What if the government of Free France was never created (Perhaps if Charles de Gaulle was arrested by the Nazi/Vichy government before he could go to England)? What would be the consequences of Vichy France being the only "France" during the rest of WWII?
WI: no Free France
- Thread starter John I of Brazil
- Start date
No presence in the UNSC, lack of the strategic industries developped later on through the impulse of the CNR, de Gaulle and such. Aerospace technologies, nuclear tech, a lot of these are very unlikely to be developped, or maybe on the scale of Italy’s, meaning under close US partnership... which can still lead to world-class expertise, Italy being among the best in the world for solid-fuel rocketry, for example.
Anaxagoras
Banned
It would have a not-inconsiderable impact on the war itself, for the Free French did provide considerable manpower to the Allied cause, especially in 1943, as well as critical intelligence from within France. But the main impact would be after the war. De Gaulle's great achievement was that he kept the fire of France burning through the course of the war and it was able to emerge from the conflict with its national pride and dignity intact. As @Rufus Shinra just pointed out, it's unlikely that France would have a seat on the UNSC, for one thing.
So, would there be only four permanent UNSC seats and if not, who would fill the fifth seat?
The thing is, its basically impossible not to have a Free France. The Appel du 18 Juin is a touching moment and doubtless de Gaulle was a patriotic and heroic man, but for the first several years of the war his own influence was essentially minimal, and there are inevitably going to be certain colonies which have to defect to the British, because their position is untenable otherwise - even if just the Pacific. Inevitably, the British will find somebody else to speak on the radio, because there's no reason not to, it is necessary to have some fig leaf about who is really controlling the French colonies during the war to not feed additional Vichy propaganda and resistance, and so there will be a Free France, even less independent and active at first, but some sort of Free France. Leaving asides the only big potential butterfly which might result, Bir Hakeim, the war will go on roughly as otl, and the sans de Gaulle Free French will eventually become something more meaningful when the French Africa as a whole defects after Operation Torch, and then for the rest of the war its contribution is basically that of OTL. And then France will probably get in the end a UN seat, which for various reasons (I would link over the post I made about the subject on another board but my wifi here doesn't permit me to access it) it made quite a deal of sense to get anyway (the British were the ones to propose the French candidature and were very ardent about it, and the French were the only nation which could complement the American-desired China that nobody else wanted) and the French diplomatic corps will be professional enough to angle for. It might even be helped without the personal antagonism between Roosevelt and de Gaulle, which might make up for a less skilled management of prestige and military affairs.
I would also have my doubts about a non-Gaullist France not being involved in high value prestige projects. Instead it would be switched to different organizations and styles. Military nuclear ambitions in addition to the extant civil program began to be examined in earnest from at least the period of the Suez disaster in 1956, but the idea was part of a pan-European project. A France of a surviving 4th Republic without de Gaulle would be more like Italy indeed for its political structure and political economy, but it might very well follow a pan-European project instead. The same can be said that without a Gaullist political voice, there might be less effective opposition to the European Defense Community and other pan-European projects. The same degree of massive investment into civilian nuclear power strikes me as unlikely, the rebirth of the aeronautic industry was well laid under the OTL 4th republic already, long before de Gaulle ever returned from his traverse in the desert. I'd expect a lot less independent foreign policy which is more beholden to the US, a more europeanist outlook, a less romantic myth about Free France, and a much more complex and even more painful dealing with Algeria - although maybe the immediate post-war French government would lack the vigor to try to reclaim Indochina... Inevitably a lot of the same economic structures are going to fall into place, dirigisme dated already from the 4th republic.
The Brazilians are unacceptable to the Soviets and the British due to being perceived as an excessively American influenced state, basically just giving the US another vote. And lacking any sort of international prestige or real influence or power. This is not just my speculation, they were considered for the role OTL and rejected. Canada, ditto with the same rejection from the Soviets.
If France didn't get the Security Council seat, then more likely there are only 3: France's inclusion was a quid pro quo because China was assumed as being an American puppet that the Americans were using to expand their influence. Neither the British or the Soviets would settle for them without alternate concessions, and just what those could be I don't know. The irony of course is that historically the Americans were opposed to the French inclusion until ultimately coming on board with the British opinion (at which point the Soviets threw in the towel) and wanted the Chinese, but then the French ended up being their ally and the Chinese became Red China, but life does take many turns.
Neither the Americans nor the Soviets are going to let a British colony on board and sit down at a table as ostensible equals with them.... Even the British might be highly uncertain about it, given that they know that it is going to be free soon, and might very well have a grudge.
I suppose the first. With the permanent members having the veto power, there's no reason to have an odd number of seats, and any other Allied nation than the Big Four would have been seen as a second seat for one of them.
And the cultural impacts? Would France be seem more as a "traitor" and "Axis scum"?
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Just a thought, but perhaps the lack of a seperately organized Free French administration-military unit (French forces may still fight, but like other exiles perhaps as elements within the Commonwealth army), would provide the Allies with more flexibility in terms of "sounding out" potential defectors among the Vichy leadership in Africa? Without any competing questions of government legitimacy or the need to placate the Gaulists, it'd be solid strategy once the Med is secured and the forces in Libya on the ropes to have Britain and the US reach out to see if they can't get the North African front to "flip" without a fight by offering clemency and the mantle of leadership post-war.
Raj had the biggest volunteer army at the end of the war, india played a massive role which is often overlooked. Also everybody knew Britian could not hold it any longer so British influence would be gone soon.
Recipe for chaos in the 1950's and 1960's with no De Gaulle 'Deus ex Machina' to lower into the vicious factions that might well have descended into civil war if the army staged a coup which is far from unlikely. The Algerian War would have a different ending. Militarily French forces had tamed the insurrection but De Gaulle had the vision and gravitas to pull out nevertheless.
The genius of De Gaulle was not to believe in his own propaganda.
The genius of De Gaulle was not to believe in his own propaganda.
If it had not been de Gaulle then it would probably have been someone else, although a bit later.
Probably Catroux who joined Britain by Singapore in late July 1940.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Catroux
Now, the point was that although then not being yet a prominent general of the French army colonel at the beginning of the war and general in June 1940) nor a significant member of the political stage (he was but an advisor to the head of the French government who appointed him as under-secretary of war), de Gaulle was a born Statesman and had a vision, both strategically for the war and politically for his country.
Nothing proves that Catroux or anyone else would have achieved what de Gaulle did achieve because of his vision and of his personality.
So there might have been a postwar France much more controlled by the US but also much more unstable, with a higher risk of a bloody civil war such as Greece went through.
But all this will not prevent France developing its high tech industries as it did OTL. Most of these were developed not under de Gaulle’s government but under the French 4th republic which was a full member of NATO under US command.
This is different. Darlan would hardly have joined free France. But he would have been an ideal pawn for the US and Britain because he could easily have been blackmailed like all those who had been heavily compromised in the Vichy government and its policy of collaboration with Germany.
With Darlan the term Free French might have been meaningless. Petain had appointed Darlan as chief of the NW Africa colonies in case the opportunity to flip presented itself. Petains instruction to Darlan was to follow the neutrality policy if possible, but if he had to choose to then take the Allies side. The three days resistance Darlan directed vs the Allied invasion was in part from a effort to satisfy the Germans the French were complying with the requirements of the Armistice: 'Prevent any other nation from occupying the French colonies.' & in part due to a breakdown in Allied efforts to communicate to Darlan. Paxtons 'Vichy France' or Jacksons 'The Dark Years' outline the situation Darlan found himself in. In any case Darlan was on the way to negotiating recognition as the leader of the French outside Metropolitan France when he died. Petains expectations in this are not entirely clear, he kept his plans in this close to his chest and largely unrecorded. One distinct possibility is Petain expected the Germans to dissolve the French government, with he and his cabinet arrested. In that case he seems to have laid the ground for Darlan as the last senior member government member, unrestrained now by the Germans, and representing legitimate continuation. As it was Petains government was not dissolved, even after being transported to Germany in August 1944. Hitler still thought he had use for the collaborationists like Laval.
As far as Darlans exposure as a collaborationist he was hardly blackmail material. His policies as prime minister were know, and were in any case the least of the leaders in retains cabinet. One of the reasons Darlan was removed as prime minister was his policy of resistance to occupation and strict neutrality was failing. Laval persuaded Petain he could accomplish more for France through a greater cooperation with the Axis nations. This does not whitewash Darlan, nor waive away his dithering in the crisis as the Allies in faded Algeria & Morocco in in November 1942. He had the opportunity to seize the moment and decisively turn the colonies over to the Allied cause in a day. Instead he tried to run a path between to many competing factions and a impossibly complex policy from Petain & tainted his reputation. But, as far as collaboration, what he had done while in Petains government was know & hardly blackmail material.
As far as Darlans exposure as a collaborationist he was hardly blackmail material. His policies as prime minister were know, and were in any case the least of the leaders in retains cabinet. One of the reasons Darlan was removed as prime minister was his policy of resistance to occupation and strict neutrality was failing. Laval persuaded Petain he could accomplish more for France through a greater cooperation with the Axis nations. This does not whitewash Darlan, nor waive away his dithering in the crisis as the Allies in faded Algeria & Morocco in in November 1942. He had the opportunity to seize the moment and decisively turn the colonies over to the Allied cause in a day. Instead he tried to run a path between to many competing factions and a impossibly complex policy from Petain & tainted his reputation. But, as far as collaboration, what he had done while in Petains government was know & hardly blackmail material.
Depends on what the makeup of the French Resistance ITTL would be like. If, for example, we had a more Greek-like French Resistance akin to EAM/ELAS (i.e. the franc-tireurs et partisans given a more prominent and active role), then the interpretation of Vichy France would be one way; if the French Resistance was more Polish-like (with internal structures similar to the Home Army and Secret State), then it would be another way - although with complications pertaining to the colonial empire. Either way, how the Resistance is organized ITTL will have implications for what cultural impact on France would the absence of de Gaulle contain and entail.