I understand the military and political goals but what was the legal justification for invading Algeria and French Morocco in 1942?
The United States wasn’t at war with France. We recognized the Vichy regime as the legal government of France and did not dispute its claims to Morocco or Algeria. There was no significant Axis military presence in these colonies. As far as I can tell, we didn’t make any secret prior deals with Vichy to enter the colonies or with the Free French to liberate those colonies from Vichy control.
So what legal justification did we offer, if any, for invading?
I don’t know that any formal declaration was ever offered, but I imagine it would be through the alliance with Britain, which was at war with Vichy France. And there were actually some negotiations with general Henri Giraud prior to Operation Torch, but the allied commanders found that his demands were far higher than his cooperation was worth and went on with the invasion without his support.
I don’t think a legal justification was offered. It was neccessary, unpleasant, and done with as soon as possible. As long as German forces were there, we were going to follow them to the death.
The Vichy government was clearly a puppet of the Germans. I’m not at all sure (based on nothing but vague memories and rumors) that the US did recognize them as the official French government. There may have been some lip service given to the Vichy’s being the real government of France but I can’t imagine that it was much more than just a, “What the hell, we got to call them something if we’re going to have any dealings with them at all,” sort of thing.
I seem to recall that we, like England, recognized DeGaul’s government in exile as the real French government. Any dealings with the Vichy prior to the invasion was probably done in the hopes that the French on the scene considered the Germans to be baby butt-fuckers and they’d be glad to see us.
I am prepared to have my ignorance fought on this matter however.
If there were German troops in that territory, doesn’t that make it a fair military target for any country that was at war with Germany? If Vichy wanted to be neutral, didn’t it have to exclude all other countries’ military forces from its territories, or risk an invasion?
Interestingly, Chief of Staff George Marshall opposed the US invasion of Africa, according to volume II of his autobiography. His argument was twofold: first, that the outcome in Africa would have no relevance to the outcome in Europe, and second, that we were encouraged into it by Britain, because the Germans threatened the Suez Canal, Britain’s link with colonial India. Marshall didn’t want any American lives sacrificed to maintain the British Empire.
So in Marshall’s view it wasn’t necessary. I confess to being stunned by this when I first read it a couple of years ago, as I, too, had assumed that the way to prosecute the European war was to start at the periphery and work in. FDR’s take, by the way, was that we had to keep Britain in the game at any cost, so the invasion was approved.
Britain wasn’t at war with Vichy France. They attacked the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir shortly after France surrendered when it refused an ultimatum to be interred for the duration of the war, and invaded and conquered Syria when the Vichy government allowed German and Italian aircraft to use bases there to support the Iraqi rebellion among other things, but neither side ever declared war on the other. The worst that Vichy did in retaliation was to send a few bombers to attack Gibraltar.
The US (and Britain) gave Vichy full diplomatic recognition. DeGaulle was not well liked or trusted by either Roosevelt or Churchill - in fact he wasn’t even informed ahead of time that the North African landings were going to occur. DeGaulle and the Free French government weren’t recognized as the legitimate government of France by the US or Britain until October, 1944. There were secret meetings and dealings prior to the invasion attempting to prevent any resistance by Vichy forces. After the landings there were further negotiations which resulted in Darlan (former head of Vichy France and at the time commander in chief of the Vichy French Army) calling for Vichy Forces to cease hostilities in exchange for Darlan remaining in charge of the North African colonies as the High Commissioner of France for North and West Africa.
Why? Well, you can’t have it both ways. If you get all incensed about Japan bombing the shit out of Pearl while you were still at peace, you need at least some excuse for yourself attacking a third party that you’re not at war with.
Legal justification is important even in war. For example, Churchill wanted to occupy Norway, to prevent the Nazis invading, but didn’t get permission from the Norwegian government in time.
What other “worlds” exist besides the “free” world and what are their rights and obligations under international law? Can they also start wars without “legal justification” when they are “at risk”?
As others have noted, the United States did recognize Vichy was the legitimate French government. We had an ambassador in Vichy and even had consuls in French Africa. And while France was in reduced circumstances it was still a major country. Going to war with France would not have seemed like a trivial issue. But as far as I know, Roosevelt did not seek congressional approval.
It seems like it should have been a more significant issue. One of the big accusations that was being made against Germany, Italy, and Japan was their recent history of invading neutral countries. It seems like the United States would have made some attempt to avoid the inevitable “et tu” accusations. Or if not, it seems like the Axis would have subsequently made them.
As Sizzles noted, the British made an effort to get a diplomatic figleaf of cover over the plans for intervening in Norway. And there was a debate in Washington about whether we should declare war on German allies like Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland. So why wasn’t declaring war on France considered an issue?
It is a little known fact that Operation Torch was preceded by Operation Brief. Hundreds of specially trained lawyers attempted to storm the beaches around Casablanca, but were caught up in a field of deadly French cross examination.
Like I said, they had approval from various Vichy French officials who considered the “invasion” to a “liberation”. The Vichy government was acting under extreme duress from the Nazis.
If you’re looking for some firm international rule or procedure governing the invasion you won’t find it. Legality was in the eye of the beholder. As far as the U.S. and U.K. were concerned, their declarations of war against Germany were all the legal justification they needed. If by some strange twist of fate the Allies had lost the war and their leaders were brought up on war crimes charges, I suppose the Vichy regime could have declared the invasion illegal, but they would have had to pull the legal foundation for their claim out of thin air.
It helps to think of Torch not as an invasion of French North Africa, but an invasion of German occupied North Africa by way of a convenient landing point in Morocco. The sincere hope was that the French would stay out of the way and eventually assist. The landings in Morocco were entirely by American soldiers because they felt landing British soldiers would provoke the French.
If you want a detailed answer try asking the question at the Axis Forums. It’s a great board full of World War II buffs and they are very knowledgeable.