What if the French had not surrendered in World War 2?

The French were defeated fairly quickly and then surrendered, leading to the establishment of the Vichy State. One of the quirks of all of that was that the French Navy was neither captured by Germany or allowed to continue the battle outside of France. The majority of the French fleet spent most of the rest of the war in port in the South of France(Marseille?) and in Northern Africa(Oman and ?).

The Netherlands was captured also, but many of its warships escaped and operated under the government in exile.

The French Navy as I recall, was one of the world's largest navies in 1940- off the top of my head as big or bigger than Italy's. The French also had troops in North Africa, and likely could have evacuated a significant portion of its Army to North Africa.

If the French Navy had largely escaped, which it likely could have, and there was similar government in exile to commit those forces to the Allied cause, I think that the Italian Navy would have been destroyed much faster, that there would have been no "Africa Korps" and the Med would have been the Allies lake by 1941.

Just a thought experiment- curious to see what anyone else thinks.

 

The sad thing is that the French had far better tanks and Charles de Gaulle was learning how to use them. They could of fought on, Churchill even offered to create an amalgamation of the two countries. But the truth is that the British could not of continued fighting on the continent. They did not have the equipment.

Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to sink the french fleet and he is still hated by some french man over 1000 sailors were killed.

An interesting what if though.

 

The reason that the French fleet wasn't allowed to fight for De Gaul was because the British attacked it shortly after France surrendered. If the fighting had gone on, they would have had the upperhand. The Marginot line hadn't crack yet, and France and Britain actually had more tanks then Germany. If it dragged on, they would have been able to at least make a stalemate, or even win the war.

 

There's no way that France could have won.
It's also irrelevant as to whether the Maginot line cracked or not owing to the fact that the Germans bypassed it by invading Belgium.

When it comes to tanks however; it wasn't the number but the capability.
We had a lot of tanks which didn't have actual guns on them such as the Vickers for example and not many that could contend with the Panzer III and the like.

The French fleet was given an ultimatum to join or be taken to British ports which of course led to their sinking.

But if they had joined then it would have freed up the Royal Navy to combat the Kriegsmarine and potentially reinforce Singapore.

 

We're arguing if that swing right didn't actually result in Dunkirk.

Your right, but those tanks didn't exist at that time. Compared to 1941, the German tanks were much lighter. In the end, the slug fest that would have commenced would have gone to the Allies because of the inevitable stalemate, with Germany having to wage an offensive, it would have become another Russia in the end.

Sure. I agree on that point.

 

Then it's quite likely that we wouldn't of got as many men home as we did.
Leaving an escape route open would have let the BEF think that they still had a chance.

Well actually the Panzer III was manufactured in 1939 although it's fair to say that the number of light tanks such as the Panzer I & II outnumbered the medium tanks

Yes if the French and BEF could consolidate and fortify their positions but that still leaves the southern front vulnerable from the Italians who had the potential to be a very serious nuisance.

 

That's orginally what happened. The only reason why Dunkirk happened was because they were worried about how successful the German offensive had been. They stopped, giving the BEF time to evacuate.

That's what I was getting at.

The only reason Italy got involved at all was because of Germany's offensive actually working. Italy wasn't ready for war. When Germany attacked Poland, Italy couldn't attack because it wasn't ready. It was just like what Russia did with Poland. They sent undersupplied troops into France simply to claim a part of the spoils.

 

The French didn't had the will to fight , Germans had loudspeakers on the line propagandizing a peaceful surrender.
France lost like 6m people in WW1 and nazis were a new reality and Europeans learn to live with it.
Both France and the various forms of Germany have been ruled by the same families for centuries (like the Karlings) .
France was in bad shape and population was disappointed , think of Obama failing hard and Canadian tea party offering a union ,many civilians will think "why not" and "things can not be any worst" , going in a war with a mentality like this guarantees defeat .

 

The majority of the French Army was outflanked in Northern France and in a position to be completely annihilated. There is no way they could make it to Southern France to be evacuated.

 

Better tanks is debatable. Their tanks had better armor and guns than their German counterparts, but they ran into the problem of having tank commanders who also had to act as loader, thereby decreasing efficiency. German tanks also had radios in each vehicle, increasing communication efficiency, as well as throat mikes that worked regardless of ambient noise. I would argue that good command, control, and communications is superior to good guns and armor, especially when combined with German close air support doctrines and the speed of their vehicles.

- - - Updated - - -

It didn't matter that the Maginot Line hadn't cracked. The Germans were behind it. The guns of the line couldn't fire to the rear.

Similarly, having a superior number of tanks doesn't matter when the Germans are in your rear sitting across your logistic lines and you can't get fuel or ammo forward to your troops.

 

The bulk of the French army and tanks were surrounded in Belgium and the British were desperately trying to get across the Channel.

There was nothing to fight with.

 

Will had little todo with. Their armies (and the BEF) were cut off and surrounded in Belgium but the unexpected panzer thrust through the Ardennes forest.

 

France had it's Army mobilized prior to the German Invasion of Poland. If the French would have attacked Germany as they attacked Poland, history might be different.

 

I don't disagree- frankly I don't know what troops they had in Southern France. But I do think that if the French government had not surrendered, but evacuated to North Africa, they would likely have been able to bring a sizeable contingent of troops with them- and essentially the entire French fleet- they may have lost a few vessels during the evacuation but the majority would have survived.

 

You forget that Italy was invading southern France as this is happening. They only stopped because of the surrender.

 

Possibly. France wasn't geared toward an offensive war. They tried that strategy in WWI and almost got their butts whipped for it. In WWII they planned on fighting another war like WWI.

They had their strategies reversed. In WWI the defense had the advantage because there was nothing that could effectively advance on well fortified machine gun positions. In WWII with the advent of the tank, the offense had the advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the Italians had gotten bogged down against French resistance in the Alps.

 

Which would have collapsed the instant the government and army went into full flight.

 

I had forgotten that. Still think that the fleet in the South France could have gotten out with an exile government- but I agree that would make any troop escape much less likely.

 

A government in exile sure, but really that's nothing. I highly doubt the fleet would have done much though considering that Germany had all of Metropolitan France (including the families of the French sailors) as hostages against their good behavior.

 

I think France capitulated because lacked of will to fight, France had bled in 1914-1918 (1,393,000 KIA, WIA more than 4 millions)... and all to start again ... 20 years later... to the French mentality was not worth (maximum when France was politically divided between comunist (former fascist) and fascist. I think that´s the main reason because the powerful France was diluted like sugar in tea in 40 days campaign...It was the third war in less than 70 years... too much wars... France was tired...morally discarded. Possibly the French campaign is the greatest military victory ever achieved by any nation. in 40 days, with light tanks and light planes, german achieved an epic victory.
If we compare the slow progress of the Allies armies in 1944 (from Normandy to Paris) (heavy tanks, thousands and thousands planes etc) with the fast German advance in 1940, we will measure the lack of spirit in the French army. Regards.

 

I don't see why they would have been any more hostage than the exiled Dutch and Polish Navies were. Any these are just doing 'what if's' and we can't know for certain.

 

The Dutch and Poles were so minuscule to be inconsequential. The French Navy had real ability to threaten Axis war aims. They would have leveraged serious pressure against them.

 

You may be correct- certainly that behavior was not unknown by the Nazis.

Assume for a moment though that the French didn't surrender, that there was a pro-Allied French government in exile in North Africa, and that French fleet joined the allies rather than was sunk by the British.

The movie "Casablanca" would have been very different.....

 

I think the French fleet would have caved and The French government in exile would have ended up sitting out the war in Algiers.

 

I took the OP as meaning that Dunkirk never happened, whether due to German error or simply holding their ground.