Germany left (most of) France 1943?

[thaddeus_c]

what if after Operation Torch invasion of North Africa and scuttling of French fleet Germany does not execute Case Anton invasion of Vichy France but instead withdraws?

a scorched earth policy that destroys any harbor facility, bridge, power plant, etc. and presumes taking up a defensive position that retains SOME French territory (likely Alsace, Pas-de-Calais, territory to Somme river?)

could they force Allies to invade earlier than they planned?

the rationale would be to divert any planned invasion of Italy.

(did not want to include discussion of Tunisia but my scenario would be attempt to continue Axis control there, so at least some reinforcements COULD arrive, or just more supply effort)

[maltesefalcon]

Why on Earth would they abandon any part of France without a fight? It was vital to their military needs.
Most of their UBoats were there. Also many fighter bases against allied bombing raids.

The best chance of keeping the allies at bay in Europe was to keep them off the continent. The landing zones were the most dangerous point of the campaign after all. Even if Germany retained the Pas de Calais the Allies could land further down knowing they would have no opposition.

Besides France provided much in the way of goods, food and forced labourers. All this would be gone too.

The invasion of Italy/Sicily was inevitable after Torch. The troops were there and ready for action.
Abandoning southern France would leave an easy target. The allies could simply divert a small portion there and carry on with the original plan.

Non starter in my opinion.

[Carl Schwamberger]

what if after Operation Torch invasion of North Africa and scuttling of French fleet Germany does not execute Case Anton invasion of Vichy France but instead withdraws?

A minor (or major) nitpick here. The French scuttled their fleet after 'Case Anton' was executed. It was in response to the apperance of the German army at the docks. No German soldiers at the naval bases, no scuttled fleet that week.

a scorched earth policy that destroys any harbor facility, bridge, power plant, ect ...

That is what the Germans inflicted on Italy, in a somewhat haphazard manner. Not unreasonable they would attempt the same in France.

... and presumes taking up a defensive position that retains SOME French territory (likely Alsace, Pas-de-Calais, territory to Somme river?)

could they force Allies to invade earlier than they planned?

Invade where? If you mean France then something akin to one of the later Rankin plans would be executed. That is a hasty coup de main to seize a abandoned or weakly defended port on the French coast. That would allow the entry of a British Army as fast as the port could be made operable. Operation Torch was not allocated all the amphibious fleet in the UK, and in November 1942 a small fleet of landing craft was still available there. Enough to run some Commados & a infantry brigade or two into a lightly defended port or nearby beach. The Brits also had eight battalions of glider & paratroops remaining in the UK in two brigades at that time.

the rationale would be to divert any planned invasion of Italy.

In November of 1942 when Op Torch occured there were no plans on paper to invade Italy, or Sicilly. Eliminating italy as a hostile nation was a stated objective, but to the end of 1942 there was no specific plan for doing so. That was outlined two months later in January 1943 at the Symbol Conference at Casablanca. At that time the joint Cheifs of Staff of the US an UK made their recommendations for 1943 & Churchill/Roosevelt approved or choose to invade Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica as soon as Tunisia was cleared of Axis armies. Italy would be invaded if the opportunity presented itself.

At the time Op Torch was executed the Germans were ready to believe anything about what the Allies might do.

(did not want to include discussion of Tunisia but my scenario would be attempt to continue Axis control there, so at least some reinforcements COULD arrive, or just more supply effort)

If the Germans abandon France through some miracle the smart thing for the Allies is to let the Axis forces in Tunisia rot there. it is a strategic dead end for them. Securing part of France, saving the rump French army, eliminating submarine bases, and gaining fighter bases in range of Germany in late 1942/early 43 is a hell of a lot more important than some dusty hills in Africa. Every German tank or rifle set to Tunisia is one less for defending this new front in France.

[maltesefalcon]

The original post needs clarification.
The title mentions abandoning most of France in 1943.

But much of the action in North Africa takes place late 1942 and early 1943.
The die was pretty well cast by March that the Axis would be driven out of Africa.

Historically Vichy was invaded to prevent Allied landings in the south. Are you really suggesting Hitler would leave such an easy invasion route open! IRL Hitler was so desperate to keep the Western Allies out of European mainland he diverted troops from Russia to do so.

[Baltasar]

It'd be unreasonable to abandon France, as others have pointed out.

However, instead of executing Case Anton, the Germans should've opted to strengthen Vichy France. Most of all, they should've handed occupied areas back to the French and make it look like the Vichy Regime had successfully negotiated the handing back. That way Vichy France may be much more willing to fight the Allies while at the same time the Germans would've less room to cover. On the other hand, Vichy might or might not stab the Wehrmacht in the back :-/

[LWD]

The allied invasion that I can see being redirected to some considerable benefit in this case is Anzio. Having those forces land unopposed in Southern France threatens to cut Itally off completely at the same time fixing German forces to the north.

[alltoes]

A further discussion is a treaty with Vichy France. German forces leave France with the provision of neutrality or some verbage which does not allow British forces on French territory. I know this probably would not happen. But if German troops leave, there should be some agreement. Also, the corporal and his henchman did not follow agreements very well. Who says the French will follow agreements as well? Another point is the 1.5 million French in POW and other camps in Germany. This could be used as leverage. These French citizens repatriated at the conclusion of British-German hostilities.

[maltesefalcon]

The allied invasion that I can see being redirected to some considerable benefit in this case is Anzio. Having those forces land unopposed in Southern France threatens to cut Itally off completely at the same time fixing German forces to the north.

Exactly. And that is why the Germans would never allow Southern France to be abandoned without a fight.

[thaddeus_c]

The allied invasion that I can see being redirected to some considerable benefit in this case is Anzio. Having those forces land unopposed in Southern France threatens to cut Itally off completely at the same time fixing German forces to the north.

thinking it would be very difficult to invade Italy through the Alps and the German troops deployed in southern France would be withdrawing to northern Italy probably.

[LWD]

How do you keep the troops in Italy supplied then? There's a fairly narrow corridor in the east through Austria but what kind of rail net did it have and how subject to interdiction by allied air would it be? It also frees the allies up for invasions elsewhere like Somewhere along the Atlantic coast of France where they can also land unopposed or perhaps Greece or Yugoslavia where they can threaten that supply line to Italy.

[maltesefalcon]

The allied invasion that I can see being redirected to some considerable benefit in this case is Anzio. Having those forces land unopposed in Southern France threatens to cut Itally off completely at the same time fixing German forces to the north.

thinking it would be very difficult to invade Italy through the Alps and the German troops deployed in southern France would be withdrawing to northern Italy probably.

Perhaps the Allies could use the same routes Italy used to invade France in 1940?

No one said that all of Italy needs to be involved. A large enough force in the Axis rear area would be enough of a threat to force a withdrawal up the boot.

[thaddeus_c]

The allied invasion that I can see being redirected to some considerable benefit in this case is Anzio. Having those forces land unopposed in Southern France threatens to cut Itally off completely at the same time fixing German forces to the north.

thinking it would be very difficult to invade Italy through the Alps and the German troops deployed in southern France would be withdrawing to northern Italy probably.

Perhaps the Allies could use the same routes Italy used to invade France in 1940?

No one said that all of Italy needs to be involved. A large enough force in the Axis rear area would be enough of a threat to force a withdrawal up the boot.

if you recall Italians didn't have very easy slog of it in the Alps and at a time when the French were otherwise engaged, and in this scenario the Germans were already on the western approaches so they could control ALL the positions.

my thinking is that the Germans SHOULD have struck a deal with the Vichy regime in 1941 BEFORE any invasion of USSR, but given their run of success it is probably understandable, they didn't feel they needed to decide issues between Spain and Vichy, so they let the status quo remain.

forward to 1943, critical battle is with Soviets? how to cause any disarray between the other Allies? the one thing possible, that CANNOT be stopped, unlike offensive action is to shorten their defensive lines. yes it opens airfields closer, but that does work both ways and they were being bombed anyway, so it might disrupt Allied bombing operations trying to secure French fields.

the humanitarian issues would not be as critical a focus as they would be present day but leaving tens of millions of French citizens with no electricity, fuel, little food, and no bridges or trains would create problem for Allies that could consume months.

you have also grafted a third head onto a two headed monster with the Free French regime playing a larger role (or demanding to play a larger role) in decisions.

by 1944 the LW was spent force after Citadel and Steinbock but here they would still have aircraft that could menace the Allies during landings.

and they are withdrawing to usable parts of the Maginot line and the Siegfried line and really operating from a stronger defensive line, out of the reach of naval guns certainly.

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
by 1944 the LW was spent force after Citadel and Steinbock but here they would still have aircraft that could menace the Allies during landings.

....

??? How many LW aircraft would that be?

[Baltasar]

...
by 1944 the LW was spent force after Citadel and Steinbock but here they would still have aircraft that could menace the Allies during landings.

....

??? How many LW aircraft would that be?

I'd estimate about 500 planes in the west. Not worth mentioning for the Allies really. Even if the Germans had twice that many, they' still not much of a dent into the Allied forces.

[thaddeus_c]

...
by 1944 the LW was spent force after Citadel and Steinbock but here they would still have aircraft that could menace the Allies during landings.

....

??? How many LW aircraft would that be?

I'd estimate about 500 planes in the west. Not worth mentioning for the Allies really. Even if the Germans had twice that many, they' still not much of a dent into the Allied forces.

lost by most estimates over 1,000 between Citadel/Kursk and Steinbock so there is at least a slower attrition if they start falling back to defensive positions.

what I'm reading lists 1,400 aircraft defending Sicily? (counting everything including Italians?)

was not predicting some kind of even battle but rather as against D-Days landings where there were basically NO Axis aircraft, and due to earlier withdrawal from France Allied forces would be spread out from Great Britain to Tunisia.