The Treaty of Versailles DID give Hitler grist for his mill, to be sure, but we have the testimony of HITLER HIMSELF to prove that he was determined that Germany would achieve military victory well before the ToV was negotiated. You have only to read the very moving passage in Mein Kampf in which Corporal Hitler, hospitalized and temporarily blind from the effects of poison gas, heard about the German surrender, and swore then and there that Germany would rise again and achieve the victory it had been deprived of.
Rudolph Hess records a somewhat similar “vow of revenge”.
So even if the ToV had been far kinder to Germany, would the thirst for another crack at it have been really that much less? Assuming that the settlement would have contained at least a few clauses unfavourable to Germany, could Hitler not have made hay out of those?
Besides, did it take a REAL injustice or threat to make Hitler go into a rage? Were the Jews really plotting against Germany, for instance?
I have read a great deal of Hitler’s pronouncements and I am convinced that he was very sincere, but suffered from some sort of psychological disorder in which the person believes that his victims are to blame for his bad behaviour because they “made” him do it by refusing to give him what he wanted.
The closest analogy is the mugger who shoots and kills a victim who tries to fight back and then screams over the corpse “Now see what you made me do”.
When Hitler says in his last testament that he did NOT want war with the west in 1939, I believe that he is 100% sincere and that that statement is 100% correct accoding to his reasoning. What he wanted was for France and Britain to let him take over Poland without a war.
Conversations between Hitler and Pétain after the French surrender recorded in Pétainès biography make that very clear. He keeps reminding the French that they declared war on him. He almost says “See what you made me do.”
If it weren’t for the economic pressures and in-your-face humiliation visited by the Treaty of Versailles, who in Germany would have listened to nutjobs like Hitler and Hess?
We have at least equal nutters here in the US today, who given the chance would be every bit as nasty as H and H. But they’re not given the chance, and are largely laughed at instead. Fortunately, Americans aren’t nursing enough of a grudge about anything to listen to their nonsense.
Just a few points speaking as an Englishman who actually likes French people(even had a French girlfriend at one time)
Britain was primarily a NAVAL power at that time and even with the callup would not have had a huge ground force which the French knew beforehand, so they weren’t let down.
When they were looking for excuses for their own humiliating defeat they may well have started complaning about the relatively small British Army.
The British forces in France came under the direct command of the French General staff .
The French conduct of the Battle of France was pitiful,the main headquarters had no radios and orders were sent out hourly by despatch riders often giving out orders to defend areas that the Germans had already overrun.
Military discipline meant that British commanders had to follow the French H.Qs orders strategies and tactics.
The British evacuation from Dunkirk did NOT spell the departure of the British army in France .
British troops were at that very time and afterwards still landing further down the French coast to fight the Germans.
Yes some French were fighting against the Germans at Dunkirk(though there were a good many skulking in cellars who refused to fight even when their officers begged them to) during the evacuation but there were British troops in Calais amongst other areas in France which were ordered to fight to the end in the full knowledge that there was no escape route for them and did so.
There was an agreement between the French and the British that there would be NO SEPERATE PEACE negotiated with the enemy.
The French didn’t hold to this and surrendered to the Germans.
As a result of this the British 51st Highland Division was lost to the Germans.
I have to question this assertion. I wasn’t raised on this idea. It certainly wasn’t taught in the public schools (at least not mine) and I doubt, although I can’t say for certain, that it’s taught that way now. What I was taught about France as a child was that they were friends who helped us in the revolution and gave us the Statue of Liberty.
The Statue of Liberty and France’s connection to it received a lot of attention in my schooling, probably more than was necessary. This indicates an effort to portray France as a good friend and ally.
The “surrender monkey” nonsense was created and put out in the media by people who have a political ax to grind and media influence that’s out of proportion to their numbers. It really went into high gear (with all the nonsense about “freedom fries” etc.) when the White House was trying to justify invading Iraq.
I can understand why France is held in low regard by many European nations.
You only need think of France during its expansionist years, from the early 18thC, and then the Napoleonic era.
France invaded pretty much most European countries, including Russia all in self aggrandisement of their leaders.
Add that to their overseas colonialist expansions and you have a de-facto world war, it could be reasonably argued that WW1 was actually WW3 and WW2 was WW4.
Despite this France managed to lose three out of four major wars, lose most of their colonies, and came damn near to losing the other war, which needed the intervention of everyone else to come to her aid.
Basicly France has had a habit of getting involved, or starting major wars it couldn’t handle for the last three to four hundred years, much to the detriment of its neighbours.
Yet the French still seem to look down on the Anglo influenced world as if it were a dirty stain on the floor.
I assure you I am not trying to portray Britain as “perfidous Albion”. The idea that the Brits let the French down on purpose was promoted by Vichy/Nazi propagnda.
In fact, I have noted in my readings from WWII that the British genuinely felt for the French in their defeat and occupation and that the average Brit was less likely than many Americans to heap contempt on them as cowards, maybe because they had felt the same shock of the Blitzkreig in 1940.
This may sound like a technicality, but the French never signed a separate peace. They signed a cease-fire at a time when the roads were packed with fleeing civilians being slaughtered from the air and further resistance was futile. There are a number of real differences between a peace treaty and a cease-fire, or armistice.
Churchill himself visited France just before the armistice, and told them that, sadly, he understood, even if he wished there were some way for them to keep fighting.
Also, did you know that for some time before the fall of France, there was a plan to actually declare Britain and France to be ONE COUNTRY? Under this plan, the British and French Governments would merge, London would be the capital, and the country of Britain-France would simply regard the fall of France as part of its country being under enemy occupation. The plan never flew for a number of reasons.
Finally, there is a possibility that we must face, namely that Britain, either consciously or unconsciously, when they realized all the realities of the situation in 1940, made the terrible but strategically necessary decision to let France fall and defend Britain rather than pour more military resources into the “drain” of a Europe that was being overrun by the Germans.
This meant that France would suffer an occupation for several years, until, say, America could be brought in. But this was still better than BOTH Britain and France falling, giving America NO toehold in the old world, even if it chose to enter the war.
This could have been the sort of heart-rending decision that must be made in war. And in retrospect, maybe it was the right one.
I am not saying that the ToV did not supply grist for Hitler’s mill, but nutters like him COULD have come to power without the anger generated by the ToV.
Look at the “Jewish menace” card the Nazis played. German Jews were among the most assimilated, most fiercely patriotic Germans in the country. Some of them even wished they could join the Nazi party because it was so wonderfully pro-German. Jews were in NO WAY a menace to Germany, but the Nazis used them to whip up support.
Similarly, even if the ToV had been far milder and more friendly, they could have harped on the “Red Menace”. In fact, the thing that gave Hitler a REAL boost was when the Communist Party increased its support in the early 1930s and German capitalists went running to the Nazis with their cheque-books open wide.
So the idea that no ToV=no Nazis is a bit simplistic.
Besides, some of the worst aspects of the ToV were over, or had fallen into disuse, by the late 20s. But the Nazis got their real “growth spurt” in the early 30s.
What is “terrible” about that decision? Britain was not militarily capable of preventing the fall of France. There was nothing unconscious about such a decision - stay in France, watch it fall anyway, and have no army left, or retreat back home behind a pretty damn good natural defense, and see what you can do about it later.
France was lost. I don’t find anything terrible about acknowledging that and planning for the future, and also looking to the defense of the country.
I meant “terrible” in the sense that it must have been a difficult and heart-rending decision to make. While I cannot read the minds of Churchill and the British military in 1940, I meant that they probably did not callously leave the French to four years of Nazi occupation without feeling some remorse.
What you have said is what I have said, in diffrent words.
That you have an interestingly skewed view of history.
Poland was on their own and completely unsupported. They didn’t have near the capabilities of the French army and didn’t have the support of any one else. I can’t believe you brought them up. Also, to be frank, they FOUGHT…they pretty much did the best they could with what they had.
The Soviets had much more numerical superiority but their command structure initially was in chaos (Stalin’s fault pretty much). However, again, they didn’t give up…they continued to fight until things turned around for them, no matter how many bodies it took.
The Brits certainly had the advantage of being on an island…but again, they didn’t give up and were planning to fight it out if the Germans ever got around to invading. Also, the Brits kept up the fight despite the fact that everyone else except the Soviets had folded in Europe by that time.
Certainly…by this time the combined allied armies were badly out of position and the Brits anyway had no choice but too retreat. The FRENCH though were fighting on their home ground. I recall that when the US, Brits and Canadians invade France it was a bitch to get through, say, the hedgerow country using mechanized forces. Had the French decided to go to the wall with a full press popular resistance from the start Germany may have won anyway…but then again, they may not have either. Look at what the Soviets did to the German mechanized forces in cities like Stalingrad. The French COULD have bled the Germans white trying to take their cities…had they defended them vigorously.
I’m not one of those that calls the French ‘surrender monkeys’ or any of that bullshit. I’m well aware that the French were demoralized after WWI, something they barely got out of intact. The fact remains that the French didn’t fight as hard as either the Poles or the Soviets…and I don’t think that you can even make a case that the Brits didn’t fight as hard. After all…they were fighting in FRANCE. One would expect the French to fight the hardest for their own homes.
This is any excuse. The Brits sent what they sent. The French were fighting on their own home ground. The French had more and better tanks than the Germans, they were fighting on the defensive, and they were fighting on their home terrain.
France had its own airforce as well. Again, this smacks of an excuse. The Germans were having to fly in pretty much from Germany in the early stages (or perhaps from some forward air bases), while the French were, you know, flying from France. That the Brits didn’t send their entire air force over is understandable…but even if not, the French still should have had the advantage. IIRC the French had pretty fine fighters of their own.
Its sort of like the tanks thingy. That the French (and the Brits and the Soviets initially) used their superior numbers and equipment stupidly isn’t really the Germans fault. They all were reading from the same book…the Germans were simply reading AND using that book. Hell, IIRC the Brits were the ones who wrote the bloody book on combined arms and deep striking armor tactics!
The French were on the defensive, fighting on their home ground…with better and more numerous tanks and a supposedly invulnerable defensive line. Yes, they managed to screw up by the numbers and get their main forces (and those of the Brits) out flanked. So what? Why didn’t the average Frenchman pick up a rifle and defend the cities while the Army re-formed. They still had the Maginot line (it was weeks after that the Germans got back there to finish the forts off one at a time, or until they simply surrendered), right? Their army was outflanked but it wasn’t completely destroyed in the field. Even if it was, they still could have fought on if they wanted too.
Lets look at modern history for just a moment. Iraq has/had about 28 million people. The US has, what? 400 million? The Iraqi’s were so far technologically behind the US they might as well have been throwing spit balls. Yet, with this unpromising material the US is STILL fighting in Iraq too this day. The French who had a smaller but not disproportionately smaller population than Germany, who had a smaller Army (except in tanks) than the Germans but who were on the defensive pretty much folded as soon as things turned grim.
Sure, there were good reasons they did…fatigue and demoralization from the first world war (though they were eager enough during the phony war period IIRC). Again though the fact remains that the French surrendered without really going to the wall in the fight, while their country was pretty much still intact. This let the Germans pretty much off the hook and allowed them to turn on the Soviets with a much more intact army than they would have had otherwise.
One last thing:
You might remember that it wasn’t our fucking war at this point. Why SHOULD the US have gotten involved? Hell, after WWI and what happened there when we got dragged into a purely European war why the fuck would we be eager to jump into ANOTHER European blood bath???
Yes…Americans were isolationists, especially during this period of the war. And for good reason…we’d been fucked over by our Euro buddies before and weren’t eager to get involved again. What does this have to do with anything though? Again, Germany invaded FRANCE…it was up too them and their allies to defend it, not the US.
The same could be said of most European countries at different points in history. Sweden and Spain were menaces before France was. Germany afterwards. It’s not like France has been unique in harrassing its neighbors.
France held on to its overseas colonies longer than most European powers. It was still clinging to Algeria and Vietnam into the 1960’s. Germany, in contrast, was stripped of everything after World War I.
This is a fair cop if you’re talking about the Franco-Prussian war. But prior to that the France was a force to be reckoned with – they had the steel to back up their words. In World War I they weren’t any more to blame than any of the other Great Powers and they acquitted themselves well. And in World War II they joined the fight reluctantly. So, basically, in the time period you’re describing there’s only one point in history where France went looking for trouble and got smacked down as a result.
The Germans and the Italians sent something like 4,000,000 troops into France, which at the time had a population of about 40,000,000.
If The United States had committed 2.5 million troops to Iraq we could have quite easily pacified the entire country in a few months. Trying to do the same job with 1/20th the manpower makes quite a difference.
[QUOTE=Valteronmay sound like a technicality, but the French never signed a separate peace. They signed a cease-fire at a time when the roads were packed with fleeing civilians being slaughtered from the air and further resistance was futile. There are a number of real differences between a peace treaty and a cease-fire, or armistice.
[/QUOTE]
The technicality you speak of,the French government ordered the French army to stop fighting .
Though a lot of the French Army had already pre guessed their governments decision and had already stopped fighting .
The British Army being mostly working class blokes who didn’t really understand politics carried on fighting until it all went totally wrong ,and then they still carried on fighting.
Look at the French wars from 18thC, its a whole litany of expansionism and failure.
From the War of Spanish Succession right through the 7 years wars, the Revolutionary wars right through the Peninsular and Napoleonic wars, France had a bad habit of starting conflict, and then losing.
You can go through to the Franco-Prussian war, it was France declaring war on Prussia who handed their asses handed to them.
Its not as if they were all that peaceful prior to that time either, with atrocities commited in what is now Germany but then everyone in Europe was at it.
The French seem to have been very good at taking war to other European nations, but pretty rubbish when those nations brought it back to them.
Ultimately the whole series of wars, right from late 1600’s through to the end of the Napoleonic period bled France dry, WW1 finished France off and WW2 was simply proof of that.
Today we have the arrogance of France having language police to ‘protect their culture’ as if anything the Anglo world is somehow dirty and inferior.
All that French pride, and all those inferiority complexes, they would not join NATO, and instead preferred to allow the defence of Europe from Russia fall mostly to the US and Germany.
They hold European air space up for ransom and screw up the holidays of millions of EU citizens, they block up ports and screw up the legitimate trade of their EU partners, and yet the French government does very little to break up the frequent blockades and bring the organisers of these events to account.
Often those who suffer the losses are caught up in disputes that have absolutely nothing to do with the protesters demands, but that doesn’t seem to worry the supine French governments leaders.
We look at the way EU subsidies are paid to French peasants, whose idea of farm modernisation is to use a galvanised bucket instead of a plain steel one when milking their cows, meanwhile the taxpayers of the EU end up subsidising uneconomic weekend farmers.
The French as a nation are like a bunch of spoiled brats who create their own rules, and when others beat them at their own game they sulk in a corner instead of fighting back.
The corruption at the top of French government is legendary, look at the subsidised flats in the centre of Paris as an example.
UK politics is certainly not snowy white, but appears that way when laid side by side with that of France.
Arrogant cowards. it should be the French national motto.
I don’t think it was the slightest bit difficult to make to be honest. Probably wished it had never come to that, but given the situation, I don’t think there was a moment’s hesitation, nor should there have been.
Thanks for that information. The use of galvanized milk buckets in the 21st century certainly casts a lot of light on what happened militarily in the Spring of 1940. :dubious:
Strangely enough, I regard many of those as French successes ;). The War of Spanish Succession ended up with a Bourbon on the throne and for all the occasional reverses France grew territorially under Louis XIV. The revolutionary wars were mostly all won. All but the last two Napoleonic wars as well.
A rather lopsided defeat, 'tis true. But Prussia was hardly blameless in terms of promoting hostilities.
Mostly indirectly by financing the Swedes. The French entry into the Thirty Years War was late and in Germany rather limited in penetration.
Have to disagree, most advances into France in the 17th-early 20th century ended up badly enough for the attacker. The utter failure of multiple invading armies to quell the French Revolution being only the most notable of these.
Yes and no. I think you could make the argument that France occasionally was bled pretty dry, but they usually seemed to rebound fairly well. As has been noted it was no enervating weakness that really led to the WW II defeat. They were just thoroughly outfought.
Roughly I’d say that naval capacity aside ( where the Pax Brittanica ruled until WW II, but France was very rarely compeititive - primarily during the phase when the American Revolution occurred ), France was the single most dominant military power on the continent ( not surprising, as they were one of the biggest and ceratinly the wealthiest ) from ~1648-1812, and again from ~1852 or '53 ( after Russia lost in the Crimea ) to 1870/71. Thereafter Germany clearly supplanted them until WW I and again after rearming around WW II, followed by the USSR/Russia.
Tsk. I’m sensing a wee bit of hostility on your part casdave :p. I won’t debate your various cultural points - I sorta half-agree, half-disagree on some of them.
But the cowardice angle is silly. It’s awful hard to point at the Napoleonic wars as a symbol of French weakness and cowardice. French military history, even in the modern era, is reasonably impressive, with the usual litany of victory and defeat. The two really glaring exceptions being the Anglo-Prussian War and WW II, both being pretty spectacular examples of rapid military collapse
But I’d argue the highly situational nature of both and throw out WW I, as has been done earlier in this thread, as a fine counter-example of early devastating defeat, followed by stubborn retrenchment.
My education in the Fifties and the Sixties held no hint of an anti-French sentiment. They were considered loyal allies and their personalities were portrayed as amusing and endearing and somewhat esoteric. There was an admiration for all things French. President Kennedy’s wife was Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy and she was enormously popular with the French and she spoke French to them fluently.
It was 1967 when I began to notice anti-deGaulle attitudes, but even that did not carry over to the French in general.
(Jokes of military cowardice were always told with Italians as the target, but not with any hostility.)
Been said by whom? I’ve never heard this one.
My generation read books about the French Resistance with detailed accounts, photographs and names of some of them. There is a place set aside near Notre Dame to honor them.
Nonsense! I was treated with many acts of kindness and an abundance of smiles. Everywhere there was an effort to please and to accomodate. And as soon as they sensed ethusiasm from me for their country and people, they would knock themselves out to please. This was in April of 2004. It happened again and again. There were two exceptions in ten days and one of them was not a native of France.
That fact has never been hidden from the public. If people don’t know it, it isn’t for lack of having it been made public:
This is an excerpt from Roosevelt’s speech to Congress on December 11, 1941: