If Nazi Germany and Vichy France make a separate peace before 1944, how is this going to affect D-Day?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,713
SoCal
#1
If Nazi Germany and Vichy France make a separate peace before 1944, how is this going to affect D-Day?

In real life, the fact that France was occupied by Nazi Germany ensured that there would be no problem for the Western Allies in attempting to invade and liberate France. However, what if France would have already made a separate peace with Nazi Germany (a full peace treaty, not just an armistice) sometime before 1944? I think that the US legally recognized Vichy as France's official government until October 1944--when it switched to recognizing De Gaulle's government as the legitimate government of France. Thus, the US might have had to switch to recognizing De Gaulle earlier in this scenario--but would it have actually been willing to do this? I mean, as vile as Vichy was, it was elected by the French Parliament; in contrast, De Gaulle didn't have any legal authority to set up a separate French government of his own.

Also, another point is that if a peace treaty is signed between Vichy France and Nazi Germany, then this would mean that all French troops under Nazi control would have to be returned to Vichy. That means less slave laborers for Nazi Germany unless it can import slave labor from elsewhere to compensate for the loss of its French POWs.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this scenario of mine?
 
Oct 2013
14,280
Europix
#2
If Nazi Germany and Vichy France make a separate peace before 1944, how is this going to affect D-Day?

In real life, the fact that France was occupied by Nazi Germany ensured that there would be no problem for the Western Allies in attempting to invade and liberate France. However, what if France would have already made a separate peace with Nazi Germany (a full peace treaty, not just an armistice) sometime before 1944? I think that the US legally recognized Vichy as France's official government until October 1944--when it switched to recognizing De Gaulle's government as the legitimate government of France. Thus, the US might have had to switch to recognizing De Gaulle earlier in this scenario--but would it have actually been willing to do this? I mean, as vile as Vichy was, it was elected by the French Parliament; in contrast, De Gaulle didn't have any legal authority to set up a separate French government of his own.

Also, another point is that if a peace treaty is signed between Vichy France and Nazi Germany, then this would mean that all French troops under Nazi control would have to be returned to Vichy. That means less slave laborers for Nazi Germany unless it can import slave labor from elsewhere to compensate for the loss of its French POWs.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this scenario of mine?
France had a de Gaulle.

De Gaulle would have been the legitimate representative in exile, Vichy being a Nazi puppet signing a meaningless treaty under threat.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,713
SoCal
#3
France had a de Gaulle.

De Gaulle would have been the legitimate representative in exile, Vichy being a Nazi puppet signing a meaningless treaty under threat.
The thing is, though, that as I already said above, the US actually did recognize Vichy as being France's legitimate government until October 1944. It was only then that it actually switched over to de Gaulle.
 
Oct 2013
14,280
Europix
#4
The thing is, though, that as I already said above, the US actually did recognize Vichy as being France's legitimate government until October 1944. It was only then that it actually switched over to de Gaulle.
I have doubts the relations with Vichy would have been the same in the case of separate peace.
 
Likes: Futurist
Mar 2019
1,208
Kansas
#5
The thing is, though, that as I already said above, the US actually did recognize Vichy as being France's legitimate government until October 1944. It was only then that it actually switched over to de Gaulle.
It did not stop the US attacking multiple Vichy French holdings in North Africa

Aside from that. Following the D-Day battle plan, no allied forces needed to go near Vichy territory on their drive to Berlin
 
Likes: Futurist

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,169
Las Vegas, NV USA
#6
I don't know why Hitler would have wanted a formal peace treaty while the war was still in progress. Assuming he did, the treaty would probably require Vichy to be neutral but still trade with Germany. A treaty would not deter Hitler from responding to any perceived threat coming from that direction. For the allies, it might have been a benefit. The African -Italian campaign was not going to defeat Germany. So the allies would likely put all their effort on occupied France.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,713
SoCal
#7
It did not stop the US attacking multiple Vichy French holdings in North Africa

Aside from that. Following the D-Day battle plan, no allied forces needed to go near Vichy territory on their drive to Berlin
Vichy would have gotten most of northern France back in the event of a separate peace, though.

Your point about the US attacking Vichy French holdings in North Africa is very well-taken, though.
 
Apr 2017
1,237
U.S.A.
#8
Vichy would have gotten most of northern France back in the event of a separate peace, though.

Your point about the US attacking Vichy French holdings in North Africa is very well-taken, though.
Hitler wanted france neutralized forever, which is one of the reasons they occupied northern france. Even if he did pullout from France, the allies would still invade the now nearly undefended Normandy probably calling it a puppet regime of Germany.
The Soviets and British invaded Iran when they wanted allied forces to leave as part of actual neutrality.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,713
SoCal
#10
Hitler wanted france neutralized forever, which is one of the reasons they occupied northern france. Even if he did pullout from France, the allies would still invade the now nearly undefended Normandy probably calling it a puppet regime of Germany.
The Soviets and British invaded Iran when they wanted allied forces to leave as part of actual neutrality.
You mean "wanted Axis forces to leave", no?