Thank you so much! I appreciate your input.
Is there too much contempt for the French from A&A players?
-
I don’t like generalizing, but it seems that both on these forums and the Larry Harris forums, every time France is mentioned, they’re either dismissed as an “insignificant” part of World War II or scolded for their alleged cowardice and failure to stand against the German war machine.
I seem to find this in real life as well. More often than not, when I whip out my copy of A&A Europe for all to play in our college game club or in game shops, the contempt for the French seems very real. I thought they were jokes and went along with them but found out the exact opposite. French Resistance? Insignificant. Free French Forces? Near worthless, only used as auxiliary troops (never heard of Bir Hakeim apparently, or Monte Cassino, or the 2nd French Armored Division, or Operation Dragoon).
I don’t want to say “all or most A&A players irrationally hate the French in WWII”, because I have not personally met “most” or “all” A&A players and thus cannot say it without sounding completely stupid. However I can’t help but find that it seems there’s far too many Axis and Allies players I talk to or listen to, both online and in real life, that hold some sort of genuine grudge against the French military in WWII for one reason or another.
Or hell, I’m probably just looking far too much into this. I hope I’m wrong.
-
You’ve made an excellent point. People forget that it was a combined French and British force which was defeated in the spring of 1940. Both the French Army and the British Expeditionary Force were soundly beaten. Britain gets credit for fighting on, and the French contempt for surrendering, only because Britain was an island which Germany lacked the naval capacity to invade. Had Britain been connected by land bridge to the rest of Europe, both Britain and France would have been conquered by the end of the year.
Germany’s blitzkrieg tactics also succeeded in allowing Germany to conquer the western portion of the Soviet Union: an area much larger than France. Germany killed or captured over 3 million Soviet soldiers during 1941, while losing less than a tenth as many German soldiers in the process. France could not survive a blow like this, because its army, population size, and land area were much smaller than that of the Soviet Union.
Interestingly, there was a brief period in 1942 when the French fought the Americans. A U.S. force had just landed on Algeria; and the French were concerned that the Americans meant to take away France’s colonies. While the U.S. force obtained a favorable exchange ratio, it should be remembered that the American force had far more and better weapons than its French counterpart. To end the fighting, the Americans and French negotiated a deal by which France was allowed to keep its colonies.
One of my friends is from France. He’s knowledgeable about history, and has told me that France didn’t resist the German occupation during the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, but began resisting after Hitler invaded the U.S.S.R. He said the core of the Free French movement consisted of French communists–communists who fought not for France, but for the Soviet Union. Communism is an evil enough ideology that I find it hard to celebrate the accomplishments of those who fought in its defense; though I agree that the Free French did display courage. But when discussing French valor, I would rather emphasize the fact that over the last several hundred years, France’s neighbors have generally considered it a very worthy military opponent. Napoleon’s conquests are a good example of that.
-
It’s probably more a reflection of France’s mercurial and fierce independence (and sometimes adversarial stance) toward foreign policy coupled with WWII that has produced the irritation and the resulting knee-jerk dismissal of French military capabilities from some quarters. The old line: “France, they are there when they need you” carries a kernel of truth. However, I’m also cognizant that early in U.S. history the roles were reversed… Each nation is going to do what it perceives to be in its national interest and I accept that.
My impression of France’s problem in WWII is that it was not even close to being ready for war. It takes years to gin up the armament side of things properly as well as pilot training and the like. France had given Germany too much of a lead, plus Germany had just used Poland as a practice run. French command structure was weak/disorganized and unprepared for the kind of warfare that was coming. France appears to have been completely unready for the air war, leaving it fighting a 2D war in a 3D era. While on paper France had a strong navy and a good traditions, the new ships were either not complete or not particularly good. (See the Richelieu/Jean Bart and Dunkerque/Strasbourg: the quad turrets and all main armament forward had a host of problems, plus the new shells and propellant combinations were blowing up the guns and making them less than accurate.)
In defense of the French military command I’ll grant that any nation in her place would have been susceptible to the same embarrassing drubbing. On the other hand, I don’t know that the U.S. or the U.K. would have given Germany such a lead had they been sharing a border.
I cut the UK more slack because their defensive strategy succeeded. I don’t see how Sea Lion could have worked in 1940. Germany couldn’t gain naval or air superiority in short order to make the logistics feasible. That said, Japan and the U.S. were badly embarrassed in the Pacific by Japan who had been ginning up for war. When I visited the museums and battlesites in Singapore the local contempt for the inept British defensive plan/command was notable in the displays–even though the bravery of individual units was stressed. The U.S. was hammered at Pearl Harbor and in the Philippines as well.
The common denominator in all the cases is bold attack going well beyond what the defender deemed possible at the time.
-
It is probably that France spent an incredible amount of money building a wall on the German border as a substitute for national defense based on “hiding” behind concrete, when they could have just raised more divisions and had a more dynamic military force. Compounding this is the futility of not even closing this “defense” to the channel for fear of alienating Belgium.
When Poland was getting slaughtered and France had a far superior force against the West Wall, they did nothing when they could have kicked in that front.
It just shows how this weakness permeated all their thoughts about what to do.
Then Petain enters and surrenders without continuing the fight say to Brittany and Cherbourg.
Lastly, this Vichy thing becomes really what amounts to another Axis ally as they aid the Germans in rounding up people to be killed.
The result is a pathetic display of rolling over that has never been seen since.
-
Losing a million young men in the trenches of WW I ensured France had no stomach for WW II. France had more and better tanks than Germany in 1940. The French forced the British to attack and sink their fleet after they surrendered. The French fought the US in Algeria as was mentioned. For the most part, the French in Canada did not want to participate in a ‘European’ war.
-
Losing a million young men in the trenches of WW I ensured France had no stomach for WW II.Â
Yes, this is basically the argument which is put forward by a former French government official (whose name I forget) in the “France Fall” episode of “The World at War.” He feels that the great losses which France suffered in WWI led to a period of deep decay for the French army in the 1920s and 30s. The political and economic turmoil which France underwent at this time didn’t help either. He also says that the French leadership made the mistake (which they were not alone in making) of getting lulled into complacency by the fact that they had won the First World War, and hence believing that they would know how to win the next war too – meaning pretty much as they’d won the first one. The Maginot Line, it should be noted, was in some ways a WWI trench on steroids: a fixed line from which to fight, but made of concrete rather than earth.
All in all, France’s problem wasn’t that it had a bad army; its problem was that it had bad political and military leadership. They weren’t alone in this: Chamberlain, for instance, was primarily interested in keeping the war away from Britain, and prosecuted it with little energy during the “Sitzkrieg” period (during which one of his preferred tactics was to drop propaganda leaflets on Germany). France had an impressively large army in 1939, but it was put to little use because General Gamelin’s strategy was basically to wait a couple of years until France had built up enough strength to crush Germany. Unfortunately for France, Germany had other plans. Once France had been knocked out of the war in June 1940, it spent the next four years on the margins, with only the Free French forces keeping up the war against the Axis powers. Even after France, under a new provisional government, re-entered the war in the summer of 1944, the demands of recovering from the Occupation kept France in a secondary role until the end of the war. So it’s understandable that France is regarded as having been a minor player for much of WWII.
-
One of my friends is from France. He’s knowledgeable about history, and has told me that France didn’t resist the German occupation during the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, but began resisting after Hitler invaded the U.S.S.R. He said the core of the Free French movement consisted of French communists–communists who fought not for France, but for the Soviet Union. Communism is an evil enough ideology that I find it hard to celebrate the accomplishments of those who fought in its defense; though I agree that the Free French did display courage. But when discussing French valor, I would rather emphasize the fact that over the last several hundred years, France’s neighbors have generally considered it a very worthy military opponent. Napoleon’s conquests are a good example of that.
I disagree with the notion that the French Resistance had a “core” of French communists. Certainly the movement was made up of many Communists, and they were often (but not always) the most active part, but to say that a majority or the “core” of the movement was taking orders from Moscow is not giving them enough credit.
And anyway I’m certain that there were many Communists who genuinely believed they were fighting for France, not for Moscow. Of course their higher ups would probably think otherwise. Add to the fact that the Resistance was made up of people from all walks of life and political opinions.
@Imperious:
It is probably that France spent an incredible amount of money building a wall on the German border as a substitute for national defense based on “hiding” behind concrete, when they could have just raised more divisions and had a more dynamic military force. Compounding this is the futility of not even closing this “defense” to the channel for fear of alienating Belgium.
When Poland was getting slaughtered and France had a far superior force against the West Wall, they did nothing when they could have kicked in that front.
It just shows how this weakness permeated all their thoughts about what to do.
Do you understand where this weakness stems from, though? It didn’t just appear from nowhere. France suffered by far the most Allied casualties in World War I, with the exception of the Russians. Combine that with the fact that a great stretch of France looked like the surface of the moon (except with more blood and death) and I’d expect a country to be very reluctant to fight an offensive war.
Then Petain enters and surrenders without continuing the fight say to Brittany and Cherbourg.
Along with a great many of the French people and government. They had just suffered the shock of being defeated in an incredibly short amount of time, and as said above, were simply not ready to re-visit the horrors of the First World War.
Lastly, this Vichy thing becomes really what amounts to another Axis ally as they aid the Germans in rounding up people to be killed.
Yet they did not give the powerful French fleet to neither the Germans nor Italians, and when the Germans tried to seize the fleet at Toulon, they scuttled it. If that doesn’t show that there was clearly still divided loyalties, both in the military and government, I don’t know what is.
The result is a pathetic display of rolling over that has never been seen since.
…And? Is that supposed to imply, “so the French deserve to be labelled cowards”?
-
@CWO:
Losing a million young men in the trenches of WW I ensured France had no stomach for WW II.��
Yes, this is basically the argument which is put forward by a former French government official (whose name I forget) in the “France Fall” episode of "The World at War."� He feels that the great losses which France suffered in WWI led to a period of deep decay for the French army in the 1920s and 30s.� The political and economic turmoil which France underwent at this time didn’t help either.� He also says that the French leadership made the mistake (which they were not alone in making) of getting lulled into complacency by the fact that they had won the First World War, and hence believing that they would know how to win the next war too – meaning pretty much as they’d won the first one.� The Maginot Line, it should be noted, was in some ways a WWI trench on steroids: a fixed line from which to fight, but made of concrete rather than earth.�
All in all, France’s problem wasn’t that it had a bad army; its problem was that it had bad political and military leadership.� They weren’t alone in this: Chamberlain, for instance, was primarily interested in keeping the war away from Britain, and prosecuted it with little energy during the “Sitzkrieg” period (during which one of his preferred tactics was to drop propaganda leaflets on Germany).� France had an impressively large army in 1939, but it was put to little use because General Gamelin’s strategy was basically to wait a couple of years until France had built up enough strength to crush Germany.� Unfortunately for France, Germany had other plans.� Once France had been knocked out of the war in June 1940, it spent the next four years on the margins, with only the Free French forces keeping up the war against the Axis powers.� Even after France, under a new provisional government, re-entered the war in the summer of 1944, the demands of recovering from the Occupation kept France in a secondary role until the end of the war.� So it’s understandable that France is regarded as having been a minor player for much of WWII.�
Very good points. I’d like to expand upon what you and Imperious Leader have written. As Imperious Leader noted, France could have (but did not) launched a major offensive against Germany while the German Army was focused on acquiring Poland. Gamelin and Daladier had falsely promised the Polish they would launch exactly such an attack within ten days of mobilization. In 1939, Poland’s diplomatic and military strategy had that promise as its foundation. (Which is why Poland as a nation had ceased to exist by the end of '39.)
Why did France’s leaders lie to the Polish? To me, this kind of false promise displays not just the cynical willingness to deliberately mislead and then cold-bloodedly betray a purported ally. It also demonstrates that Daladier and Gamelin were confident they could win a war against Germany.
In 1940, the combined Allied forces on the French/Belgian front were numerically equal to the German Army they faced. France had as many tanks as Germany. Many French tanks were heavy; whereas the vast majority of German tanks were obsolete light tanks unsuited for tank-to-tank combat. Even Germany’s medium tanks were no match for French heavy tanks in one-on-one combat. The Maginot Line was heavily fortified, supposedly forcing the German Army to attack through Belgium and Holland. Britain and France had far more industrial capacity and access to natural resources than did Germany. That, combined with their ability to purchase weapons from the United States, gave Britain and France a decided edge in a long war.
In 1919, Poland and the Soviet Union went to war. In 1920, the Soviets were on the verge of making Poland the newest Soviet Socialist Republic. While the major Western democracies failed to send any soldiers to Poland’s aid, France at least sent some military advisors. These advisors recommended a purely defensive strategy. Ignoring this advice, the Polish military adopted a strategy based on mobility, offense, and encirclements. Using offense-oriented tactics, they were able to thwart the Soviet invasion.
French military leaders apparently learned nothing from that war; even though their own military had served as Poland’s principal military advisor. France was well-prepared to deal with another Schleiffen Plan–a German invasion through Belgium and Holland. This was what the German generals had originally proposed, and what would have been done had Hitler not listened to Guderian and von Mannstein. During the beginning portion of the invasion of France, Germany had launched an invasion through Belgium and Holland to give the illusion that it was in fact executing the Schleiffen Plan. This was what the Allied leaders had been expecting. At least at first, they felt their response was going according to plan.
The German plan for the invasion of France had two parts. The first part was to cut off and destroy the northern Allied force. (The Germans would break through at the Ardennes Forest, and race to the English Channel.) Stage 1 ended with the Dunkirk evacuation. After that first part had been achieved, the Germans proceeded to stage 2. Stage 2 consisted of a southward push against Paris. What’s important to note here is that the French continued fighting during stage 2, after the British had left. After stage 2 succeeded and Paris fell, it had become clear that further conflict between the German and French armies could have only one outcome. Should the French have continued fighting anyway?
For hundreds of years, France’s foreign policy had been based on an instinctive desire to keep Germany weak and divided. Even after the unification of Germany, and France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, the French felt that Germany was the enemy, and an enemy that could and should be beaten. The fact that Germany was able to defeat France so quickly and effectively in 1940 forced French leaders to rethink this anti-German bias. A smaller, Vichy France could continue to exist–but it would not be allowed to continue France’s traditional policy of doing everything possible to weaken Germany. Another factor which changed people’s minds was that, at least initially, the Nazi occupation was far milder than the French had expected. German soldiers accused of rape were tried by military courts. If convicted, a soldier would be immediately shot. German soldiers were also prevented from looting or stealing. A third factor in Germany’s favor was the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The existence of that pact meant that French communists had one less reason to oppose German occupation. (At least until the spring of '41.)
The peace treaty between Germany and France allowed France to keep the land it had left–an outcome which would not have occurred had France continued fighting. In 1944, Germany annexed Vichy France. But the French correctly regarded this as a violation of the treaty they had signed back in 1940. That occupation served to significantly worsen diplomatic relations between Germany and the Vichy French leaders in Africa.
After a nation has been clearly and soundly defeated, it’s normal for it to accept surrender terms. I do not feel France deserves to be castigated for having surrendered to Germany, especially because it’s clear that further resistance would only worsen the surrender terms ultimately imposed. Nor do I feel French leaders should be blamed for rethinking their nation’s centuries-old anti-German foreign policy. I do feel, strongly, that France’s leaders deserved blame for allying themselves with the Soviet Union in 1935; despite the Soviets’ grim track record of mass murder.
-
UN spacy
Don’t waste your time with IL.
It is well known for its anti-french, anti-japanese feelings. (Probably other nation!)
That’s why he’s not thus impartial in his comments.For the most part, the French in Canada did not want to participate in a ‘European’ war.
Mr Malachi…French canadian and French from France are different nation. You mixed up…completly different story…- The cowardice is a human reaction. It’s not specifique has a nation.
-
France suffered by far the most Allied casualties in World War I, with the exception of the Russians.
Funny sentence.
Germany lost many more than France in addition to Russia, neither decided that ‘walls’ would suffice to replace the army.
It is well known for its anti-french, anti-japanese feelings
I am not “anti- japanese” and i have no idea where you get this nonsense.
Combine that with the fact that a great stretch of France looked like the surface of the moon (except with more blood and death) and I’d expect a country to be very reluctant to fight an offensive war.
But other nations learned that what caused this was how war was waged… they needed mobility and lethality of warfare favoring the offense. France took the lesson as “build a better trench”
which is not really much of a positive development. -
A smaller, Vichy France could continue to exist–but it would not be allowed to continue France’s traditional policy of doing everything possible to weaken Germany. Another factor which changed people’s minds was that, at least initially, the Nazi occupation was far milder than the French had expected. German soldiers accused of rape were tried by military courts. If convicted, a soldier would be immediately shot. German soldiers were also prevented from looting or stealing. A third factor in Germany’s favor was the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The existence of that pact meant that French communists had one less reason to oppose German occupation. (At least until the spring of '41.)
Good you put “initially”, because the German occupation became far more than “mild” by the mid to late segment of the war. As one example of their atrocious rape of France, the Germans destroyed 344 communities (62 completely) for “crimes” not connected with military operations.
@Imperious:
Funny sentence.
Germany lost many more than France in addition to Russia, neither decided that ‘walls’ would suffice to replace the army.
How is that even relevant? German civilians never had to suffer the horrors of war up close and personal. Fighting rarely went on in their borders, if at all. You’re conveniently ignoring that fact that, astonishingly enough, France is not the same nation as Germany or Russia, and underwent different changes and experiences to build the Maginot Line.
I am not “anti- japanese” and i have no idea where you get this nonsense.
Right, but he was spot on the anti-French part it seems.
But other nations learned that what caused this was how war was waged… they needed mobility and lethality of warfare favoring the offense. France took the lesson as “build a better trench”
which is not really much of a positive development.I’ll humor you for a minute. Yes, the response the French government gave wasn’t smart at all, and many in the higher ups in the military still had the mindset of 1918. However, that still does not mean we should still call the French nation or its people as a whole “cowardly” during that time. The French Resistance provided valuable support to the Allies, and the Free French continued the good fight, from Africa to Italy and eventually in the drive into occupied France and Germany. The points you are trying to make existed within the government and leaders in the military, not with the soldiers or people themselves. Certainly there existed a defeatist sentiment during the early years of occupation, and the Free French movement under de Gaulle started off small, but that changed fairly quickly.
-
crusaderiv, as a Canadian I am well aware of the differences between the French of France and those of Quebec, mainly they live in different geographic areas but not much else (though the French in France insist there is). The French of Quebec and the French of France are much closer than the English of England compared to the English speakers of the United States. Cheese eating surrender monkeys have been used equally for the French of both places, unfairly I may add. The anti-French sentiment is not exclusively directed at mainland France, though one would probably have to live in Canada to be aware of both.
-
@UN:
Yes, the response the French government gave wasn’t smart at all, and many in the higher ups in the military still had the mindset of 1918. However, that still does not mean we should still call the French nation or its people as a whole “cowardly” during that time. The French Resistance provided valuable support to the Allies, and the Free French continued the good fight, from Africa to Italy and eventually in the drive into occupied France and Germany. The points you are trying to make existed within the government and leaders in the military, not with the soldiers or people themselves. Certainly there existed a defeatist sentiment during the early years of occupation, and the Free French movement under de Gaulle started off small, but that changed fairly quickly.
Good paragraph IMO.
Yes the French get a bad rap for the actions of a few and for unfortunate circumstances and WWI strategies and all that. Yes no doubt the generalization that the French are cowards or horrible in battle is not fair to masses of brave, tactically brilliant French fighters. BTW the Italians might get more of a bad rap than the French due to their “exploits” of WWII.
But basically, until there is another war where the French kick butt, the perception of much of the world is that they got blown away because of stupid strategies and tactics in WWII and that they quit, and that they don’t appreciate the sacrifices of Americans to liberate them. That’s the last “taste in the mouth”. Proud nationalist French won’t like this, but that’s the perception, and perception is 2/3 of reality, as they say. -
mainly they live in different geographic areas but not much else (though the French in France insist there is). The French of Quebec and the French of France are much closer than the English of England compared to the English speakers of the United States.
As a canadian too (Montreal) …I can tell you …Yes there’s a political friendship between both but that’s it…not much closer…
Quebecers don’t care what happen on the other side of the Atlantic…
Canadian newspaper mentionn about two solitudes in Canada.
And according to what I have read, you are perfect example. (But fortunately there are less and less '‘aware’'monkeys)I am not “anti- japanese” and i have no idea where you get this nonsense.
Well juste read your post about Japan…(Oh well you probably don’t)Right, but he was spot on the anti-French part it seems.
Bingo…the cat is out of the bag!!! -
BTW the Italians might get more of a bad rap than the French due to their “exploits” of WWII.
I’ve been reading a new book on the Littorio class battleships and it makes an argument similar to the one about the French getting an unfair bad rap owing to the deficiencies of their leaders. It argues that the Littorios were, from a technical viewpoint, quite good designs, but that their reputation has suffered unfairly as a result of the timid use which the Italian Navy made of them during the war.
-
Bad leadership makes everyone and everything look terrible.
I will repeat myself. The general anti-French bias is unfair. It seems stronger in the US but no doubt it is due to France not falling into immediate lock-step with US foreign policy. Dien Bien Phu didn’t do much for the image of France as a militarily competent nation, but then again, Vietnam made everyone look bad including the Chinese. When Charles De Gaulle exclaimed “Vive le Québec libre !” in Montreal is had the impression of a bit than political friendship. Though I am certain it meant more to those Canadians outside Quebec than those inside and not in a good way.
-
The French Resistance
It seems to me that French COLLABORATORS outweighed French Resistance, if you consider the duration of the war.
But enough of that.
UN Spacy, the Sentiment you are discussing HAS ROOTS. Â Just like many sentiments people have for other nations/people. Â Like the one where everyone in the world chooses to see Americans as interfering, brash, arrogant, fat, and rude. Until they request American help.
Stereotypes take GENERATIONS to change. Â The actions of the few, have left a bad taste, whether legitimate or illegitimate in the mouths of the many. Â That’s the bottom line.
It also doesn’t help, that France has been on the losing side of their colonial conflicts post WWII, like Vietnam etc.
All that said however, I believe the worst of the negative french sentiment, particularily in north america comes from Quebec. Â Their laws and regulations are particularily racist, and culturist. Â The people and the governments they choose in Quebec hate on the military, hate on the federal nation, and hate on America, and this “Spit on their face” mentality is consistent.
Go to a Montreal Canadians game, the fans mock any moments of silence for the troops, boo the American Flag, and boo the American Anthem, also refusing to sing our own.
The glaring reality, is that our experience with French culture, whether at home, or abroad, is one of isolation, cowardice, and insult. Â Everytime other nations attempt to make the world a better place, it seems they’re garunteed to get a scathing comment from a frenchman.
The resent recieved from the french in my country, is enough to tear it apart. Â Hence this dispopularity of the French.
In short, HISTORY and the attitude/actions of SOME french (perhaps a majority of those in power) Has been one of weakness, cowardice, disgrace, insult, and discord. Â And that is why there is a culture disposition to insult the French, or belittle their victories.
The lesson learned here, needs to come from the French themselves, Â treat your neighbour how you want to be treated.
French culture is even true to your own post Spacy, how you make it seem that this observed disposition towards the french being laughable is somehow OUR problem.
The french made the stew, now they’re complaining about eating it.
-
It seems to me that French COLLABORATORS outweighed French Resistance
This is totally true to the point where post war French revisionists constantly churn up all these stories of Resistance, while at the same time never recount the vastly greater stories of collaboration as as not to appear like they just flop from one side to another based on advantages. In truth they flew the flag of whoever was in power at the time actively helping that side and selling French pride down the gutter.
I am not “anti- japanese” and i have no idea where you get this nonsense.
Well juste read your post about Japan…(Oh well you probably don’t)LMFAO!
I guess if the Yamato is not the baddest Battleship, then that person must “hate” Japanese. Hilarious!
How is that even relevant?
Because it is more like some attempt at comic relief. It is like saying “The USS Arizona is by far the biggest Battleship, except the Yamato which was 300 foot longer”.
You might have said " France suffered the 3rd most combat loses, so the Maginot Line concept is a perfectly acceptable conclusion for any future war"
Right, but he was spot on the anti-French part it seems.
Bingo…the cat is out of the bag!!!I am against Francophiles who have nothing to hang their hat on in terms of any argument that France was among the bravest nations since 1870. They were not.
German civilians never had to suffer the horrors of war up close and personal. Fighting rarely went on in their borders, if at all. You’re conveniently ignoring that fact that, astonishingly enough, France is not the same nation as Germany or Russia, and underwent different changes and experiences to build the Maginot Line.
Russia was invaded and they didn’t go for the big wall option.
Same for Ottomans, Austria, Serbia, et al.
France is not the same nation as Germany or Russia, and underwent different changes and experiences to build the Maginot Line
Yea you got that right. But by different we must conclude that France became less interested in dealing with actual problems, preferring to make walls to hide behind, while letting Poland die even with a great advantage in force on the Franco-German border. If you want to label that with “bravery” thats fine. France had the most brave soldiers of all time who could not even be contained from rich French food and just ran out of the border and attacked Germany in 1939. They had great success!
-
I’d like to respond to some of the points Gargantua raised in his post. I agree there have been times when France’s leaders have done despicable things. I alluded to one example earlier: they promised Poland’s leaders they’d launch a general offensive against Germany if Germany attacked Poland; despite the fact they had no intention of launching such an offensive. France did launch a very minor offensive against Germany, and received little resistance. (The bulk of Germany’s army was in the east, gobbling up Poland.) Then French leaders told the Polish that they were in the process of expanding their small offensive into a larger one. They said these things while simultaneously ordering an end to their limited offensive! I assume their goal in providing the Polish with these false reassurances was to eliminate even the possibility of Germany and Poland from coming to some kind of mutual understanding.
Another example of objectionable French behavior goes back to the French Revolution. There were some extremely disturbing similarities between the revolution which overthrew the French government and the one which overthrew the Russian czar. Even the French Reign of Terror was a harbinger of the terror the Bolsheviks would later unleash. (This is not to suggest that everyone who participated in the French Revolution belonged to what would later be called the communist movement. But a significant and influential subset clearly did.) My friend from France told me that one of the reasons the French preferred communism to Nazism was because the former seemed far less alien than the latter. He said that the French see strong parallels between the French and Russian Revolutions. They are correct to see these parallels.
The above-described moral failure is also why, in 1935, France signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union.
But it would be wrong to lump all French people together, any more than I, as an American, deserve to be lumped together with, say, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama. A number of people in France have adopted non-communist or anti-communist ideologies; and those people should be praised.
Sometimes, a consequence of failing to resist a foreign invasion is that your nation becomes repopulated with people from the invading country. However, it soon became clear that Germany had no plans to repopulate France with Germans. In fact, the Nazi government had a significantly greater commitment to preventing France from becoming repopulated with non-French than previous or subsequent French governments have shown! One reason why a number of French people collaborated with the Nazis was because it was felt (correctly) that the Nazis would do a better job of maintaining France as a nation of French than the French government had done, or would do in the future.
-
Another thing France does well is somehow they always find a way to fight on the winning side, even if this means switching sides or conveniently making the official “French Government” on a new side as the war turns against the side that they originally sided with.
case in point: the governments of Petain and Col. De Gualle. De Gualle’s exiled government only gained currency when it was clear that the axis would lose the war. In reality, the official former French government was Vichy located in southern France, not the "Free- French located in England. De Gualle, just assumed power and it was easy since the British financed his endeavors from 40-44.
IN the Great War they made Germany a scapegoat for starting everything relating to WW1, when clearly France’s interest was not Serbian issues but getting back Alsace Lorraine, which was lost in a war that France started and lost in 1870. France just needed a spark to join in any side that would be willing to fight Germany, so they can take back that territory. Pretty suspect reason if you ask me.
France deliberately linked the Allies creating the conditions for war and encouraged the Czar to mobilize, which forced Germany to mobilize. The Czar was effectively tricked into mobilization, which was a very influential motive behind why Stalin latter didn’t trust the Western Allies the next time Germany was planning to attack the Soviet Union. Stalin didn’t want to be goaded into mobilizing into another war.
Really, without these alliances the Serbian conflict should have been Russia and Serbia vs. Germany and Austria.
England only entered because they had a treaty with Belgium. They didn’t set up a war to start based on some need to gain back land.
Suggested Topics
