What if vichy france allied with Nazi Germany in 1940

[Mountain]

What if vichy france had allied with Nazi Germany after the
Attack on Mers-el-Kébir with the Germans agreeing to return to 1914 borders with the condition that Germany share control of the Atlantic coast defences plus German control and sharing at the rate of 70% Germany and 30% France to french natural resources produce in france for during the war and then 60/40 post war plus the release of all french pows who agree to fight under German supervision

 

[AdA]

If France changes sides in 1940 and somehow a real alliance is formed, that gives the Axis:
1. Much stronger air forces for BoB;
2.A much stronger submarine force for the BoA
3. Control of the Med;
4. Extra mechanized forces and a better support structure for Barbarossa;
5. A much better political narrative in Europe.
6. A changed Pacific war that might delay US entry in the war or even prevent it.

Of all the POD to build a Axis victory in WW2 this is one of the easiest paths.

 

[McPherson]

If France changes sides in 1940 and somehow a real alliance is formed, that gives the Axis:
1. Much stronger air forces for BoB;
2.A much stronger submarine force for the BoA
3. Control of the Med;
4. Extra mechanized forces and a better support structure for Barbarossa;
5. A much better political narrative in Europe.
6. A changed Pacific war that might delay US entry in the war or even prevent it.

Of all the POD to build a Axis victory in WW2 this is one of the easiest paths.

That guarantees a 1940 US entry into the war.

But let's be objective about the assumptions?

1. France has 2 good bombers in the LeO 451 and Amiot 354 that are competitive "fast bombers" for the BoB provided the Germans allow production. The fighter line, all of it, is non-competitive due to lack of endurance minutes aloft and marginal flight characteristics in the high altitude bands. I wonder if the seaplane and land based maritime patrol lines are competitive? Looking at those...

Latécoère 611?​

LeO H-47?​

Unsure.

2. What I know about French submarines: crew training, torpedo capability and overall technical capability; indicates they will actually do well, BUT the operations would be more Mediterranean than Battle of the Atlantic. The Atlantic is not where those boats function best.

3. Refer to 2. British will be far less reluctant to attack the Marine National. You can damn well bet LANTFLT will show no mercy at all. I have written somewhat in other topics about how incompetent the British were in some of their operations; (Dakar especially, but also Madagascar). Still... Assuming that Darlan breaks his word and Gensoul does not vacillate, there would be very little holdback by American admirals to make short work of what they regarded as a seriously dangerous threat to the Atlantic by French Raid Force elements. People forget just how good the French navy was, even in its depleted state, during Torch. They fought hard and they fought well. Fortunately they were in that depleted condition.

4. The French tank park (Chars d'assaut) is in the same state as the AdA aeroplane line. There are some good machines, (Somua S35) and some potential Renault projects. (Char G1?) show great promise, but the tanks need revision for radio tactics and crew ergo and would not be ready in time for Barbarossa.

5. I am ready to see this one explained to me. I cannot see how Vichy France added to Nazi Germany changes a goddamned thing in the RTL narrative except adds France to the list of nations treated to unrestricted air, sea and land campaigns? France 1944-1945 was horrible enough with the Anglo American Canadians at least pretending not to shoot the country up without regard to the casualties they inflicted or the harm they could cause. Total war with the French people regarded as enemy belligerents would be too horrible to contemplate.

6. This is not going to happen. If anything, a Vichy even more cooperative with Japan guarantees an earlier kickoff to the Pacific War, which might FAVOR the United States, because the Japanese really needed that 1941 year to figure out their munitions deficiencies and learn how to operate Kido Butai as a fleet. PACFLT had a better admiral than Kimmel who fucked everything up and while the submarine crisis would still happen, with no Yamato and with the Kensei Kentai attempt resulting in the Japanese battleline sunk off Yap Island, the Pacific butterflies might mean NO BARBAROSSA. So think of what that means?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

If France changes sides in 1940 and somehow a real alliance is formed, that gives the Axis:
1. Much stronger air forces for BoB;

Where do they get the fuel for the planes?

2.A much stronger submarine force for the BoA

Where do they get the fuel for the subs and what were the MN’s torpedo stocks like?

3. Control of the Med;

With what? Given that the Germans and Italians never managed it OTL. Just stating ‘control’ is a big claim.

4. Extra mechanized forces and a better support structure for Barbarossa;

With Char Bs? Again, where does the fuel come from for all extra mechanisation?

5. A much better political narrative in Europe.

Eh? Fascists fight alongside other fascists?

6. A changed Pacific war that might delay US entry in the war or even prevent it.

Unlikely. In fact, with the increased threat of a fully fascist France, there’s a good chance the Americans enter the War earlier than OTL.

Of all the POD to build a Axis victory in WW2 this is one of the easiest paths.

Which isn’t saying much.

 

[Alias_The_J]

The Vichy alliance also assumes both that the Nazis trust France (unlikely) and allow them all of their technology and manufacturing, whilst also assuming that everyone in Vichy France is trustworthy. For this to be realistic, something major would have needed to happen between France and the other western powers before WWII; otherwise, either the war proceeds largely as in OTL, or Vichy France rebels at the first useful opportunity.

Then again, Hitler being too trusting and France rebelling in August 1941 would make WWII more interesting.

 

[BELFAST]

I image the first thing the French would do is to raise the French flag on the channel islands.

 

[ArtosStark]

There have been quite a few threads asking this question. There is always debate, but to me the relevant point is always that wherever resources France uses to get back on its feet and into the fight are less resources that the Germans can take for their own forces. This is likely unacceptable to the Nazis. And if it isn't it is not an inconsiderable amount of money and material that is not available to a German army that already suffered from a lack of material in OTL.

 

[PSL]

German fuel situation in 1940 was much better than 1941, however such arguments are petty. AXIS fuel stocks spiked to 1.4 million tons per month stockpiled in the last 5 months of 1940 and first 3-4 months of 1941. They would not recover to those levels until spring 1944. For the 1941 Barbarossa campaign . The historical total stockpiled fuel was never exhausted through out the war until 1945.

Captured fuel stocks in 1940 amounted to 3/4 million tons as was stockpile of vehicles [1.15 million more vehicles capture from occupied territories by 1941]. This number declined sharply without reliable & timely maintenance from these occupied territories. With a Vichy France alliance this reliability problem should diminish or disappeared.

source .USSBS
OPERATION BARBAROSSA [ASKEY ] VOL 11B
OXFORD COMPANION TO WW-II

 

[NoMommsen]

That guarantees a 1940 US entry into the war. ...

How ? Why ?

..., the Pacific butterflies might mean NO BARBAROSSA. So think of what that means?

How ? Why ?

 

[groundhogday666]

I understand the idea of an "alliance" but... it is red herring.

There is no need for a full-blown, official Vichy-Nazi alliance to scrap every single useful bit of France... because it already happened OTL - UNOFFICIALLY ! (Pierre Laval, you miserable human trash...)

Three salient points
- France was not very motivated to fighting in 1939, the debacle only made that worse, and Pétain wanted to be a Franco : seating aside the conflict, as a neutral.
- this was only an illusion (for French public opinion at least) / smoke screen (for Vichy officials !) that was quickly shattered by Laval, then Pétain, right from October 1940 - Vichy France unofficially sided with Germany.
- as far as resources go, it happened OTL, although indirectly and non officially.
I mean - most of the things listed there... either were graciously ceded by Vichy to Germany, or Germany took them by force.
When preparing Barbarossa, they really, but really scrounged the bottom of the barrel all across occupied Europe, to arm those 4 million men preparing for the attack. France was part of the barrel.

Some random examples
- All the G&R 14 engines, for a start.
- Manufacturing of second line aircraft, offset from the German industry - trainers, Ju-52 transports... hundreds and thousands build.
- The AdA most valuable aircraft (D-520) some were left to Vichy, but a lot of them were also pillaged and distributed to Axis partners (Romania, Italy...) Most newly build LeO-451 were converted from bombers to transports and a good number of them were used by the LW.
- loads of trucks, armored vehicles, tanks, guns, were pillaged by Germany and pressed into service or training, if they were obsoletes.

Officially, Vichy France was a neutral now seating out of the war.
Unofficially, it was a major boost to Germany. What Laval did not graciously handled, they took by force !

 

[McPherson]

McPherson said:
That guarantees a 1940 US entry into the war. ...

How ? Why ?

How ? Why ?

1. The fall of France stopped Isolationism in the US. It only needed one more shock to push the Americans into full global war mindset. The entry of Vichy France as a pro-German ally puts America's Atlantic sea frontier and Caribbean position at enormous risk. Think about the Spanish American War and what sparked that one off? This is worse.

..., the Pacific butterflies might mean NO BARBAROSSA. So think of what that means?

See next remarks.

How ? Why ?

2. Same again. Japanese moves in Indochina led to the FDR demarche to Hirohito of 6 December 1941. A declaration of war was in the cards within 90 days of that letter. A US declaration of war it would be. And as I noted, the Japanese in December 1940 were in no shape to try an America at that time which was actually in better shape for a Pacific War before Stark started to ruffle shuffle in tune with the idiotic notions he had, and Kimmel fucked up PACFLT . It would have been a catastrophe for an unprepared Japan. Their downfall at about April or even in June 1941, would have meant the anti-US logic behind the Tri-Partite Pact which sort of gave Hitler the assurance, that the Americans would have a Japan at their backs and therefore would not dare meddle in the affairs or fight his criminal regime, was no longer valid and he would face them in the field before he had even attacked Stalin. As it was, the RTL opening moves towards a quasi-war between the Americans and Germans had already begun in the North Atlantic (See 1.), so Hitler, being Hitler, misread the geostrategic tea leaves showing him his pre-doomed future. He could have started Barbarossa anyway, or the saner Germans might have succeeded in one of their 60 attempts to kill him.

3. And the premature war with Japan probably still would have led to an ATL Hitler's lunatic same response to the Pacific War event saving Roosevelt the trouble of following through on this demarche.

When one thinks about what FDR did and why, one has to understand that he was dealing with a pair of incredibly STUPID men and utterly incompetent governments and not only setting up the international law case for the Nurnberg and Tokyo trials, but establishing within the American political milieu the causes for "justified war"?

FDR was a very subtle man, who could wield a geopolitical battle-ax with the best of the Metternichs. He was the most dangerous and successful of the Allied war leaders. Never forget that fact.

 

[BELFAST]

An alliance with France would make a bigger difference if it happened before WW2. (maybe 1937).

 

[thaddeus]

For this to be realistic, something major would have needed to happen between France and the other western powers before WWII; otherwise, either the war proceeds largely as in OTL, or Vichy France rebels at the first useful opportunity.

an abbreviated Dunkirk evacuation? the French troops were last, in an ATL they could be left? my understanding Adm. Darlan was livid over the priority of British troops to begin with, the capture of 70 -80k more French troops (at Dunkirk) would sour relations even prior to Mers-el-Kebir and Dakar.

 

[thaddeus]

what would the Vichy regime actually do? a more sustained bombing campaign against Gibraltar? open French colonial ports to German uboats, for resupply if not basing.

 

[AdA]

Regarding the questions posed by McPherson and Stenz:
The biggest issue with my post is the need for a "true alliance" this is the game changer, and the ASB factor. It completely changes the narrative of the war as seen from an international relations POV. The "we just want to cancel ToV and return to the good old days of 1914" narrative gains credibility, and a war against Germany to restore ToV would be a much harder sell in the USA.
There would be a clear sense of a new world order forming, and this would have to have a major influence on Japan strategic options., that can be more aggressive but can also opt to wait and see what this new European fascist superpower really wants)
The USA would have , of course, to consider the possibility of being isolated in a non democratic world, but while FDR could see that as a threat and courage military spending, for the US public this will just be a return to the 1870 to 1914 era. In order words, good old days.
Regarding the pratical issues:
1. The AdA could add to the LW a, a few hundred H-75 a few hundred D.520 and a few hundred MB.155. It could add a few modern bombers (LeO 451 and Martin 167). Lets bee conservative and say they join in BoB with 400 fighters and 100 bombers. They also join with aircrews, and those aircraft will be lifting a lot of weight from the LW. Since I'm not trying to start a Sealion thread, all this has to do is leave the RAF in a weaker state than OTL after BoB) The AdA would also be able to make a greater contribution to the nocturnal Blitz.
2. More submarines more aircraft and and more surface forces changes the BoA. The RN will try to destroy the French Navy surface force. This operations will have a cost.
3. With France and Italy launching coordinated attacks in the Med with German support I don't see how Britain will hold out in the Med. Gibraltar will be in bomb reach and can be neutralized.
4. With an additional Army and an additional armoured corps, the Axis can now do Kiev and Moscow at the same time, if they plan well and manage their logistics (less Italian Hungarian and Romanian Infantry and more French Tanks replace 16 Infantry divisions with 4 DCR and 4 DCL and give AGS two Armoured corps from the start).
5. The USA will probably have to consider the possibility of a fight with Fascist Europe in the near future. They may do it by joining in the present war, that is running badly, or by preparing for the next one, that might take place a few years later and look a lot like Orwell's 1984 scenario minus the political regime in "Airstrip one".

The ASB part is the political one.

 

[phil03]

The basic issue here is that we simply don't know how much of the french armed forces and colonies will follow. In OTL Pétain managed to get the bulk of them to sign up with neutrality but it was a close call. Throughout the summer of 1940 there was persistent noises according to which Nogués and North Africa would continue the fight.

Ods are most of the colonies and a good chunk of the navy would have followed their lead had they done so.

If Vichy goes full Axis there is a strong chance it will actually be the straw that break the camel for many and result in a Free France on steroids, even after Mers El Kébir, which will left the WAllies in a significantly better position then OTL all things considered.

 

[McPherson]

Regarding the questions posed by McPherson and Stenz:

Apologies, AdA, as I number your bullet points to keep my responses straight and coherent to each point.

1. The biggest issue with my post is the need for a "true alliance" this is the game changer, and the ASB factor. It completely changes the narrative of the war as seen from an international relations POV. The "we just want to cancel ToV and return to the good old days of 1914" narrative gains credibility, and a war against Germany to restore ToV would be a much harder sell in the USA.

The war to stamp out Hitlerism for FDR started in 1934 with the meeting with Schact after he angered FDR over the reparations question. Any PoD has to be in the 1920s as FDR was adamant that Hitler would be stopped as soon as the circumstances allowed.

2. There would be a clear sense of a new world order forming, and this would have to have a major influence on Japan strategic options., that can be more aggressive but can also opt to wait and see what this new European fascist superpower really wants)

Nothing is going to change the basic Pacific equation, or the China question and certainly not the petty squabbling going on in Europe. One has to see American geo-political global thinking in terms of Mahan, not Mackinder. The Americans and the Japanese are too Pacific and China invested and the collision to see who wins that prize package is inevitable. Hence Warplan Orange and Kensei Kentei will see decision in the Marianas or off Yap whether Hitler tries Barbarossa or not. It is a kind of Leo Tolstoy inevitable historical movement sort of thing.

3. The USA would have , of course, to consider the possibility of being isolated in a non democratic world, but while FDR could see that as a threat and encourage military spending, for the US public this will just be a return to the 1870 to 1914 era. In order words, good old days.

FDR has to beat down the isolationists and he has to teach the American people grand strategy.

==========================================================

Regarding the practical issues:

Yes. Now to the "practicals".

1. The AdA could add to the LW a, a few hundred H-75 a few hundred D.520 and a few hundred MB.155. It could add a few modern bombers (LeO 451 and Martin 167). Lets be conservative and say they join in BoB with 400 fighters and 100 bombers. They also join with aircrews, and those aircraft will be lifting a lot of weight from the LW. Since I'm not trying to start a Sealion thread, all this has to do is leave the RAF in a weaker state than OTL after BoB) The AdA would also be able to make a greater contribution to the nocturnal Blitz.

I've covered this circumstance with certain technological observations. Stenz has covered some of the logistics. I will add these observations:
a. The American built aircraft in the air park might not even be present. But even if they were, the logistics for spares, repairs and maintenance will be cut off.
b. French fighters have a "slight" endurance advantage over BF 109s, (About ~20 minutes over London instead of 15 on average.), but their performance at the altitude bands above 5,000 meters (actually ~4,800 meters) is non-competitive.
c. Av-gas? What was the French octane rating for the AdA flight-line? German stocks, no matter JSL's citations of av-gas supply, were barely adequate for German needs. Italy ate into their reserves. How much requirement does the AdA further add? 20% or 30%? And was the CRAP LW POL product good enough for French aero-engines?

2. More submarines more aircraft and and more surface forces changes the BoA. The RN will try to destroy the French Navy surface force. This operations will have a cost.

d. Covered this one. The Raid Force (Force de Raid) was actually very small. It would be a dangerous commerce raiding presence about as comparable to the twins but it would be manageable. The Americans knew how to hunt and destroy such a surface action group using their aircraft carriers. It formed part of several USN Fleet Problems. And of course, one would be far more concerned about the French cruiser forces than the Dunkerques. Notice that the inventors of guerre de course had tried this method against the Americans before with negative results? The costs were endurable.

3. With France and Italy launching coordinated attacks in the Med with German support I don't see how Britain will hold out in the Med. Gibraltar will be in bomb reach and can be neutralized.

e. It was within reach, Spain disallowed overflight, and access by through its territorial waters. though it looked the other way when Italy conducted special naval operations against the British anchorages in the area.

4. With an additional Army and an additional armoured corps, the Axis can now do Kiev and Moscow at the same time, if they plan well and manage their logistics (less Italian Hungarian and Romanian Infantry and more French Tanks replace 16 Infantry divisions with 4 DCR and 4 DCL and give AGS two Armoured corps from the start).

f. Covered this. I presume a French army would operate French equipment in Russia. Without some basic changes (Which the Free French will RTL do.) in methods and procedures, this will not go well either tactically or technology wise as the Red Army and the Russian Steppe are unforgiving to those who do not know how to use tanks under radio command or adapted to semi-arctic conditions.

5. The USA will probably have to consider the possibility of a fight with Fascist Europe in the near future. They may do it by joining in the present war, that is running badly, or by preparing for the next one, that might take place a few years later and look a lot like Orwell's 1984 scenario minus the political regime in "Airstrip one".

g. Atomic warfare is not pretty. It might be a cold war instead.

The ASB part is the political one.

h. More than political Skippies would be necessary. That is my frank opinion. I hope that I have given sufficient reasons to explain why?.

 

[AdA]

Apologies, AdA, as I number your bullet points to keep my responses straight and coherent to each point.

The war to stamp out Hitlerism for FDR started in 1934 with the meeting with Schact after he angered FDR over the reparations question. Any PoD has to be in the 1920s as FDR was adamant that Hitler would be stopped as soon as the circumstances allowed.

Nothing is going to change the basic Pacific equation, or the China question and certainly not the petty squabbling going on in Europe. One has to see American geo-political global thinking in terms of Mahan, not Mackinder. The Americans and the Japanese are too Pacific and China invested and the collision to see who wins that prize package is inevitable. Hence Warplan Orange and Kensei Kentei will see decision in the Marianas or off Yap whether Hitler tries Barbarossa or not. It is a kind of Leo Tolstoy inevitable historical movement sort of thing.

FDR has to beat down the isolationists and he has to teach the American people grand strategy.

==========================================================

Yes. Now to the "practicals".

I've covered this circumstance with certain technological observations. Stenz has covered some of the logistics. I will add these observations:
a. The American built aircraft in the air park might not even be present. But even if they were, the logistics for spares, repairs and maintenance will be cut off.
b. French fighters have a "slight" endurance advantage over BF 109s, (About ~20 minutes over London instead of 15 on average.), but their performance at the altitude bands above 5,000 meters (actually ~4,800 meters) is non-competitive.
c. Av-gas? What was the French octane rating for the AdA flight-line? German stocks, no matter JSL's citations of av-gas supply, were barely adequate for German needs. Italy ate into their reserves. How much requirement does the AdA further add? 20% or 30%? And was the CRAP LW POL product good enough for French aero-engines?

d. Covered this one. The Raid Force (Force de Raid) was actually very small. It would be a dangerous commerce raiding presence about as comparable to the twins but it would be manageable. The Americans knew how to hunt and destroy such a surface action group using their aircraft carriers. It formed part of several USN Fleet Problems. And of course, one would be far more concerned about the French cruiser forces than the Dunkerques. Notice that the inventors of guerre de course had tried this method against the Americans before with negative results? The costs were endurable.

e. It was within reach, Spain disallowed overflight, and access by through its territorial waters. though it looked the other way when Italy conducted special naval operations against the British anchorages in the area.

f. Covered this. I presume a French army would operate French equipment in Russia. Without some basic changes (Which the Free French will RTL do.) in methods and procedures, this will not go well either tactically or technology.

g. Atomic warfare is not pretty.
and the Soviets suffer more from air to ground
h. More than political Skippies would be necessary. That is my frank opinion. I hope that I have given sufficient reasons to explain why?.

1. FDR had enough trouble selling New Deal to the American public. Selling war when Nazism is not seen as a big bad trying to take over the world is not a done thing.
2. France in the Axis changes the Axis, and it changes Japan's role in the Axis. What this will change is hard to predict. A new world order with France as a winner is not like one with only Germany as winner and it's a different gamble for Japan. Maybe it's not even one they want to be a part of. In this TL the French may take over DHI and leave Japan nowhere to go inside Axis sanctioned options. Germany and Italy had basically zero knowledge on the Pacific and gave Japan a free hand. France brings Pacific awareness to the Axis and Japan might be forced to either join against the USSR or get out and find a compromise with the USA.
Practical issues?
Having more options is not a bad thing. OTL the Germans learned to use it's resources and used them. Having more fighters, more bombers, more submarines, etc, is good or bad depending on what you do with it.
Regarding BoB, the goal is to cripple the RAF. Having more trained pilots gives the LW+AdA more options to bleed the RAF faster. If they are smart, think reverse Pointblank.
Atlantic? Just the extra subs and Dunkerque and Strasbourg make life more complicated for the RN.
The Med? France+Italy+Germany vs Britain are worst odds than OTL.
USSR? The French have one year to improve their game. By this time the AdA is using the modern aircraft it was short of in 1940, and the soviets suffer more in air to ground, but the big deal is that it's much easier to wargame Barbarossa if AGS has two Armoured groups (the OTL Panzer groups where more like armies than corps) Than just the OTL one.
Endgame. The USA has different options than OTL, but it can still help the USSR to gain time and since the axis lacks the capability to attack the US directly this will end in US victory , probably with atomic bombs being used. The war will end in 1946 or 1947, and there will be no cold war, we will jump directly to a unipoar US dominated world.

But again, the political side is ASB, since France and Nazi Germany becoming true allies fast is not doable with a 1940 POD.

 

[Catspoke]

As it was, the Americans fed French North Africa but the Germans. had access to local resources, phosphates in Tunisia for example, the French paid huge occupation costs, but still had a political infastructure in place to manage things for the Germans. Maybe the Germans got all they could out of France in OTL.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

It completely changes the narrative of the war as seen from an international relations POV. The "we just want to cancel ToV and return to the good old days of 1914" narrative gains credibility, and a war against Germany to restore ToV would be a much harder sell in the USA.

No, it makes the French “one of the bad guys”. War crimes are still happening, the Poles have still been crushed, the Czechs have been occupied, the Low Countries have been invaded. France isn’t joint Adolf’s Friendly Pan-European Book Club.

There would be a clear sense of a new world order forming, and this would have to have a major influence on Japan strategic options.,

A New World Order (nice choice of terminology btw) that FDR and many in his government will be wanting to fight.

1. The AdA could add to the LW a, a few hundred H-75 a few hundred D.520 and a few hundred MB.155. It could add a few modern bombers (LeO 451 and Martin 167). Lets bee conservative and say they join in BoB with 400 fighters and 100 bombers. They also join with aircrews, and those aircraft will be lifting a lot of weight from the LW. Since I'm not trying to start a Sealion thread, all this has to do is leave the RAF in a weaker state than OTL after BoB) The AdA would also be able to make a greater contribution to the nocturnal Blitz.

Again, where’s the fuel coming from?

2. More submarines more aircraft and and more surface forces changes the BoA. The RN will try to destroy the French Navy surface force. This operations will have a cost.

They’ve already destroyed the French Fleet. It cost them 2 aircrew and 6 aircraft.

3. With France and Italy launching coordinated attacks in the Med with German support I don't see how Britain will hold out in the Med. Gibraltar will be in bomb reach and can be neutralized.

With what? When?

4. With an additional Army and an additional armoured corps, the Axis can now do Kiev and Moscow at the same time, if they plan well and manage their logistics (less Italian Hungarian and Romanian Infantry and more French Tanks replace 16 Infantry divisions with 4 DCR and 4 DCL and give AGS two Armoured corps from the start).

An additional “Army” armed with what? OTL the Germans pretty much took everything that could run for Barbarossa. What extra can be added?

5. The USA will probably have to consider the possibility of a fight with Fascist Europe in the near future. They may do it by joining in the present war, that is running badly, or by preparing for the next one, that might take place a few years later and look a lot like Orwell's 1984 scenario minus the political regime in "Airstrip one".

They were already considering a fight with fascist Europe and Britain is still in the War.

The ASB part is the political one.

No, this thing is littered with ASB.

1. FDR had enough trouble selling New Deal to the American public. Selling war when Nazism is not seen as a big bad trying to take over the world is not a done thing.

The New Deal? A series of “programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations” to combat the recession? What’s that got to do with fighting fascism?

2. France in the Axis changes the Axis, and it changes Japan's role in the Axis. What this will change is hard to predict. A new world order with France as a winner is not like one with only Germany as winner and it's a different gamble for Japan. Maybe it's not even one they want to be a part of. In this TL the French may take over DHI and leave Japan nowhere to go inside Axis sanctioned options.

You clearly don’t understand the nazis.

Germany and Italy had basically zero knowledge on the
Atlantic? Just the extra subs and Dunkerque and Strasbourg make life more complicated for the RN.
The Med? France+Italy+Germany vs Britain are worst odds than OTL.

After repairs post Mers-el-Kabir, right? Obviously the British are going to leave them alone to carry out said repairs?

But again, the political side is ASB, since France and Nazi Germany becoming true allies fast is not doable with a 1940 POD.

This is true.

And to remind you as to the OP’s timing:

What if vichy france had allied with Nazi Germany after the
Attack on Mers-el-Kébir