Has France's WWII performance been fairly judged or not?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=casdave]

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.
[/QUOTE]

Just a nitpick: France invaded Russia to enforce the Continental System , which was an attempt to choke the English economy in the last stages of the long struggle between the two powers.

It’s worth noting that in 70 years, France and Germany were enemies at war three times. Each of them surrendered, resulting in the overthrow of their governments, twice.

42

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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.
[/QUOTE]

You do realize that Normandy is not on the road from Germany to Paris.

Stalingrad happened eighteen months after the Germans invaded. France didn’t have eighteen months, didn’t have thousands of miles of space to trade for time. You’re ascribing an accomplishment to Soviet forces that was not possible in France for the simple reason that it’s not possible to fall back a thousand kilometres in a country that isn’t that wide. The Soviet performance in the first six or seven weeks of their war against Germany was every bit as terrible as France’s, if not actually worse. The reason they survived is simply that the Soviet Union was bigger.

No, they could not have. You’re simply got grasping the facts. The Soviets still had an army left after the first few months of shock defeats, could still call upon a substantial force to muster defenses. They had the time, the space, and the manpower to reorganize themselves. The French did not, end of story, full stop. What you’re suggesting is purely insane. They were beaten.

Yeah, the British really put up a fight in Singapore; they surrendered to a force maybe a quarter of their size without even really trying to defend their city. Their forces in France fought ineffectively and their most famous operation was the one where they ran away like little girls. Their performance in the opening stages of the African campaign was pathetic. Even Churchill himself is said to have asked in frustration, after another humiliating surrender, “Why won’t they fight?” The Russians surrendered by the millions at the beginning of the war. Both those countries fought every bit as softly and as badly as France. They survived because of geography.

43

[QUOTE=Zoe]
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.
[/quote]

I’m younger than you (my primary schooling went mostly from the 60s to the 70s) and yeah, France was portrayed as having been our greatest ally during the American Revolution, was credited for giving us the Statue of Liberty and et cetera. It’s of interesting note that France and America have had diplomatic relations since the 1770s and we’ve never really fought a war with them. We did wage the “Quasi-War” with them at the end of the 18th century, but realistically speaking it was a minor naval affair. Compare this to the U.K. who we have fought two outright wars with in our country’s history.

I also have to echo your experiences in terms of making fun of the Italians. When I was growing up several of my older male relatives were World War II veterans and many of them made old jokes like, “What is the shortest book in the world? Answer: The Book of Italian War Heroes.” None of them had anything bad to say about the French, in fact they praised the tenacity of the French Resistance.

44

I have to question the comparison of France to Iraq, as well.

America’s manpower commitment in Iraq is relatively small in terms of our total population (for future reference America is about 100,000,000 short of having 400m people) and the level of resistance we’re incurring is only doing a relatively small amount of damage to our military (even smaller if you view it as amount of damage done to our military manpower, which is something like 65 million.)

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if, looking at the numbers, the French Resistance was a bigger resource drain as well as more casualty-inducing on Nazi Germany than the Iraqi Occupation is on the United States–but, I don’t have any numbers to do a quick comparison on so I won’t say for sure, I’ll try to look in on it. I just know that the Germans spent a lot of time and effort trying to stop the French Resistance and they never did, and said resistance played a role in the fight against Germany throughout the occupation and into the invasion.

It’s also worth noting that the Nazis weren’t constrained by any of the international niceties and such that the current American military is constrained by in Iraq. Thousands of the French were shipped off to concentration camps or prison camps and many were executed for simple suspicion of being part of the resistance.

45

[QUOTE=xtisme]

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…
…
I’m not one of those that calls the French ‘surrender monkeys’ or any of that bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

No, you just imply that they weren’t really trying, that they didnt FIGHT, unlike the Poles. The reality is that both French and Polish soldiers have a well earned historical reputation for bravery. French soldiers fought as hard as the Poles, in the event they died in larger numbers and killed many more German soldiers then the Poles did. 100,000 French soldiers died defending their country in only seven weeks. I think they were trying, just like the Poles were.

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Why didn’t the average Frenchman pick up a rifle and defend the cities while the Army re-formed.
[/QUOTE]

Probably because the average Frenchman in 1940 had been called up, and was already in the Army not lying around his apartment in Paris with a rifle under his bed? In any case it’s a right wing NRA fantasy that modern armies with tanks and aircraft can be defeated by a mob with nothing but rifles.

[QUOTE=xtisme]

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?

[/QUOTE]

The German army broke through at Sedan on the 4th day of the campaign and was thereafter operating in central France behind and unhindered by the Maginot line. The Maginot line was irrelevant and had no further role to play in postponing or preventing French defeat.

[QUOTE=xtisme]

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.
[/QUOTE]

France lost because she along with her allies was suckerpunched and hit hard in an area where their main armies weren’t. The French surrendered because it was clear they were unmistakably and utterly beaten. They fought until they had lost the entire north of France, the channel coast, the chief industrial regions of the country, their capital, their armies dispersed and destroyed, and the Germans had reached the Atlantic coast. They were not able to buy time with space like the Russians could with their endless steppes. The space was gone. If they had not surrendered on Jun 24 they would have done so a week later with even less of a bargaining position. Surrender was the rational, correct and indeed only real option in the circumstances. Its only the Hitlers of the world that go on giving orders to armies that no longer exist, that fight on until every last inch of ground is captured and their entire country lies in ruins. Democratic governments think their country and its people are something worth saving.

As a WW2 buff I think you and anyone else with doubts about the French in WW2 should read up on the battles of Hannut, the Gembloux Gap, and Stonne a town that changed hands seventeen times in three days. They may disillusion you of the notion that the fall of France had anything to do with the French Army not fighting or not trying.

46

I just wish to make it clear that I consider the term "Cheese eating surrender monkeys"a foul slur on the French character.

I dont for one moment believe that the French eat any more cheese then any other nationality.

47

Its a matter of record that the War of Spanish Succession was finally settled when Philip was installed, however, since the original intention was to create a state comprising France, Spain and all their colonies, and since this didn’t happen, it could also be called at the very best a stalemate.

True that this still meant a very close relationship between France and Spain, but given how closely related all the European royals were, this would have been the case one way or another anyway.

This is far from a French win and when you look at the outcome of the Treaty of Utrecht, though France inside its own borders didn’t fare too badly, its clear that French intentions were seriously dented, Spain was almost neutered, and Europe began to take on a look that is much more recognisable through todays eyes.

Those French-instigated wars in Europe reduced their overseas adventures and as a result made things far easier for the expansion of the British Empire.
It might have been worth it for France if it had ended up as ruling Europe, but as it was, the French kept on losing and over-extending themselves.

Their actions certainly helped the Prussians for example to develop their outlook and hostility and ultimately led to a unification of Germany as a form of defence against French aggression. No doubt some Germanic states such as Bavaria objected to this unification.

As for the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic wars, ultimately these pretty much ran into each other, you can’t really talk of France gaining advantage in the former, when the latter negated all those gains. I suppose you can say France started off well, but ran out the losers, both in Continental Europe but especially in overseas and colonial power.
You also have to realise that the fall of French dominance is what led to the rise of Italy and Germany, and these in turn led to further French defeats.

Ultimately the winner here could well be the what finally became the USA, by not being involved in these almost continuous European wars the US was able to utilise the benefits of improved industrial technology and not waste assets fighting pointless wars.

It all still points to France being the aggressor for the most part, and gradually losing power and influence as it got its ass kicked from India to Canada and all points in between.

48

I enjoy France-bashing as much as the next guy, but…

France went to war selflessly, on behalf of Poland. They TRIED to stop Hitler. That they failed is a tragedy, but it’s not a disgrace.

By contrast, most Americans wanted to pretend Hitler wasn’t our problem. We entered the war only after Pearl Harbor made sitting on the sidelines untenable.

49

France wasn’t particularly selfless in going to war to defend Poland, nor was the UK.

After far too much appeasement, it had beome obvious war was inevitable, that Hitler was simply not going to go away.

You could argue both France and the UK were too self interested to deal with the growing threat, and you’d be right.

The only other alternative would have been to leave Poland to its fate, and hope Hitler went for Russia next, which was a likely enough scenario.

And once Russia had been defeated it would have been France next, the only virtue if this course, if there was any at all, would have been the chance to equip and rearm in preparation, and maybe by then Germany would have been too stretched in controlling its conquests.

France had the warning of what type of war would be next by observing events in Poland and had some chance to reorganise, they used that time very badly.

50

[QUOTE=astorian]
I enjoy France-bashing as much as the next guy, but…

France went to war selflessly, on behalf of Poland.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think many Poles would have viewed it that way.

51

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
I dont for one moment believe that the French eat any more cheese then any other nationality.
[/QUOTE]
The French do eat a lot a cheese.

52

I think this is a good thread to ask a question I have thought about, because France was in a special situation after July 1940. Were people allowed to move from Vichy France to Occupied France or vice versa? Visit? Sell property in either?

I have a larger question about the movement of citizens of the various countries. I would expect that Germans could not go on vacation to London, but what about to Italy, Spain, France, Greece, etc?

I would feel better about the Allied bombing campaigns if I knew it was possible to emigrate out of Germany.

53

That appears fairly conclusive on one point anyway.

I don’t recall the Greeks surrendering all that much, but it wouldn’t have the same ring Cheese eating Greek surrender monkeys.

54

Why hasn’t anyone from France contributed to this thread?

(Maybe they saw how the thread was going and just gave up? Considered it a no-win proposition? Surrendered to the inevitable?)

55

It’s true what Napoleon said of the French Army:

“Aprez-moi, d’ey lose!”

56

[QUOTE=Hooleehootoo]
Were people allowed to move from Vichy France to Occupied France or vice versa? Visit?
[/QUOTE]

Broadly yes, though the border between the two was heavily policed and it was not a journey to be undertaken lightly. I’ve never seen a detailed account of the exact administrative procedures involved, but you seem to have required specific permission and it was a case of absolutely having to have the correct paperwork. Not a situation where you’d want someone getting remotely suspicious about what you were doing.

I suspect this was possible, though almost certainly a bureaucratic nightmare. And you’d probably run into difficulties moving the proceeds across.

Business travel on the Continent was certainly possible for German citizens, again provided you could rustle up the appropriate paperwork. To take a specific example that I’m reasonably familiar with, Paul Rosbaud was able to travel to Holland, Yugoslavia and Hungary on business during late 1942. Of course, Rosbaud was a resourceful, well-connected and well-off figure in the German publishing world, all of which no doubt helped, but these trips seem to have been regarded by the Nazi authorities as routine.

As a generalisation, the problem was rarely getting permission to leave Germany - it was getting your money out with you. If you wanted to leave, the regime’s attitude was usually good riddance, but they had always imposed punative restrictions on people moving money and assets out of the country. Towards the end, that’s going to be less true; wanting to leave will become seem as not just unpatriotic, but treasonous.
If you want to emigrate and can stomach the financial penalty, you’re also going to have to come up with some sort of appropriate entry visa for your destination. By the time the Allied bombing campaigns really started to bite in 1944, your escape routes are - at best - extremely limited, regardless of the attitudes of the Nazi officialdom.