French forces in French Somaliland c.1935-36?

[Arlequín]

This photo is from 1936... I have no idea which units the two Indigènes belong to. But the guy on the left looks 'African', while the guy on the right 'looks' Somali.

there were no north african troops in somaliland ...

Hypothetically: 'If' the Côte française des Somalis 'was' reinforced from Syria and/or North Africa during the Abyssinian Crisis, would the units remain in their respective uniform regulations, or would they conform to the local ones? I suspect the photo answers that question though.

[lou passejaire]

even in a what if, there is no reason to reinforce this territory with NA troops  , they will be send to reinforce the mareth line and the tchad .
the "indigénes" belong to the "regiment de tirailleurs senegalais de la cote des somalies"
and the "senegaleses" came from evrywhere in africa under colony departement administration , somaliland, AEF, AOF ... so you can have ethnic differences in the same "unit" .
what disturb me on your picture is the british tin helmet 

[Arlequín]

It is a sun helmet... if you look closely. The British helmet is much smaller in the crown. It is from the French Air Force site... so I presume dated correctly.

Indeed the Mareth Line and Chad would be reinforced if the enemy was Italy... but if it was La perfide Anglais? 

[lou passejaire]

then reinforcement from North Africa will go direct in the Palestinian border  and on the tchad soudan border ...  the AEF and AOF regiments de tirailleurs senegalais will deal with Nigeria, Golden Coast and so ...

[Arlequín]

That makes sense to me. So you are saying that the Côte Française des Somalis would have to make do with what it already had? I did note that in the real crisis very little was sent there.

[lou passejaire]

french somaliland was of poor interest ... both strategic and economic ...
they would get some reinforcement but not the best troops ...
the french fleet can use Madagascar ... and the most important will be to secure mediterranean theater and west african coast ...

[Happy Wanderer]

"the french fleet can use Madagascar ... and the most important will be to secure mediterranean theater and west african coast ... "

Perhaps, but if France was to throw in her lot with Italy and Italy and France control the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea waterways, at least by interdiction, which is the point, then in France's 'brave new world' of alliance with Italy (even if temporary) they collectively may be able to force Britain to back down from any protestations about the Italian invasion of Ethiopia which they may be pushing in the League ( in this hypothetical encounter).

Point being that Italy and France combined would force a major response by Britain to keep her Empire trade routes unimpeded..and specifically at the point at which it will be impeded....Eritrea, French and British Somaliland....not to mention potential Arab uprising across the Red Sea.

There are many combinations at play but if the issue is to be forced in Abyssinia (by League mandate), because of the Italian invasion, then this 'localised' theatre would be worth the French reinforcing (to aid, or probably at the behest, of their new Italian ally).

If the outcome of victory or failure is measured by Italy's occupation of Abyssinia, or not, and France has backed success there (with Italy vs Britain), then with this as the determinant of victory or defeat she would be forced to take a greater stake in French Somaliland...let alone secure her port and rail head facilities at Djibouti, which will certainly be of use to the Italians at some point if France is indeed Italy's ally. The poor port facilities at Massawa and Mogadishu would increase the importance of Djibouti a good deal.

...just one of a few scenarios if Britain were to lead a League mandated push to evict Italy from its aggression in the Horn of Africa....defending the League's charter...

Happy W

[Arlequín]

... But the Red Sea is not important if shipping has to run a gauntlet of French and Italian based ships and aircraft along the Mediterranean to the Strait of Gibraltar. If Malta is neutralised too, or at least somewhat interdicted, then the Canal and Red Sea are worthless in any case. As was the case with the British later on, French Somaliland could be temporarily abandoned if things got too tough there.

I had not considered the fact that Tchad & Centafrique border the Sudan... despite the Fashoda Incident being the mire on which the Entente had been built. That is quite important, even if it would be very difficult to threaten the Sudan from there. Although French dreams of a Dakar to Djibouti rail line might resurface... which might be of importance?

 

[Happy Wanderer]

"Insert Quote
... But the Red Sea is not important if shipping has to run a gauntlet of French and Italian based ships and aircraft along the Mediterranean to the Strait of Gibraltar. If Malta is neutralised too, or at least somewhat interdicted, then the Canal and Red Sea are worthless in any case. As was the case with the British later on, French Somaliland could be temporarily abandoned if things got too tough there."

I would agree with that. Except, as you know, in 1935 the Italian navy has limited capacity to interdict the Malta-Siciliy-North African bottleneck and it would require a great effort by the Italian airforce to attempt to do so. However, the Duce has invaded Ethiopia and it is here that all his resources are located so cutting of the way to the Far East by way of Malta is a moot point. The Italians are in Abyssinia and that is where the action is and where they can threaten British trade routes.

The British off course respond where Italy has initiated conflict, as the League of Nations mandate would allow, so the Duce has no interest at this time in neutralising Malta because he's really no keen on fighting the English anyway....he unfortunately miscalculates their actions in the League which is the basis of such a scenario taking place in the first place.

So regardless of wherever the British want to fight the Italians somewhere in the Med to their advantage, they must confront them where the League's mandate requires them to i.e. evict the Duce from Abysinnia..not start a general Europan conflict.

I'm sure if NATO insist that Putin gets out of Ukraine and uses force to do so they will not attack the Russians everywhere and start a general war..they will evict him from Ukraine as the UN resolution would require off them and only that outcome...not general war...is the conflict that would likely occur. Same goes for Saddam in Kuwait...get him out, not start a war with the aim of conquering the whole of Iraq...and so on.

Limited war, limited aims...

..but I know you know this off course and can probably see different outcomes as well....it's all in how one reads the tea leaves to the outcome one is seeking in an alternate history hypothetical   

Happy W

[Arlequín]

..but I know you know this off course and can probably see different outcomes as well....it's all in how one reads the tea leaves to the outcome one is seeking in an alternate history hypothetical   

Of course.    ... but I am interested in stimulating discussion on how such a war might go. It's all grist to the mill. 

I can't see the Italians or French not attempting to cut one of Britain's supply lines if they are able to though... nor indeed forcing the British with their limited forces in the Middle East, to fight on more than one front, especially as ground units are their strength and Britain is effectively surrounded in Egypt and the Sudan.

[Happy Wanderer]

"Of course.   ... but I am interested in stimulating discussion on how such a war might go. It's all grist to the mill"

I can't see the Italians or French not attempting to cut one of Britain's supply lines if they are able to though... nor indeed forcing the British with their limited forces in the Middle East, to fight on more than one front, especially as ground units are their strength and Britain is effectively surrounded in Egypt and the Sudan.

Quite right...I did think to mention that Lou's suggestion does bring aspects to British LOC problems via the Anglo Sudan....a suitable restraint to contain any significant British force making its way to Abyssinia..more an interesting backwater to the whole story I think Nevertheless it is an interesting and useful development 

Coupled to the Italian force on the Libyan/Egypt border and the Brits could well be in a bit of a pickle when facing off against a possible Franco-Italian enemy in the Med.

Also, his comment about the French not necessarily being able to send the best of their North African stuff maybe a reason they would send some Metropolitan troops to Somaliland in a show of 'total' commitment...albeit a modest size, possibly only a few battalions...but that does make for nice force variation 

...so yes, input from one and all on this possible scenario are welcome....

 

Happy W

[Arlequín]

Lou or one of our other French members will correct me if I am wrong I am sure, but the whole idea of having a Colonial Army, a North African Army and an Army of the Levant, is that Metropolitan units do not serve outside of France? On top of which would they weaken France with all those (imaginary) German divisions just waiting for their revenge. Deploying French boys to the colonies would be political suicide for the government.

This imaginary stuff is very hard work... for every pebble there are many ripples. 

[Happy Wanderer]

...adding more to mix...

remembering off course there is no correct answer here....

...an army as big as France I think would be able to spare some troops for an immediate crisis, particularly one with a new ally against a real or potential (British) enemy. Germany aren't I think going to invade if a brigade of French Metropolitan troops end up in Africa I'm pretty sure...not in 1935.

I also think it'd be politically manageable, particularly as France was going to right a wrong perpetrated by the English in the League...

In reality there was just such a force for this contingency. The  Mobile Force was kept as a general army reserve that could be deployed as required - it consisted of French forces deployed in France i.e. it was stationed both on the mainland and in the colonies.

The current regulations at that time stated that "The mobile forces, being the reserves of the permanent overseas forces, consisting of French and Native troops and usually stationed in home territory and in North Africa."

So in my hypothetical I can easily see some French troops from the mobile reserve deploying to Africa in support of their new ally whilst some of the North African native forces contended with possible action against the British on the Anglo-Sudan border.

...and wouldn't it be nice to see a few hastily dispatched French regiments in an exotic location like Somaliland....



The army as per the act of parliament of 1927 dictated that;

The organisation of the French army is regulated by the law on the General Organisation of the Army adopted by Parliament and
promulgated' on July I3th, 1927. This law is being gradually put into operation.

The land army consists of the home troops and the colonial troops, which are not on the same statutory basis, but which both consist of
French units and mixed units composed of colonial natives or foreigners, with French cadres.

The home or colonial troops stationed in France, North Africa and the Levant are placed under the orders of the Minister of
National Defence and War. Such of these troops as are stationed in the French Colonies are under 'the Minister of the Colonies'.
Certain home and colonial units at present stationed in France and in Algeria-Tunisia, and known as mobile forces, constitute the
reserves of the overseas forces.

[lou passejaire]

i have a question ... how do you send troops from france or North Africa to french somaliland in case of conflict with the British ?
give a look at the maps ...
In east Africa, the british can bring reinforcement from india, australia etc ... the french fleet is not a big problem in the Pacific ocean ..
IMO, the mobile force will be used first to take the Nigeria, Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and Gambia ,  to secure the tchad frontier ... and to try to take the Cyprus and Malta  ... 
but in the 30's Italy is a bigger problem for France than GB ...

[Arlequín]

but in the 30's Italy is a bigger problem for France than GB ...

Happy W and I are assuming that Italy is pressing France to take her side, as under the terms of their alliance of 1933. At this point Italy has not sided with Germany and Mussolini is the sole figure standing up to Hitler over Austria. We have also assumed that the French see Italy as a more important ally on the ground and in the air in Europe, as opposed to the UK - who it was discovered could only raise a single division to deploy immediately to Europe in the event of war, instead of the ten it had agreed it would provide. The Stresa Front will collapse if Britain and Italy go to war, so France has a decision to make.

With Britain leading the International League into the realm of oil sanctions against Italy, its closer ties with Germany since 1919 (and that Britain and France are trade rivals in the German market) and that it had constantly opposed France on war reparation demands and alterations, France is somewhat unhappy with its 'ally'. The U.S. at this time was quite Pro-French in its policy, albeit still isolationist, so France wonders just how much it needs Les Anglais supposedly on its side any more.

We are toying with having had the Croix de Feu under De La Rocque intervene in the Paris Riots of 1934, rather than their historic back down. While France is not 'fascist', the right is now far much stronger in the National Assembly than it was historically, allowing firmer decisions to be made to secure France from potential German aggression. With De La Rocque at the helm, I imagine a much harder line for France's international interests.

As for the Tchad Frontier, as I understand it there was no rail line, or even any suitable roads. I would presume the desert would provide a suitable defence in itself... Darfur is on the Sudanese side of the border, which is not where I would like to march an army. Of course Britain's West African colonies are certainly worth acquiring all the same.

So... The assumption is that France is not drawn immediately into war, but has the only port with a rail head into Abyssinia. France did reinforce the area somewhat modestly in the real crisis, although very little is apparent in English as to what was sent. Britain did not close the Suez Canal during the real crisis, so while it might be closed to Italian shipping once the war begins, French vessels would be unimpeded. Essentially what France can send to Djibouti before war starts is what it will have to fight with... but what will it send?