France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
What if France would have fought on in 1940 (after metropolitan France would have fallen) *and* the US would have already entered WWII on the Anglo-French side by that point in time (which might actually be pretty doable if Woodrow Wilson dies of his stroke in late 1919 and new US President Thomas Marshall is able to get the US Senate to subsequently ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France and thus create a post-WWI alliance between the US and these two countries)? What would Allied (Anglo-Franco-American) strategy be after the Fall of France and what exactly would Hitler's and Mussolini's strategy be in this scenario? Specifically, does Mussolini still enter the war on Hitler's side? Also, how do the Allies plan to get back into Western Europe? In addition, does Hitler still launch Operation Barbarossa in 1941 in this scenario or does he instead aim to finish off the (Western) Allies before actually turning on the USSR and attacking them so that he doesn't have to simultaneously fight a war on two fronts? Also, does Japan still invade French Indochina and/or attack Pearl Harbor in 1940-1941? Indeed, just how does WWII proceed in the months and years after the Fall of France in this scenario?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 
Sep 2013
459
France
I'm not sure to understand. Italy entered war and fought against France in 1940 (with very few success though...). So in your scenario, when the US would enter war, Italy was already at war.
Then France needed an other army to fight on after the may-june campaign. As you may know, after the stubborn german breakthru at Sedan and the rush to the sea, the main forces in Belgium were cut off their supply lines with all the heavy equipment... So it would not have changed a lot.
With her soil occupied, France would need foreign help to re-build an army (which is what occured), and the US would need some time to be able to land in Europe with a big and effective fighting force (which is also what occured).
Barbarossa would still happened in 1941, with the same consequences. (germans needed to crush the soviets in order to be oil independent and before the US become too strong).
 
Aug 2013
191
Finland
Does this mean that the official French government would have become a government in-exile and the French military would have continued the fight under that government even after Germany conquers all of France proper?

I guess Mers-el-Kébir would never have happened for example and overall what was the Free French would just now be the French and would have been a lot stronger. Perhaps more troops would have been evacuated to Africa for example from where they might have attempted an invasion of Libya? If not that, Italy would at least want to do something about Tunisia and French Morocco, so there would in any case be more fighting in North Africa.

Corsica would have remained in French hands initially and the Axis would have needed to make a naval invasion to take it.

It might also mean there is no Vichy France set up at all and the whole of Metropolitan France would be under military occupation.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
I'm not sure to understand. Italy entered war and fought against France in 1940 (with very few success though...). So in your scenario, when the US would enter war, Italy was already at war.
The US would enter WWII in September 1939 in this scenario. So, theoretically speaking, this might be enough to deter Italy from going to war against the Allies in 1940.

Then France needed an other army to fight on after the may-june campaign. As you may know, after the stubborn german breakthru at Sedan and the rush to the sea, the main forces in Belgium were cut off their supply lines with all the heavy equipment... So it would not have changed a lot.
With her soil occupied, France would need foreign help to re-build an army (which is what occured), and the US would need some time to be able to land in Europe with a big and effective fighting force (which is also what occured).
If the French government will fight on, though, might more people volunteer to join the Free French? After all, in real life, De Gaulle was essentially a rebel--with Vichy being recognized even by the Allies as France's legitimate government until 1944.

Barbarossa would still happened in 1941, with the same consequences. (germans needed to crush the soviets in order to be oil independent and before the US become too strong).
OK.

Also, do you see any difference in the Mediterranean campaign in WWII in this scenario--such as a quicker Allied victory in this theater?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
Does this mean that the official French government would have become a government in-exile and the French military would have continued the fight under that government even after Germany conquers all of France proper?
Yes, it does.

I guess Mers-el-Kébir would never have happened for example and overall what was the Free French would just now be the French and would have been a lot stronger. Perhaps more troops would have been evacuated to Africa for example from where they might have attempted an invasion of Libya? If not that, Italy would at least want to do something about Tunisia and French Morocco, so there would in any case be more fighting in North Africa.
Agreed. Also, would the Allies win more quickly in North Africa?

Corsica would have remained in French hands initially and the Axis would have needed to make a naval invasion to take it.
Or an aerial invasion a la Crete, no?

It might also mean there is no Vichy France set up at all and the whole of Metropolitan France would be under military occupation.
Yep. Interestingly enough, this might have even worse consequences for France's Jewish population in comparison to real life, no?