The long-term fate of Vichy France in a Nazi victory/draw in WWII TL?

[WolfBear]

What would the long-term fate of Vichy France be in a Nazi victory/draw in WWII TL? As in, either the Nazis outright win WWII or they achieve a draw, where neither they nor the Allies are actually able to achieve a decisive victory. I'm asking about this right now because I think that any puppet regime that Russia will install in some or all of Ukraine will have a marked similarity to Vichy France, with Russia being the equivalent of Nazi Germany. In turn, this made me wonder what kind of relationship Vichy France would have had with Nazi Germany in the long(er)-run if Nazi Germany would not have been decisively defeated and destroyed in WWII but instead been allowed (due to a lack of any other options) to permanently maintain its domination of Europe, including of France.

Any thoughts on this?

@History Learner @sillygoose @stevep Any thoughts on this?

 

[History Learner]

Depends on how the Germans win and when they do so.

 

[WolfBear]

Depends on how the Germans win and when they do so.

Have Britain make peace in 1940 and then have the Nazis crush the USSR in 1941-1942.

 

[History Learner]

Have Britain make peace in 1940 and then have the Nazis crush the USSR in 1941-1942.

I'd imagine Vichy France would end up something like Fascist Italy in the long run, while being like the RSI in the short run. They'd have to give up Alsace-Lorraine, which was acceptable to domestic audiences in 1940-1941 by most accounts given how decisive the defeat was, but they could be recompensed with Wallonia. I'd imagine France-Italy-Spain would emerge as a distinct bloc within the Fascist Camp to counterbalance Germany to an extent, while remaining hostile to the Anglo-Americans in the Cold War. Maybe like, ironically, Gaulist France vis-a-vis NATO IOTL.

 

[WolfBear]

I'd imagine Vichy France would end up something like Fascist Italy in the long run, while being like the RSI in the short run. They'd have to give up Alsace-Lorraine, which was acceptable to domestic audiences in 1940-1941 by most accounts given how decisive the defeat was, but they could be recompensed with Wallonia. I'd imagine France-Italy-Spain would emerge as a distinct bloc within the Fascist Camp to counterbalance Germany to an extent, while remaining hostile to the Anglo-Americans in the Cold War. Maybe like, ironically, Gaulist France vis-a-vis NATO IOTL.

Gaullist France remained within NATO but not within NATO's integrated military command structure, IIRC.

And AFAIK, Nazi Germany wanted more than just Alsace-Lorraine:

But the rest of your post here actually does sound very sensible.

 

[WolfBear]

Here's a similar version of the map above, for greater clarity:

 

[History Learner]

Gaullist France remained within NATO but not within NATO's integrated military command structure, IIRC.

And AFAIK, Nazi Germany wanted more than just Alsace-Lorraine:

But the rest of your post here actually does sound very sensible.

Most of those wildly expansionist plans came into consideration post 1942, although the orange area was under contention until 1941, then quietly dropped from what I understand. German planning was not really unified in this respect, which makes it difficult to deduce exactly what was most likely; I think Alsace-Lorraine only is the most likely tbh.

 

[WolfBear]

Most of those wildly expansionist plans came into consideration post 1942, although the orange area was under contention until 1941, then quietly dropped from what I understand. German planning was not really unified in this respect, which makes it difficult to deduce exactly what was most likely; I think Alsace-Lorraine only is the most likely tbh.

I could be wrong on this, but AFAIK, the orange area was dropped because Nazi Germany was busy with the war. But this doesn't necessarily mean that Nazi Germany could not have reopened the question once the war was over.

Briey and Longwy and their vast iron ore reserves could have been of great value to Nazi Germany, though whether the Nazis themselves actually realized this, well, I do not know.

 

[History Learner]

Gaullist France remained within NATO but not within NATO's integrated military command structure, IIRC.

And AFAIK, Nazi Germany wanted more than just Alsace-Lorraine:

But the rest of your post here actually does sound very sensible.

Yeah that's what I was getting at, still in but keeping an arms distance to establish its own independence. Such a bloc would be more comparable to NATO than the Warsaw Pact, as France, Italy and Spain have the means of asserting themselves in a way Slovakia, Hungary, etc could not.

 

[WolfBear]

Yeah that's what I was getting at, still in but keeping an arms distance to establish its own independence. Such a bloc would be more comparable to NATO than the Warsaw Pact, as France, Italy and Spain have the means of asserting themselves in a way Slovakia, Hungary, etc could not.

Yeah, that makes sense.

What happens to the colonial empires in this TL? With Nazi Germany in charge of Europe, any feeling that non-whites should be entitled to independence would probably be significantly reduced. So, are France's, Italy's, and Spain's colonial empires going to survive up to the present-day, perhaps through a combination of military force and concessions of a political and economic nature (for instance, giving some representation to colonies in national parliaments and agreeing to subsidize them more, even if they're still not getting a fair share population-wise)?

Treating colonial subjects equally to metropolitan subjects would result in domination by the colonial subjects due to there becoming much more of them. But if there is some sort of extreme federal or confederal system, then this would be easier. Though I don't think that Frenchmen/Italians/Spaniards would be very willing to see a lot of non-whites move into their own countries in a TL where Nazi Germany wins WWII.

 

[History Learner]

Yeah, that makes sense.

What happens to the colonial empires in this TL? With Nazi Germany in charge of Europe, any feeling that non-whites should be entitled to independence would probably be significantly reduced. So, are France's, Italy's, and Spain's colonial empires going to survive up to the present-day, perhaps through a combination of military force and concessions of a political and economic nature (for instance, giving some representation to colonies in national parliaments and agreeing to subsidize them more, even if they're still not getting a fair share population-wise)?

Treating colonial subjects equally to metropolitan subjects would result in domination by the colonial subjects due to there becoming much more of them. But if there is some sort of extreme federal or confederal system, then this would be easier. Though I don't think that Frenchmen/Italians/Spaniards would be very willing to see a lot of non-whites move into their own countries in a TL where Nazi Germany wins WWII.

It's hard to say, Hitler in 1940-1942 was more than happy to cater to Vichy, Italian, etc colonial desires but later on was making very strong Anti-Colonial pronouncements and giving thought to views that suggest he could go either way. Ironically, I think it depends on which way the Anglo-Americans go on the issue with regards to Free France and British colonies, as well as how well the Axis do in Africa in this ATL.

 

[WolfBear]

It's hard to say, Hitler in 1940-1942 was more than happy to cater to Vichy, Italian, etc colonial desires but later on was making very strong Anti-Colonial pronouncements and giving thought to views that suggest he could go either way. Ironically, I think it depends on which way the Anglo-Americans go on the issue with regards to Free France and British colonies, as well as how well the Axis do in Africa in this ATL.

What turned Hitler into an anti-colonialist?

 

[History Learner]

What turned Hitler into an anti-colonialist?

There's some indications he always was, and his 1940-1942 epoch was simply realpolitik. Alternatively, he was just extremely bitter with how the UK-France-Spain-Italy acted in the course of the war.

 

[WolfBear]

There's some indications he always was, and his 1940-1942 epoch was simply realpolitik. Alternatively, he was just extremely bitter with how the UK-France-Spain-Italy acted in the course of the war.

That makes sense. I suppose that there's also the logic that if Germany can't get non-white colonies, then no one else should have them either, right?

 

[sillygoose]

Have Britain make peace in 1940 and then have the Nazis crush the USSR in 1941-1942.

Germany was explicit about what its plans were: an EU style economic system run from Berlin with a single currency for the whole unit. Remember Hitler was pursuing a policy of autarky for Germany and later extended that to Europe as he took more and more territory. He viewed the US as a continental sized rival and the only way to compete against it was to form a united states of Europe. Politically they'd be locked in an alliance with Germany, which would limit their foreign policy but give them relative freedom internally.

Here is a translation of the economic union they had planned as of 1942:

http://www.bilderberg.org/EWG.pdf

Please ignore the silly intro that claims that this is proof that the EU is actually a clandestine Nazi project. Some British anti-EU group put it in and they get the facts about the origins of the actual EU post-war hilariously incorrect as well as the history and purpose of the 1942 conference.

As to France within such a system Vichy was apparently quite enthusiastic about the proposals:

European Confederation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vichy French Prime Minister Pierre Laval was enthusiastic of the proposal and wrote in a document to Adolf Hitler that France was ready for territorial sacrifices in Tunisia and Alsace-Lorraine to bring about an "atmosphere of confidence" in Europe.[2] He also stated that France must prepare to join the customs union, and was ready to accept long-term German military occupation of the French Atlantic Coast if it was necessary for the protection of Continental Europe.[2] He also hoped that the measures would not exclude Germany and Italy later allowing France to regain "a position appropriate to its continental and colonial past".[2]

Note though there is the claim that Hitler disapproved of this plan, with the only source for the claims being a couple of rather questionable claims from Weizsäcker's diary in 1943; he was an aristocratic member of the resistance since at least 1938, a group which had a history of doctoring documents to make Hitler look as bad as possible and then leak them to the Allies to both separate themselves politically from the Nazis and justify their return to power in Germany after the removal of the Nazis. He was also angling to be part of the post-Hitler government in case of a coup. So take his diary entries with a grain of salt, especially by 1943 when he had resigned from the foreign ministry and started planning for his future after the war that Germany was clearly losing.

It isn't clear exactly where Hitler stood on the issue, but if he was willing to let Ribbentrop publicize the proposal it had some institutional support beyond simple propaganda given the trouble they went to to flesh out the idea and widely distribute it.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

I know this is a necro, but I only just found this thread.

A lot depends on just how powerful Germany is, between 1940-60. Are we talking about a Germany that has crushed Russia in 1941 and now lays claim to everywhere from Dunkirk to Kamchatka, or a Germany that made peace with Russia in 1944 and has far less of a free hand in post-war Europe? If the former, the French have relatively little bargaining power; if the latter, they have a great deal more because the Russians will be permanently on the borders, ready to attack of the regime looks weak.

Hitler, IIRC, hatred the French and saw them as permanently inferior to the Germans. This might change if it became obvious he needed French help, or (at the very least) he needed the French to stay quiet rather than turning into a major distraction at the worst possible time. Ideally, from his point of view, Vichy would be a puppet state – allowed a little independence in exchange for servitude. This would basically force the French to bow down indefinitely or secretly rebuild, planning revenge. Hitler would be very aware the French got hammered in 1871 and still managed to come back for a rematch in 1914-18, which the Germans lost.

I suspect the Germans will keep a close eye on the French, to make sure they're not rebuilding their army to dangerous levels. The French will probably resist allowing Germans into their colonial empires, both because it will be harder to rearm if the Germans are poking around and because it would make them look weak in front of their subjects. (Although the idea the subjects don't already know strikes me as a little silly.) There might be a split between the Free French, if they exist in this world, and Vichy; the best and brightest of France, aware they won't be allowed to rise in the Nazi-dominated world, will sneak away to the Free French. There might be a very weird arrangement between the two French factions – the Free French drain away the most dangerous youths in Vichy, rather than letting them grow up discontented.

Long-term, Vichy might well lose control of much of its empire. Revolts were a fact of life across the empires and the French wouldn't be able to muster a really powerful army in this timeline because the Germans would object strongly, assuming the French secretly planned to give their men experience and then make a bid for independence. On the other hand, if there is a second exodus of Frenchmen to Algeria (there was an exodus after 1871, IIRC), there would be a much larger French population in Algeria and perhaps a different outcome to the war. Vichy might also learn the wrong lessons from the Germans, who'll have their own problems in Eastern Europe; they might mount genocidal campaigns rather than try to separate the educated (and presumably pro-France) Arabs from the rest.

Really long term, if Germany collapses al la the USSR, the French may regain their independence. But would they be able to repair the damage of years as a puppet state?

Chris

 

[ATP]

I know this is a necro, but I only just found this thread.

A lot depends on just how powerful Germany is, between 1940-60. Are we talking about a Germany that has crushed Russia in 1941 and now lays claim to everywhere from Dunkirk to Kamchatka, or a Germany that made peace with Russia in 1944 and has far less of a free hand in post-war Europe? If the former, the French have relatively little bargaining power; if the latter, they have a great deal more because the Russians will be permanently on the borders, ready to attack of the regime looks weak.

Hitler, IIRC, hatred the French and saw them as permanently inferior to the Germans. This might change if it became obvious he needed French help, or (at the very least) he needed the French to stay quiet rather than turning into a major distraction at the worst possible time. Ideally, from his point of view, Vichy would be a puppet state – allowed a little independence in exchange for servitude. This would basically force the French to bow down indefinitely or secretly rebuild, planning revenge. Hitler would be very aware the French got hammered in 1871 and still managed to come back for a rematch in 1914-18, which the Germans lost.

I suspect the Germans will keep a close eye on the French, to make sure they're not rebuilding their army to dangerous levels. The French will probably resist allowing Germans into their colonial empires, both because it will be harder to rearm if the Germans are poking around and because it would make them look weak in front of their subjects. (Although the idea the subjects don't already know strikes me as a little silly.) There might be a split between the Free French, if they exist in this world, and Vichy; the best and brightest of France, aware they won't be allowed to rise in the Nazi-dominated world, will sneak away to the Free French. There might be a very weird arrangement between the two French factions – the Free French drain away the most dangerous youths in Vichy, rather than letting them grow up discontented.

Long-term, Vichy might well lose control of much of its empire. Revolts were a fact of life across the empires and the French wouldn't be able to muster a really powerful army in this timeline because the Germans would object strongly, assuming the French secretly planned to give their men experience and then make a bid for independence. On the other hand, if there is a second exodus of Frenchmen to Algeria (there was an exodus after 1871, IIRC), there would be a much larger French population in Algeria and perhaps a different outcome to the war. Vichy might also learn the wrong lessons from the Germans, who'll have their own problems in Eastern Europe; they might mount genocidal campaigns rather than try to separate the educated (and presumably pro-France) Arabs from the rest.

Really long term, if Germany collapses al la the USSR, the French may regain their independence. But would they be able to repair the damage of years as a puppet state?

Chris

If germans wins for real,they would genocide 50-85% of slavic nations,take their land,and nobody would care.
So,nobody would care,if french replace arabs with french in Algeria,too.
They could use berbers for that - they hated arabs.