Introduction
Taking a break from the Pincer Theory posts and doing IRL publishing to address an incredibly egregious issue within the community:
Free France.
You should not support Free France in any scenario unless you're an imperialist, have no understanding of grand strategy, and
like OTLism. Hopefully, this post serves as a refutation of nearly all the arguments in defense of Free France, especially those who argue in favor of it under the guise of "OFNmaxxing."
To simplify this argument, we'll focus on the two things that matter regarding why you would ever support Free France:
the strategic argument within Africa and the illusion of Reclamation.
We will not focus on the moral argument, as it devolves into whataboutism. The most effective way of neutering this line of argumentation is by addressing the very real points rather than addressing vibes and French nostalgia.
"I feel bad for DeGaulle" is not a valid argument. "At least he's better than the other guy" is not a valid argument. These are only valid if you turn your brain off and don't engage with TNO's scenario.
The Strategic Argument for Free France
The origin of this entire debate stems from the former lead dev for France, Einstein, claiming the following:
First, we must address the argument for the U.S. recognizing the French State over Free France. The French State, in TNOtl, has been recognized by the United States since 1940. The French State is a real state. It is not a Reichskommiserat; it is a collaborative state. There is a misconception that the U.S. does not recognize any of the collab states in TNOtl; it is not true and fundamentally paints an image of trans-Atlantic relations distorted from TNO's scenario. There is still room to influence the French State from the perspective of the United States (much like OTL), and it still has future utility if Germany cannot exert its influence fully amidst a different cabinet in power.
Now, as to the point made in the image, the argument rests upon three separate claims:
- Free France provides the ability for the United States to influence the West African States
- Two: Free France provides the ability to influence the African RKs (pointing to Müller himself)
- Three: Getting Free France opens up half of Africa
First, the United States can
already influence the West African States through proxy.
It's called Liberia. If the United States wanted an ally to serve its interests in the region that is trustworthy, has historical ties, a potential leverageable sponsor-proxy relationship, a springboard into Central and North Africa, a logistics hub, exploitable for U.S. corporations, actively is against not only the Pakt but also Communism, why choose Free France over Liberia? Why choose a known-known that actively and historically has an antagonistic relationship with the United States and will disrupt efforts in de-colonization? The United States should utilize a pre-existing ally in the region to barter on behalf of it, not expend resources into bolstering a proxy.
Second, the argument that Jacques Massu is friends with Siegfried Müller has NO strategic implications in the course of TNO. Not even during the South African War did this play a role; Müller does not defect unless Hüttig wins in the SAW. So, let's break this down:
- Scenario 1. In the event of a total OFN victory, Müller is forced out of power, yielding no benefits from the Free French connection.
- Scenario 2. In the event of a ceasefire, Müller flees to Free France, losing any political capital he has inside the eventual Reichstaat (Which will eventually fall)
- Scenario 3. In the event of a total Pakt victory, see Scenario 2
In other words,
point two fails in all three scenarios and yields no strategic value to the United States.
The third and arguably the most popular point of Free France arguments is that Free France opens up West Africa to the United States. This argument has the most credibility: A Free French victory in the WAW opens up West Africa to OFN investment, so long as it doesn't fail Reconstruction. This is completely valid; however, a mistake by Free French proponents is the actual utility of West Africa to U.S. strategic interests.
Yes, you open West Africa to the United States, but
what do we gain strategically? Raw resources? How much of this benefits us to warrant millions, perhaps billions of dollars in re-stabilization efforts and security assistance with the French? Raw resources can't be the sole driver of the United States's foreign policy in Africa, nor can it remotely be the greatest. Strategic involvement in West Africa has to be the long-term benefit in pursuit of national interest.
What is the United States's national interest in West Africa? As it was OTL when the Atlantic was contested, it was for Atlantic Defense. As evident by the map below, the United States viewed West Africa as the farthest extent of its naval contested zone, and it should be the lens through which we view U.S. involvement in TNOtl.
In TNO, we already have a U.S. extension into the littorals of West Africa through Liberia. The Free French does not add value to extending our littoral or logistic presence into Central Africa nor enhance Atlantic defense. Free France does not offer any deterrence against the Pakt or the CPS. Deterrence against both has to come from naval power, and Free France has limited capabilities in that area. The PALF does not align with the CPS post-WAW, and the only threat the CPS poses is in the scenario that South Africa is lost and both Free France and Liberia fall. However, if the U.S. takes South Africa and in the event the PALF wins against Free France, there is no disruption to the United States's maritime power in the region. Suppose the PALF secures a total victory against the Free French and Liberia. In that case, the U.S. only loses its logistic base in the region, but this does not somehow mean the waters of West Africa are suddenly contested by the navy-less PALF. Again, this only occurs if Liberia falls against the PALF during the Mano campaign. Yet, this can be avoided if the U.S. focuses on building Liberia's capabilities and extending its influence in West Africa to deter the PALF. It does not require the Free French. Yet, this is not in the game, although it would provide a vastly superior narrative to an incredibly flawed U.S. ally in the region compared to backing Free France.
Illusion of Reclamation
As the title implies, this section aims to dissuade anyone from the illusions of Reclamation. I think before tackling the actual nitty-gritty details of it, I need to state this outright:
Reclamation is OTL slop.
You read that right. It is OTL slop. It is not anything
new. It is not anything
original. It is not anything
interesting.
The outcome is the same as OTL, relying on deception through a vibes-based scenario. Yes, Reclamation is "cool" in the sense that you see your proxy go on to fight in the mainland, but contrary to claims that it's 'unique,' it is quite literally what happened OTL.
For all the complaints in the community about OTLism and realism, it's absurd that no one here has ever taken the stance or pointed out that a very vocal minority of the community turned a blind eye to Free France doing exactly what they did in 1944. The circumstances are different, it has been 30 years of Nazi occupation, yet the outcome is the same. Vibes are not enough to justify Reclamation; to that end, we must turn to the actual justification for it.
Feasibility
Reclamation is not feasible. Period. Free France proponent's claims range from how Free France could invade France after achieving a diplomatic victory with Iberia to even the OFN providing enough aid to make this possible. While the former is whatever, the actual thing that makes the material trip to France and the invasion occur is the latter. Free France proponent's arguments
entirely hinge on U.S. aid making the invasion of France possible; not a single one sanely argues that Free France does it on its own.
To U.S. aid,
I would ask Free France supporters to name a single time in history when the United States virtually gave a country enough weapons, missiles, amphibious vehicles, and ships to conduct a full-scale naval invasion of the likes of France. Not assisted in the form of actual participation from the U.S., I am specifically asking when the U.S. has EVER done a bilateral aid deal on this scale without being directly involved in the invasion. I'll answer it for you:
Never. It is utterly delusional to think that the United States, even in a French victory in the WAW, would remotely provide the FF with enough material to go through with Reclamation. You are advocating for something that is not only logistically insane and has no basis even in a FICTIONAL SCENARIO but doesn't follow STRATEGIC LOGIC. You are asking the United States to provide all these necessary tools for its naval deterrence against Germany. The French will not be given carriers, destroyers, cruisers, ancillary craft, merchant vessels, etc., to conduct a large-scale invasion. The French virtually do not have the capabilities to conduct a naval invasion of the mainland. According to Free France proponents, such an endeavor would require the United States to make a gigantic material investment for a proxy that suffers from the same issues in our first section. However, it cannot maintain and repair these materials or sustain its conflict on the mainland. Even if you asked them to be shipped into France to assist the French resistance, it was not enough to overcome Vichy France. Do not even think about mentioning the French Civil War as a scenario that it can, as it no longer exists in the future. The argument for feasibility is not there by any measure.
An OFN Foothold in Europe
A common argument among Free France proponents is that a Free France victory allows the OFN a gateway into Europe; this is only true on its surface. From the perspective of the United States, its grand strategy in Europe requires Britain and Spain; France cannot and will not be a U.S.-aligned regime. Germany views the existence of an independent France as an existential threat and will rightfully do everything in its power to crush it, even if it's an OFN France. Yet, we don't have to worry about this! OFN France is NOT going to be a thing in the future, which turns the Free French situation into a nightmare for those in support of it. There are two issues for the Free France Proponent: If your objective is to balance Germany, is this the best way to do it? Second, can France be a democracy
and distance itself from the Pakt again without being overthrown by Germany?
First, Free France is not the best way to create conditions conducive to the U.S.'s interests in Europe. Free France would have to invade Vichy France AND fight Germany soon after. While the costs in Germany are high, it's a virtual waste of all the human capital and material for a short-term gain. What would upset the balance in Europe and
BLEED the Germans?
Using an antagonistic Vichy France. While it's unconfirmed whether or not Germany will invade Vichy France in a future update (If I had to put my money on it, I'd say it will happen), the U.S. utilizing a non-aligned France that is antagonistic with Germany yields far greater value through forcing Germany to divert resources to a threat that creates excessive amounts of costs if it attempts to force it back into the Pakt by force.
We have to remind ourselves that the strategic value of the balance of power does not change if Free France wins in Africa. The strategic balance of power would not change if Free France won in France, as Germany would soon re-invade.
This brings us to point two:
the only change in the balance of power can come from within. A democratic, open-minded, and antagonistic Vichy France is the best shot for U.S. interests in making a difference. You do NOT need a country to join the OFN to contain Germany; a neutral country with a real, standing, conventional army that you can utilize as a proxy to bleed Germany dry in the event it invades is far more beneficial to U.S. interests than a rump state that almost entirely relies on U.S. investment. Free France is not unique because it's a democracy; Pinay's France is a democracy. Free France is not unique in that it's antagonistic to Germany or can serve U.S. interests; Pinay's France is both antagonistic and can serve U.S. interests. No matter how distasteful it is, if you're going to argue in the framework of national interest, it's time to cast off your vibes and actually work within that framework.
Concluding Remarks
This is a cry for the community to engage with the game's scenario.
Blue map painting is funny, whatever. It makes you feel good.
I get that.
But when you start talking with others, arrogantly arguing in favor of a colonialist power that has no real strategic value to the United States and claiming "WELL AT LEAST IT'S BETTER THAN THE OTHER GUY" under the thin veneer of national interest, it's better to think through what you're arguing and consider the strategic context you're talking about. You are wanting what is essentially bad content that distract from far more interesting stories.
Stop humiliating yourselves in defending Free France. Go support Liberia, which is horrible but not as bad and in your best interests, absurdly support the WAA, or support the PALF.
