WWII: no Vichy, France fights on

It's June, 1940. The French Third Republic is on the verge of extinction by the Nazi war machine. Philippe Pétain and a group of other French governmental officals have been voted into the government, and they're determined to seek an armistice against Germany. Eventually, Vichy France will be formed, and one of the most darkest and politically messiest moments of French history will occur.

But what if, somehow, no Vichy France formed and France as a whole continued to fight on? What do you think could have prevented a Vichy France? Certainly it had much to offer to the Allies: it still had the Empire in Africa and Asia, and the French Navy was considered top-notch, 4th largest in the world, and possessing powerful and modern warships. What would France fighting on mean for the Allies? For the Axis?
 

Cook

Banned
Parliamentary debates said:
BRITISH OFFER OF ANGLO-FRENCH UNION, JUNE 16, 1940
[Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Volume 365. House of Commons Official Report Eleventh Volume of Session 1939-40, (London, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1940), columns 701-702.]
At this most fateful moment in the history of the modern world the Governments of the United Kingdom and the French Republic make this declaration of indissoluble union and unyielding resolution in their common defence of justice and freedom, against subjection to a system which reduces mankind to a life of robots and slaves.
The two Governments declare 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.
Both countries will share responsibility for the repair the devastation of war, wherever it occurs in their territories, and the resources of both shall be equally, and as one, applied to that purpose.
During the war there shall be a single war Cabinet, and all the forces of Britain and France, whether on land, sea, or in the air, will be placed under its direction. It will govern from wherever it best can. The two Parliaments will be formally associated.
The nations of the British Empire are already forming new armies. France will keep her available forces in the field, on the sea, and in the air.
The Union appeals to the United States to fortify the economic resources of the Allies and to bring her powerful material aid to the common cause.
The Union will concentrate its whole energy against the power of the enemy no matter where the battle may be. And thus we shall conquer.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/1940-06-16d.html
No Japanese bases in French IndoChina in 1941 for starters.
No need for Australian Forces to invade Vichy Syria too.
 

Cook

Banned
Britain’s offer of Union had been genuine, but it came too late and under disastrous circumstances. General expectations in France at the time were that the war was lost, both for them and for Britain. There was a strong suspicion that the British would use their fleet as a bargaining chip to get better Peace terms from the Germans.

It was only after Oran that people began to realise that Britain wasn’t playing for time; they were playing to win.
 
How about instead of Petain, you have an earlier POD in which Marshal Foch is still alive, fit of mind and body, and ready to serve as a rallying point for Free France? Or does such an idea belong in ASB?:confused:
 
The scenario presented does differ from an Anglo-French union in that, at least under a Union, there is only one country, with part of it under occupation.

UN Spacy's proposal is, presumably, that France refuses to negiotiate, seeing territorial loss as a necessary acceptable and continuing to fight on from other parts of 'France' (namely Algeria) until they can return to liberate it.

I'd suggest Steve Rodgers 'Sealion Fails' as a possibility, but this scenario posits a failed Sealion first (which again differs from what has been posted).

Personally, can only be a good things for the Allies. North African campaign will be over sooner, possibly, if the Allies get their act together, by the end of 1940. What they do after that (assuming Greece still falls on time?) I'm not sure.
 
Personally, can only be a good things for the Allies. North African campaign will be over sooner, possibly, if the Allies get their act together, by the end of 1940. What they do after that (assuming Greece still falls on time?) I'm not sure.

For one thing you could still have a very active French naval fleet in the Mediterranean under or coordinating with British command that would seriously complicate supply lines for Rommel's Africa core from the start as well as hamper the Prinz Eugen from getting anywhere near the Strait of Gibraltar and possibly the Bismark from slipping out as well.
 
Last edited:
For one thing you could still have a very active French naval fleet in the Mediterranean under or coordinating with British command that would seriously complicate supply lines for Rommel's Africa core from the start as well as hamper the Prinz Eugen from getting anywhere near the Strait of Gibraltar and possibly the Bismark from slipping out as well.

This scenario would not only "complicate" supply lines but would prevent the Germans from getting into North Africa at all. The French attacking from the west and the British from the east would make short work of Italy's colony. This would include seizing Tripoli, which had the best, if inadequate, port for any landing of German tanks. Second Italy's totally outnumbered, outgunned and outclassed navy would be completely sunk or cowering in harbors. Corsica would probably remain in French hands unless the Germans were to launch a really big effort to capture it (with what ships? Italian ships? and the French would probably put a big enough force there to prevent a Crete type air assault from succeeding. Keeping Corsica, however, would depend on how fast France can get planes from the U.S.).

The situation might stop Mussolini's lunge into Greece, since he'd be more worried about Sicily, Sardinia and Pantelleria and air attacks from North Africa and Corsica. No siege of Malta. No worries about Spain joining the Axis. Less worry about Turkey and about Nazi-stirred intrigues in Arab lands. Possibly a more effective war in the Atlantic against the U-boats, although the French navy would probably be best employed in the Med and in the Far East.

Hitler sent a force to North Africa because he could easily get away with it. It was a minimum investment to keep the Brits pinned down so they would be less of a bother elsewhere while he focussed on Barbarossa. In this scenario he couldn't easily get away with it; it would instead require a major investment leading to a major drain on resources for a very dubious payoff--in other words he wouldn't even try it.

With France still in the game, the U.S. responds with lend lease and various other forms of help much earlier and more enthusiastically.

Also with war with Japan looming, the Brits would have much more naval, air and ground forces available for that theatre, and the French would be of significant help. The Allies would still take heavy losses because of Japanese carrier strength and the Zero, but Australian and NZ forces wouldn't be tied down in the Mideast. Maybe, just maybe, the Dutch East Indies oil fields (or some of them, at least) could be kept out of Japanese hands.

As to Singapore, if someone first-rate like Wavell could have been spared for building up its defenses rather than waging war in North Africa, then maybe it could have been held for awhile, especially with an armored division. I'd like to see how the Japanese would fare against Maj.-Gen. Bernard Freyberg and his New Zealanders rather than the demoralized and poor trained forces of Arthur Percival.
 
Last edited:
Assuming this is done and France fights on, along with the overwhelming majority of its Navy, what happens after the war? Does this Union stand? I can't see De Gaulle and Churchill anything less than loathing one another, and I cannot see the two nations being remotely able to stand each other as one nation. Does this mean that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II are also the Monarchs of France and even (gasp) their colonies?

The war would almost certainly be over quicker, and would this allow the Anglo-French union to keep its territories and/or dissolve their empires slower?
 
Assuming this is done and France fights on, along with the overwhelming majority of its Navy, what happens after the war? Does this Union stand? I can't see De Gaulle and Churchill anything less than loathing one another, and I cannot see the two nations being remotely able to stand each other as one nation. Does this mean that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II are also the Monarchs of France and even (gasp) their colonies?

I would agree. Given the deep cultural differences between the two nations while a much better friendship and co-operation could well develop I can't see permanent union being likely.

The war would almost certainly be over quicker, and would this allow the Anglo-French union to keep its territories and/or dissolve their empires slower?

Very likely, especially if we can clear N Africa quickly and hence then avoid most of the losses in the Pacific. The Anglo-French will be in a fair better position militarily, economically and morally. Also possibly the need to co-ordinate with the French might mitigate some of Churchill's wilder ideas.

That presumes that there are no major butterflies. Something could upset things badly, like Hitler being so worried about the union he doesn't attack Russia, or the Japanese only attack the allies and gamble on ignoring the Americans. However overall things should be markedly more promising for both powers.

Steve
 
Assuming this is done and France fights on, along with the overwhelming majority of its Navy, what happens after the war? Does this Union stand? I can't see De Gaulle and Churchill anything less than loathing one another, and I cannot see the two nations being remotely able to stand each other as one nation. Does this mean that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II are also the Monarchs of France and even (gasp) their colonies?

The war would almost certainly be over quicker, and would this allow the Anglo-French union to keep its territories and/or dissolve their empires slower?

I have started a TL on this subject a while ago here currently in chapter 4.
So far France has fallen in mid August and the fight is currently carrying on in Lybia and in the Mediterranean.

I plan to extensively cover the Union post war and to answer your question neither George Vi and Elizabeth II will be the Monarch of France. The United Kingdom will stay a kingdom and the French Republic will stay a republic and both will keep extensive governmental prerogatives. The Union government will be limited at first to defense, foreign affairs and some trade questions but the rest will remain as prerogatives of the national governments. For a rather approximate equivalent think about the various sub German kingdoms within the Second Reich, Bavaria even had its own defence ministry.
 
Given British fighter production in 1940 it won't be long before the French in North Africa can field several hundred Spitfires and Hurricanes. Meanwhile, even if Italy somehow avoids even heavier naval losses(doubtful) France adds a carrier and nine battleships to the Allied cause, plus at least two dozen cruisers and 60+ destroyers and comparable ships.

Surely this has an effect on Japanese plans?



TheMann, actually this scenario erases De Gaulle's prominence as a minor army officer who's never commanded more than a division can't possibly be seen in Churchill's league and there will be an actual French government with much higher ranking military figures available.



Given the Allied ability to offer Cyprus or the Italian Dodecanese I can see Greece entering the war rather later if Mussolini's attack is canceled.


Also the Axis will have to spend some time and resources on Corsica. They can not permit the Allies time to build substantial air facilities there, this at a time when Libya is threatened and the Battle of Britain going on.


In France Fights On I recall that the first German invasion of Greece was defeated and Hitler delays Barbarossa one year to avoid being caught between two fires. The British and French at this point already have 12+ divisions in Greece and Hitler can easily imagine what happens once a few more arrive plus the entire Greek army is equipped with modern weapons. That would be 40+ divisions in total.
 
Given British fighter production in 1940 it won't be long before the French in North Africa can field several hundred Spitfires and Hurricanes. Meanwhile, even if Italy somehow avoids even heavier naval losses(doubtful) France adds a carrier and nine battleships to the Allied cause, plus at least two dozen cruisers and 60+ destroyers and comparable ships.

Surely this has an effect on Japanese plans?



TheMann, actually this scenario erases De Gaulle's prominence as a minor army officer who's never commanded more than a division can't possibly be seen in Churchill's league and there will be an actual French government with much higher ranking military figures available.



Given the Allied ability to offer Cyprus or the Italian Dodecanese I can see Greece entering the war rather later if Mussolini's attack is canceled.


Also the Axis will have to spend some time and resources on Corsica. They can not permit the Allies time to build substantial air facilities there, this at a time when Libya is threatened and the Battle of Britain going on.


In France Fights On I recall that the first German invasion of Greece was defeated and Hitler delays Barbarossa one year to avoid being caught between two fires. The British and French at this point already have 12+ divisions in Greece and Hitler can easily imagine what happens once a few more arrive plus the entire Greek army is equipped with modern weapons. That would be 40+ divisions in total.

If the Italians are thrown out of NA, which seems rather certain if the French forces are withdrawn to NA, it doesnt necessarily mean the Italians wont attack Greece.
Remember, it was seen by Mussolini as a soft, easy target. Given the need to show that Italy is still a major player, I'd suggest that it is MORE likely Greece gets invaded.
As to allied support, its all a question of when... the French have troops, but its going to be a while before the Allies have the arms and supplies they need. The later the better, as far as the allies are concerned (another reason for an early Greek invasion, if the Axis are on the ball - attack while the allies cant supply/equip their troops, assuming they have run the French supplies in NA, a not unreasonable assumption)
 
Astrodragon, at minimum the early conquest of Libya means sufficient forces will be available to hold Crete and quite possibly some useful experience will be obtained invading the Dodecanese. Not to mention a division or two and several squadrons of fighters in Singapore.
 
How about instead of Petain, you have an earlier POD in which Marshal Foch is still alive, fit of mind and body, and ready to serve as a rallying point for Free France? Or does such an idea belong in ASB?:confused:

Foch would be too old I think. A better option might be to have Pétain & Co push for armistice as in OTL, and find they're in the minority. That gives Reynaud a good reason to dismiss them ("government must be of one heart and mind" thing), and to continue with the ones ready to fight on.
 
Astrodragon, at minimum the early conquest of Libya means sufficient forces will be available to hold Crete and quite possibly some useful experience will be obtained invading the Dodecanese. Not to mention a division or two and several squadrons of fighters in Singapore.

Grimm, I agree about Crete - however if the Italians have the sense to go for Greece soon, the allies are going to be very short of supplies, having used up a lot taking NA. The USA wasn't producing much yet, Britain has to make sure it has a properly armed garrison, so there will be a lot more troops than equipment hanging around the Med.
Now by the second half of 41 its a different story - Britain is now secure, equipment is flowing to the French from them and from the USA, the troops are rearmed and retrained...but I cant see Italy waiting this long.

And the interesting case is what happens to Barbarossa??
After all, Italy invaded Greece without bothering to tell Hitler. So will the Germans be happily building up for Barbarossa on schedule?
They are (we know now) rather stuck in this TL. If they attack in 41, it leaves all those allied forces available to do something in the Med (even if some go to the Far East). If they delay, in order to help (say in Greece), the stronger allied forces will either delay Barbarossa a lot (I dont think the Germans will be happy attacking in the autumn..), and if its 42 the Russians are that much stronger.
 
Amazing. How silly those Frenchies were to surrender when they could easily have continued and beaten the pants off the Germans....

But seriously, the French surrendered because they were beaten. Sure, they had been beaten before they could mobilize their full economic and morale strength but lets not forget the French army was almost as large as the German army, they had more and better tanks and as many aircraft. And they got the stuffing kicked out of them.

There wouldn't have been that much to continue a fight. Yes, the French fleet, a couple of squadrons that fled to North Africa and mostly the North African depot troops left there as the best troops had already been sent to France. The French would certainly have tried to ship as many troops off to North Africa as possible but I rather wonder how that would have turned out. For starters, what would the French civilians have done? Meekly waited while the troops were bugging out? If you consider the fleeing civilians OT during the German advance, desperately trying to stay ahead of the Germans, I think you can expect "last helicopter out of Saigon" like scenes.

And if we can all see the danger to Libiya, the Italians could probably see it too. They almost would have to send their fleet against the troop carriers, whatever the cost.

Still, lets assume the French (or at least a French government) makes it to North Africa, ready to continue the war. With what? It would take them years to build up a strong army capable of tackling the Germans. And to equip it properly. The British couldn't help them, they couldn't even equip their own army and needed American material. Even as late as 1943, when the ex-Vichy forces had to be re-equipped, the British couldn't spare the necessary equipment while the Americans could only provide enough for a couple of divisions. In 1943, when the American arsenal of victory was at full steam!

And talking of the American arsenal, lend-lease was largely the result of the shock of the French defeat. If there is no defeat, merely a lost battle of France, would the British and French still get their "free ride". Or would they have had to pay cash, as they had to do before the lost battle? Could they even afford to? Britain practically went bankrupt in 1941. And that is even without considering the political repercussions. Just how eager would the French colonies be to sustain a failed French government (failed in the sense that it is the first duty of a government to defend the nation). The British commonwealth largely existed of semi-independent countries with native governments (albeit imported 'natives') excepting colonies like India A decision to support England would have had legitimacy. And even there, the British had to make a lot of concessions which ultimately cost them their empire.

The French had mostly old-fashioned colonies and it seems unlikely their native populations would have footed the butcher's bill without due compensation. Which would have meant the end of the French empire. Vichy managed to maintain the French colonies and a part of metropolitan France, as was its aim. How much legitimacy would a die-hard regime have if it merely led to the dissolution of France? Would they even want to try, given the price?

I could go on but in short, France Fighting On is not as simple as some believe...:rolleyes:

Makes a good story, though.....;)
 
Amazing. How silly those Frenchies were to surrender when they could easily have continued and beaten the pants off the Germans....

But seriously, the French surrendered because they were beaten. Sure, they had been beaten before they could mobilize their full economic and morale strength but lets not forget the French army was almost as large as the German army, they had more and better tanks and as many aircraft. And they got the stuffing kicked out of them.

In terms of the will to fight, they certainly were beaten (and the discussion is more of a hypothetical about the consequences than an assertion that so-and-so could have led to France carrying on). Petain and the gang thought that Britain would have our necks wrung like the proverbial chicken and it was best to settle for as lenient a peace as possible while it was going. That doesn't mean that France didn't still have various useful resources - its empire and fleet - that could have helped the war effort.

Poland had no empire and no useful fleet; but for the Poles there was no lenient peace going, only national extermination, so they fought on. If they were physically capable of doing it, the French absolutely were.

There wouldn't have been that much to continue a fight. Yes, the French fleet, a couple of squadrons that fled to North Africa and mostly the North African depot troops left there as the best troops had already been sent to France. The French would certainly have tried to ship as many troops off to North Africa as possible but I rather wonder how that would have turned out. For starters, what would the French civilians have done? Meekly waited while the troops were bugging out? If you consider the fleeing civilians OT during the German advance, desperately trying to stay ahead of the Germans, I think you can expect "last helicopter out of Saigon" like scenes.

No troops need escape France at all for the Allies to enjoy the benefits of retaining Indochina, say, or of not having to invade Syria or Madagascar. The French fleet, of course, is a bigger deal than you make it sound like.

And if we can all see the danger to Libiya, the Italians could probably see it too. They almost would have to send their fleet against the troop carriers, whatever the cost.

The cost of sailing right smack into the middle of the western Med, given the availability of both the French navy and the RN, would be the Italians taking a sojourn with Davy Jones. Fine use of resources, that.

The existence of Egypt didn't compel the Italians to make a death-ride against the British fleet. Why should the existence of Tunisia demand a death-ride against an even stronger fleet?

Still, lets assume the French (or at least a French government) makes it to North Africa, ready to continue the war. With what? It would take them years to build up a strong army capable of tackling the Germans. And to equip it properly. The British couldn't help them, they couldn't even equip their own army and needed American material. Even as late as 1943, when the ex-Vichy forces had to be re-equipped, the British couldn't spare the necessary equipment while the Americans could only provide enough for a couple of divisions. In 1943, when the American arsenal of victory was at full steam!

You seem to be assuming that it's now up to the French government in Algiers to save the world single-handed. The USSR is still there. Britain and America have everything they had IOTL. They also have a handy fleet, no need to invade Vichy colonies, and the ability to threaten Libya from two sides - even a small force is useful in this scenario. Japan, meanwhile, doesn't have the staging-point from which it attacked the Southern Resource Area. Clearly, the war is going to be easier for the Allies.

And talking of the American arsenal, lend-lease was largely the result of the shock of the French defeat. If there is no defeat, merely a lost battle of France, would the British and French still get their "free ride". Or would they have had to pay cash, as they had to do before the lost battle? Could they even afford to? Britain practically went bankrupt in 1941.

You answer your own question. If Lend-Lease is still necessary to prevent German victory, then there is absolutely no reason not to grant it. State's pursue strategic goals, they don't start doing things under exact sets of circusmtances like computer programmes; America still wants Nazism defeated expediently and still sees that the Allies need its industrial capacity to do that. And losing France is of course hardly an insignificant setback. In fact, it's a massive defeat that basically excludes the Allies from Europe.

And that is even without considering the political repercussions. Just how eager would the French colonies be to sustain a failed French government (failed in the sense that it is the first duty of a government to defend the nation).

The only colony that revolted against either French government IOTL was Vietnam (against Vichy and for the Allies, although that might well be differant ITTL), so why assume that any other colonies would do?

The British commonwealth largely existed of semi-independent countries with native governments (albeit imported 'natives') excepting colonies like India A decision to support England would have had legitimacy. And even there, the British had to make a lot of concessions which ultimately cost them their empire.

So excepting the vast majority of the empire's population? I find it interesting that British colonies were so much more "legitimate" than French ones: there wasn't yet a Quite Algeria movement.

And those concessions weren't to the dominions but to India and Burma, so the two strands of your argument fail to cross.

The French had mostly old-fashioned colonies and it seems unlikely their native populations would have footed the butcher's bill without due compensation. Which would have meant the end of the French empire. Vichy managed to maintain the French colonies and a part of metropolitan France, as was its aim. How much legitimacy would a die-hard regime have if it merely led to the dissolution of France? Would they even want to try, given the price?

As I said, all the thread asks us to do is suppose that France fights on. Unlike many of the things we are routinely asked to take as read ("the USSR collapses, the Axis win"), this is perfectly possible in a physical sense. Oh, and the Free French had no trouble holding on to their share of the French Empire and were able to draw some manpower from places like Central Africa. Not much, but as I said, strategic positions and the fleet are the main benefits, not manpower and arms.
 
Last edited:
Top