Well, Vichy obviously, not deGaulle. But an article linked by ALDaily says that
[
](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full)Can anyone confirm or debunk this, especially the latter half?
Depends what they mean by “bore arms on the Axis … side”. For instance the Allies invaded the Vichy territories of Syria, Lebanon, Algeria and Morocco during the war, and the Vichy military who were supposed to be defending those places obviously “bore arms”. They did actually fight against the Allies in Syria but not in the other ones I listed. The Allies attacked the French Navy in North Africa and they fought back.
The remnants of the French Army in mainland Vichy also bore arms of course. They were certainly more active in the Axis cause in a sense, being implicated in rounding up Jews and other “undesirables” even before the Germans occupied Vichy. But they never fought against the Allies as such.
Certainly the Resistance barely existed in the first couple of years of Occupation. I have heard claims that it basically started as an effective force on June 6, 1944 but I suspect that’s being a bit harsh.
So overall I’d say the first half is true in letter and spirit, the second half in letter only. But I cannot agree with the statement “French part of the Axis”; they did not send troops to fight the Russians for instance, unlike the true members of the Axis (Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, and to some extent Spain).
Vichy didn’t send them as a asovereign nation, but quite a few Frenchmen fought on behalf of Germany in the Eastern front.
A division of french volunteers fought on the east front.
Also, but I’m not sure it’s exactly relevant, young males living in Alsace and Lorraine, annexed to the Reich, were drafted in the German army. I wouldn’t know how many.
I don’t think the Vichy army was involved in rounding up Jews (or anybody else, for that matter). The police was, and so was the “militia” created in 1943 and that was frequently used as auxiliaries by the Germans (in particular against the resistance).
I checked the figures. The “division Charlemagne” I mentionned above included 7000 volunteers. The “Milice Francaise” up to 35 000. Though I found no mention that the “Milice” as such fought the allied troops, I found one stating that 6000 of its members left to Germany after France was liberated and some of them fought there (other were sent to factories, or given other duties).
Actually, a law was passed in 1943 allowing french people to enlist in the Waffen-SS(I mean a french law, not a german one). I think the "division Charlemagne was a SS unit.
Also, besides Syria, the Vichy forces also fought briefly against the allies at the beginning of the operation Torch, the situation being extremely confused (civilian and militaries authories siding eiter with Vichy or with the allies arresting each other in various cities) until the admiral Darlan (former member of the Vichy government and chief of staff of the french army) who happened to be present in North Africa broke a deal with the allies and ordered a cease-fire.
Yes, the French State (aka Vichy France) turned over the Nazi. They were (mostly) French citizens.
The French troops in North Africa made a credible defense against the American landings there. They did not bother to resist the Germans who arrived to help them drive the Americans out.
Vichy France was partner with the Axis. People do not like to admit it, but history speaks plainly on this point. Pick up a copy of “An Army At Dawn” to see a little of the behavior of these people. Remarkable.
By allowing the Free French to be treated as an Ally, we gained a lot. German (and Austria) were cut into four (not three) occupation zones, so the West got 75% of Germany. A pretty good deal.
I’m not sure, but I don’t think it was worked out this way. I believe that France was simply handed one part of the western allies “share” of Germany. I could be mistaken, though.
I believe you are correct. The USSR did not want to give France an occupation zone, so that the US and UK gave France part of theirs.
Does this mean they have to give back their Security Council seat? Let the French had one certainly (seemed) to be a good idea at the time.
I just checked, and East Germany (the USSR sector) made up 30% of occupied Germany, that is, about 1/3, not 1/4. And parts of the original German territory were annexed outright by the Soviets and by Poland, so that the total of the US/UK/French was probably considerably less than 2/3 of the original pre-war German territory.
Occupying a bigger chunk of Germany was evidently more important to the Soviets than who got to sit on the Security Council.
Interesting history fact -
During the British campaign in Syria, several Jewish Haganah militiamen served as scouts for the invading forces. On one of them, a certain young officer was moving ahead of a force of ANZAC troops when he was shot in the eye by a French sniper.
He wore an eyepatch for the rest of his life.
I meant that for the most part, Vichy-organized units did not fight with the Germans, not that individuals didn’t join.
Some of this naturally had to do with facts on the ground – Eisenhower probably knew, when he “chose” (I know it’s a matter of considerable debate how much ability the Allies would have had to move more quickly) not to race the Russians to Berlin, that possession would be many points of the law, and that the political division would likely largely mirror the military division as of the time of armistice.
[hijack]Speaking of dividing territory, what was the basic theory and rationale and practice for how and why France was parsed into/governed as Vichy and Occupied Territory by the Germans? Why not occupy all of it (probable answer: manpower – but then, the Germans had lots of troops spread very thinly from (wasted in?) places ranging from Greece to Norway, places that might seem less crucial to mastery of Europe)? Or: If the Vichy crowd were effective stooges of the Reich (and after all, the Germans did like to coopt local functionaries to do day to day tasks), why not let all of France be administered by this puppet state? And how were the Vichy boundary lines drawn?
[/hijack]
Germany occupied all the land that it was currently holding, as well as the entire Atlantic coast.
Yes. Manpower. There was no point in using troops to occupy a territory that had no strategic interest and where a local and compliant government was willing to keep things in order.
Later, all of it was occupied, when the situation in North-Africa made possible an allied attack in southern France.
And the Vichy government actually administrated all of France (except for the parts annexed to the Reich), both the “free zone” and the occupied zone.
Actually, the boundary did not correspond to the areas occupied by the Germas in 1940. They actually occupied more of France than that when the armistice was signed. The atlantic coast was included in the occupied zone for three reasons :
-In order to defend the coast against a possible british attack
-In order to keep a corridor towards Spain, in case Franco would join the Axis
-In order to keep under german control the main ports which were also industrial cities.
The rest of the border was established essentially on the basis of the economical/industrial interest of the areas. The Germans withdrew from the mostly rural zones, and at the contrary occupied areas where industies or mines were situated that they didn’t hold at the time of the armistice.
Apart from the main occupied/free zones, there was also a “forbidden zone” (the Atlantic coast and the northern borders), a part immediatly annexed to Germany, a zone in northern France I forgot the name of that was intended to be annexed after the end of the war, and a small Italian occupation zone. There has been also later another forbidden zone along the spanish border.