French Army

[Sturmtruppen]

anybody know about french forces?[/quote]


edit: weren`t them an army?? :oops:

[Dani]

Which French army?? :oops: :oops:
Edited: French Resistance was an army...

[South African Military]

Free French Forces I suspect? Well, they worked mostly undercover with the with the S.O.E.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Executive

[Komissar Ombrok]

The Soviet air division "Normandia-Neman" was fully complected with french pilots, as I know...

[WildBoar]

They joined the RAF and also had their own free French army also they formed a unit of the SAS.

[Sturmtruppen]

They joined the RAF and also had their own free French army also they formed a unit of the SAS.

I knew SAS were only british,maybe I was wrong.

[WildBoar]

No the SAS were a British idea but had several countries forming sections including the French Australians and New zealanders can't remember who else right now.

The Australian SAS fought in Vietnam with a very high ratio of kills to deaths.

The idea for Delta Force came from an American who had been attached to the SAS for a while.I have the book he wrote about it and it makes interesting reading, even covers the ill fated attempt to rescue the hostages from Tehran.

[Polar]

Free French soldiers participated in British and Allied campaigns in Libya and Egypt. General Marie Pierre Koenig and his unit (13e Demi-brigade de Légion étrangère) fought well against the Afrika Korps at the Bir Hakeim in June 1942. Free French forces also fought Italian troops in Ethiopia and Eritrea and faced French troops loyal to Vichy France in Syria and Lebanon.

[Gen. Sandworm]

The American faced some resistance to the Vichy French Troops as they landed in Africa for Operation Torch. The French troops fought a bit but surrendered pretty easily afterwords and then fought along side the Americans.

[Dani]

In UK - 1944
http://img255.echo.cx/img255/6358/army16on.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)


In France - 1944
http://img255.echo.cx/img255/4783/army8hh.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[Cuts]

Not WWII, but press releases from AP and UPI have reported that the French Government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "run" to "hide."

The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate."

The raise was precipitated by the recent fire which destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively disabling their military.


:wink:

[Fuchs66]

cruel, cruel, cruel

[Fuchs66]

but true

[Bluffcove]

Yes ive heard that too, it came from www.libreopinion.com

[South African Military]

Not WWII, but press releases from AP and UPI have reported that the French Government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "run" to "hide."

The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate."

The raise was precipitated by the recent fire which destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively disabling their military.


:wink:

White Flag Factory????

[Dani]

White Flag Factory????

:lol: :lol: Yep. :lol: :lol: This is a good one!!! White Flags Factory :lol: :lol:

[Preatorian]

Not WWII, but press releases from AP and UPI have reported that the French Government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "run" to "hide."

The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate."

The raise was precipitated by the recent fire which destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively disabling their military.


:wink:
:lol: LOL !!! Really - LOL.

[Dani]

I hope that is no angry French among us. :D :D

[Bluffcove]

And if there were any angry french amongst us......... what would they do?

[Cuts]

And if there were any angry french amongst us......... what would they do?

They would have four options:

Run
Hide
Surrender
Collaborate

:lol:

[Gen. Sandworm]

I seriously doubt that you will see many French ppl on the site. Especialy Parisian's. The French dont like to talk about the war much. When i was in Sweden my friend from Northern Ireland and I loved to talk about the war and each time we did this guy from Paris would get up and leave the room. I ask my other friend from Lyon about it and he said the most French do not like to talk about it because they feel embarassed about the whole thing.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Yep... When I read the books of Mannstein, I miss a point where war with France was began... Germans take over so easy and without any strong casualties... The Mannstein himself called Ardenn operation like something like "week-end barbeque".

[South African Military]

HA! (thats funny)

[Dani]

I seriously doubt that you will see many French ppl on the site. Especialy Parisian's. The French dont like to talk about the war much.

Quite true for all english sites and forums. I didn't saw any French. :oops: :oops:

[Dani]

Check below about Free French Forces:

http://212.234.185.8/article.php3?id_article=160

[StalingradK]

Seriously, no one gives enough credit to the French for their efforts in WWII, it's not the army that messed up, it was their leaders, during the Blitzkrieg, France had the troops, armor, and air to repel the German invaders, it was the military leaders of the French armed forces that messed up, a way the war could have ended quickly and saved millions of lives, would be if the French and British forces went on a counter-attack on Germany while the Wehrmacht was stationed in Poland. They could have probably reached the Rhine in a few days while the German army scrambles to counter-strike the attack.

[Sturmtruppen]

Seriously, no one gives enough credit to the French for their efforts in WWII, it's not the army that messed up, it was their leaders, during the Blitzkrieg, France had the troops, armor, and air to repel the German invaders, it was the military leaders of the French armed forces that messed up, a way the war could have ended quickly and saved millions of lives, would be if the French and British forces went on a counter-attack on Germany while the Wehrmacht was stationed in Poland. They could have probably reached the Rhine in a few days while the German army scrambles to counter-strike the attack.

french troops are great,but the morale was shit,the morale killed them.they wanted the nazism on france.
the foreign legion are one of the best troops

[Hanz Lutz]

Seriously, no one gives enough credit to the French for their efforts in WWII, it's not the army that messed up, it was their leaders, during the Blitzkrieg, France had the troops, armor, and air to repel the German invaders, it was the military leaders of the French armed forces that messed up, a way the war could have ended quickly and saved millions of lives, would be if the French and British forces went on a counter-attack on Germany while the Wehrmacht was stationed in Poland. They could have probably reached the Rhine in a few days while the German army scrambles to counter-strike the attack.

french troops are great,but the morale was shit,the morale killed them.they wanted the nazism on france.
the foreign legion are one of the best troops

France have a great army ,1940 they waiting germans in wrong place ,germans first attack holland and then with north france ,french army been on east and germans suround them.

[StalingradK]

Seriously, no one gives enough credit to the French for their efforts in WWII, it's not the army that messed up, it was their leaders, during the Blitzkrieg, France had the troops, armor, and air to repel the German invaders, it was the military leaders of the French armed forces that messed up, a way the war could have ended quickly and saved millions of lives, would be if the French and British forces went on a counter-attack on Germany while the Wehrmacht was stationed in Poland. They could have probably reached the Rhine in a few days while the German army scrambles to counter-strike the attack.

french troops are great,but the morale was shit,the morale killed them.they wanted the nazism on france.
the foreign legion are one of the best troops

Exactly my point :P thank you Clauss, great army, suck ass commanders.

France have a great army ,1940 they waiting germans in wrong place ,germans first attack holland and then with north france ,french army been on east and germans suround them.

[Hanz Lutz]

Maybe the french been is right place germans will have big problems to conquer france.

[Minimalistix]

i believe WW2 showed Frances military power - nil

and i see why modern day French ppl would b embaressed by ww2

even Yugoslavia was mroe of a pain in the ass for Germany then France

[Général Leclerc]

Please guys ! Don't say things like that ! We had an army ! Ok, we had in fact two armies... So, I'm going to give you a little lesson about french history during WWII ! :D

1939-1940, The funny war and the invasion

When WWII started in september 1939, all the french forces were mobilised. The bigger part of them were put in the french-german border, on the "ligne Maginot", a long complex of tunnels, artillery guns and garnisons. Untill may 1940, nothing happend. This period was called "drôle de guerre" (funny war) because everybody was waiting for the german attack, the soldiers were playing cards, the life stayed like before the war. Hitler said after "if the french had attacked us at this time, we probably won the war...". But in may 1940, the german attacked... through belgium ! With the Blitzkrieg, they avanced very quickly. We had a lot a tanks, Renault, stronger than the panzers. But they stayed in the garages. All the civil ones fled towards the south, that is called the "débâcle" (unfasten). Our Marshals wanted to fight like during WWI, so we lost thousand of soldiers, killing germans too. But their army was to modern and well-trained. They invaded north of France and Alsace-Lorraine came back to Germany.


The Vichy government and the collaboration

After the end of the invation, the Marshal Petain became the leader of the "Etat français", an authoritative state, based on three master words: "travail, famille, patrie" (work, familly, fatherland). This state was antisemite. Hitler wanted the jews men and women. Petain gave also the children to the deportation.
Militarily, Vichy had the "Milice", a political police, who arrested the jews, the resistants, people making black market... 4.000 french were in the french SS division "Charlemagne" fighting communism on the estern front.

Resistance and Free Forces

More than 4.000 people fought in the "maquis" or the resistance organisations. But thousands gave help, hiding pilotes, stilling german munitions, giving tracts... The "francs tireurs partisans" were the communists and the "forces françaises de l'interieur" FFI, people under the general De Gaulle. The "forces françaises libres" FFL and the "forces navales françaises libres" FNFL were in England, and fought in Syria, Northern Africa, Russia (normandie-niemen) in Italy and then in france. There were french SAS, and there is still a french SAS regiment (1st RPIMa). Only 177 french commando from the 4th english commando landed in Sword beach the D-Day, because Eisenhower didn't trust at all in the french, from De Gaulle or Petain. The 2nd DB (division blindée) took Paris, with the help of the parisian population. They took the "Horten" in Berstesgaden (So the movie Band of Brothers make a terrible lie saying it was the US troops who took Hitler's house !).

[StalingradK]

Finally A FRENCH PERSON JOINS THE FORUMS!!!! and some of you thought this day would never come :P And he also proves my point, the french army was powerful, its commanders were dumb as hell.

[Minimalistix]

either way they were embaressed by with such a quick surrender

they wanted it to b another trench war when the Germans could so easily bomb the trenches now

[Walther]

Ok, now to get a bit into the details:

After the debacle of the 1871 Franco-Prussian war, where the French government got suckered by Bismarck to declare war on Prussia (Emser Depesche), without being ready for it (they still had to mobilise, which took them several days, while the Prussian and other German Allied troops were already waiting to be deployed by train with all plans ready), the motto of the French command was that any war should be won by intimidation and offensive agression, leading to suicidical frontal attacks ordered by the French generals in WW1 against fortified German machine gun positions.
France in WW1 lost almost a whole generation of men (the never born sons of this lost generation were btw badly missed during the mobilisation in WW2).

While on one hand, due to the incompetence of French generals during WW1 and the resulting huge losses, miliotary became a dirty word in France in the interwar period, the Generals were preparing to fight WW1 all over again. They looked at the well equiped German positions of this war and decided, in a total reverse of their WW1 ideology, tthat offensive operations in the face of modern weaponry would be suicidical and a thing of the past. So they concentrated on the Maginot line. The Germans on the other hand looked at what the British used to crack German fortifications, the tank and decided to improve on it.

Then the Maginot line had a big fault. Virtually all German attacks on France so far came through the north-east, up at the Belgian border. Now this is also the main industrial centre of France, badly needed in case of war, but virtually indefensible, also, unlike the border areas around the Rhine and Luxemburg, the landscape doesn't lend itself to static defense, the soil is wet and muddy, so that you can not dig in without constantly pumping water and there are not natural obstacles, like big rivers or mountains.
What would have made sense was to continue the Maginot line northwards into Belgium and then add it to the Grebbe line in the Netherlands, but both Belgium and the Netherlands insisted on their neutrality, especially the Belgians refused any cooperation.

During the Drole de Geurre, the French and British expected the main thrust to come from Belgium, as under the original Schlieffen plan, or across the Rhine from southern Germany, but the area bordering the Ardennes was considered to be relatively safe. The French generals figured that, like in WW1, any attack would be preceeded by massive artillery bombardments, which took weeks to prepare by moving guns and large amounts of ammunition. They considered the narrow curvy roads of the Ardennes impassable to heavy artillery and armour. Furthermore due to planning errors, the French army, while big on paper, was understrength. It was divided in so called class A and class B units, class were regular units, motorised and fully equiped, which properly trained soldiers, while the class B units consisted of middle aged conscripts, with little transport and heavy weapons. Then there were still the fortress units, which consisted of soldiers, who had failed the fitness and health tests for regular soldiers and were not considred fit for marching, so only suitable in static positions.
There was also intense interservice rivalty, a nightmare logistical and chain of command system and lack of modern communications equipment. Heavy weapons, armour and aircraft were not concentrated but distributed piecemeal along the front line.

Another problem was that in the beginning of the war, France overmobilised. So many men were drafted that armaments factories and other factories had to close due to manpower shortages. The military were forced to sent tenthousands of skilled workers back home, which was not great for the morale of those who had to stay and soldier on.

Now theFrench Armydecided to deploy their best troops to thesectors they considered the most dangerous, e.g. along the Belgian border.
The Ardennes front was guarded by a Class B division, because it
was thought that in case of the Germans moving heavy artillry through the mountains, there would be enough warning to move better troops from other sectors.
What the French generals didn't realise was that the Germans didn't need heavy siege artillery. They used their Luftwaffe, especially the Ju-87 Stuka as flying artillery, so the attack through the Ardennes at Sedan came as a total surprise. Theyalso undersestimated the speed with which a motorised armoured division can move, bypassing enemy strongpoints for later mopping up.

The locally deployed 55th Infantry division was a B-class division. Out of 450 officers only 20 were regulars, most of the soldiers were elderly civilians. One false rumour passed by a French artillery commander which triggered a panic. He claimed in a message that German tanks had broken trough the lines, which was totally untrue. Another artillery colonel, also quite far behind the fighting also declared that he had to move his command post due to being encircled. The Artillerymen abadoned their guns and started to run for it.

The men of the 55th, which held the line came was suddenly met by panicky artillery men who claimed that they were running for their lives because German tanks were behind them, and got similarly infected. The tanks those soldiers had seen were in fact French tanks, Guderian hadn't crossed the Meuse by then.
This way through rumours the panic spread and the soldiers ran from their positions or were odered to retreat by their superiors.
This created a gap in the French line through which Guderian's troops could push and atttack the flanks and rear of the neighbouring units.

By then the Germans could still have been stopped by a counterattack, but communications within the French Army were poor. Most signals were still carried by messenger, the headquarters didn't have teletypes and the commanders refused to use wireless, because it would give the HQ's position away, also in many cases responsibility and chain of command was unclear. So due to chaos a counter attack never materialised, which permitted the Germans to cut the Allied supply lines in half by pushing through to the Channel.

Another thing is that the French upperclass secretlyadmired Hitler's government and prefered it e.g. the socialist government of Leon Blum, as was seen when they forced Blum to stop supplying the Spanish Republic in their fight against Franco's troops in 1936.

Jan

[Général Leclerc]

french troops are great,but the morale was shit,the morale killed them.they wanted the nazism on france.
the foreign legion are one of the best troops

The french didn't wanted nazism on France ! Petain wanted to stop the war and have the power for is own. He made everything to being aproved by Hitler and have a good rank in the "new europa". But he was totaly wrong, the germans didn't forgive the french for the umiliation of the treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI. During the war, and that's where we have sometimes problems to talk about, thousands people denouced their jews neighbors. A lot of anonymous letters were send to make the gestapo come and deport the jews. Then, they sold the house, or made their family come in the empty apartment. So today, when someone talk about plans to make the people help the police, for exemple "anonymous calls" (like in England) everybody remember Vichy...

But in general, we haven't any problem to talk about this period with our grandparent for exemple.

Ok, we don't like to talk about 1940, because it was a total defeat, and we could have escape this defeat if we had use all our material and if we hadn't silly marshals and political leaders... :(

[Firefly]

I do think that it is difficult to try and put yourself into the situation of 1940-44 in occupied France. For a start you would want your family to be as safe as possible, and I think most people would be inclined just to get on with it rather than joining the resistance.

An example of this that I do know a little about is guernsey. The old boys and girls that Ive spoken to about their experiences reflect this. They didnt try and help the Germans more than necessary, but they didnt go out of their way to annoy them too much either.

I dont honestly know what I would do in such a situation................

[Hanz Lutz]

I do think that it is difficult to try and put yourself into the situation of 1940-44 in occupied France. For a start you would want your family to be as safe as possible, and I think most people would be inclined just to get on with it rather than joining the resistance.
I dont honestly know what I would do in such a situation................

Yes many french's sceard for own lives and lives their family ,nazi kill people who been is resistance and kill their family ,you have been very very brave to joining resistance.

[Bladensburg]

On the bright side (and this is a bit sick so you might want to look away now Leclerc) the RN got to relive happier times and sink yet another French fleet. :oops: :roll:

[Minimalistix]

I dont honestly know what I would do in such a situation................

having the Greek spirit in me id fight till death like all Greeks did
they had the Spartan spirit in them, where your mother would rather have you died in battle then come back from battle alive but facing you're back to the enemy

Alot of Greeks has this spirit in them, which is why the Greeks had some of the fiercest resistance in ww2 (along with the French [wont deny that] and the Yugoslavs)

[Walther]

Fierce spirit... yeah, in fighting each other during and after WW2, Communists versus Royalists versus other groups...

Jan

[Dani]

Please guys ! Don't say things like that ! We had an army ! Ok, we had in fact two armies... So, I'm going to give you a little lesson about french history during WWII ! :D

Bienvenue Général Leclerc!

[StalingradK]

Wow, it's amazing by what one person says even if the obvious, the forum can go on for like 3 more pages :P

[Hanz Lutz]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Sturmtruppen]

french troops are great,but the morale was shit,the morale killed them.they wanted the nazism on france.
the foreign legion are one of the best troops

The french didn't wanted nazism on France ! Petain wanted to stop the war and have the power for is own. He made everything to being aproved by Hitler and have a good rank in the "new europa". But he was totaly wrong, the germans didn't forgive the french for the umiliation of the treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI. During the war, and that's where we have sometimes problems to talk about, thousands people denouced their jews neighbors. A lot of anonymous letters were send to make the gestapo come and deport the jews. Then, they sold the house, or made their family come in the empty apartment. So today, when someone talk about plans to make the people help the police, for exemple "anonymous calls" (like in England) everybody remember Vichy...

But in general, we haven't any problem to talk about this period with our grandparent for exemple.

Ok, we don't like to talk about 1940, because it was a total defeat, and we could have escape this defeat if we had use all our material and if we hadn't silly marshals and political leaders... :(
welcome mate!.

the french really didn´t wanted the nazism???,all i heard was you wanted liked the germans,you don´t liked the brits,you wanted to kill all jews in france,and you don´t liked the usa too (well,they entered the war later)

[Général Leclerc]

What are talking about ? Ok, french didn't really liked brits from a long period, but they fought together during WWI. And the hate of germans was worst. Our army fought in northern of France ! Why do you say that we wanted them if we fought them in 1940 ? We hated them from Napoleon, 1870 and WWI. There was antisitism in the air, I agree, but how can you say that we wanted to kill all jews if we had people fighting in the resistance, in the Free French Forces... There was a few real resistants, a few real collaborationners (and less french nazi !) and the rest of the population; trying to survive, living their own lives and wanting to finish this war. We didn't really know what was the american way of live and what was an american... So we didn't hated them... Today, ok, there are more problems beteween french and americans

[Sturmtruppen]

What are talking about ? Ok, french didn't really liked brits from a long period, but they fought together during WWI. And the hate of germans was worst. Our army fought in northern of France ! Why do you say that we wanted them if we fought them in 1940 ? We hated them from Napoleon, 1870 and WWI. There was antisitism in the air, I agree, but how can you say that we wanted to kill all jews if we had people fighting in the resistance, in the Free French Forces... There was a few real resistants, a few real collaborationners (and less french nazi !) and the rest of the population; trying to survive, living their own lives and wanting to finish this war. We didn't really know what was the american way of live and what was an american... So we didn't hated them... Today, ok, there are more problems beteween french and americans
ok,don´t be upset! :) .

there were french in the waffen ss,and there were frenchs fighting with the germans too

[Général Leclerc]

Yes, SS Infanterie-Division Charlemagne: 4.000 guys... And maybe the same number in the Milice... In fact, there were the same number of guys in the collaboration and in the allies side... I repeat it, the bigger part of frenchs was of no side, hoping the alies victory but nothing more...

[StalingradK]

Um, where did this France wanted Nazism start? The French even hid Jews, like in this one town... DAMMIT I forgot the name, but there is a book on it, someone please? Help me out here?

[Hosenfield]

first of all, i don't think french soldiers were cowards, retarded, etc. I think they collasped so quickly because no other country had fathomed the technical possiblities of a well-planned blitzkrieg.
the french fought the germans on equal terms in the great war.
if england shared a border with germany they would've been dominated too.
even a giant country like russia was dominated in the first year of the war.

[StalingradK]

Dominated? Dominated is imposing total defeat, Russia was only partly invaded, Yes they got close to Moscow, but really, that's rash, being dominated is like loosing all forces which the Soviet Union did not, just because they got close to Moscow does not make them "Dominated" and that's Stalin's fault, damn that Man of Steel :evil:

[Minimalistix]

The Russians won the European war for the allies

sure there was D-Day and All, but that was just so America and Britain can get a foothold on Europe so they could 'race' the Soviets to Berlin which of course we all know the Soviets got there first

[Hanz Lutz]

Dominated? Dominated is imposing total defeat, Russia was only partly invaded, Yes they got close to Moscow, but really, that's rash, being dominated is like loosing all forces which the Soviet Union did not, just because they got close to Moscow does not make them "Dominated" and that's Stalin's fault, damn that Man of Steel :evil:

Yes thats stalins mistake they can stoped germans ,but he is belive hitler.

[Dani]

Dominated? Dominated is imposing total defeat, Russia was only partly invaded, Yes they got close to Moscow, but really, that's rash, being dominated is like loosing all forces which the Soviet Union did not, just because they got close to Moscow does not make them "Dominated" and that's Stalin's fault, damn that Man of Steel :evil:

Yes thats stalins mistake they can stoped germans ,but he is belive hitler.

What do you mean Clauss?

[Hanz Lutz]

When hitler order to attack soviets,germans bombers are go into russins teritory and bombing airfields and army,after bombing they droped paratroopers ,soviets generals tell that stalin and he is tell him this is provocation do not fire on germans ,after will be late ,i read that in book .

[StalingradK]

I learned a lot about Stalin in Stalin:Man of Steel on the history channel :)

[Dani]

Mate, History Channel as well as Discovery Channels doesn't substitute the books. If you'll fiding reading as a boring thing, check the internet (not in a single place but in many ...)

Or you already joined the English humour Club?? :D :D

Edited: The British Humour Club :wink:

[StalingradK]

I don't just watch the History channel for all my info, after I hear about something from there, I usually look up more on it in books.

I wished I lived closer to a library :(

[Firefly]

I don't just watch the History channel for all my info, after I hear about something from there, I usually look up more on it in books.

I wished I lived closer to a library :(

Very commendable, I am something of the same, I used to watch TV stuff, or even a movie and then go read some books about it. TV can be a great stepping stone to learn more.

[Sturmtruppen]

I don't just watch the History channel for all my info, after I hear about something from there, I usually look up more on it in books.

I wished I lived closer to a library :(

Very commendable, I am something of the same, I used to watch TV stuff, or even a movie and then go read some books about it. TV can be a great stepping stone to learn more.
yes,and the books are the best :D .
the other great thing,when you have knowledgment is debating :wink: .

[StalingradK]

The More You Know (NBC Tones) :lol:

[Hosenfield]

i don't think the history channel is that good sometimes. a lot of the shows kinda give a slant on things to make it more interesting.

anyway, the amount of men that russia lost in 1941-1942 would make any non-communist/facist country totalian country collaspse.

[Firefly]

i don't think the history channel is that good sometimes. a lot of the shows kinda give a slant on things to make it more interesting.

anyway, the amount of men that russia lost in 1941-1942 would make any non-communist/facist country totalian country collaspse.

im not so sure. Look at WW1.

The three main protagonists lost millions of men and it took 4 years for germany to collapse and 3 for Russia.

Still, a valid point though.

[Hosenfield]

soldiers AND civilians

ww1 more a bit more :gentleman-like

[Firefly]

soldiers AND civilians

ww1 more a bit more :gentleman-like

How so? Please explain the gentleman-ness of unresrticted submarine warfare and frontal attacks against well defended trenches?

[Dani]

soldiers AND civilians
ww1 more a bit more :gentleman-like
Mustard gas anyone?? :D :D

[Firefly]

soldiers AND civilians

ww1 more a bit more :gentleman-like

How so? Please explain the gentleman-ness of unresrticted submarine warfare and frontal attacks against well defended trenches?

[Hosenfield]

the amount of soviet civilians killed by the etzantzgruppen was enormous. two million in just the first year.

in ww1, the major powers didn't launch many campaigns design to kill large numbers of civilians

[Johannès]

I've just finished reading through this topic, and I must say that without a doubt, a majority of the posters know little to nothing about France's contribution to the war. Some knew a lot, but all missed looking at the big picture.

While the Resistance and the Free French were discussed half-heartedly and lightly, everyone focused on France's capitulation in June 1940. Half of the posters here said nothing but stupid jokes or insults.

Ok, let's look at France as a whole during the war now; does anybody here know anything about the Free French? Beyond what you can find on Wikipedia? Ok, I have to say this fact first: More French people were killed as a result of World War Two than Americans. Startling, huh? Well, let's take a look at the numbers. Approximately 400,000 American soldiers were killed. About 253,000 French Allied soldiers were killed. Now throw in the fact that about 300,000 French civilians were also killed in the war, where comparatively few, few American civilians were, and one sees a huge difference.

The buck doesn't stop there though. The Maginot Line and France's early capitulation has already been thoroughly discussed, but what about the Free French? What nobody here has mentioned is this: legally, Free France was the de jure (true) government of France following June 18, 1940, while Vichy was merely the de facto government. How so? Early in the war, after regaining French Equatorial Africa, General de Gaulle wrote what is known as the Brazzaville Manifesto. In it, he proves using legal terms that Vichy and the dissolution of the Third Republic was the result of an illegal coup and that as such, he alone was the last official of France technically allowed to represent France. Upon the liberation of Paris in 1944, de Gaulle took control of the provisional government and declared continuity of the Third Republic. What does this mean, exactly? Well, to the victors go the spoils, and as such, it means that technically that the official France never surrendered; instead, France, represented by the Free French, had gone on fighting until the end. That is why France was represented as a full-fledged ally in the war, why the United States' CIA online fact book states that France was "ultimately a victor in World Wars One and Two", as well as why France holds a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council (the five members were the "five Allied powers").

But that's not all there is to say about France. Yes, the invasion of France was a disaster, and France had been conquered (though technically not surrendered). However, France's contribution to the war does NOT stop there.

The Resistance is often glorified in Hollywood, but rarely does anyone know more of the Free French other than that they existed. What people don't realize is that the Free French were one of the most influential Allies in the war. While initially small, they soon became one of the largest and strongest armies the Allies had. In fact, by 1944, the Free French were more powerful than the original army of France ever was. How, exactly?

Well, let's start with the early part of the war. France split into two camps, one Allied one under de Gaulle and the technically neutral but really Axis Vichy France. Immediately, acrimony between the British/Free French and the Vichyites arose. Beginning with Mers-El-Khebir, the Allies would frequently tangle with the Vichyites (though nothing truly serious). By the end of 1940, Free France had under its control nearly all of French Equatorial (Central) Africa, as well as other territories.

Fighting would continue, such as in Lebanon and Syria, often involving Free French soldiers. However, something miraculous happened as a result of Operation Torch. The French Army of North Africa was the last real army of Vichy France, as well as the most powerful. For years, a few commanders (specifically General Weygand and later General Juin) would secretly attempt to build up their arsenals in case hostilities occured between them and the Germans. However, hostilities first rose in Torch against the Allies. After 3 days of fighting, the Vichy Army in North Africa switched back into the Allied camp under the orders of Admiral Darlan (a power-hungry, morally corrupt man who was soon assassinated). Although much of the arsenal of this army had been destroyed in Torch, it was still a significant gain for the Allies. Vichy no longer had any army under its control (oddly enough, the Vichy forces occupying Indochina often fought against the Axis). These former Vichyites and the Free French would participate in the campaigns in Tunisia. The Vichy army would be combined with the Free French in 1943 and reissued modern American weapons. Furthermore, as Free France now owned nearly the entire of the French Empire, recruitment was incredibly easy. By June 1944, there were 400,000 Free French soldiers. By 1945, there were a million, and by V-E Day there were 1,250,000.

As is noted by Simon Berthon (who is British), author of Allies at War, the Free French contributions are all too often ignored by Anglo-American historians. So, how exactly did the Free French contribute to the war?

Besides reacquiring most of the empire back for Allied use, Free French pilots had helped in the Battle of Britain. However, the first real Free French form of valor happened in 1942 at the Battle of Bir Hakeim. This is the most famous battle of the Free French: the French and Foreign Legion, vastly outnumbered by Afrika Corps armored divisions, were able to hold a small village for 16 days with only minimal support in the form of supplies from the British 8th Army. These French were one of the last at the Gazala line, their Allied counterparts had backed off temporarily, and their contribution in slowing down the German and Italian forces gave the British 8th Army enough time to rebuild and prepare for the Battles of El Alamein. El Alamein is often considered the most important of the British battles in Egypt. After the 16 days, the British were ready and ordered the French to evacuate the area. The French did so by literally blowing up their way back through the Axis lines.

Here's the one people never seem to remember: Italy. The French were one of the most important armies in the campaign in Southern Italy. In 1944, 100,000 French North Africans were sent as the French Expeditionary Corps under General Alphonse Juin to aid in the Italian campaign. This was the campaign where the French truly shined and made up for the disasters of 1940. Unlike American and British counterparts who often lagged behind or struggled, these French soldiers were native mountain people who could much more easily handle the rough terrain. Armed with American weapons, these guys were tough. One German general wrote in his diary that these French troops, experienced in mountains, armed with modern American weapons, and trained by experienced French officers, were simply better than his own troops. Ever hear of the Battle of Monte Cassino, often considered the bloodiest battle in the western campaigns? It lasted months and took four battles to be won by the Allies, and its taking was the most significant part of the southern Italian battles. How was it taken? The Gustav Line, the German military line that was one of the strongest of the war, took months to finally penetrate and cracked. The first army to do so was the French Expeditionary Corps. The French were the first army to finally crack and ruin the Gustav Line; their actions forced the Germans to evacuate Cassino and Anzio, which allowed Polish troops to capture the monastery and American troops to march into Rome.

The French also liberated Corsica in 1943. 177 Free French commandos landed at Ouistreham on Sword Beach, D-Day. In August, Free French commandos landed in Southern France as the spearhead of Operation Dragoon. They were followed by American troops and then the French Army B (later redesignated the French First Army) under General de Lattre de Tassigny, who liberated Toulon and Marseille. These troops would continue up liberating all of Southern France and Alsace, and the French First Army was the first army to reach the Rhine River. They would also punch three holes in the Siegfried Line, the late war German version of the Maginot. While the usefulness of this operation has always been contested, Eisenhower firmly believed in its usefulness as one of the most important operations following Overlord. Speaking of which, the night before D-Day, French and British SAS troops were parachuted into Brittany to coordinate the resistance in stopping the German troops there from relocating to Normandy. The actions of the internal Resistance is often believed to have shortened the French campaign by 2 months.

The French 2nd Armored Division under General Leclerc landed in Normandy on August 1944 and led the drive toward Paris. His division would be the first to liberate Paris, and would continue on to fight under the Third U.S. Army (General Patton) in Lorraine. As someone pointed out earlier, the French 2nd Armored was the first army to liberated the Eagle's Nest. This historical fact is a bit complicated. People get confused between Berchtesgaden, the Berghof, and the Eagle's Nest. Berchtesgaden was a village nearby the other two, the Berghof was one of Hitler's homes, and the Eagle's Nest was a fortress on the same mountain (but higher) as the Berghof. The Berghof and Berchtesgaden WERE first taken by American troops, BUT the Eagle's Nest fortress was first taken by the French; as such, yes, Band of Brothers got it wrong. In fact, the 101st Airborne Division didn't even reach either of those three places until long after the French had arrived. The first to take the Berghof and Berchtesgaden was I THINK the U.S. 9th Infantry Division (though I may be wrong), while the French 2nd Armored took the Eagle's Nest.

The Normandie-Niemen regiment was a Free French Air Force regiment sent to aid the Russians on the Eastern Front. Their excellent fighter skills and victories (even when at first it consisted of a battallion of only 12 pilots, though later expanded to a full regiment) made the Russians use this French regiment for propaganda purposes, even to the point that a German general declared all captured French pilots would be executed. The only Western European airforce to fight on the Eastern Front in World War Two, the much appreciated regiment received both French and Soviet awards. At the end of the war in Europe, Stalin donated the regiment's 40 Yak 3 fighters to France, the only supplies ever given to a western ally by the USSR during the war.

French forces would continue to fight deep into Germany until the end of the war. The fact that Free France was then considered the true legal government of France throughout the entire war meant that France was represented at both the surrenders of Germany (under de Tassigny) and Japan (under Leclerc) as a full fledged ally. It is interesting to note that Leclerc was named in charge of troops in Asia against the Japanese once Germany surrendered, but that French contribution there was minimal and really unable to start. Nevertheless, there was some resistance there throughout the war, much of which was coordinated by Vichy troops.

As for the French on the Axis side? The Vichyites contributed little to the Axis efforts and in 1942 were converted to Allied and combined with the Free French. The S.S. Waffen's Charlemagne Division consisted of only 4,000 soldiers. How does that compare with Free France's 1,250,000? Even at the beginning of the war, Free France had 7,000 soldiers by the end of July 1940. Heck, there were British S.S. Waffen troops, so these few Nazi French can be disregarded. Besides, the 30 survivors of that Waffen division would mostly be charged with treason at the end of the war.

The battles I listed above were only those that came to the top of my head.

My point is that people need to stop stereotyping and do some research before badmouthing a country. France has every right to be proud of itself for its contribution during World War 2, even if the Vichy French State were dictatorial losers. Remember: Free France was legally the true France, and as such should be remembered more than Vichy and the Fall of France in 1940.

As for today's French military, they're not shabby at all either. France has one of the most modern militaries and is one of a few nations that can exert itself outside of its own borders. Sure, all those idiots who enjoy slandering people with jokes when they don't know jack-squat about reality or history often confuse you, but don't listen to them for a second. France's modern military as at least as strong as Britain's, despite what talk show hosts like Jay Leno will tell you.

Oh, and before anyone gets confused, I am American.

[Bladensburg]

I don't think that the value of the Free French is in question so much as whether their actions mitigate the behaviour of the French at home. The almost indecent haste with which jews were handed over leaves a nasty taste, particularly when one compares it to the resistance of either avowedly Fascist or more closely controlled nations to the Nazis cleansing.

[Firefly]

While I agree that the French made a contribution to the fight, Im not so sure it was all that significant to winning the war.

Although I definately do not doubt the bravery of Frenchmen to fight for their country and have to admit that if there was no English Channel, the Brits would have ended upo in exactly the same position I think.

Circumstances Im afraid made them no more than an ancilliary.

[Johannès]

Yes, the handing over of the Jewish was a terrible and perhaps the most disgraceful of Vichy's actions during the war; even more despicable, however, is the fact that Petain ordered them without German influence. He did so of his own accord because he wanted sympathy from the Germans and because he too was an anti-Semite. 50,000 French Jews would be killed as a result.

However, those were the actions of the French State, i.e. the illegal government of mainland France. As such, one cannot truly blame France as a whole for it; furthermore, part of the Resistance involved towns that would herd Jewish people and try to ship them into neutral countries; thousands of Jewish people were saved as a result. Besides, if Germany had wanted to, it could have easily forced the death upon the Jewish, much like it had done to Poland.

Look at it this way: if the United States had been split into two in a future civil war, and the "illegal" government had decided to kill all African Americans, would the United States be blamed? Of course not, because it would be the illegal decision of an illegitimate government. However, the U.S. government probably would apologize for the actions of the rebels, even if it does not recognize it as a legal action. This, President Chirac did a few years ago; while the Vichy government was illegitimate, Chirac gave a speech in which he denounced the crimes Vichy did against Jewish people.


As for their contribution, Free France's fighting was one of the most helpful to the Allied cause throughout the war (especially after 1943); however, the war most likely would have been won without their participation.

But on the same note, what if the Canadians had not participated? Or the Australians, New Zealanders, Chinese, Polish? We can say that France was not significant to the war's victory, but we can say that of any of these Allies. But if we take them all away, then what? Fact is, a lot of these guys don't ever get the credit they deserve, and while the war may have been winnable by the Big Three alone (some historians will refer to the "Big Four", in which de Gaulle is the unofficial fourth), it certainly would have been much, much harder. That 400,000 death toll for the U.S. may have been much higher if those millions of other Allied soldiers weren't there to play the role of "sidekick". The British toll may have been even more greatly affected. Remember that for a year and a half, Britain had to bear the weight of the war without the Americans or Soviets. Their only allies at that time were those nations, Poland, the Netherlands, Free France, etc. that could donate whatever they had left to the Allied cause. These "sidekick" nations were bearing the burden of the war from the very first, and overlooking their contributions would be folly.

At the very least, the Free French contribution, as well as those of the other Allies, helped reduce the required amount of American and British soldiers that would be needed for operations, and thus helped alleviate some of the weight of the war.

One historian noted (with questionable accuracy) that the amazing part about the French is not that they achieved so much, but, given the circumstances (the fall of their nation, their dependency on America and the United Kingdom), that they had achieved anything at all.

[IronFist]

Free French forces were highly involoved in many british campaigns such as north africa/libya. They also had a tank battalion that fought into the heart of germany at the end of the war. Plus lots of resistance of the nazi forces in southern france throughout the war.

[Nickdfresh]

Maybe the french been is right place germans will have big problems to conquer france.

If the French had actually known what a tank/panzer was for, and had any clue about modern combined arms warfare, then they may well have caused grief for the Wehrmacht.

Maybe if the French had continued their invasion of Germany while the Wehrmacht was still engaged in Poland instead of withdrawing after initial success, who knows?

[Piotr]

I've just finished reading through this topic, and I must say that without a doubt, a majority of the posters know little to nothing about France's contribution to the war. Some knew a lot, but all missed looking at the big picture.



Oh, and before anyone gets confused, I am American.
Oh, buddy, how do I love the spin.
well, here is just a little bit of info, that may let out a little bit of your frankophile's hot air:
Polish contribution to the Allied victory in World War 2 (1939-1945)

Poland was the only country to fight in the European theatre of war from the first to the last day of the greatest armed conflict in the history of mankind. The war began with invading Poland: first, on September 1st, 1939, by the Nazi Germany, soon after, on September 17th, by the Soviet Union. Both invaders acted in concert, upon the Ribbentrop – Molotov Treaty (concluded on August 23rd). The allies of Poland – Great Britain and France – declared war upon Germany on September 3rd, but did not undertake any efficient military actions (the so-called “Phony War”). The Soviet Union joined the anti-Nazi alliance only in the summer of 1941, when invaded by Germany. The United States, although they gave a lot of significant material aid, joined the military actions within the frames of the coalition in December 1941 when assaulted by Japan and when Germany declared war upon them.

In the Polish contribution to the defeat of Germany in the first place we notice determination and perseverance: despite the severe defeat in 1939, the Poles formed armies five more times, including four outside of their country: in France in 1939, in the United Kingdom in the summer of 1940 (after the defeat and capitulation of France), in the USSR in 1941 (the army of Gen. Anders that fought later in the South of Europe), and then again in the Soviet Union in 1943 there emerged the one that later fought at the Red Army’s side. The fifth Polish army, created at the end of September of 1939 was the conspiratorial armed force in the occupied territory. For the entire period of the war there also existed the very important “silent front” – the intelligence. Probably up to 2 millions Poles served since September 1st, 1939 to May 8th, 1945 in all the Polish military formations – regular armies, partisan troops and underground forces. In the final stage of war the Polish troops on all the European fronts amounted to some 600 thousands soldiers (infantry, armored troops, aircraft and navy), and in the summer of 1944 while entering the open fight with the retreating Germans, the armed underground numbered more than 300 thousands sworn soldiers. It can be concluded that Poland put in the field the fourth greatest Allied army.

So, I'm not even going to comment on you dismissive statements about Monte Cassino and Polish II Corps (any one of the Polish soldiers who died there was worth 10 of your Free French crowd), or even the french attitude toward Polish soldiers who came to France to continue fighting ( the favorite was "I don't want to die for your Danzig" - arrogant and stupid, too. But your little story about FRench being the only ones fighting along the Soviets was incorrect too. And, honestly, I have not read one book in any way complimentary about the french military with a possible exception of the Free French.

[Piotr]

Fighting would continue, such as in Lebanon and Syria, often involving Free French soldiers. However, something miraculous happened as a result of Operation Torch. The French Army of North Africa was the last real army of Vichy France, as well as the most powerful. For years, a few commanders (specifically General Weygand and later General Juin) would secretly attempt to build up their arsenals in case hostilities occured between them and the Germans. However, hostilities first rose in Torch against the Allies. After 3 days of fighting, the Vichy Army in North Africa switched back into the Allied camp under the orders of Admiral Darlan (a power-hungry, morally corrupt man who was soon assassinated). Although much of the arsenal of this army had been destroyed in Torch, it was still a significant gain for the Allies. Vichy no longer had any army under its control (oddly enough, the Vichy forces occupying Indochina often fought against the Axis). These former Vichyites and the Free French would participate in the campaigns in Tunisia. The Vichy army would be combined with the Free French in 1943 and reissued modern American weapons. Furthermore, as Free France now owned nearly the entire of the French Empire, recruitment was incredibly easy. By June 1944, there were 400,000 Free French soldiers. By 1945, there were a million, and by V-E Day there were 1,250,000.


So, the more obvious it was becoming that Hitler will likely lose WWII the more French joined in with the Allies? How heroic. But in character.

[Johannès]

I've just finished reading through this topic, and I must say that without a doubt, a majority of the posters know little to nothing about France's contribution to the war. Some knew a lot, but all missed looking at the big picture.



Oh, and before anyone gets confused, I am American.
Oh, buddy, how do I love the spin.
well, here is just a little bit of info, that may let out a little bit of your frankophile's hot air:
Polish contribution to the Allied victory in World War 2 (1939-1945)

Poland was the only country to fight in the European theatre of war from the first to the last day of the greatest armed conflict in the history of mankind. The war began with invading Poland: first, on September 1st, 1939, by the Nazi Germany, soon after, on September 17th, by the Soviet Union. Both invaders acted in concert, upon the Ribbentrop – Molotov Treaty (concluded on August 23rd). The allies of Poland – Great Britain and France – declared war upon Germany on September 3rd, but did not undertake any efficient military actions (the so-called “Phony War”). The Soviet Union joined the anti-Nazi alliance only in the summer of 1941, when invaded by Germany. The United States, although they gave a lot of significant material aid, joined the military actions within the frames of the coalition in December 1941 when assaulted by Japan and when Germany declared war upon them.

In the Polish contribution to the defeat of Germany in the first place we notice determination and perseverance: despite the severe defeat in 1939, the Poles formed armies five more times, including four outside of their country: in France in 1939, in the United Kingdom in the summer of 1940 (after the defeat and capitulation of France), in the USSR in 1941 (the army of Gen. Anders that fought later in the South of Europe), and then again in the Soviet Union in 1943 there emerged the one that later fought at the Red Army’s side. The fifth Polish army, created at the end of September of 1939 was the conspiratorial armed force in the occupied territory. For the entire period of the war there also existed the very important “silent front” – the intelligence. Probably up to 2 millions Poles served since September 1st, 1939 to May 8th, 1945 in all the Polish military formations – regular armies, partisan troops and underground forces. In the final stage of war the Polish troops on all the European fronts amounted to some 600 thousands soldiers (infantry, armored troops, aircraft and navy), and in the summer of 1944 while entering the open fight with the retreating Germans, the armed underground numbered more than 300 thousands sworn soldiers. It can be concluded that Poland put in the field the fourth greatest Allied army.

So, I'm not even going to comment on you dismissive statements about Monte Cassino and Polish II Corps (any one of the Polish soldiers who died there was worth 10 of your Free French crowd), or even the french attitude toward Polish soldiers who came to France to continue fighting ( the favorite was "I don't want to die for your Danzig" - arrogant and stupid, too. But your little story about FRench being the only ones fighting along the Soviets was incorrect too. And, honestly, I have not read one book in any way complimentary about the french military with a possible exception of the Free French.


Wow, you really know how to misread a post don't you? First off, I don't see how the Polish effort is really relevant to anything I said. The Polish are the third favorite army I like to study in WW2, so I don't see how exactly you could have felt slandered by my supposed "dismissal" of them. Where, in fact, did I dismiss them?

Oh, I see, you say Monte Cassino. You see, if I wanted to, I could have given an entire description of the entire Italian Campaign; however, my post was on FRANCE's contribution. I wasn't going to go off subject and start talking of the valiant efforts of the Canadians, Polish, Brazilians, New Zealanders, etc. etc. And quite frankly, the French cracking the Gustav Line DID allow the Polish to take the monastery, as it began the gradual German pull out from the Monte Cassino area. Had the French not been around, it would have taken a lot longer for the Polish to succeed.

As for the numbers, I'm afraid there's a flaw in the logic there. You point out that 2 million Polish soldiers fought from 1939-1945. However, that includes the troop count before the fall of Poland, as a result of which led to a drastic decline in troop count. If I had counted the overall French soldier count before the fall of France, the number would have been about about 2.5 to 3 million (1.9 million of which were taken prisoner by the Germans according to the terms of the armistice).

What exactly does this mean? Well, if at the end of the war 600,000 Polish soldiers were fighting for the allies, in addition to 300,000 resistance fighters, how does it add up?

At the end of the war, Free France was fielding 1,250,000 soldiers in Europe (little participation in the Pacific/Far East). This is not including Resistance fighters, as they were mostly disbanded or absorbed by the army by that time.

Hence we can compare the troop count: 1,250,000 vs. 900,000? It is true that Poland suffered more and dedicated more (at least I consider them to have, considering the power of their country in comparison to that of France) when compared to France, but as for OVERALL count, France takes the cake. In any case, whichever source said Poland was the fourth greatest Allied army is also neglecting the Canadians, who fielded 1,000,000 soldiers and had the fourth strongest navy in the world by the end of the war (granted, a navy is not an army, but we're judging overall military effort, aren't we?).

And as I knew full well about the Polish contribution in the first place (being a fan of the underdogs of WW2), it seems my statement about France helping on the Eastern Front was correct in the end anyway. Why? take a look at the original quote:

"The Normandie-Niemen regiment was a Free French Air Force regiment sent to aid the Russians on the Eastern Front. Their excellent fighter skills and victories (even when at first it consisted of a battallion of only 12 pilots, though later expanded to a full regiment) made the Russians use this French regiment for propaganda purposes, even to the point that a German general declared all captured French pilots would be executed. The only Western European airforce to fight on the Eastern Front in World War Two, the much appreciated regiment received both French and Soviet awards. At the end of the war in Europe, Stalin donated the regiment's 40 Yak 3 fighters to France, the only supplies ever given to a western ally by the USSR during the war."

Notice something? Yep, that's right, "The only WESTERN European airforce." Last I checked, Poland is NOT considered a part of Western Europe, but is looked upon usually as Eastern Europe (and Central Europe).

And you "have not read one book in any way complimentary about the french military with a possible exception of the Free French"? Of course not, since I assume you read only books in English. Naturally, the writers of such books tend to be proud of only their own native accomplishments, a fact true for any country. Hence, you won't find much on the French other than Francophobic statements or a side mention. As the British author Simon Berthon noted, "Anglo-American historians tend to overlook the French contribution." Of course, you may actually just not be reading about the French. If you TRIED to find books in English on them, you'll see there's a lot more than just negative. If you're expecting to find much on the French when you're only reading books that have no reason to mention them, then I don't see the point.

And the French attitude toward Polish soldiers who were stationed in France? Sorry, but that's a natural result of stupid nationalistic tendencies, the same problem that would plague the Allies in Italy, since so many troops of different nationalities made up the force there. If you think the Americans stationed in the U.K. were not disliked by several British civilians, and, to an even greater extent, soldiers (who were jealous of the luxuries the Americans received), then you're sorely mistaken.

However, you also forget that only the bad reaches the media, and hence only the loud minority makes headlines. Truth is, the majority of French (and in the aforementioned scenario, British) were indifferent toward the Polish troops.


"Any one of the Polish soldiers who died there was worth 10 of your Free French crowd."

This statement brings about, of course, the hidden truth behind your rebuttal to my post. Your francophobia and prejudice against the French caused you to disregard my post as merely an ultra nationalistic French francophile statement that was meant to degrade everyone else, when in fact it did not slant anybody else. I don't see why you got all uppity about the Polish when I did them no wrong in my post. Of course, since you hate the French (who I obviously don't hate), you immediately assumed I was coming up with some of that stereotypical arrogance crap the media has you believe about the French.

Sorry, but that statement about the worth of a human life was prejudice at its greatest.

[Johannès]

Fighting would continue, such as in Lebanon and Syria, often involving Free French soldiers. However, something miraculous happened as a result of Operation Torch. The French Army of North Africa was the last real army of Vichy France, as well as the most powerful. For years, a few commanders (specifically General Weygand and later General Juin) would secretly attempt to build up their arsenals in case hostilities occured between them and the Germans. However, hostilities first rose in Torch against the Allies. After 3 days of fighting, the Vichy Army in North Africa switched back into the Allied camp under the orders of Admiral Darlan (a power-hungry, morally corrupt man who was soon assassinated). Although much of the arsenal of this army had been destroyed in Torch, it was still a significant gain for the Allies. Vichy no longer had any army under its control (oddly enough, the Vichy forces occupying Indochina often fought against the Axis). These former Vichyites and the Free French would participate in the campaigns in Tunisia. The Vichy army would be combined with the Free French in 1943 and reissued modern American weapons. Furthermore, as Free France now owned nearly the entire of the French Empire, recruitment was incredibly easy. By June 1944, there were 400,000 Free French soldiers. By 1945, there were a million, and by V-E Day there were 1,250,000.


So, the more obvious it was becoming that Hitler will likely lose WWII the more French joined in with the Allies? How heroic. But in character.

Sorry, I actually don't quite understand that statement. The first part confuses it. But in any case, as I said before, I doubt that France's, Poland's, etc.'s contribution would have changed the final outcome of the war. However, the fact that they fought helped reduce the amount of time the Allies took to win as well as spared lives from the Big Three.

[Johannès]

Maybe the french been is right place germans will have big problems to conquer france.

If the French had actually known what a tank/panzer was for, and had any clue about modern combined arms warfare, then they may well have caused grief for the Wehrmacht.

Maybe if the French had continued their invasion of Germany while the Wehrmacht was still engaged in Poland instead of withdrawing after initial success, who knows?

That's exactly the problem. Nobody on the Allied side at the beginning of the war was prepared for the modern strategies that Germany put into effect. Instead, they relied on WW1 stuff, which were already outdated in WW1. Hence, they all got smashed. Had France invaded Germany first, the war may have been different. Unfortunately, things were not so, and we can't blame them much either, seeing as how the rest of the world (except Germany and the USSR) were in support of the same strategies that France and Britain were using; after all, they won WW1 that way.

At the very least, you can't blame France for being in the war from the first. Had the United States been prepared militarily and was not isolationist, and had joined the war from the first, WW2 may not have gotten very far.

[Firefly]

Some very good points there. I believe that if there was no English Channel the UK would have been in exactly the same situation as France was. Also, if the british Army had not managed to get back to the UK, I believe that the UK would have taken terms from the Germans.

[SS Tiger]

The remilitarisation of the Rhineland was a test by Hitler and he had his generals ordered to retreat if any resistance was met. The remilitarisation was in breach of the Versailles treaty. The French could have stepped in here and maybe prevented the war?

[Johannès]

Of course, had the French wanted to risk war. You have to understand they were not aware of the German willingness to retreat. The French wanted to avoid war at all costs. And who could blame them? Of the Allies in WW1, only Russia suffered more than France. North Eastern France had looked like the moon after WW1, and 1.6 million French soldiers were killed in the fighting alone (not including injured people; this number is, I think, equal to about the amount of Americans who died in all wars we were involved in combined). A great proportion of France's manpower was diminished to nothing, and, unlike Germany, France was never able to recover. Germany had a population double that of France at the start of WW2, and had made almost a complete recovery from WW1. France was still reeling from the blows of WW1 (a bittersweet victory; not even with the regaining of Alsace and Lorraine had the manpower wasted in the war been replenished). The French populace wanted to avoid another war as much as possible; that's why they avoided chasing the Germans from the Rhineland and, like the British, had a policy of appeasement to Germany.

In any case, the Versailles treaty was a waste. Not only did it succeed in nothing but to tick off the Germans, but France and Britain didn't even follow its terms that well either. The United States never even ratified it, hence a factor of the extreme weakness of the League of Nations.

[Kam7r]

And if there were any angry french amongst us......... what would they do?

They would have four options:

Run
Hide
Surrender
Collaborate

:lol:

you forgot the 5th option...

kick your ass :wink:

http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html :wink:

[Johannès]

And if there were any angry french amongst us......... what would they do?

They would have four options:

Run
Hide
Surrender
Collaborate

:lol:

you forgot the 5th option...

kick your ass :wink:

http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html :wink:

There is, of course, a sixth option, the one I took (I'm American, but quarter French in descent...mother is French-Italian, father was Thai-Chinese, though I was raised entirely by my mother and use her last name.):

The sixth option is to offer up real historical facts to counter the misconceptions that spawned those pointless jokes (though even I sometimes make use of them; you have to be able to poke fun at yourself!).

As for that article: I've seen it before, and while I agree with the guy's basic idea (France is not cowardly), I disagree with his method of pulling it off. First off, he's a tad, well rude. But that's okay, everyone has a voice. The primary problem is that, in the defense of the French (and with the exception of WW1), he focuses on the valiant efforts of individual battles as opposed to looking at the wars from an overall perspective. In WW2, he focuses only on the initial French "fear" of the Wehrmacht instead of studying the real reasons France fell, as well as the contributions of the Free French afterward. In fact, the idea of "fear" is kind of an overstatement. The old senile French officers in charge of the French Army were not afraid of the Germans until after the Germans had dominated them and the situation turned hopeless. They were afraid of another war, but not the Wehrmacht itself. In fact, a lot of those senile officers were over-confident in their static defense strategies; a large number of them thought the war would be a cakewalk.

[Firefly]

I think youve hit the nail there. The French arent Cowards, nor were they. Throughout history the French have fought and bested many valiant foes, including british ones.

The fact is that the Germans were forced to invent the Blitzkreig because they had essentially only had 6 years to build up their armed forces. They actualy had less armour than the allies in 1940 and less aircraft too. It was the new application of fast/light mobile forces that enabled them to win over France. If they had used the same old tactics the results would probably have been similar.

In fact the first planned assault on France was to be an almost exact re-run of the ww1 plan, it was only because this plan fell into the hands of the Belgians that Plan Yellow was adopted for May 1940.

After Dunkirk, when the Germans moved south again, the French fought just as valiantly.

[Cuts]

And if there were any angry french amongst us......... what would they do?

They would have four options:

Run
Hide
Surrender
Collaborate

:lol:

you forgot the 5th option...

kick your ass :wink:

http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html :wink:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Get real laddie !

Why would I bring a donkey anyway ?


Just noticed, two posts, both with the same gen - you got a stutter ?

[Johannès]

Out of curiosity, what is a "gen"?

[SS Tiger]

Out of curiosity, what is a "gen"?

"Gen", normally means information, "duff gen" is bad information.