Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Author Comment
ramtank2
(11/30/04 12:28 am)
 New Post British/French Union 1940
How would proposed Union have affected ww2?
lmah
(11/30/04 2:17 am)		 New Post Re: British/French Union 1940
Well, a LOT of consequences :

- France is fully occupied in 1940 : Germany has to maintain more troops in France, delaying (?) Barbarossa ; this could also modify the spanish "neutrality" in favor of Germany.
- the french fleet (and some air units) escape more or less unharmed and can be very useful against the italian fleet & the german raiders and subs (and also in case Germany tries to land in England) ; in my opinion, the italian fleet could be quickly wiped out.
- the Free French start with significant numbers of troops in Algeria+Morroco (not couting inland Africa), so the Allies will probably secure North Africa much sooner, taking Lybia and Tunisia in a pincer.
- no stupid combats between UK and France (Mers-El-Kebir, Lebanon/Syria, Madagascar).
- about Lebanon/Syria precisely, could this alter the turkish neutrality ? what are the consequences on the russian front ?
- perhaps also some consequences in Asia, the french fleet could help to defend Indochina againt Japan (but I don't think this would change the overall course of events there).

So ... WW2 will be definitely different (perhaps shorter ?).

Loïc (french, needless to say :D )
Fantasque
(11/30/04 5:20 am)
 New Post Re: British/French Union 1940
Yes, the war would have be very different.

I think that Spain would have been pro-Allied neutral because of the posible pressure of both France and GB.
The war in the western desert would have ended quite quickly (by end 40 and no Afrika Korps). The same about Italian forces in Eastern Africa (where in OTL free French forces have been deployed).
The insurgency in Iraq is much quickly dealt with.

French troops available in NA would have freed more troops for Greece but the result would have been the same. Still German army could have been delayed by let me say 2 weeks or even more. Crete could have been better defended (more air assets available, specifically Curtis H75A3/4, D-520 and Potez 631). Crete probably would have been lost, but with further delay and losses off Crete would have been shared by the RN and the MN. There is still a possibility that Crete could have been defended, and then Dodecanese islands would fall into French/British hands quite quickly.
Impact on Turkey would have been tremendous.

That puts Barbarossa off delay by may be one month, and the Battle of Moscow would have happened probably around Smolensk (where a defensive battle raged and was lost ib OTL).

The RN would have been able to deploy in the Far East in much greater number (no damage to Illustrious or may be Formidable, of course no Malta convoys) with MN in charge of the Med after destruction of Regia Marina.
Then PoW and Repulse got at least 2 CV with them, and even if one struck a rock they still have quite a good air cover in December 1941.

NEI are to be much better defended and could - may be - to be hold.

From a naval warfare perspective, I would assume then following events:
(1) a massive strike against Taranto by RN and MN with night action by FAA swordfishes and the "coup de grace" by heavy units. The Italian Navy is out (at least for its heavy units).
(2) defense of Crete with losses evenly shared between RN and MN (French ships like British ones had quite a poor AA defense).
(3) Landings in Dodecanese islands (probably goumiers and tabors troops) supported by Fantasque class and Mogador large DDs (Contre-torpilleurs in French).
(4) Combined French / British Squadron in the Far-East and better defense of Singapour.

The problem of preventing Japanese infiltartion in French Indochina could be a major change. It was this move which triggered the US oil embargo and then Pearl Harbour.....

Yours / votre

Fantasque
LionelT
(11/30/04 8:09 am)		 New Post For Force Z the biggest change...
....would be that French Indo-China would not have Japanese planes based in it!

The closest the IJA could come would be Southern China.

The poor results in the defence of Crete would be alleviated more by the presence of airpower than the additional MN vessels. Some squadrons of D520's would go a long way to keeping the Luftwaffe at bay.

Can't say that a sucessful defence of Crete, and the conquest of North Africa would really delay Barbarossa anymore than historically.

However, a united France/UK might provoke Hitler into delaying his Barbarossa timeline until 42. Not sure if that would work for, or against the Russians though.


Lionel
Dave Bender
(11/30/04 9:04 am)		 New Post When the going gets tough, switch sides!
Historically, Italy switched sides during both world wars. I expect that would happen here also. Only a year or 2 sooner.
Red Admiral
(11/30/04 11:38 am)		 New Post Re: When the going gets tough, switch sides!
Quote:
Historically, Italy switched sides during both world wars.


WWI?

They stayed neutral then entered on the entente side. Exactly the same as the US.
Glenn239
(11/30/04 11:56 am)		 New Post Re: When the going gets tough, switch sides!
During 1941 there was a debate at the highest levels of the Nazi government whether to invade the Soviet Union or undertake a Med. strategy. Had all of the Vichy colonies instead gone Free French in 1940, it may have deflected the 1941 German offensive away from Russia and into Algeria and Syria/Egypt.
ramtank2
(11/30/04 1:50 pm)		 New Post German Japan US reactions
Nice replies, I agree North Africa falls to allies, if Italy switches sides the country would be occupied by German forces, the Italiian fleet to allied ports? allies grab Sicily and Sardina?
Germany may strike for oilfields via Turkey, rather than invading Russia.
To counter Japan would reguire dispatch of bulk of new RN carriers there being several fast French BB BC to contain Germany BB and BC. Destruction or defection of Italian fleet frees additional capital units for far east deployment.
lmah
(12/1/04 3:18 am)		 New Post Re: German Japan US reactions
I think that the german fleet can't fight both french and english navies (not counting the italian one). German ships will simply not pass the Channel (or Germany heavily modifies his strategic direction and produces ships instead of tanks, but this takes time).

Something very important is the spanish attitude. I don't see Franco turning to the allies (they supported his opponents during the civil war). If he opens his country to german tanks, subs and planes (and the pressure will be heavy !), Gibraltar can be taken and, as stated before, North Africa can fall to Germany (but the crossing will still be epic !). This can make the US support and intervention much more difficult (imagine german subs and long-range planes based in Spain, Portugal, Morroco or even in the Azores !).
But this means that Hitler cancels (or postpones) Barbarossa. I don't think that Stalin will stand idly during this time ...

Or perhaps, Hitler tries to invade Great Britain as soon as the Union is declared (not allowing the allies to reorganize). He always hoped to treat with UK (stopping his troops in order to allow the Dunkerque evacuation). But if France and UK make the Union, not hope to deal with Churchill ...

Loïc
Dave Bender
(12/1/04 8:08 am)		 New Post German fleet can't fight both French and English
A true enough statement. But it overlooks the airpower factor. Historically when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 most of the Luftwaffe was tied up in the East. If Germany does not invade Russia, the Luftwaffe presence in Norway, France, and Sicily will increase dramatically.

The Med is narrow enough (North to South) that land based strike aircraft can close it off completely.

Quite possibly, the English Channel will become impassible to both German and British shipping. Airpower stationed on the channel coast will attack anything (British or German) that attempts to run the gauntlet.

The aerial stalemate will remain until U.S. airpower arrives in strength (mid 1943?). Without the Eastern front, airpower will be the dominant factor in the European part of WWII.
lmah
(12/1/04 8:50 am)		 New Post Re: German fleet can't fight both French and English
> The Med is narrow enough (North to South) that land based strike aircraft can close it off completely.

Mhm, I don't know. Look at Malta. German and italian planes were based in Sicily, but it didn't help ...

> Quite possibly, the English Channel will become impassible to both German and British shipping. Airpower stationed on the channel coast will attack anything (British or German) that attempts to run the gauntlet.

Sure, but the british ships can still go freely into the Atlantic, but not the german.

> The aerial stalemate will remain until U.S. airpower arrives in strength (mid 1943?). Without the Eastern front, airpower will be the dominant factor in the European part of WWII.

I agree. But I think the US arrival will be more difficult if North Africa is under axis control.

Loïc
Glenn239
(12/1/04 6:44 pm)		 New Post Those naughty Nazis
If Hitler doesn't invade the USSR in 1941, I doubt that he ever would. Either the USSR invades Germany in 1942 (if Hitler won't play ball in the Balkans) or they do not (Hitler makes major concessions).

In the former case, the focal point of the war will still be the Russian Front. In the latter, American aid to Great Britain will largely be offset by Soviet aid to Germany in the form of raw materials and massive amounts of military aid (but no active Soviet fighting. Germany would make a much better North Korea for Stalin than North Korea ever did!

Germany will probably deploy 4-engine bombers, the U-boat war might eventually swing back into Germany's favor, and Japan will be a far tougher nut to crack.

Quite a tall order for an off-the-cuff suggestion by Churchill in 1940...
MarkLBailey
(12/2/04 5:51 am)		 New Post Union and Consequences
Tried to post this 2 days ago, but my *%#$@&^ system chucked a wobbly on me.

Anyhoo...

The fundamental problem in the early part of WWII was that utterly astonishing 60 Days where France died as a Great Power and became forevermore a minor one trying to regain lost glories. There is much literature on this, one which best expresses the seismic nature of the collapse of France is "60 Days that Shook the West". At the end of it, the Empire stood utterly alone against a continental enemy, a reversion in strategic situation to the end of the 18th century! You have to read the contemporary records to understand the horrified disbelief at what happened during those shattering 60 days.

And it really did not have to be that way.

If the Union had been made (or if Georges Mandel [Minsiter of the Interior] had pulled it off), then France would not sue for a separate peace. The French Army would fight on, facing final defeat in some last ditch on the Continent by about November. This would be due as much to the distance to be crossed by the German lines of comms as to French resistance. The endgame would see a couple of things; a French Government in Algiers most likely under Mandel, Darlan ordering the Fleet to Oran and probably becoming Minister of Marine under Mandel, Petain probably the symbolic head of the French Army (Fantastique, your opinion, please!), I do not know who would be the actual head of the Army.

There would be evacuation of powerful forces to North Africa, and a pulling together of the French Empire.

This means that France would still be a powerful and active ally. The Italians could not maintain themselves against this force for long. They would be cleared out of Libya quite quickly, Mid-41 at the latest. there could be no Afrika Corps. Greece would still happen, but I think that Crete, if tried, would be a German-Italian disaster. The Dodecanese would be seized and a transport route opened to Russia thru the Black Sea.

Having an angry and belligerent French Empire on-side means no Vichy allowing an occupation of Indo-China. That means SIngapore is safe, for a while. The MN in the Med means that powerful forces are freed to reinforce it. Oh, they would still lose IMHO, but the Combined Fleet, especially its BB force, would sure as hell know it had been in a fight!

This changes the entire dynamic of the Pacific War, because the USA has to acknowledge that the severe damage to the Combined Fleet during 1942 was done by the RN - at very high cost to that force.

It also changes the entire dynamic of the European War. I estimate that France could have something like 15-20 Divisions (half of them sustainable) and a very powerful Fleet strong enough to dominate the Med after joint MN-RN destruction/neutralisation of the RMI to add to the Allied effort.

Bottom line - France would retain its status as a loyal ally and a Great Power (even though a badly shattered one), and above all else, its self-respect. I do not think that de Gaulle would ever rise to the prominence he did, meaning that France would have little need for the more disruptive of his policies post-war.

My humble opinion, anyway.

Cheers: Mark
Fantasque
(12/2/04 8:37 am)		 New Post Re: Union and Consequences
Mark,

As usual, a very good post.

I think that the military part of it makes clear what could have been consequences of the Union. The real issue is the Union itself, that is the political side.
The "what could have happened if" debate about a possible retreat to North Africa with or without the Union had been a classical one in France in the 50's and early 60's. But what is missed usually is that part of the right wing establishment really preferred Hitler to the "popular Front" (and here comes Petain and his "revolution nationale") and part of the left side was too much grounded into post-WWI pacifism.

To get Loic PoD we would have needed a strong Paul Reynaud (backed by Mandel) allied to a strong Blum, without the pacifists of the SFIO. Pierre Mendes-France was by then too junior a politician to be decisive a force at the decision time.
If we assume that perequisites for Loic's idea exist, then Petain would have to be thrown overboard and probably Weygand too. Petain lobbied for the Armistice because he wanted political power and was already much leaning toward conservative revolution (see marc Ferro's book on Petain) and Weygand wanted the Armistice to prevent military capitulation. So, both are to be fired.

Now, who gets in charge? Reynaud and Mandel of course, and may be Blum. Daladier would join force with the first 3. Dismissal of Petain and Weygand opens a tremendous political opportunity for de Gaulle. After all his own ideas have been vindicated by the war and - this has been neatly established by Lacouture - he has approached Blum and the Popular Front government during winter 36-37 to push for the creation of a strong armoured force nucleus. he would have ended Marechal de France combining the Ministry of Defense and the Chief of Staff office.
Mendes-France is also to rise quickly if only because he was a friend of both Blum and Mandel and had a strong will (he demonstrated it by joining the FAFL and flying for one year as bomber-navigator in the Lorraine (Boston equipped) squadron).
Among other political figures of this government you could include Pierre Cot.

When this government settle to Algiers (and I suspect that the military collapse in France would have happened by end-summer, not November) the Germans would try hard to find a French Quisling. Doriot is probably to be chosen. Actually, Hitler supported Petain against the French nazis (Doriot and Deat) because Petain had an apparent legitimacy. But, in this scenario it would have been logical for him to bet on real fascists or even nazis.
A French puppet government with Doriot and Deat would have been a very ugly thing, much like was Vichy by end 43 and early 44 with Darnand as minister of the interior and the "Milice" in charge of counter-insurgency. Anti-semitism would have been radical if only because in Algiers you would have had Mandel, Blum, Mendes-France, and so on...
This certainly would have provoked a strong dissent inside the Communist Party which, in OTL, was already divided about its "neutral" policy about Germany (actually, some people like George Guingouin began creating armed groups as early as October 1940). With Thorez in Moscow and Duclos in charge in France either you have a split or Duclos is able to negociate with Kommintern authorities more room to manoeuvre. The rise of the underground movement would have been faster than in OTL (the first Vichy government, before 42, sedated part of the opinion) and the French legal government in Algiers would have needed an alliance with the movement developping in occupied France as much as De Gaulle needed it in OTL.
The heroic and tragic figure of Jean Moulin would have raised the same way, as he was close to Mendes-France and Pierre Cot (he has been chieff of Cot's staff when Cot was Ministre de l'Air). He would have worked hard to re-integrate communists in French politics because he was seeing this move as the only one able to prevent a civil war after the Liberation. With a German occupation much nastier than it was in OTL, radicalization would have been even sharper. In the end, Mandel and Reynaud could have seen in De Gaulle the only possibility to prevent a complete take-over by the Left (if only because he was able to have good relations with a lot of people) and de Gaulle could have emerged as a central - but different - figure for post-45 politics.

Now, back to naval and military issues.
The main problem is how to maintain French forces effectiveness without an industrial basis. Up to end 40/early 41 that is not too difficult, but after???
One possibility is of course diversion of lend-lease to french forces. Obsolescent H-75 (P-36) and war worn D-520 are replaced by P-40Cs&Ds. Bomber force is re-equipped with Marylands and first generation Bostons (A-20), and then B-25. The land army would have had at first to soldier on with what was at hands, but that would have been enough to stab Italian forces in the back in Tunisia and Italian North Africa would have collapsed by late 40.
Naval operations could have been supported by well equipped base (Mers-el-kebir, Oran, Bizerte, Dakar). The Italian BBs would have been destroyed (probably in a combined operation against Taranto) and the Axis would have contested the Med through air-power. But, with the Armée de l'Air still in the game (and plenty of well trained pilots and crews) that would have been major an undertaking, probably immobilizing many Luftflotte.

The war in the Balkans coud have dragged on and I agree that Crete could have been defended and Dodecanese would have fallen into Allied hands.

That makes Barbarossa postponment highly probable. Still Hitler would have tried his luck in 1942 (early May) because this war was meaning everything for him, but by then the RKKA would have been thoroughly revamped by Zhukov (who got his position as chieff of staff in OTL much too late to implement the needed reorganization). Equipment is much improved, with Yak-1 and Yak-7 widely available for the fighter force, Pe-2 and Il-2 for the strike force, and most T-28 and BT-5 replaced by the T-34 and the KV-1. Bad news for Adolf.
Of course, junior soviet officers are still greens and the RKKA takes losses for 4 to 6 months, but nothing comparable to what happened in 1941 in OTL. Germans are stopped somewhere between Kiev and Smolensk. Soviet Forces turn to the offensive by winter 42/43 and you got some nasty encirclement operations by early 43.
Because the Werhmacht has not faced the T-34 in 1941 the whole program aiming for qualitative superiority on the battle-field (of which Panthers and Tigers are the most well known result) would have been implemented one year later. Soviet armour superiority is then even more obvious than it was in OTL.

In the Far-east, I agree with Mark.

Yours,

Fantasque
Redbeard
(12/2/04 9:25 am)		 New Post We wouldn't be able to recognise the world...
Just as a supplement:

Maintaining French equipment will indeed be a challenge, a "detail" like everything French being in metric measurement will make everything very tedious. But in the first important months after the fall of mainland France even a handful of French Fighter squadrons taking part in the Battle of Britain will be important and further toughen the job of the Luftwaffe. Later the availability of large numbers of trained personel will be significant until the Imperial Training Programme gets underway. By that time British and US production will also be big enough to resupply the French forces.

The biggest difference is likley to be in the Far east though. In short I think the Japanese situation is impossible. Without French Indo China they can't effectively threaten Singapore, and without Singapore they can't operate effectively in South East Asia. The one last ressort might be a coup like surprise attack from the seaside on Singapore. But that was just the kind of attack Singapore Fortress was built to prevent, and in this scenario the British and French have plenty of assets to guard (and cut off any occupational force of Singapore). Further there is a decent chance of the allies keeping the Mediterranean open as the supply route to Far East. If that is the case the allies not only saves a lot of tonnage (making the Battle of the Atlantic even tougher for Germans), but also makes it practical for the allies to quickly reinforce the Far East in case of a Japanese attack.

I very much doubt if the Japanese will repeat the strategy of our time line. If not giving in to allied demands (i.e. giving up China) the best advice I can give would be leaving PH alone and count on the Americans not being ready to serious counteroffensive for at least six months. But still the problem is, that in this time line, the British, French and Dutch actually are too big a mouthful for the Japanese. In SEA it will be the IJN operating out on a limp and risk finding themselves in a situation resembling that of Force Z.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
Fantasque
(12/2/04 9:52 am)		 New Post Re: We wouldn't be able to recognise the world...
Steffen,

That fits.
By the way, if no occupation of Indochina, no oil embargo and then no pressure on japanese High Command to mouve South.
With USSR at peace late 41, no incent to annoy the Soviet bear. Nomonhan memories were quite fresh.

Then Japan stays neutral.

Yours

Fantasque
AdmKuznetsov
(12/2/04 10:40 am)		 New Post Re: Union and Consequences
Adding a bit more detail to Fantastique's summary of the effects of delaying Barbarossa until 1942, Stalin also gets another year to work on the Molotov Line, which also has consequences. As it was, German 17th Army was stymied for a week on the Fortified Regions of Rava Russa and Przymyshl. With more Fortified Regions more complete, the Germans have a much tougher time getting through the border regions in a lot more places. This could save Pavlov from the disaster that befell the Western Special Military District.

And along with the T-34s, KVs, Yaks, Ilushins, and Petlyakovs you mention comes another year of training on them.

The Germans have no hope of getting to the Don River Basin, which is a major coal mining and industrial region that stays in production.

The consequences of this is that Barbarossa probably costs the USSR about half the personnel and economic losses it did historically, and it costs Germany about 50% more casualties in the initial campaign.

I'd expect Red Banners flying over the Reichstag in the summer of '44.
Fantasque
(12/2/04 10:55 am)		 New Post Re: Barbarossa
I agree with Adm. Kuznetsov.

Human loses for USSR were to be much lower than in OTL (26 millions) if only because the savage occupation will not take place on as much territory and for as long than in OTL.

USSR emerges in a much better human and economic shape than in OTL.

On the side, I am not completely convinced by Imah/Loic arguments about Spain. Franco was a very cautious man. Even with a fully occupied France, he would probably have waited before committing Spain (which was in a terrible situation) to a new war.
If he had waited till the German offensive had turned sour in Russia, then he would have stayed neutral.

Yours

Fantasque
Dave Bender
(12/2/04 11:48 am)		 New Post Another German Possibility
I believe that the spectacular success of the 1940 German invasion of France went a long way towards cementing Hitler's power within Germany. In this scenerio, the invasion of France could have the opposite effect.

September 1940 finds Germany mopping up the last pockets of resistance on the French mainland. It has been a very bloody summer, with Germany suffering many times their historical casualties. The Italian entry into the war has turned into a bloody fiasco. Italian colonies in North Africa are being overrun by British/French forces. The Italian navy has taken a major beating. Now Der Furher is telling the German general staff to prepare for an invasion of Russia!!

The German general staff has had enough. Hitler is arrested, given a summary court martial, and shot. Germany will remain under martial law until the conclusion of the war. In 1940 the SS is still far too small to argue. They are reabsorbed into the German army proper.

The interm German government sends a memo to the British and French governments. The past 12 months have all be a horrible misunderstanding. Why don't our representatives meet in Sweeden? We need to end the conflict before it evolves into another WWI scale bloodbath.
Glenn239
(12/2/04 12:53 pm)		 New Post Re: Another German Possibility
Wow.

An Anglo-French coalition as proposed is not going to over run North Africa - the Germans would not permit that, and they had aerial superiority.

The British would be hamstrung because of German interior lines - the Luftwaffe can stage back and forth from the Channel to Africa. The British have to put their planes in boats and sail around the Horn of Africa.

I sincerely doubt that the addition of French remnants to the Allied cause would materially change the balance of Hitler's 1941 programme, but if on the off chance it did, I'd guess it more likely that it would make him less willing to attack the USSR and more willing to settle with Stalin.
Redbeard
(12/2/04 2:27 pm)		 New Post .
By 1940 the Luftwaffe wasn't really a threat against naval targets, and if trying to interfere with allied naval forces cutting off Axis forces in North Africa they will have to give up attacking GB, and gain nothing. With the additional French forces I doubt the Germans will be given the time to even try deploying forces in NA. Morroco, Algeria and Tunis will probably contain a large part of the French air and land forces evacuated from France, and can easily be supplied here from GB. As long as Spain stays out of the war (I think a Spanish entry on Axis side is even more remote in this scenario) the allies have a good chance of keeping the Med open to shipping (going along the NA coast and with aircover from there).

The Germans will probably have to choose between allowing Italy to conclude a separate peace (and attack Russia) or go for a Mediterranean strategy involving an occupation of Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Balkans and indefinately postponing the attack on Russia.

The first option is risky if the allies are thus allowed access to Italian territory, but the best way to keep the allies out of Italy might be letting Italy conclude a peace where they promise to shut up and stay put.

The problem with the last option is, that it really doesn't bring more than new obligations to occupy territory and really doesn't hurt the British or French. Next Stalin might have an idea about opening a front too. If postponing Barbarossa into 42 I agree that it will be even more disaster for the axis.

A third option might be Dave Benders idea of getting rid of Hitler and calling it all a great misunderstanding...

regards

Steffen Redbeard
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8