Neutral France

swampyankee said:

Why wouldn't Germany attack it? Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium were neutral.

I think one needs to provide a more positive reason for Germany not to invade France than French neutrality, one that has to overcome Hitler's personal antipathy to a country that beat Germany*, took Alsace-Lorraine, and forced a humiliating treaty on Germany. And don't forget all that loot: France was rich.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. The Netherlands and Belgium were invaded because it gave Germany a strategic advantage in the attack on non-neutral France.
In the unlikely event of a neutral or even a pro-German France, I seriously doubt if Germany would have attacked any of these countries. After all, what Hitler really wanted was "lebensraum" in the east.

Frog said:

Re-took Alsace (french since 1748 + Mulhouse in 1798) and Lorraine (french since 1766))...

Click to expand...

My great grandparents were from Alsace and were refugees from the Prussians in 1870 and had to leave their home and business in Alsace to remain French settling in the Cevennes. Many thousands of others also had to leave Alsace as one could only remain there if you became German.

Depends if the intended premise is to see what French 1940 rearmament looks like if it mobilizes the military industry without declaring war or if it completely ignores Poland and follows peacetime rearmament programs. The former would imply mostly discussing what OTL mobilized France intended to field, the latter has some sutble differences.
I will go for the latter for this reason, and assume that the Anglo-French gambled on gaining more time at the cost of Poland.

The peacetime rearmament plans for the ground forces and the Air Force respectively were the Armament Program 1940-1943 and Plan V.
The naval plans didn't change much save for small units since capital ship construction takes a long time; but capital ship construction should actually be faster than historical since naval construction was supended on September 1939 and progressively restarted in Spring 1940, and shipyard manpower and steel ressources would not be demanded by the ground programs.

I have not yet dug up the files for Armament Program 1940-1943 (just identified the related archives). But the gist of it is that most types to enter production in 1940 or 1941 had already been selected or were in development before the outbreak of WW2. The war just cancelled certain types to focus on others and increased the required production rates (although the temporary mobilisation of skilled factory personnel slowed down the aero and military industries between September 1939 and Spring 1940).

The main differences I know of for sure were:
- peacetime production of the Char B for 1940 would only rise to 14/month and 140 for the year instead of being expected at over 90/month towards the end of 1940 in WW2.

- construction of the Lorraine and Baudet-Donon-Roussel Char G1 prototypes would not be suspended/abandonned and should be complete by Q3/Q4 1940, and Fouga's prototype slated for 1941 might be ordered. Renault's would be complete mostly around the same time as historically, that is September 1940. The two ARL 3 turret prototypes to arm the former two prototypes would be also completed. Instead of starting a new battle tank program in December 1939-February 1940 as historically, the French might just continue to build up on the G1 program.

- 1 or 2 additional battalions of Char D2 tanks could be ordered as capacity for this was identified historically, for the peacetime program.

- The 2nd batch of 200 FCM 36 that were ordered in June 1939 should go forward (production of this tank was abandonned after the outbreak of WW2 to focus on the Char B). This order itself was just a sort of preliminary/emergency one because the main contract was taking too long, so it is possible that in peacetime, the Army would finally secure a contract for even more of them.
This batch adressed most of the technical flaws identified in the first batch:
- the engine was uprated from 90 to 100 hp thanks to an improved cooling system,
- a more reliable engine starting system would be added
- a new gearbox would replace the old one which had a gap between some gears which reduced average speed. Top speed would drop to 21 kph but average speed would sharply increase.
- the suspension was to be improved (in the most radical proposal, the track tunnel would be deleted and the tracks would be wider and spaced more from the hull) to reduce mud buildup and massively increase average speed in wet ground.
- the turret would be replaced with a reinforced type which replaces some welded assemblies with stampings, improves weld quality and uses a more resilient internal mantlet. The armor on the roof, side plates and turret ring collar would be increased. It would carry the more powerful 37mm SA 38 gun as standard.

One of the things that came out of the war was the late 1939-early 1940 tank program designed by Inspector of Tanks Keller to specify new tanks for 1941 and 1942. But the fortress tank part of the program was irrelevant (no new study was launched as improvements over existing projects were insufficient), the battle tank program would not be necessary with a continuing Char G1 program, and there is evidence that the improvements requested for light tanks would go forward even in peacetime: Renault already offered a private venture in June 1939 for a sub-20t light tank with a 47mm SA35 tank gun and a 60mm-thick armor basis, the DAC 1.

Regarding Plan V, my understanding is that there weren't many (any?) new aircraft projects launched after the outbreak of WW2. Or at least none that were new requirements rather than natural conclusions of previous studies.

Can Japan still make a move on FIC in Sept 1940? What's France going to do to stop them?

If France were neutral and had a guarenteed neutrality pact with Germany (like Sweden did), then I would imagine that France would be freed to move substantial assets to their Far East holdings to deter Japanese aggression.

Their ground and naval forces would certainly be something the Japanese would have to consider, though the Armée de l'Air may not be on a par with the that of the IJN/IJA.

Admiral Beez said:

Can Japan still make a move on FIC in Sept 1940? What's France going to do to stop them?

Click to expand...

France still can't do much. Frantically rearming to face Germany, and communications lines that are very long. Even with a neutrality pact with Germany, France is still next-door to a country that is promulgating a massive buildup and clearly not intent on abiding by the treaties it has signed.

Of course, Japan's risks are much higher, and French neutrality may have some deterrent value. That might lower the temperature of the relationship between Japan and America, because with no seizure of French Indochina, you don't get the scrap-iron and oil embargoes.

If that is so, perhaps Japan decides to aid Germany's invasion of Russia by going north? I'm not sure, because the resources problem is still extant in Japanese strategic thinking, even with American oil. The Japanese are still fighting a thirsty war in China, after all. But if they choose to go north, they still have forces relatively able to give mutual support, at least in Manchuria and around Mongolia. Is American oil and tin, rubber, and manganese from the NEI enough?

GrauGeist said:

If France were neutral and had a guarenteed neutrality pact with Germany (like Sweden did), then I would imagine that France would be freed to move substantial assets to their Far East holdings to deter Japanese aggression. Their ground and naval forces would certainly be something the Japanese would have to consider, though the Armée de l'Air may not be on a par with the that of the IJN/IJA.

Click to expand...

I can only imagine the IJN naval aviator reaction when Bearn arrives at Saigon - something along the lines of what the hell is that piece of crap? Though they would agree that the raised lift is a novel idea.

swampyankee said:

France had a lot of doctrinal and concomitant organizational problems in its army and air force. I doubt if these would improve in a neutral France.

Again, France was hated by Hitler and his minions and rich. Even the French right, some extreme elements of which may have welcomed German help in suppressing the left (as did the government of France in 1871), was mostly not in favor of becoming German puppets or even allies, and independent neutrality would not have been accepted by Hitler. Why trade when you can steal?

Click to expand...

Part of the french right ideology was looking on the fascist side, but for historical reasons there were nationalist movements that were strongly anti-german.

yulzari said:

My great grandparents were from Alsace and were refugees from the Prussians in 1870 and had to leave their home and business in Alsace to remain French settling in the Cevennes. Many thousands of others also had to leave Alsace as one could only remain there if you became German.

Click to expand...

Other settled in Algeria. In 1875, 19,62% of the euopean origin population in Algeria was from Alsace and Lorraine (30 548 / 155 700).

Since Hitler and his views about the lebensraum, move to the East and attitude to France were already mentioned, it makes sense to refer to his original writings.
"Political Testament of the German Nation ought to lay down the following rules, which will be always valid for its conduct towards the outside world:
Never permit two Continental Powers to arise in Europe. Should any attempt be made to organize a second military Power on the German frontier by the creation of a State which may become a Military Power, with the prospect of an aggression against Germany in view, such an event confers on Germany not only the right but the duty to prevent by every means, including military means, the creation of such a State and to crush it if created."

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601h.html

By the way, France is condemned in that book more often than the USSR ("Russia") and is named the mortal enemy more than once.
Saying all that, Hitler was an opportunist. Probably, the opportunist to the extreme. After all, he contradicted himself and his warnings against the war on two fronts by giving the green light to Plan Otto (Barbarossa).
Which "Continental Power" is chosen to be crushed first in the alternative history of neutral France (and if Mein Kampf declarations are still valid years after the book was published) - we can speculate endlessly.

One more thing, neutral France also means no guarantees for Romania. Probably, that will push Romania to the Axis much sooner.
Possible consequences: no Romanian Bridgehead for Poles in September 1939 (where does the government go?), closer ties with Berlin, no Bessarabia in the secret clause of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, no territorial loss in 1940, Carol II stays in power. I'd like to add further: and play it like Franco did, and avoid the troubles. But Carol II was a weaker figure and didn't earn a reputation in Berlin as Franco did...

Frog said:

Other settled in Algeria. In 1875, 19,62% of the euopean origin population in Algeria was from Alsace and Lorraine (30 548 / 155 700).

Click to expand...

I was told that the expression 'pieds noir' came from them wearing black Alsatian boots.

yulzari said:

I was told that the expression 'pieds noir' came from them wearing black Alsatian boots.

Click to expand...

There are several other explanations for this expression :
- one has a naval origin, the steamboat stokers, often of indigenous origin, working barefoot had their feet soiled by soot, and by extension the Europeans for Algeria won this nickname ;
- another explanation is military as soldiers boots were of black leather (locals were often barefoot) ;
- one explanation originates from the crushing of grape with barefoot, that tended to darken the feet ;
- another one originates from the first settlers engaged in drying up the marshes of Mitidja that had their feet blackened by the mud.