can keep her colonies, could've they used them to send in more exotic products which in OTL many ordinary citizens missed (eg bananas)

Possibly, but it will also make for interesting politics, as the Soviet will have a lot more trouble playing the card of anti-colonialism.

And can you imagine the situation Ho is in?
 
Last edited:
One mustn’t overestimate the importance of De Gaulle and his free French.

Don't underestimate him either.

He and his band of deserters provided a very insignificant number of men to the allied cause, less than 7,000 in 1942.

Really? Please check your sources and provide a cite, because that doesn't check with the ones I have.

For exemples, the 13 DBLE, at Bir-Hakeim, had 3,700 + men. If you were right, that would be more than half the FF. WHich is definitely not the case.

And just for your information, the naval part of the free french ( FNFL ) was nearly 10,000 men, so above your number.

In fact, according to http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=91

De Gaulle had about 50,000 men in december 41. ( and 25,000+ at the end of 1940 ).

And this checks with other; written sources I have.


And before you say that's peanuts, remember that Wavell's troop numbered 30,000.

The legitimate French government numbered about 300,000 men at the same time and few colonies and administrators actually joined De Gaulle.

Let's see Tchad, Cameroun, Congo, Oubangui-Chari, New Caledonia, Gabon, to cite the major ones.

The colonies which rallied De Gaulle had a Total Population of 14 million and a total area 7 times bigger than France.
 
Regarding who else, well (I know its Wiki but )...the Wiki article on Free French Forces say he was SENT by Reynaud to Britain as his emissary, so presumably if he were not around to be sent, someone else would have been chosen and it would have been up to that person to have decided whether or not they recognised Petain's coup as legitimate, or whether they wanted to continue to represent Reynaud as the legitimate government in exile

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Yes and no.

De Gaulle was sent by Reynaud. ANd then came back to try to persuade Reynaud to come to Uk. WHen he couldn't he told Reynaud he would go alone. Reynaud told him to follow his conscience and gave De Gaulle a mission order to ease his going back to London.

And, the question remains. Who would it have been. A soldier? A politician? A civil servant? Basically, the higher ranking person I see is Muselier. Which got along with the US and Uk even worse than De Gaulle, IIRC....
 
The Free French had 7,000 combat troops at maximum strength, excluding navy personnel and a handful of airmen and sedentary garrisons of the few colonies that defected to De Gaulle. This information is readily available in books on the French in WWII (for example the Oxford Dictionary of WWII).

There were only 2 major ground combat units in the FF; the 13th DBLE which had been deployed in Norway and found itself marooned in England after the withdrawal.
The other major force was Leclerc’s rag-tag command in the Fezan which eventually became the 2nd Armoured Division. If you compare the strength of the Free French with the Vichy forces (which were restricted in size by the Germans), the Free French were always an insignificant military force. In fact, when offered the chance of either joining the FF or being repatriated, the vast majority of French troops consequently would opt for repatriation.

The bulk of those 50,000 men you list were local garrison troops of dubious worth, not trained and equipped to face a Western power and necessary to retain French control over the colonies.

The Free French only became a viable military force (instead of a political entity included with various British colony grabs to give it a thin layer of legitimacy) after the Vichy forces switched sides and added valuable forces to the allied order of battle.
 
The Free French had 7,000 combat troops at maximum strength,
define exactly what you mean and at what date and we can discuss.


excluding navy personnel and a handful of airmen and sedentary garrisons of the few colonies that defected to De Gaulle. This information is readily available in books on the French in WWII (for example the Oxford Dictionary of WWII).

Other information are also readily available in other books. Especially when taken out of context.

So define exactly what you mean.

And 50,000 men in armed forces; out of which 7,000 are currently fighting is not the few deserters you were talking about.

BTW, most of the troops in the colonies were raised there and training for combat, not sedentary garrisons.





There were only 2 major ground combat units in the FF; the 13th DBLE which had been deployed in Norway and found itself marooned in England after the withdrawal.

The 13th DBLE was only a part of the 1st free french brigade.

The order of battle of the first free french brigade was

1st free french brigade
* 1er régiment de fusiliers marins [1]
* 1re Cie de chars de combat (puis 501e RCC dans la 2eDB) [1]
* 1er régiment de marche de spahis marocains [1]
* 11e régiment de cuirassiers
* 1er régiment d'artillerie [1]
* 21e groupe antillais de DCA
* 1re bataillon du Génie
* 13e demi-brigade de Légion étrangère [1]
* 22e bataillon nord-africain
* Bataillon de marche 1
* Bataillon de marche 2 [1]
* Bataillon de marche 3
* Bataillon de marche 4
* Bataillon de marche 5
* Bataillon de marche 11
* Bataillon d'infanterie de marine et du Pacifique [1]
* Bataillon de marche 21
* Bataillon de marche 24
* 4e compagnie anti-chars


in 1942, the free french fighting troops in the 8th army ( ie discounting Leclerc ), the western desert french forces, were composed of the 1st and 2nd free french brigades and the free french flying column.






The other major force was Leclerc’s rag-tag command in the Fezan which eventually became the 2nd Armoured Division.

And was the 2nd free french division before becoming armored.

Do not mix the forces Leclerc had to attack Kouffra in february 41 ( 400 men, coming from Tibesti troops only ) and the ones he had when joining Mounty, which came from the whole AEF.


If you compare the strength of the Free French with the Vichy forces (which were restricted in size by the Germans), the Free French were always an insignificant military force.

about half the numbers by end 1941 doesn't seem insignificant to me.

In fact, when offered the chance of either joining the FF or being repatriated, the vast majority of French troops consequently would opt for repatriation.

Due to various reasons and until the south of france was occupied, yes for the majority ( but not the whole ).

What has that to do with the discussion?

The bulk of those 50,000 men you list were local garrison troops of dubious worth, not trained and equipped to face a Western power

Snort. Sure. They proved that at Kouffra, Bir-Hakeim and Ksar-Rhilane, among others.

The Free French only became a viable military force (instead of a political entity included with various British colony grabs to give it a thin layer


LOL

I suggest you look at AEF, instead of Syria or Madagascar.

of legitimacy) after the Vichy forces switched sides and added valuable forces to the allied order of battle.

No. The Vichy troops added to the already existing free french, but even before, the allies had recognised the importance of the role of the french troops on several occasions. Look at Ksar Rhilane and Mounty's comment then, for one exemple.
 
Top