@CWO:
Losing a million young men in the trenches of WW I ensured France had no stomach for WW II.��
Yes, this is basically the argument which is put forward by a former French government official (whose name I forget) in the “France Fall” episode of "The World at War."� He feels that the great losses which France suffered in WWI led to a period of deep decay for the French army in the 1920s and 30s.� The political and economic turmoil which France underwent at this time didn’t help either.� He also says that the French leadership made the mistake (which they were not alone in making) of getting lulled into complacency by the fact that they had won the First World War, and hence believing that they would know how to win the next war too – meaning pretty much as they’d won the first one.� The Maginot Line, it should be noted, was in some ways a WWI trench on steroids: a fixed line from which to fight, but made of concrete rather than earth.�
All in all, France’s problem wasn’t that it had a bad army; its problem was that it had bad political and military leadership.� They weren’t alone in this: Chamberlain, for instance, was primarily interested in keeping the war away from Britain, and prosecuted it with little energy during the “Sitzkrieg” period (during which one of his preferred tactics was to drop propaganda leaflets on Germany).� France had an impressively large army in 1939, but it was put to little use because General Gamelin’s strategy was basically to wait a couple of years until France had built up enough strength to crush Germany.� Unfortunately for France, Germany had other plans.� Once France had been knocked out of the war in June 1940, it spent the next four years on the margins, with only the Free French forces keeping up the war against the Axis powers.� Even after France, under a new provisional government, re-entered the war in the summer of 1944, the demands of recovering from the Occupation kept France in a secondary role until the end of the war.� So it’s understandable that France is regarded as having been a minor player for much of WWII.�
Very good points. I’d like to expand upon what you and Imperious Leader have written. As Imperious Leader noted, France could have (but did not) launched a major offensive against Germany while the German Army was focused on acquiring Poland. Gamelin and Daladier had falsely promised the Polish they would launch exactly such an attack within ten days of mobilization. In 1939, Poland’s diplomatic and military strategy had that promise as its foundation. (Which is why Poland as a nation had ceased to exist by the end of '39.)
Why did France’s leaders lie to the Polish? To me, this kind of false promise displays not just the cynical willingness to deliberately mislead and then cold-bloodedly betray a purported ally. It also demonstrates that Daladier and Gamelin were confident they could win a war against Germany.
In 1940, the combined Allied forces on the French/Belgian front were numerically equal to the German Army they faced. France had as many tanks as Germany. Many French tanks were heavy; whereas the vast majority of German tanks were obsolete light tanks unsuited for tank-to-tank combat. Even Germany’s medium tanks were no match for French heavy tanks in one-on-one combat. The Maginot Line was heavily fortified, supposedly forcing the German Army to attack through Belgium and Holland. Britain and France had far more industrial capacity and access to natural resources than did Germany. That, combined with their ability to purchase weapons from the United States, gave Britain and France a decided edge in a long war.
In 1919, Poland and the Soviet Union went to war. In 1920, the Soviets were on the verge of making Poland the newest Soviet Socialist Republic. While the major Western democracies failed to send any soldiers to Poland’s aid, France at least sent some military advisors. These advisors recommended a purely defensive strategy. Ignoring this advice, the Polish military adopted a strategy based on mobility, offense, and encirclements. Using offense-oriented tactics, they were able to thwart the Soviet invasion.
French military leaders apparently learned nothing from that war; even though their own military had served as Poland’s principal military advisor. France was well-prepared to deal with another Schleiffen Plan–a German invasion through Belgium and Holland. This was what the German generals had originally proposed, and what would have been done had Hitler not listened to Guderian and von Mannstein. During the beginning portion of the invasion of France, Germany had launched an invasion through Belgium and Holland to give the illusion that it was in fact executing the Schleiffen Plan. This was what the Allied leaders had been expecting. At least at first, they felt their response was going according to plan.
The German plan for the invasion of France had two parts. The first part was to cut off and destroy the northern Allied force. (The Germans would break through at the Ardennes Forest, and race to the English Channel.) Stage 1 ended with the Dunkirk evacuation. After that first part had been achieved, the Germans proceeded to stage 2. Stage 2 consisted of a southward push against Paris. What’s important to note here is that the French continued fighting during stage 2, after the British had left. After stage 2 succeeded and Paris fell, it had become clear that further conflict between the German and French armies could have only one outcome. Should the French have continued fighting anyway?
For hundreds of years, France’s foreign policy had been based on an instinctive desire to keep Germany weak and divided. Even after the unification of Germany, and France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, the French felt that Germany was the enemy, and an enemy that could and should be beaten. The fact that Germany was able to defeat France so quickly and effectively in 1940 forced French leaders to rethink this anti-German bias. A smaller, Vichy France could continue to exist–but it would not be allowed to continue France’s traditional policy of doing everything possible to weaken Germany. Another factor which changed people’s minds was that, at least initially, the Nazi occupation was far milder than the French had expected. German soldiers accused of rape were tried by military courts. If convicted, a soldier would be immediately shot. German soldiers were also prevented from looting or stealing. A third factor in Germany’s favor was the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The existence of that pact meant that French communists had one less reason to oppose German occupation. (At least until the spring of '41.)
The peace treaty between Germany and France allowed France to keep the land it had left–an outcome which would not have occurred had France continued fighting. In 1944, Germany annexed Vichy France. But the French correctly regarded this as a violation of the treaty they had signed back in 1940. That occupation served to significantly worsen diplomatic relations between Germany and the Vichy French leaders in Africa.
After a nation has been clearly and soundly defeated, it’s normal for it to accept surrender terms. I do not feel France deserves to be castigated for having surrendered to Germany, especially because it’s clear that further resistance would only worsen the surrender terms ultimately imposed. Nor do I feel French leaders should be blamed for rethinking their nation’s centuries-old anti-German foreign policy. I do feel, strongly, that France’s leaders deserved blame for allying themselves with the Soviet Union in 1935; despite the Soviets’ grim track record of mass murder.
UN spacy
Don’t waste your time with IL.
It is well known for its anti-french, anti-japanese feelings. (Probably other nation!)
That’s why he’s not thus impartial in his comments.
For the most part, the French in Canada did not want to participate in a ‘European’ war.
Mr Malachi…French canadian and French from France are different nation. You mixed up…completly different story…
France suffered by far the most Allied casualties in World War I, with the exception of the Russians.
Funny sentence.
Germany lost many more than France in addition to Russia, neither decided that ‘walls’ would suffice to replace the army.
It is well known for its anti-french, anti-japanese feelings
I am not “anti- japanese” and i have no idea where you get this nonsense.
Combine that with the fact that a great stretch of France looked like the surface of the moon (except with more blood and death) and I’d expect a country to be very reluctant to fight an offensive war.
But other nations learned that what caused this was how war was waged… they needed mobility and lethality of warfare favoring the offense. France took the lesson as “build a better trench”
which is not really much of a positive development.
A smaller, Vichy France could continue to exist–but it would not be allowed to continue France’s traditional policy of doing everything possible to weaken Germany. Another factor which changed people’s minds was that, at least initially, the Nazi occupation was far milder than the French had expected. German soldiers accused of rape were tried by military courts. If convicted, a soldier would be immediately shot. German soldiers were also prevented from looting or stealing. A third factor in Germany’s favor was the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The existence of that pact meant that French communists had one less reason to oppose German occupation. (At least until the spring of '41.)
Good you put “initially”, because the German occupation became far more than “mild” by the mid to late segment of the war. As one example of their atrocious rape of France, the Germans destroyed 344 communities (62 completely) for “crimes” not connected with military operations.
@Imperious:
Funny sentence.
Germany lost many more than France in addition to Russia, neither decided that ‘walls’ would suffice to replace the army.
How is that even relevant? German civilians never had to suffer the horrors of war up close and personal. Fighting rarely went on in their borders, if at all. You’re conveniently ignoring that fact that, astonishingly enough, France is not the same nation as Germany or Russia, and underwent different changes and experiences to build the Maginot Line.
I am not “anti- japanese” and i have no idea where you get this nonsense.
Right, but he was spot on the anti-French part it seems.
But other nations learned that what caused this was how war was waged… they needed mobility and lethality of warfare favoring the offense. France took the lesson as “build a better trench”
which is not really much of a positive development.
I’ll humor you for a minute. Yes, the response the French government gave wasn’t smart at all, and many in the higher ups in the military still had the mindset of 1918. However, that still does not mean we should still call the French nation or its people as a whole “cowardly” during that time. The French Resistance provided valuable support to the Allies, and the Free French continued the good fight, from Africa to Italy and eventually in the drive into occupied France and Germany. The points you are trying to make existed within the government and leaders in the military, not with the soldiers or people themselves. Certainly there existed a defeatist sentiment during the early years of occupation, and the Free French movement under de Gaulle started off small, but that changed fairly quickly.
crusaderiv, as a Canadian I am well aware of the differences between the French of France and those of Quebec, mainly they live in different geographic areas but not much else (though the French in France insist there is). The French of Quebec and the French of France are much closer than the English of England compared to the English speakers of the United States. Cheese eating surrender monkeys have been used equally for the French of both places, unfairly I may add. The anti-French sentiment is not exclusively directed at mainland France, though one would probably have to live in Canada to be aware of both.
@UN:
Yes, the response the French government gave wasn’t smart at all, and many in the higher ups in the military still had the mindset of 1918. However, that still does not mean we should still call the French nation or its people as a whole “cowardly” during that time. The French Resistance provided valuable support to the Allies, and the Free French continued the good fight, from Africa to Italy and eventually in the drive into occupied France and Germany. The points you are trying to make existed within the government and leaders in the military, not with the soldiers or people themselves. Certainly there existed a defeatist sentiment during the early years of occupation, and the Free French movement under de Gaulle started off small, but that changed fairly quickly.
Good paragraph IMO.
Yes the French get a bad rap for the actions of a few and for unfortunate circumstances and WWI strategies and all that. Yes no doubt the generalization that the French are cowards or horrible in battle is not fair to masses of brave, tactically brilliant French fighters. BTW the Italians might get more of a bad rap than the French due to their “exploits” of WWII.
But basically, until there is another war where the French kick butt, the perception of much of the world is that they got blown away because of stupid strategies and tactics in WWII and that they quit, and that they don’t appreciate the sacrifices of Americans to liberate them. That’s the last “taste in the mouth”. Proud nationalist French won’t like this, but that’s the perception, and perception is 2/3 of reality, as they say.
mainly they live in different geographic areas but not much else (though the French in France insist there is). The French of Quebec and the French of France are much closer than the English of England compared to the English speakers of the United States.
As a canadian too (Montreal) …I can tell you …Yes there’s a political friendship between both but that’s it…not much closer…
Quebecers don’t care what happen on the other side of the Atlantic…
Canadian newspaper mentionn about two solitudes in Canada.
And according to what I have read, you are perfect example. (But fortunately there are less and less '‘aware’'monkeys)
I am not “anti- japanese” and i have no idea where you get this nonsense.
Well juste read your post about Japan…(Oh well you probably don’t)
Right, but he was spot on the anti-French part it seems.
Bingo…the cat is out of the bag!!!
BTW the Italians might get more of a bad rap than the French due to their “exploits” of WWII.
I’ve been reading a new book on the Littorio class battleships and it makes an argument similar to the one about the French getting an unfair bad rap owing to the deficiencies of their leaders. It argues that the Littorios were, from a technical viewpoint, quite good designs, but that their reputation has suffered unfairly as a result of the timid use which the Italian Navy made of them during the war.
Bad leadership makes everyone and everything look terrible.
I will repeat myself. The general anti-French bias is unfair. It seems stronger in the US but no doubt it is due to France not falling into immediate lock-step with US foreign policy. Dien Bien Phu didn’t do much for the image of France as a militarily competent nation, but then again, Vietnam made everyone look bad including the Chinese. When Charles De Gaulle exclaimed “Vive le Québec libre !” in Montreal is had the impression of a bit than political friendship. Though I am certain it meant more to those Canadians outside Quebec than those inside and not in a good way.
The French Resistance
It seems to me that French COLLABORATORS outweighed French Resistance, if you consider the duration of the war.
But enough of that.
UN Spacy, the Sentiment you are discussing HAS ROOTS. Â Just like many sentiments people have for other nations/people. Â Like the one where everyone in the world chooses to see Americans as interfering, brash, arrogant, fat, and rude. Until they request American help.
Stereotypes take GENERATIONS to change. Â The actions of the few, have left a bad taste, whether legitimate or illegitimate in the mouths of the many. Â That’s the bottom line.
It also doesn’t help, that France has been on the losing side of their colonial conflicts post WWII, like Vietnam etc.
All that said however, I believe the worst of the negative french sentiment, particularily in north america comes from Quebec. Â Their laws and regulations are particularily racist, and culturist. Â The people and the governments they choose in Quebec hate on the military, hate on the federal nation, and hate on America, and this “Spit on their face” mentality is consistent.
Go to a Montreal Canadians game, the fans mock any moments of silence for the troops, boo the American Flag, and boo the American Anthem, also refusing to sing our own.
The glaring reality, is that our experience with French culture, whether at home, or abroad, is one of isolation, cowardice, and insult. Â Everytime other nations attempt to make the world a better place, it seems they’re garunteed to get a scathing comment from a frenchman.
The resent recieved from the french in my country, is enough to tear it apart. Â Hence this dispopularity of the French.
In short, HISTORY and the attitude/actions of SOME french (perhaps a majority of those in power) Has been one of weakness, cowardice, disgrace, insult, and discord. Â And that is why there is a culture disposition to insult the French, or belittle their victories.
The lesson learned here, needs to come from the French themselves, Â treat your neighbour how you want to be treated.
French culture is even true to your own post Spacy, how you make it seem that this observed disposition towards the french being laughable is somehow OUR problem.
The french made the stew, now they’re complaining about eating it.
It seems to me that French COLLABORATORS outweighed French Resistance
This is totally true to the point where post war French revisionists constantly churn up all these stories of Resistance, while at the same time never recount the vastly greater stories of collaboration as as not to appear like they just flop from one side to another based on advantages. In truth they flew the flag of whoever was in power at the time actively helping that side and selling French pride down the gutter.
I am not “anti- japanese” and i have no idea where you get this nonsense.
Well juste read your post about Japan…(Oh well you probably don’t)
LMFAO!
I guess if the Yamato is not the baddest Battleship, then that person must “hate” Japanese. Hilarious!
How is that even relevant?
Because it is more like some attempt at comic relief. It is like saying “The USS Arizona is by far the biggest Battleship, except the Yamato which was 300 foot longer”.
You might have said " France suffered the 3rd most combat loses, so the Maginot Line concept is a perfectly acceptable conclusion for any future war"
Right, but he was spot on the anti-French part it seems.
Bingo…the cat is out of the bag!!!
I am against Francophiles who have nothing to hang their hat on in terms of any argument that France was among the bravest nations since 1870. They were not.
German civilians never had to suffer the horrors of war up close and personal. Fighting rarely went on in their borders, if at all. You’re conveniently ignoring that fact that, astonishingly enough, France is not the same nation as Germany or Russia, and underwent different changes and experiences to build the Maginot Line.
Russia was invaded and they didn’t go for the big wall option.
Same for Ottomans, Austria, Serbia, et al.
France is not the same nation as Germany or Russia, and underwent different changes and experiences to build the Maginot Line
Yea you got that right. But by different we must conclude that France became less interested in dealing with actual problems, preferring to make walls to hide behind, while letting Poland die even with a great advantage in force on the Franco-German border. If you want to label that with “bravery” thats fine. France had the most brave soldiers of all time who could not even be contained from rich French food and just ran out of the border and attacked Germany in 1939. They had great success!
I’d like to respond to some of the points Gargantua raised in his post. I agree there have been times when France’s leaders have done despicable things. I alluded to one example earlier: they promised Poland’s leaders they’d launch a general offensive against Germany if Germany attacked Poland; despite the fact they had no intention of launching such an offensive. France did launch a very minor offensive against Germany, and received little resistance. (The bulk of Germany’s army was in the east, gobbling up Poland.) Then French leaders told the Polish that they were in the process of expanding their small offensive into a larger one. They said these things while simultaneously ordering an end to their limited offensive! I assume their goal in providing the Polish with these false reassurances was to eliminate even the possibility of Germany and Poland from coming to some kind of mutual understanding.
Another example of objectionable French behavior goes back to the French Revolution. There were some extremely disturbing similarities between the revolution which overthrew the French government and the one which overthrew the Russian czar. Even the French Reign of Terror was a harbinger of the terror the Bolsheviks would later unleash. (This is not to suggest that everyone who participated in the French Revolution belonged to what would later be called the communist movement. But a significant and influential subset clearly did.) My friend from France told me that one of the reasons the French preferred communism to Nazism was because the former seemed far less alien than the latter. He said that the French see strong parallels between the French and Russian Revolutions. They are correct to see these parallels.
The above-described moral failure is also why, in 1935, France signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union.
But it would be wrong to lump all French people together, any more than I, as an American, deserve to be lumped together with, say, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama. A number of people in France have adopted non-communist or anti-communist ideologies; and those people should be praised.
Sometimes, a consequence of failing to resist a foreign invasion is that your nation becomes repopulated with people from the invading country. However, it soon became clear that Germany had no plans to repopulate France with Germans. In fact, the Nazi government had a significantly greater commitment to preventing France from becoming repopulated with non-French than previous or subsequent French governments have shown! One reason why a number of French people collaborated with the Nazis was because it was felt (correctly) that the Nazis would do a better job of maintaining France as a nation of French than the French government had done, or would do in the future.
Another thing France does well is somehow they always find a way to fight on the winning side, even if this means switching sides or conveniently making the official “French Government” on a new side as the war turns against the side that they originally sided with.
case in point: the governments of Petain and Col. De Gualle. De Gualle’s exiled government only gained currency when it was clear that the axis would lose the war. In reality, the official former French government was Vichy located in southern France, not the "Free- French located in England. De Gualle, just assumed power and it was easy since the British financed his endeavors from 40-44.
IN the Great War they made Germany a scapegoat for starting everything relating to WW1, when clearly France’s interest was not Serbian issues but getting back Alsace Lorraine, which was lost in a war that France started and lost in 1870. France just needed a spark to join in any side that would be willing to fight Germany, so they can take back that territory. Pretty suspect reason if you ask me.
France deliberately linked the Allies creating the conditions for war and encouraged the Czar to mobilize, which forced Germany to mobilize. The Czar was effectively tricked into mobilization, which was a very influential motive behind why Stalin latter didn’t trust the Western Allies the next time Germany was planning to attack the Soviet Union. Stalin didn’t want to be goaded into mobilizing into another war.
Really, without these alliances the Serbian conflict should have been Russia and Serbia vs. Germany and Austria.
England only entered because they had a treaty with Belgium. They didn’t set up a war to start based on some need to gain back land.
@Imperious:
This is totally true to the point where post war French revisionists constantly churn up all these stories of Resistance, while at the same time never recount the vastly greater stories of collaboration as as not to appear like they just flop from one side to another based on advantages. In truth they flew the flag of whoever was in power at the time actively helping that side and selling French pride down the gutter.
The “greater” stories of collaboration are bigger simply because it was easier to do so. To resist the occupier was basically a death sentence, whereby you also put your family and loved ones at great risk. In addition, not a few French people saw the Resistance as dangerous. What outweighed both collaboration and resistance, however was people trying to lead relatively normal lives as best they could. This of course changed over the years when the German occupation began to severely affect the population, and the Axis occupation of Vichy France.
I am against Francophiles who have nothing to hang their hat on in terms of any argument that France was among the bravest nations since 1870. They were not.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Is a nation as a whole considered “brave” if it wins a war? If we go by that logic than Germany is the most cowardly nation on the planet for losing both world wars.
Russia was invaded and they didn’t go for the big wall option.
That has a lot to do with the fact that a)they had undergone a violent Revolution, and the new Soviet government was too busy modernizing the country (at the cost of millions of lives) and purging its own ranks and b) the Russian border with the rest of Europe is immense. Do you honestly think any sort of “big wall” option is feasible for distances that large?
Yea you got that right. But by different we must conclude that France became less interested in dealing with actual problems, preferring to make walls to hide behind, while letting Poland die even with a great advantage in force on the Franco-German border. If you want to label that with “bravery” thats fine. France had the most brave soldiers of all time who could not even be contained from rich French food and just ran out of the border and attacked Germany in 1939. They had great success!
You keep on assuming that we must blame the French nation as a whole for the decisions their government and higher ups made.
@Imperious:
Another thing France does well is somehow they always find a way to fight on the winning side, even if this means switching sides or conveniently making the official “French Government” on a new side as the war turns against the side that they originally sided with.
case in point: the governments of Petain and Col. De Gualle. De Gualle’s exiled government only gained currency when it was clear that the axis would lose the war. In reality, the official former French government was Vichy located in southern France, not the "Free- French located in England. De Gualle, just assumed power and it was easy since the British financed his endeavors from 40-44.
IN the Great War they made Germany a scapegoat for starting everything relating to WW1, when clearly France’s interest was not Serbian issues but getting back Alsace Lorraine, which was lost in a war that France started and lost in 1870. France just needed a spark to join in any side that would be willing to fight Germany, so they can take back that territory. Pretty suspect reason if you ask me.
France deliberately linked the Allies creating the conditions for war and encouraged the Czar to mobilize, which forced Germany to mobilize. The Czar was effectively tricked into mobilization, which was a very influential motive behind why Stalin latter didn’t trust the Western Allies the next time Germany was planning to attack the Soviet Union. Stalin didn’t want to be goaded into mobilizing into another war.
Really, without these alliances the Serbian conflict should have been Russia and Serbia vs. Germany and Austria.
England only entered because they had a treaty with Belgium. They didn’t set up a war to start based on some need to gain back land.
Good post! I agree that France’s reasons for entering WWI–and persuading Russia to enter–had nothing to do with Serbia. (Any more than its entry into WWII was based on any desire to protect Poland.) I also agree that France’s decision to fan the flames of WWI to get back Alsace-Lorraine was pretty suspect–especially because the vast majority of the people in Alsace and Lorraine were Germans.
Russia’s decision to enter WWI caused it to experience one of the bloodiest wars in its history, got the czar and his family murdered by communists, all in support of a world war which achieved less than nothing. Other than that, the czar’s decision to go along with French wishes worked out just fine!
This being said, there’s one point where you and I may differ. There are times when a defensive strategy is the most logical. In 1914, the French felt that elan–as exemplified by the bayonet charge–would prove the deciding factor. The result was that hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of French soldiers were machine gunned down by the Germans. Once both sides had dug trenches, the offensives of WWI tended to cost the attacker rivers of blood for inches of land.
Both Germany and France sought to escape the staggering cost of WWI-style offensives, albeit in differing ways. The French method was to seek a defensive war, and to build fortifications to enhance a defensive strategy. The German method was blitzkrieg. “Never again trench warfare!” Hitler once said. Neither side wanted to see its infantry get chopped to pieces in WWI-style offensives.
The French military strategy was a perfectly logical response to the experience of WWI. However, the German response was even more logical. (And far more creative and daring.)
The French Resistance
It seems to me that French COLLABORATORS outweighed French Resistance, if you consider the duration of the war.
Here’s a passage from “112 Gripes About the French”
“The French mostly collaborated with the Germans.”
The Germans would disagree with that. The Germans tried for four years to get more Frenchmen to collaborate. That’s why they killed so many hostages. That’s why they destroyed 344 communities for “crimes” not connected with military operations.
The Germans overran France in 1940. For two years they used every promise, trick and pressure to induce the French people to work in Germany for the German war machine. They offered workers better food, clothes, privileges and protection denied them in France under occupation rules. And in all of France, during that entire period, about 75,000 French workers enlisted. The Germans admitted the campaign was a failure.
The LVF (Legion Volontaire Francaise), the French volunteer army that the Germans tried to organize, was a gigantic flop.
The glaring reality, is that our experience with French culture, whether at home, or abroad, is one of isolation, cowardice, and insult.
I’m not quite sure what to make of this. I have lived in France for about five years, and overall I did not feel any of the above as a foreigner. Of course you have your bigots, but those exist in every country. Not many fellow Americans I met in France (or Quebec, for that matter) told of any overwhelming insults.
Everytime other nations attempt to make the world a better place, it seems they’re garunteed to get a scathing comment from a frenchman.
Could you explain this more? I recall France being at the forefront of UN missions in Africa, most recently the civil war in the Ivory Coast.
French culture is even true to your own post Spacy, how you make it seem that this observed disposition towards the french being laughable is somehow OUR problem.
It’s no one’s problem actually. It’s a viewpoint that is quite frankly irrational and unfounded.
@Imperious:
Another thing France does well is somehow they always find a way to fight on the winning side, even if this means switching sides or conveniently making the official “French Government” on a new side as the war turns against the side that they originally sided with. case in point: the governments of Petain and Col. De Gualle. De Gualle’s exiled government only gained currency when it was clear that the axis would lose the war. In reality, the official former French government was Vichy located in southern France, not the "Free- French located in England. De Gualle, just assumed power and it was easy since the British financed his endeavors from 40-44.
Wrong. Charles de Gaulle was officially recognized by Britain as the “Leader of all Free Frenchmen, wherever they may be” on June 28, 1940 and did not recognize Vichy France as the legitimate government.
France deliberately linked the Allies creating the conditions for war and encouraged the Czar to mobilize, which forced Germany to mobilize. The Czar was effectively tricked into mobilization, which was a very influential motive behind why Stalin latter didn’t trust the Western Allies the next time Germany was planning to attack the Soviet Union. Stalin didn’t want to be goaded into mobilizing into another war.
Really, without these alliances the Serbian conflict should have been Russia and Serbia vs. Germany and Austria.
England only entered because they had a treaty with Belgium. They didn’t set up a war to start based on some need to gain back land.
Right, and poor Germany was a victim of intertangled alliances in Europe all orchestrated the imperialist French. Clearly Germany was pacifistic and reluctant to go to war with France at all. World War I caused by the French? That’s a first.
The “greater” stories of collaboration are bigger simply because it was easier to do so. To resist the occupier was basically a death sentence, whereby you also put your family and loved ones at great risk. In addition, not a few French people saw the Resistance as dangerous. What outweighed both collaboration and resistance,
Funny how in Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, these people fought Germany behind the lines, where in France they just served coffee and “collaborated” out of fear of reprisal. The mark of courage is to face death while struggling, not making pancakes for German officers.
however was people trying to lead relatively normal lives as best they could. This of course changed over the years when the German occupation began to severely affect the population, and the Axis occupation of Vichy France.
You can explain it that way, but in other countries the official act was fighting by all means necessary at great risk. Vichy should have fought on in Brittany or “officially” left France for establishment in Dakar or elsewhere.
Quote
I am against Francophiles who have nothing to hang their hat on in terms of any argument that France was among the bravest nations since 1870. They were not.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Is a nation as a whole considered “brave” if it wins a war? If we go by that logic than Germany is the most cowardly nation on the planet for losing both world wars.
Brave means resolve to fight on elsewhere. If UK was occupied, they would have continued from Canada or elsewhere. But not France. One and done.
Quote
Russia was invaded and they didn’t go for the big wall option.
That has a lot to do with the fact that a)they had undergone a violent Revolution, and the new Soviet government was too busy modernizing the country (at the cost of millions of lives) and purging its own ranks and b) the Russian border with the rest of Europe is immense. Do you honestly think any sort of “big wall” option is feasible for distances that large?
The “big wall” is the only option for nations that have no resolve to mitigate basic national defense. They can just build some wall and avoid the problems. That is why Soviets realized that the solution was to modernize.
Quote
Yea you got that right. But by different we must conclude that France became less interested in dealing with actual problems, preferring to make walls to hide behind, while letting Poland die even with a great advantage in force on the Franco-German border. If you want to label that with “bravery” thats fine. France had the most brave soldiers of all time who could not even be contained from rich French food and just ran out of the border and attacked Germany in 1939. They had great success!
You keep on assuming that we must blame the French nation as a whole for the decisions their government and higher ups made.
When they retreat and surrender who else can we blame? You cant make an argument that the French soldiers fighting are brave, while the generals order retreat. The result on the battlefield dictates the orders from “higher ups” The only thing you can look at is the result.
Right, and poor Germany was a victim of intertangled alliances in Europe all orchestrated the imperialist French. Clearly Germany was pacifistic and reluctant to go to war with France at all. World War I caused by the French? That’s a first.
Right, and poor Germany who mobilized because France talked the Czar into going to war, so France can get back that damm land they lost, much like the allies said that Hitler wanted to get back lost post Great War lands except of course France was on the “right side”, and conveniently after the war she could put any truth on the verdict of the Great War while enjoying Alsace Lorraine countryside.
The victors do make the rules and the truth because the result favors them.
Look up Raymond Poincaré
@Imperious:
Funny how in Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, these people fought Germany behind the lines, where in France they just served coffee and “collaborated” out of fear of reprisal. The mark of courage is to face death while struggling, not making pancakes for German officers.
Here’s a few things the French Resistance did:
They sabotaged production in war plants. They destroyed parts, damaged machinery, slowed down production, changed blue-prints
They dynamited power plants, warehouses. transmission lines. They wrecked trains. They destroyed bridges. They damaged locomotives.
They organized armed groups which fought the German police, the Gestapo, the Vichy militia. They executed French collaborationists.
They acted as a great spy army for SHAEF in London. They transmitted as many as 300 reports a day to SHAEF on German troops’ movements, military installations, and the nature and movement of military supplies.
They got samples of new German weapons and explosive powder to London.
They ran an elaborate “underground railway” for getting shot-down American and British flyers back to England. They hid, clothed, fed and smuggled out of France over 4,000 American airmen and parachutists (Getting food and clothes isn’t easy when you’re on a starvation ration yourself. It’s risky to forge identification papers). Every American airman rescued meant half a dozen French lives were risked. On an average, one Frenchman was shot every two hours, from 1940 to 1944 by the Germans in an effort to stop French sabotage and assistance to the Allies.
Serving coffee, hmm?
Brave means resolve to fight on elsewhere. If UK was occupied, they would have continued from Canada or elsewhere. But not France. One and done.
A few things the French did:
-The French fought in Africa, in Sicily, liberated Corsica, fought in Italy, took part in the invasion of Europe and fought through the battles of France and Germany – from Normandy to Munich.
-Units from the French navy participated in the invasions of Sicily, Italy, Normandy and South France.
-Units of the French navy and merchant marine took part in convoying operations on the Atlantic and Murmansk routes.
On June 5, 1944, the day before D-Day, over 5,000 Frenchmen of the resistance dynamited railroads in more than 500 strategic places.
-They delayed strategic German troop movements for an average of 48 hours, according to military experts. Those 48 hours were tactically priceless ; they saved an untold number of Allied lives.
-French resistance groups blew up a series of bridges in southern France and delayed one of the Wehrmacht’s crack units (Das Reich Panzer Division) for twelve days in getting from Bordeaux to Normandy.
-About 30,000 FFI troops supported the Third Army’s VIII Corps in Brittany: they seized and held key spots ; they conducted extensive guerrilla operations behind the German lines.
-25,000 FFI troops protected the south flank of the Third Army in its daring dash across France: the FFI wiped out German bridgeheads north of the Loire River; they guarded vital lines of communication; they wiped out pockets of German resistance; they held many towns and cities under orders from Allied commmand.
-When the Third Army was approaching the area between Dijon and Troyes from the west, and while the Seventh Army was approaching this sector from the South, it was the FFI who stubbornly blocked the Germans from making a stand and prevented a mass retirement of German troops.
-In Paris, as the Allied armies drew close, several hundred thousand French men and women rose up against the Germans. 50,000 armed men of the resistance fought and beat the Nazi garrison, and occupied the main buildings and administrative offices of Paris.
Some comments from generals on the FFI:
“General Patton cabled General Koenig, the French commander of the FFI, that the spectacular advance of his (Patton’s) army across France would have been impossible without the fighting aid of the FFI.”
“General Patch estimated that from the time of the Mediterranean landings to the arrival of troops at Dijon, the help given to operations by the FFI was equivalent to four full divisions.”
“The Maquis who defended the Massif Central, in the south-central part of France, had two Nazi divisions stymied; they kept those two divisions from fighting against the Allies.”
When they retreat and surrender who else can we blame? You cant make an argument that the French soldiers fighting are brave, while the generals order retreat. The result on the battlefield dictates the orders from “higher ups” The only thing you can look at is the result.
So, again, by that logic, we should blame Germany for being cowardly because they ultimately lost. There are instances where local French units fought and won tactical victories in the 1940 invasion, and the British likely would not have got out as intact as they did from Dunkirk had the French remnants fighting around the perimeter simply threw up their arms in surrender.
Hey Spacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2qFfuLy_fs&feature=related
There’s a bunch of French folk, insulting YOUR country, en mass. Because they are french.
Consider yourself cordially INSULTED.
