Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anglo-French Union 16 June 1940

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anglo-French Union 16 June 1940

    Due to the ongoing name calling and insults traded between these 2 nations, I was initially quite surprised to have read about the potential political union between these 2 nations prior to the surrender of France in 1940. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/400616a.html
    Further reading http://streitcouncil.www2.spacegrant...ion_Streit.pdf http://postalheritage.org.uk/exhibit...ps/anglofrench

    Apparently, the suggestion came very close to being accepted by the French Cabinet. What would have resulted if this took place. The immediate military effects, I believe, would have been minimal. France would still have been overcome on the mainland. The Battle of Britain would still have the same outcome, but there would have been no Mers el Kebir. What would be the longer term effects?
    Last edited by At ease; 02 Oct 09, 00:29.
    "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
    "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

    "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
    — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

  • #2
    Even If they were a lot of Arguments between them, Churchill always supported de Gaulle, especially against Roosevelt who didn't like de Gaulle. They came from the same background, conservative aristocratic families. The main problem is that at the end of june 1940, this only two men beleived that Germany could be defeated
    Last edited by PGT Beauregard; 02 Oct 09, 04:29.
    à vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire (triumph without peril brings no glory) P. Corneille

    Le probleme avec les cons, c'est qu'il ne se fatiguent jamais
    (The problem with Pr.cks, is that they never get tired ) Michel Audiard

    Comment


    • #3
      Shame it never became a reality. The most immediate consequence I think would have been a very difficult situation for the Italians in Lybia, being sandwiched between Egypt and Tunisia and, of course, no Vichy France.

      Comment


      • #4
        Didn't Churchill turn down Reynaud's request for more British planes because they were needed to defend the U.K.? If there's a union they (and the pilots) might have been lost in Northern France and the BoB lost.

        Comment


        • #5
          Royalists and Republicans in bed together....I say!

          I think the military hierarchy would have a bit of problem with a union like that. In Britain, a soldiers loyalty is to the Queen, in France it is to the President(or is it just "the Republic"?). To be a united force surely they must all swear allegience to both? or there must be a new figurehead?

          I cant see French troops swearing allegiance to the Queen or British squaddies shouting Vive la France!

          la France is more likely

          Anyone else here from the planet fubar?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tuor View Post
            Didn't Churchill turn down Reynaud's request for more British planes because they were needed to defend the U.K.? If there's a union they (and the pilots) might have been lost in Northern France and the BoB lost.
            By the time the union was proposed Northern France had already been lost and the French close to being thoroughly routed. The union would have allowed the French colonies to continue fighting and the French fleet serve alongside the RN legitimately. I do wonder about the consequences for metropolitan France though, technically still at war with the Germans. Would the occupying forces treat the French civilians as well as they did historically or would they aim to intimidate the populace in an effort to undermine the morale of the French armed forces still fighting? How would French forces mesh with British ones? Who would be in charge? With the British government being the dominant partner there would be some strong discussions going on with some choice phrases being exchanged. I actually don't see it working for very long.
            Signing out.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Boonierat View Post
              Shame it never became a reality. The most immediate consequence I think would have been a very difficult situation for the Italians in Lybia, being sandwiched between Egypt and Tunisia and, of course, no Vichy France.
              Would the Italians be ejected completely from North Africa, making the subsequent involvement of the Africa Korps a non starter?
              "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
              "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

              "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
              — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by PGT Beauregard View Post
                Even If they were a lot of Arguments between them, Churchill always supported de Gaulle, especially against Roosevelt who didn't like de Gaulle. They came from the same background, conservative aristocratic families. The main problem is that at the end of june 1940, this only two men beleived that Germany could be defeated
                I think it is the opposite ,Churchill saying to De Gaulle:Every time when we will have to choose between the US and France,we will choose the US .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by At ease View Post
                  Would the Italians be ejected completely from North Africa, making the subsequent involvement of the Africa Korps a non starter?
                  Hard to say, but that surely would have changed things in the Med.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    I think it is the opposite ,Churchill saying to De Gaulle:Every time when we will have to choose between the US and France,we will choose the US .
                    That's irrelevant in June 1940.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Boonierat View Post
                      That's irrelevant in June 1940.
                      But YOU wrote:Churchill always supported de Gaulle,especially against Roosevelt

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                        But YOU wrote:Churchill always supported de Gaulle,especially against Roosevelt
                        It's not Boonierat who wrote it, it's me. I just said That Roosevelt hated de Gaulle because he thought he could be a Tyran. Churchill supported de Gaulle in front of Roosevelt. De Gaulle had deep admiration of Churchill .I am like him, I think Churchill was one of the greatest men of the 20th century.
                        à vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire (triumph without peril brings no glory) P. Corneille

                        Le probleme avec les cons, c'est qu'il ne se fatiguent jamais
                        (The problem with Pr.cks, is that they never get tired ) Michel Audiard

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by At ease View Post
                          Would the Italians be ejected completely from North Africa, making the subsequent involvement of the Africa Korps a non starter?
                          Yes. There is a thread archived here with a similar premise. That is the French government moves to Africa (Algeria) and carries on. One take from the discussion was the combined French Brit fleet, and airbases in Tunisia made any Italian effort to hold Lybia hopeless. The Allies would probablly control the entire North Africa littoral before mid 1941, if not much sooner.

                          A second line of thought floated was that a massive air battle would have developed over Sicily/Tunisia & adjacent areas rather than England. No BoB that i. Instead the Germans send as much of their air force as can be supplied to the Mediterrainian front to participate in the air/sea campaign to save Lybia.

                          Ejecting the Italians from Africa early perhaps leaves a bit of a stalemate in the Med. Neither side in 1941 & early 1942 has the werewithall to mount significant amphibious operations. So, they are reduced to making rude gestures across the straits.

                          If the italians do attack Greece then a Balkans front may briefly open up. But, I dont think the Allies can do any better there than historically despite the extra French naval power. Tho perhaps Crete might remain in Allied hands.

                          This scenario reflects on developments in the Pacifc. In late 1940 Japan, with German encouragement, begain pressuring Vichy France to allow Japanese air and naval bases in Indo China. In the spring of 1941 Japan occupied Indo China outright, locking up the French soldiers in their barracks. That occupation was the seminal event in triggering the trade embargos on Japan. With France still in the fight and supported by the US Japan has no chance at a bloodless occupation of Hanoi and Saigon.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            I think it is the opposite ,Churchill saying to De Gaulle:Every time when we will have to choose between the US and France,we will choose the US .
                            That's because the UK did have to chose, after having become dependent on the US in WWII.

                            There's a saying in the French Foreign Office:
                            "All nations love the idea of having an affair with France, but it's the US they dream of marrying."

                            Before the US entry in 1941 the point would be moot. As late as 1943 Churchill made sure to keep de Gaulle on the inside of things, while the Americans wanted to sideline him and the Free French in North Africa.

                            Eventually Churchill found it expedient to support Roosevelt against de Gaulle, since the Americans felt very strongly about him. By the time of the Italian campaign Churchill was apparently telling Roosevelt that he agreed with him that de Gaulle might be a potential French military dictator.

                            At that point the job of keeping de Gaulle in the loop of things seems to have fallen to Anthony Eden as Churchill's Foreign Secretary.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Boonierat View Post
                              That's irrelevant in June 1940.
                              By the end of June 40 so was France.
                              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X