• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hello, and welcome back to the next DevDiary for the upcoming DLC! Today, we will talk a bit about how we are going to represent Vichy and Free France during the war.

Vichy France is perhaps the best example for what I like to call “trying to fit a history-shaped peg through a mechanics-shaped hole”. They were a puppet state of Germany by any reasonable metric - except they never formally joined the war. They weren’t at war with the Allies - and yet there were several battles between Allied and Vichy forces in Syria, Madagascar and most famously Dakar and during Operation Torch. Even after the battles were fought, however, Vichy France did not join the war, and the Vichy French troops engaged there were usually repatriated by the Allies after operations were over.

Currently, the division between Vichy France and Free France is handled by creating a civil war in France and Germany puppeting the fascist side. This automatically solves a number of issues that come with the sandbox nature of the game, such as dividing the military the player built instead of relying on pre-scripted OoBs, making sure both sides start with the same technology base and so on. It does, however, immediately put Vichy into war with Free France and (usually), by extension, the Allies.

This is somewhat accurate in the sense that there were engagements between Allies and Vichy France and Vichy France lost territory in those engagements. But there was never a formal state of war between Vichy France and the Allies, and the total contribution of Vichy French forces to the war in Russia amounted to a single regiment of volunteers. In fact, in a lot of ways, the Allies preferred Vichy France to de Gaulle, despite de Gaulle’s winning personality and great people skills.

To really do this situation justice, we decided to make special focus trees to handle it.

My design goals were to have

  • A way to separate France into a government-in-exile and a collaborating government in metropolitan France that did not require a gigantic ramshackle script system to handle all the edge cases

  • A Vichy France that remains neutral in the war for at least some time

  • A way for Vichy to become the “legitimate” France and even potentially join the Allies

  • A way to have Free France gain territories that were assigned to Vichy France when the whole thing was created, without bringing them into the war

Thankfully, we now have the ability to essentially run the civil war creation effect without actually creating a civil war. This does split the country, reassign the military, split the stockpiles, give both sides the right technologies and so on and so forth. This makes the whole process a lot less painful and reduces the number of edge cases, because as far as the game is concerned, Free France and Vichy France both qualify as France under the right conditions.

Screenshot_51.jpg


Another small change is that if you manage to get war support above 70%, a third option appears in the event about deciding between asking for an armistice or creating the Franco-British Union, allowing you to continue the fight. If you decide to surrender, the country is split between Vichy France and Free France, much as you are used to. Most overseas territories will initially go to Vichy France, as was historical, with Free France holding onto a few scattered island possessions. Both countries load a separate focus tree.

Free France has two main storylines to follow. On the one hand, you’ll want to recover territories that are held by Vichy. For the purpose of making things more manageable, the French colonial holdings are separated into a number of larger areas instead of being separated by modern national or period-appropriate administrative borders. These areas are: Syria, North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Madagascar, and Indochina.

free_france.jpg


Appealing to them directly through the focus has a chance to flip a few of them to your side, but the rest will have to converted by more direct means. One option is to promise the territory independence after the war, which has a chance to convert the territories and reduces resistance/increases compliance in the affected areas for the duration of the war. However, once the war is over, these areas will demand that you honor your commitment and let them go. If you refuse, you will quickly find yourself with a rather upset population resisting your administration, like France did historically in Indochina.

Option two is to intervene militarily, in areas that you have access too. This takes the form of the border wars, allowing you (or, more likely, your allies) to take over territories from Vichy France without going into a full-blown war. Not all areas can be taken over by border wars - Madagascar doesn’t border any other state from which an intervention could be launched, so you’ll have to find a different way.

Screenshot_54.jpg


The other large branch for Free France is establishing and improving the resistance working in France. Through a number of focuses, you can boost resistance targets all across occupied France and turn the entire area into a hotbed of resistance - even if you do have to make some unlikely alliances between Communists and Industrialists.

Once you have recovered the homeland and taken back Paris, you can form the Provisional Government, which reloads the original French focus tree. Should Vichy France still exist by this point without being at war with you, you get a decision to demand reunification.

vichy_france.jpg


On the opposite side, the biggest change is that Vichy France is no longer considered to be a puppet of Germany. Puppets are heavily weighted towards joining their master’s faction and towards following a call to arms if in a faction. I briefly considered making a special puppet level that could refuse a call to arms and set a number of scripted AI strategies to make it do so, but decided that a one-off puppet level was easily as much of a hack solution than just not having Vichy be a puppet in the first place and handle its relationship with Germany through other ways.

As Vichy France, your big task is to complete the “National Revolution” to transform French society away from the republicanism that has brought them to this point. At the same time, you will want to rebuild the military and, of course, try to hold onto your colonial empire. In the moment of surrender, you are saddled with a massive 20% consumer goods penalty that represents the occupation costs levied on France by the Germans.

Screenshot_53.jpg


To reduce these costs, you can strike a number of deals with the Germans, starting with giving them basing rights (historically done to help German support for an uprising in Iraq), later you can reduce your penalties further by offering to produce aircraft parts for the Germans (reducing production cost for German planes) and sending workers to Germany (giving them a production bonus).

Once you have finished the National Revolution, you can ask for Germany to return your occupied territories, and, should they agree, you join the Axis and reload the original focus tree with the branch towards the fascist alliance with Germany unlocked. If Germany refuses, you can then attempt to reconcile with the Free French, unify and re-join the war on the allied side if de Gaulle agrees (loading the original focus tree with the right-wing democratic branch unlocked), or you can decide to regain your honor by yourself and declare war directly, in which case you load the original focus tree with the branch towards the Latin Entente unlocked.

Of course, the Case Anton decision for Germany remains, so you might want to make very sure that you hold onto North Africa, lest Germany decides that you can’t be trusted.

That is all for today. Next week we will talk about some other changes coming in 1.8 Husky.
 
Another small change is that if you manage to get war support above 70%, a third option appears in the event about deciding between asking for an armistice or creating the Franco-British Union, allowing you to continue the fight.

It's possible to have more precision about the Franco-British Union ?

It means that France become a puppet of UK ?

Or UK and France are merged, and the player control this Franco-British country ? (While the current version, the Franco-British Union means the end of the game for the player who plays France)

Or it will be possible to continue the fight as an independent nation in the allies faction, from the French colonies, with a refugee government in Algiers, and with the troops we had time to evacuate before capitulation, a fleet and an aviation partly intact? Even if it’s not really the principle of the Franco-British Union. But it would be nice to have this choice in the game to continue the war like this, a 4th choice maybe ?
 
A couple of comments even though I believe that it is a waste of time.
1) History is about time and things change with time. What you call Vichy France now was just France in 1940. That was the unique legitimate state of France. Free France was nothing at the time. This changed completely later but still in 1944 Free France forces were largely composed by African conscripts and mercenaries. Paris was "liberated" by the Free France less colored unit.
2) France (i.e. Vichy) was not a puppet but a won country that had to pay the price of the defeat. In this Paradox is correct. The reason why France cannot join the Axis is because of German mistrust and Italy who claimed Corsica, Savoy, Nice and Tunisia. If you want a mechanism that allows France to enter in the Axis you need to deal with those points.
3) Soon after the armistice the Allies (the British) did start a war against France by backstabbing the former allied. The sailors that rescued the British at Dunkirk were killed in the process. Pearl Harbor was a joke in comparison.

Hello, and welcome back to the next DevDiary for the upcoming DLC! Today, we will talk a bit about how we are going to represent Vichy and Free France during the war.

Vichy France is perhaps the best example for what I like to call “trying to fit a history-shaped peg through a mechanics-shaped hole”. They were a puppet state of Germany by any reasonable metric - except they never formally joined the war. They weren’t at war with the Allies - and yet there were several battles between Allied and Vichy forces in Syria, Madagascar and most famously Dakar and during Operation Torch. Even after the battles were fought, however, Vichy France did not join the war, and the Vichy French troops engaged there were usually repatriated by the Allies after operations were over.

Currently, the division between Vichy France and Free France is handled by creating a civil war in France and Germany puppeting the fascist side. This automatically solves a number of issues that come with the sandbox nature of the game, such as dividing the military the player built instead of relying on pre-scripted OoBs, making sure both sides start with the same technology base and so on. It does, however, immediately put Vichy into war with Free France and (usually), by extension, the Allies.

This is somewhat accurate in the sense that there were engagements between Allies and Vichy France and Vichy France lost territory in those engagements. But there was never a formal state of war between Vichy France and the Allies, and the total contribution of Vichy French forces to the war in Russia amounted to a single regiment of volunteers. In fact, in a lot of ways, the Allies preferred Vichy France to de Gaulle, despite de Gaulle’s winning personality and great people skills.

To really do this situation justice, we decided to make special focus trees to handle it.

My design goals were to have

  • A way to separate France into a government-in-exile and a collaborating government in metropolitan France that did not require a gigantic ramshackle script system to handle all the edge cases

  • A Vichy France that remains neutral in the war for at least some time

  • A way for Vichy to become the “legitimate” France and even potentially join the Allies

  • A way to have Free France gain territories that were assigned to Vichy France when the whole thing was created, without bringing them into the war

Thankfully, we now have the ability to essentially run the civil war creation effect without actually creating a civil war. This does split the country, reassign the military, split the stockpiles, give both sides the right technologies and so on and so forth. This makes the whole process a lot less painful and reduces the number of edge cases, because as far as the game is concerned, Free France and Vichy France both qualify as France under the right conditions.

View attachment 511780

Another small change is that if you manage to get war support above 70%, a third option appears in the event about deciding between asking for an armistice or creating the Franco-British Union, allowing you to continue the fight. If you decide to surrender, the country is split between Vichy France and Free France, much as you are used to. Most overseas territories will initially go to Vichy France, as was historical, with Free France holding onto a few scattered island possessions. Both countries load a separate focus tree.

Free France has two main storylines to follow. On the one hand, you’ll want to recover territories that are held by Vichy. For the purpose of making things more manageable, the French colonial holdings are separated into a number of larger areas instead of being separated by modern national or period-appropriate administrative borders. These areas are: Syria, North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Madagascar, and Indochina.

View attachment 511781

Appealing to them directly through the focus has a chance to flip a few of them to your side, but the rest will have to converted by more direct means. One option is to promise the territory independence after the war, which has a chance to convert the territories and reduces resistance/increases compliance in the affected areas for the duration of the war. However, once the war is over, these areas will demand that you honor your commitment and let them go. If you refuse, you will quickly find yourself with a rather upset population resisting your administration, like France did historically in Indochina.

Option two is to intervene militarily, in areas that you have access too. This takes the form of the border wars, allowing you (or, more likely, your allies) to take over territories from Vichy France without going into a full-blown war. Not all areas can be taken over by border wars - Madagascar doesn’t border any other state from which an intervention could be launched, so you’ll have to find a different way.

View attachment 511782

The other large branch for Free France is establishing and improving the resistance working in France. Through a number of focuses, you can boost resistance targets all across occupied France and turn the entire area into a hotbed of resistance - even if you do have to make some unlikely alliances between Communists and Industrialists.

Once you have recovered the homeland and taken back Paris, you can form the Provisional Government, which reloads the original French focus tree. Should Vichy France still exist by this point without being at war with you, you get a decision to demand reunification.

View attachment 511783

On the opposite side, the biggest change is that Vichy France is no longer considered to be a puppet of Germany. Puppets are heavily weighted towards joining their master’s faction and towards following a call to arms if in a faction. I briefly considered making a special puppet level that could refuse a call to arms and set a number of scripted AI strategies to make it do so, but decided that a one-off puppet level was easily as much of a hack solution than just not having Vichy be a puppet in the first place and handle its relationship with Germany through other ways.

As Vichy France, your big task is to complete the “National Revolution” to transform French society away from the republicanism that has brought them to this point. At the same time, you will want to rebuild the military and, of course, try to hold onto your colonial empire. In the moment of surrender, you are saddled with a massive 20% consumer goods penalty that represents the occupation costs levied on France by the Germans.

View attachment 511784

To reduce these costs, you can strike a number of deals with the Germans, starting with giving them basing rights (historically done to help German support for an uprising in Iraq), later you can reduce your penalties further by offering to produce aircraft parts for the Germans (reducing production cost for German planes) and sending workers to Germany (giving them a production bonus).

Once you have finished the National Revolution, you can ask for Germany to return your occupied territories, and, should they agree, you join the Axis and reload the original focus tree with the branch towards the fascist alliance with Germany unlocked. If Germany refuses, you can then attempt to reconcile with the Free French, unify and re-join the war on the allied side if de Gaulle agrees (loading the original focus tree with the right-wing democratic branch unlocked), or you can decide to regain your honor by yourself and declare war directly, in which case you load the original focus tree with the branch towards the Latin Entente unlocked.

Of course, the Case Anton decision for Germany remains, so you might want to make very sure that you hold onto North Africa, lest Germany decides that you can’t be trusted.

That is all for today. Next week we will talk about some other changes coming in 1.8 Husky.
 
Last edited:
3) Soon after the armistice the Allies (the British) did start a war against France by backstabbing the former allied. The sailors that rescued the British at Dunkirk were killed in the process. Pearl Harbor was a joke in comparison.

I agree with your other points, However, while I think the British actions at Mers el-Kabir and Dakar (and elsewhere later on) were terrible, it's not really comparable to Pearl Harbour. Somerville stood off the port and gave Gensoul the option of:
1) Joining the British
2) Take their ships to a British Port
3) Get underway for a port in the French West Indies, or the US
4) Scuttle; or
5) Fight

Gensoul, however, failed to convey option 3 (easily the most sensible compromise, given the hasty and ill-considered British action) to his Government, and resolutely held that he would not be moved. The first ultimatum was given for 2pm, and Gensoul asked for more time for discussion and got it. However, a final ultimatum was given for 5:30pm, and Somerville was forced, reluctantly, to open fire. By this time, the French air force in the area had been alerted and made ready, and while ships were still at anchor, they had by now had time to raise steam and cast off as soon as hostilities commenced. Unlike the Japanese at Pearl Harbour, the British force was very reluctant to open fire, and were forced by their politicians to do so, against the sailor's objections.

If anything, the behaviour of ADM James at Portsmouth and Plymouth was the most Pearl Harbour-alike action, with the surprise seizure of vessels by boarding parties, but this only resulted in four dead (three of which were British).

All of the above is taken from RADM Paul Auphan's and Jacques Mordal's book - ie, a book co-authored by someone who served in the 'Vichy' French Admiralty at the time (he was Chief of Staff in July 1940). There is no doubt at all that it is tragic, and that the British action is very much open to condemnation. However, the (appropriately) unwavering loyalty of the French Fleet to the legitimate Government of France (ie, what is now known as Vichy France), combined with the extreme amount of leverage the Germans had over that Government (something Auphan describes well) created a situation where the British could not be confident that the Government could not be strong-armed into using the fleet in a way that was counter to Allied interests. Darlan had given his word, but Darlan was not the President, and at the end of the day the Marine Nationale was a professional navy that would follow it's Government's directions - and the strict neutrality of that Government could not be guaranteed (and wasn't realised in practice).

Given this, there are reasonable arguments for the British wanting to neutralise the potential threat of the French Fleet (in the same way that Germany was very keen to neutralise the Italian Fleet in September 1943). My own personal view* is that taking steps to neutralise the French Fleet was sensible, but both sides made serious errors - the British in rushing to action, when they could arguably have mustered enough naval strength to still hold a superior position at Mers el-Kabir, but allow more time for discussion, and the French in failing to appreciate the British position, or the weakness of their own Government in the face of Fascist pressure, and for standing on their pride instead of sailing for one of their ports in the West Indies (this still confuses me to no end - why on earth Gensoul preferred to be brought to action instead of sailing to the West Indies makes little sense to me - it was pretty rough he was faced with that choice in the first place, but I've yet to see a sensible reason as to why he didn't take that action, and much less given it cost the lives of 1,297 of his men).

TL;DR - Mers el-Kabir (and Dakar) were very questionable actions, with terrible consequences, but they were hardly a surprise attack with no warning, nor did they result in as great a loss of life or material. Further, they could have been avoided by the French moving their fleet from one of their ports to another of their ports, as they were requested to do. This does not excuse the British action, but it does call into question the judgement of French naval commanders (particularly Gensoul) at the time.

* For what it's worth - I'm far from an expert on the matter.
 
What Gensul did or not did it is not exactly the point. After the armistice the British did attack France all around the globe and that was a plain backstab.

I agree with your other points, However, while I think the British actions at Mers el-Kabir and Dakar (and elsewhere later on) were terrible, it's not really comparable to Pearl Harbour. Somerville stood off the port and gave Gensoul the option of:
1) Joining the British
2) Take their ships to a British Port
3) Get underway for a port in the French West Indies, or the US
4) Scuttle; or
5) Fight

Gensoul, however, failed to convey option 3 (easily the most sensible compromise, given the hasty and ill-considered British action) to his Government, and resolutely held that he would not be moved. The first ultimatum was given for 2pm, and Gensoul asked for more time for discussion and got it. However, a final ultimatum was given for 5:30pm, and Somerville was forced, reluctantly, to open fire. By this time, the French air force in the area had been alerted and made ready, and while ships were still at anchor, they had by now had time to raise steam and cast off as soon as hostilities commenced. Unlike the Japanese at Pearl Harbour, the British force was very reluctant to open fire, and were forced by their politicians to do so, against the sailor's objections.

If anything, the behaviour of ADM James at Portsmouth and Plymouth was the most Pearl Harbour-alike action, with the surprise seizure of vessels by boarding parties, but this only resulted in four dead (three of which were British).

All of the above is taken from RADM Paul Auphan's and Jacques Mordal's book - ie, a book co-authored by someone who served in the 'Vichy' French Admiralty at the time (he was Chief of Staff in July 1940). There is no doubt at all that it is tragic, and that the British action is very much open to condemnation. However, the (appropriately) unwavering loyalty of the French Fleet to the legitimate Government of France (ie, what is now known as Vichy France), combined with the extreme amount of leverage the Germans had over that Government (something Auphan describes well) created a situation where the British could not be confident that the Government could not be strong-armed into using the fleet in a way that was counter to Allied interests. Darlan had given his word, but Darlan was not the President, and at the end of the day the Marine Nationale was a professional navy that would follow it's Government's directions - and the strict neutrality of that Government could not be guaranteed (and wasn't realised in practice).

Given this, there are reasonable arguments for the British wanting to neutralise the potential threat of the French Fleet (in the same way that Germany was very keen to neutralise the Italian Fleet in September 1943). My own personal view* is that taking steps to neutralise the French Fleet was sensible, but both sides made serious errors - the British in rushing to action, when they could arguably have mustered enough naval strength to still hold a superior position at Mers el-Kabir, but allow more time for discussion, and the French in failing to appreciate the British position, or the weakness of their own Government in the face of Fascist pressure, and for standing on their pride instead of sailing for one of their ports in the West Indies (this still confuses me to no end - why on earth Gensoul preferred to be brought to action instead of sailing to the West Indies makes little sense to me - it was pretty rough he was faced with that choice in the first place, but I've yet to see a sensible reason as to why he didn't take that action, and much less given it cost the lives of 1,297 of his men).

TL;DR - Mers el-Kabir (and Dakar) were very questionable actions, with terrible consequences, but they were hardly a surprise attack with no warning, nor did they result in as great a loss of life or material. Further, they could have been avoided by the French moving their fleet from one of their ports to another of their ports, as they were requested to do. This does not excuse the British action, but it does call into question the judgement of French naval commanders (particularly Gensoul) at the time.

* For what it's worth - I'm far from an expert on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Whar Gensul did or not did it is not exactly the point. After the armistice the British did attack France all around the globe and that was a plain backstab.

It was a desparate, unfortunate and potentially ill-judged act. However, a "stab in the back" attack is necessarily without warning. Other than at Portsmouth and Plymouth, there were negotiations prior to any fighting - so fair warning was given (indeed, had warning not been given, the French Fleet at Mers el-Kabir would have been devastated - imagine if they had been attacked as if it had actually been a Pearl Harbor corollary, with boilers cold and men not at action stations?)

The French Forces were presented with a choice, and they chose battle over the other options available (which is something I am yet to be convinced was anything other than very poor judgement on the part of Gensoul). Whether they should have been presented with that ultimatum or not is an open question (and one that I can't come down on one side or the other - there are supportable arguments for both sides, particularly with Laval in play and with various other subtleties that Auphan describes well), and that the ultimatum and negotiations were rushed in a fashion that reflects very poorly on Churchill is without doubt, but it was not a "backstab" in any sensible definition of the word. Had it actually been a backstab, there's no way Strasbourg would have made it to Toulon (or, indeed, would have been able to work up steam).

That said, I very much appreciate that there's likely to be much emotional and perhaps one-sided coverage of the affair on the French side (as there is on the British), and I'm not suggesting for a second you should be happy about coming to blows (I don't think anyone was, and definitely not the British sailors and officers. It always saddens me greatly when I read about Mers el-Kabir, Dakar, Torch, Syria, Madagascar, West Africa and the seizures in British ports, moreso than I am usually made sad when reading about armed conflict). I'm just noting that it was hardly a Pearl Harbor, nor (by and large) a 'backstab'.
 
A couple of comments even though I believe that it is a waste of time.
1) History is about time and things change with time. What you call Vichy France now was just France in 1940. That was the unique legitimate state of France. Free France was nothing at the time. This changed completely later but still in 1944 Free France forces were largely composed by African conscripts and mercenaries. Paris was "liberated" by the Free France less colored unit.
2) France (i.e. Vichy) was not a puppet but a won country that had to pay the price of the defeat. In this Paradox is correct. The reason why France cannot join the Axis is because of German mistrust and Italy who claimed Corsica, Savoy, Nice and Tunisia. If you want a mechanism that allows France to enter in the Axis you need to deal with those points.
3) Soon after the armistice the Allies (the British) did start a war against France by backstabbing the former allied. The sailors that rescued the British at Dunkirk were killed in the process. Pearl Harbor was a joke in comparison.

You are wrong. The Vichy government came to be by a cabal of generals who launched a coup against the Republic. These generals betrayed their duties to the country and refused to fight on even though France very well could have, and then compounded their betrayal by launching a coup against a democratically elected government.

"Legitimate" is highly subjective, but by any reasonable metric the quasi-fascist dictatorship that came to power by a coup does not meet it. It's very revealing that you refer to the liberation of France from Nazi occupiers with scare quotes, which implies that you believe it is the Nazis who were the true liberators, and the Allies evil usurpers.

Britain did not "backstab" France since the quisling regime never really represented France. The actual French government was overthrown and what existed after that on the continent was just a collaborationist regime in league with the Nazis. The Vichy regime =/= "France". You speak of it as though it were the platonic embodiment of the French nation and people.

You are peddling Nazi propaganda here, my friend; literally the same kind of assertions they themselves made in their propaganda posters. One has to ask... is the developer diary thread really the place to be pushing your pro-Nazi revisionist history?
 
I am not wrong. Petain was regularly appointed by the president.
After being appointed Premier by President Albert Lebrun, Marshal Pétain's cabinet agreed to end the war and signed an Armistice with Germany on 22 June 1940. On 10 July, the Third Republic was effectively dissolved as Pétain was granted full powers by the National Assembly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France
The French rescued at Dunkirk were loyal to their government and did not side with De Gaulle (called by Churchill "Charles sans terre") when they were asked. This includes the sailors of the boarded ships in the UK, colonial territories, french beaten by the stabbing attacks of the British around the world against its former allied. This was in 1940. 4 years later things were pretty much different but, still, 2/3 of free France forces were made by mercenaries and forced conscripts (mainly Africans).

You are wrong. The Vichy government came to be by a cabal of generals who launched a coup against the Republic. These generals betrayed their duties to the country and refused to fight on even though France very well could have, and then compounded their betrayal by launching a coup against a democratically elected government.

"Legitimate" is highly subjective, but by any reasonable metric the quasi-fascist dictatorship that came to power by a coup does not meet it. It's very revealing that you refer to the liberation of France from Nazi occupiers with scare quotes, which implies that you believe it is the Nazis who were the true liberators, and the Allies evil usurpers.

Britain did not "backstab" France since the quisling regime never really represented France. The actual French government was overthrown and what existed after that on the continent was just a collaborationist regime in league with the Nazis. The Vichy regime =/= "France". You speak of it as though it were the platonic embodiment of the French nation and people.

You are peddling Nazi propaganda here, my friend; literally the same kind of assertions they themselves made in their propaganda posters. One has to ask... is the developer diary thread really the place to be pushing your pro-Nazi revisionist history?
 
Last edited:
The British won the war so British propaganda has written it. What you call a choice, if you reverse the situation, was a clear act of war. A backstab to a weak and won country just the day before allied to the British.
Think about Nimitz being asked by Somerville to surrender the fleet. What you may think would have been his reply?


It was a desparate, unfortunate and potentially ill-judged act. However, a "stab in the back" attack is necessarily without warning. Other than at Portsmouth and Plymouth, there were negotiations prior to any fighting - so fair warning was given (indeed, had warning not been given, the French Fleet at Mers el-Kabir would have been devastated - imagine if they had been attacked as if it had actually been a Pearl Harbor corollary, with boilers cold and men not at action stations?)

The French Forces were presented with a choice, and they chose battle over the other options available (which is something I am yet to be convinced was anything other than very poor judgement on the part of Gensoul). Whether they should have been presented with that ultimatum or not is an open question (and one that I can't come down on one side or the other - there are supportable arguments for both sides, particularly with Laval in play and with various other subtleties that Auphan describes well), and that the ultimatum and negotiations were rushed in a fashion that reflects very poorly on Churchill is without doubt, but it was not a "backstab" in any sensible definition of the word. Had it actually been a backstab, there's no way Strasbourg would have made it to Toulon (or, indeed, would have been able to work up steam).

That said, I very much appreciate that there's likely to be much emotional and perhaps one-sided coverage of the affair on the French side (as there is on the British), and I'm not suggesting for a second you should be happy about coming to blows (I don't think anyone was, and definitely not the British sailors and officers. It always saddens me greatly when I read about Mers el-Kabir, Dakar, Torch, Syria, Madagascar, West Africa and the seizures in British ports, moreso than I am usually made sad when reading about armed conflict). I'm just noting that it was hardly a Pearl Harbor, nor (by and large) a 'backstab'.
 
The British won the war so British propaganda has written it. What you call a choice, if you reverse the situation, was a clear act of war. A backstab to a weak and won country just the day before allied to the British.
Think about Nimitz being asked by Somerville to surrender the fleet.

As per my first reply, all of the information I've provided above, other than my personal interpretation, is from a book co-written by the Chief of Staff of the Marine National in July 1940 (Paul Auphan). That was the history, as written by the possibly the most well-informed French naval officer alive at the time of writing. There was a reason I used this as my source, for the very reasons you give above (it would, for example, have been very one-sided to use Churchill as a source). As an aside, though, don't forget the French won the war as well, even if they had a much harder time through the middle of it.

And, as per my other point, the comparison is not asking Somerville to surrender the fleet, but rather to give Somerville a number of options, which would have included relocating, say, to Jamaica or Newfoundland. Had the British just surrendered to Japan, and had a significant swathe of their country occupied by Japan, and docked their fleet in Hong Kong, and the US was concerned that Japan would take the opportunity to strong-arm the British into handing over their fleet or acquiring it in some way, I'm not sure what Somerville would have done - but I think it would be very adventurous to rule out the option of simply sailing to a distant friendly or neutral port.

Anyways, we probably don't want to get carried away here and derail the thread. Am happy to discuss in PMs and similar. I'm not suggesting Mers el-Kabir wasn't tragic, and that the British did nothing wrong (!), but from what I'm read, and that includes the strong influences of a French source, it was far less black-and-white than most contemporary histories (British included) would have us believe - but the devil, as always, was in the detail.
 
When Langsdorff was given the option to be interned he scuttled his ship. Surrender or being interned was not an option. This was quite "obvious" for him as well as for the french admiral in 1940. Anyway I agree with you regarding black and white as no country involved in a war can claim to be "clean". Regarding the french sources you mentioned, France was a won country and a winner of WWII. It depends on the year, the convenience and on the ideology. Being a french source doesn't tell you a lot if you don't have those 3 information.

As per my first reply, all of the information I've provided above, other than my personal interpretation, is from a book co-written by the Chief of Staff of the Marine National in July 1940 (Paul Auphan). That was the history, as written by the possibly the most well-informed French naval officer alive at the time of writing. There was a reason I used this as my source, for the very reasons you give above (it would, for example, have been very one-sided to use Churchill as a source). As an aside, though, don't forget the French won the war as well, even if they had a much harder time through the middle of it.

And, as per my other point, the comparison is not asking Somerville to surrender the fleet, but rather to give Somerville a number of options, which would have included relocating, say, to Jamaica or Newfoundland. Had the British just surrendered to Japan, and had a significant swathe of their country occupied by Japan, and docked their fleet in Hong Kong, and the US was concerned that Japan would take the opportunity to strong-arm the British into handing over their fleet or acquiring it in some way, I'm not sure what Somerville would have done - but I think it would be very adventurous to rule out the option of simply sailing to a distant friendly or neutral port.

Anyways, we probably don't want to get carried away here and derail the thread. Am happy to discuss in PMs and similar. I'm not suggesting Mers el-Kabir wasn't tragic, and that the British did nothing wrong (!), but from what I'm read, and that includes the strong influences of a French source, it was far less black-and-white than most contemporary histories (British included) would have us believe - but the devil, as always, was in the detail.
 
When Langsdorff was given the option to be interned he scuttled his ship. Surrender or being interned was not an option. This was quite "obvious" for him as well as for the french admiral in 1940. Anyway I agree with you regarding black and white as no country involved in a war can claim to be "clean". Regarding the french sources you mentioned, France was a won country and a winner of WWII. It depends on the year, the convenience and on the ideology. Being a french source doesn't tell you a lot if you don't have those 3 information.

Only replying to set the record straight, but Langsdorff scuttled the High Seas Fleet after it had been interned at Scapa Flow, and it had been interned for six months before it was scuttled. It was only after Langsdorff (rightly) feared the peace treaty would mean the fleet was given away that he scuttled. This was a different situation to that faced by Gensoul - at no point did the British suggest the French would not have control over their vessels in the long-term (other than if the French took the option to fight, of course).
 
Maybe there is a misunderstanding as I mean this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Langsdorff Langsdorff
Only replying to set the record straight, but Langsdorff scuttled the High Seas Fleet after it had been interned at Scapa Flow, and it had been interned for six months before it was scuttled. It was only after Langsdorff (rightly) feared the peace treaty would mean the fleet was given away that he scuttled. This was a different situation to that faced by Gensoul - at no point did the British suggest the French would not have control over their vessels in the long-term (other than if the French took the option to fight, of course).
What you mean it is a completely different thing and the admiral in question should be Ludwig von Reuter
 
Last edited:
Maybe there is a misunderstanding as I mean this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Langsdorff Langsdorff

What you mean it is a completely different thing and the admiral in question should be Ludwig von Reuter

Sorry, that's me getting confused :oops:. However, the situation Langsdorff faced at the Battle of the River Plate is very different to that faced by Gensoul at Mers el-Kabir. For a start, the British didn't make any 'demands' of him (they were already well and truly at war), and they absolutely did not give him the option of sailing to a distant friendly or neutral port! What Langsdorff was what, in-effect, happened to many ships during WW2 when they were damaged* without hope of escaping overwhelming enemy action, which was to scuttle, to save the crew and deny the ship to the enemy. Numerous ships of all nations were scuttled in this way. It's again (but in a different way, not sure what my brain did yesterday re Scapa Flow!) not the same thing as the situation in Mers el-Kabir (or even, more or less, Toulon in 1942).


* As per an article in Warship 2018 (I think, one of the recent ones, might be 2017 - I can go to the shelf if necessary :) ) and iirc while none of the combat-critical systems had been damaged, the damage did have an impact on the capacity of Graf Spee to complete the journey back to Germany, so even if it had broken through, it wouldn't have had the endurance to get home. Going from very flaky memory now, but I think it was something to do with water supply (can't remember if feed water or fresh water, but both very important).
 
It's ok. No problem.
Gensul faced an ultimatum that was an act of war. For him as well as for Langsdorff internment was not a feasible solution.

Sorry, that's me getting confused :oops:. However, the situation Langsdorff faced at the Battle of the River Plate is very different to that faced by Gensoul at Mers el-Kabir. For a start, the British didn't make any 'demands' of him (they were already well and truly at war), and they absolutely did not give him the option of sailing to a distant friendly or neutral port! What Langsdorff was what, in-effect, happened to many ships during WW2 when they were damaged* without hope of escaping overwhelming enemy action, which was to scuttle, to save the crew and deny the ship to the enemy. Numerous ships of all nations were scuttled in this way. It's again (but in a different way, not sure what my brain did yesterday re Scapa Flow!) not the same thing as the situation in Mers el-Kabir (or even, more or less, Toulon in 1942).


* As per an article in Warship 2018 (I think, one of the recent ones, might be 2017 - I can go to the shelf if necessary :) ) and iirc while none of the combat-critical systems had been damaged, the damage did have an impact on the capacity of Graf Spee to complete the journey back to Germany, so even if it had broken through, it wouldn't have had the endurance to get home. Going from very flaky memory now, but I think it was something to do with water supply (can't remember if feed water or fresh water, but both very important).
 
* As per an article in Warship 2018 (I think, one of the recent ones, might be 2017 - I can go to the shelf if necessary :) ) and iirc while none of the combat-critical systems had been damaged, the damage did have an impact on the capacity of Graf Spee to complete the journey back to Germany, so even if it had broken through, it wouldn't have had the endurance to get home. Going from very flaky memory now, but I think it was something to do with water supply (can't remember if feed water or fresh water, but both very important).
Her desalination plant was destroyed along with her oil purification plant. Both of which would most likely have prevented her from making it to a friendly port once she left Montevideo. She also had bow damage which would have affected her ability to handle heavy seas if she had encountered any on an attempt.
 
So it seems to me like there's no mechanism for the Vichy forces to join the allies without Germany declining to return their land. Is there a way (via making some deliberately unreasonable demand) that Petain might join the allies? It seems odd to not include this.
 
So it seems to me like there's no mechanism for the Vichy forces to join the allies without Germany declining to return their land. Is there a way (via making some deliberately unreasonable demand) that Petain might join the allies? It seems odd to not include this.
Giraud and Darlan were a kind of Vichy fork. Both of them were much more senior than De Gaulle and had more credit with the allies and the french. The first was kicked out by De Gaulle, the second was murdered. Alternative story could consider this kind of switch similarly to Italy when the country was invaded.
 
Last edited:
Giraud and Darlan were a kind of Vichy fork. Both of them were much more senior than De Gaulle and had more credit with the allies and the french.

From my reading (Auphan, as well as Cunningham's A Sailor's Odyssey), while they both had more support than De Gaulle, Darlan was by far the more infliential of the two (hardly surprisingly, in context). Giraud, had much less support in French North Africa when he first got there post-Torch than Darlan did, and it took Darlan's assassination to get Giraud in a more prominent position. Darlan's assassination was one of the many tragedies of the war imo :(.