Vichy - part two

[Franconicus]

Read some articles about the situation after the fall of France.

If I understand the situation right, then it was like:

- France (Petain) gave up because his army had been beaten and any resistance was hopeless. He did not have the illusion to escape to the colonies and fight from there while leaving his countrymen alone.

- Many French soldiers had escaped to GB. DeGaulle tried to continue the war from there.

- Churchill desided to keep on fighting. Although he accepted the help of DeGaulle he never recognized him as the leader of France.

- Petain had to try and get an acceptable peace with Germany. That meant, little losses of territory, keeping the colonies plus the fleet to protect them and paying little many. Churchill made this impossible because he did not end the war. Therefor Petain-France had to stay in a ceasefire state.

- The British attacked and sunk the major part of the French fleet and killed thousands of former allies. They attacked also some of the colonies. DeGaulle helped them. Therefor French soldiers fought against French soldiers, there was a Free French government in the British occupied territories. De facto, there was a civil war.

Now my question is, why did Petain not declare war against GB? The sinking of the fleet and the killing of innocent French sailors would have been enough motivation and I guess most of the French would have followed. He also would have got a peace treaty with Germany with acceptable conditions. As an alternative he could only wait who would win. An allied victory was a desaster for Petain, and a German victory was not much better.

[Brenus]

“Now my question is, why did Petain not declare war against GB?” And try to persuade the French that they couldn’t carry on the fight against Germany (enemy) because France have no soldiers left, but enough soldiers to fight against England (ally). Even with a propaganda service, it could have been hard. And because I am a sceptic, if your look at the map of the French Colonies, you will see they in fact were very easy to take, as it was shown in 1942.
Hitler obliged France to dismantle her armies, and this decision had as consequences to cut the fighting power of the entire Empire. In Syria and Madagascar against the British, in Indochina against the Japanese, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia against the UK & US, each time the French were ill equipped and, even if they try to resist they were defeated. They were still equipped of Renault FT tanks…
Ironically, Hitler chooses to punish France and cut any possibilities for the traitor Petain to help him efficiently.

[Franconicus]

And try to persuade the French that they couldn’t carry on the fight against Germany (enemy) because France have no soldiers left, but enough soldiers to fight against England (ally).

The French could not carry on, because they were outmanoeuvred, not because they had no more men. Joining the Axis would have improved the conditions of peace and the French would have been able to increase the army and navy again.
Germany was no longer the enemy, Britain had attacked and killed French soldiers without declaration of war and it took the colonies away. Hardly the attidute you expect from an ally.

And because I am a sceptic, if your look at the map of the French Colonies, you will see they in fact were very easy to take, as it was shown in 1942.

They did loose the colonies anyway.

Hitler obliged France to dismantle her armies, and this decision had as consequences to cut the fighting power of the entire Empire. In Syria and Madagascar against the British, in Indochina against the Japanese, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia against the UK & US, each time the French were ill equipped and, even if they try to resist they were defeated. They were still equipped of Renault FT tanks…
Ironically, Hitler chooses to punish France and cut any possibilities for the traitor Petain to help him efficiently.

German air and submarine bases at Dakar and Marokko, German tanks at Syria and German batteries on the other side of Gibraltar - that would have made a difference.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think Petain was a fan of the Nazis.

He was a reactionary by inclination -- few who come to power in the mid 80's are noted for flexibility in thought -- but I think his status as a "traitor" was as much for being a traitor to De Gaulle as to France.

H. P. Petain was always a bit of an "odd man out" among French War leaders. Prior to WWI, he preached defensive tactics and firepower to an army enchanted with the doctrine of "offensive a outrance." De Castlenau put his army into the breach at Verdun - and made Petain a national hero - because he was one of the few defensive generals who had a good grasp of artillery. Petain was then booted and command vested in Neville because they wanted someone who was aggressive. Petain was never particularly aggressive, and was considered very "in touch" with the common soldier throughout his career.

In 1940, he came to the pinnacle at a bad moment for France. French troop strength was signficant but their combat doctrine was outdated, their operational formations jumbled, and their morale weakened by the pace and disorienting effect of the German blitzkrieg. Petain did not believe that the French army wouldn't fight, he had come to believe that it could not fight effectively -- and like many veterans of WWI, he had no doubt come to abhor the idea of killing so many soldiers when he did not believe he could change the eventual outcome. Was he right?

Though reactionary enough to allow anti-jewish measures in Vichy, Petain was never a fan of the Nazis and tried to be a "neutral." The Laval affair demonstrates that clearly. Petain wanted Vichy to be the kernel from which France re-grew itself. I suspect that he hoped for Germany's defeat, while believing that France was out of the fight.

Why not declare war after Mers-el-Kabir? I suspect it is because he did not want to become a Nazi ally -- which he would have become in fact if not in name (it was bad enough being a puppet) -- because then France would have been fully split and a civil war (at least after Germany's occupation ended) would have become almost inevitable (there was certainly enough tension as it was with Vichy, De Gaulle's Free French, and the often communist-led members of the Maquis). He may have hated the English actions, but the "honorable" alternative would have led Vichy down and even darker path.

[Brenus]

“Britain had attacked and killed French soldiers without declaration of war” Ok, this one is difficult to explain. I had a member of my former family in law who was in the FNFL (Forces Navales Francaises Libres) at the moment of Mers El Kebir. He told me that that was a tough moment for the Free French. However, the German propaganda trying to exploit the thing made a mistake. The diying French Sailor was wearing the 2 black ribbons of the Kriegsmarine, not the Red pompom of the French Navy. To finish the story, the defeat in front of Dakar of the English and the Free French, as paradox, eased the tensions between the Royal Navy and the FNFL.

“Hardly the attidute you expect from an ally.” I asked my Grand mother about that. And you know what, at this time, they understood the reason why Churchill had to do it. And apparently, the propaganda mistake had a big impact on the French. The Germans considered the French Fleet as theirs…

“They did loose the colonies anyway.” A bit later, mind you.

“German air and submarine bases at Dakar and Marokko, German tanks at Syria and German batteries on the other side of Gibraltar - that would have made a difference.” Could have, it could have, sure…

“I don't think Petain was a fan of the Nazis” I don’t know, what I know is he was friend of Franco, not a hard line Democrat.

“but I think his status as a "traitor" was as much for being a traitor to De Gaulle as to France.” I would disagree on that. He took power by a Coup (he put troop in the room when what left of the Parliament he authorised to enter was still refusing to give the full power). So he betrayed his country and constitution.

“their morale weakened by the pace and disorienting effect of the German blitzkrieg.” In fact I am not sure of that. I read somewhere (recently) that the last days of the 45 days of the battle of France, the German loses climbed. Unlike USSR, France hasn’t the land reserve needed to recover from the first shock of the Blitzkrieg. It seems more and more than the chaos happened just after the first shock, then the troops regained their fighting spirit. So it means the necessity to go fast for the Germans.

“he had no doubt come to abhor the idea of killing so many soldiers when he did not believe he could change the eventual outcome” That is Petain justification, yes. And up to some point I agree. 90.000 soldiers killed in 45 days, plus injured, it was worst than the WW1 in the same period of time. So, the Armistice was inevitable. However, Petain should have gone in exile, like other Leaders of other invaded country. No, he choose to meet Hitler at Montoire, he choose the Collaboration and to forced young French to the Service de Travail Obligatoire (Compulsory Work Service? Hum, not happy of my translation), encourage the recruitment of the L.V.F (verst. Franz. Gren. Inf. Reg. 638) then the Franzosisch SS-Freiwilligen-Sturmbrigade, took without any request from the Germans even worst racial laws than German’s one (I know a jew whose uncle died of saddens when he had to give back his Legion d’honneur, won on the battle field, and awarded, O Irony, by Petain), agreed with the building of the Milice etc. Because Petain, an estimated 100.000 French collaborated with the occupiers.

“Why not declare war after Mers-el-Kabir? I suspect it is because he did not want to become a Nazi ally” No, he couldn’t. Because Hitler had made a so good job with his obsession to weaken France that Petain couldn’t become a better ally than Mussolini. And if you see the reaction in Toulon of the French Fleet when they saw the German approaching to put their hands on the Fleet… Petain had no problem to become ally with the Nazi. The last defenders of Berlin in 1945, when the Germans fled, were the SS Wallonie and French 33 -Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS Charlemagne, enrolled with Petain benediction... Again irony of history, one of last men to receive the Knights Cross of Iron Cross from Hitler's own hand was a one of these French he despised so much.

“France would have been fully split and a civil war (at least after Germany's occupation ended) would have become almost inevitable (there was certainly enough tension as it was with Vichy, De Gaulle's Free French, and the often communist-led members of the Maquis)” France was split in a civil war, even before the end of the German occupations. Milice versus Maquis, and internally, Socialists, Communists, Monarchist Christian Democrats, Gaullists, if not openely in war, were not so far. That is why De Gaulle sent Jean Moullin, a Socialist but Prefet de Region, to unit the different movements. French are specialists in civil war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

“I don't think Petain was a fan of the Nazis” I don’t know, what I know is he was friend of Franco, not a hard line Democrat.

He was definitely on the reactionary side, the race laws etc. were hardly a mark of liberality.

““but I think his status as a "traitor" was as much for being a traitor to De Gaulle as to France.” I would disagree on that. He took power by a Coup (he put troop in the room when what left of the Parliament he authorised to enter was still refusing to give the full power). So he betrayed his country and constitution.

That I did not know. I take your point.

“their morale weakened by the pace and disorienting effect of the German blitzkrieg.” In fact I am not sure of that. I read somewhere (recently) that the last days of the 45 days of the battle of France, the German loses climbed. Unlike USSR, France hasn’t the land reserve needed to recover from the first shock of the Blitzkrieg. It seems more and more than the chaos happened just after the first shock, then the troops regained their fighting spirit. So it means the necessity to go fast for the Germans.

Absolutely. Even the brief pause during and shortly after Dunkirk allowed French forces to recover some of their balance. France was unable to effectively combat German tactical doctrine -- but they inflicted almost as many casualties on the Wermacht as they suffered. There is good reason that the German forces were not able to mount a major offensive until the Spring of the following year.

“he had no doubt come to abhor the idea of killing so many soldiers when he did not believe he could change the eventual outcome” That is Petain justification, yes. And up to some point I agree. 90.000 soldiers killed in 45 days, plus injured, it was worst than the WW1 in the same period of time.

Actually, as a result of the Battle of the Frontiers (August 1914) French casualties in the first month of active combat in WW1 were between 300,000 killed, wounded, and captured. But your real point is that the army had been hammered badly in a very short time frame (true) and that France did not have the ability to "trade space for time" to effect a recovery (spot on).

So, the Armistice was inevitable. However, Petain should have gone in exile, like other Leaders of other invaded country. No, he choose to meet Hitler at Montoire, he choose the Collaboration and to forced young French to the Service de Travail Obligatoire (Compulsory Work Service? Hum, not happy of my translation), encourage the recruitment of the L.V.F (verst. Franz. Gren. Inf. Reg. 638) then the Franzosisch SS-Freiwilligen-Sturmbrigade, took without any request from the Germans even worst racial laws than German’s one (I know a jew whose uncle died of saddens when he had to give back his Legion d’honneur, won on the battle field, and awarded, O Irony, by Petain), agreed with the building of the Milice etc. Because Petain, an estimated 100.000 French collaborated with the occupiers.

I wonder how much of this was willing (certainly some, especially the early enactment of anti-semitic provisions) and how much was simply the price of the quasi-freedom left to them. You do make a good case though.

“France would have been fully split and a civil war (at least after Germany's occupation ended) would have become almost inevitable (there was certainly enough tension as it was with Vichy, De Gaulle's Free French, and the often communist-led members of the Maquis)” France was split in a civil war, even before the end of the German occupations. Milice versus Maquis, and internally, Socialists, Communists, Monarchist Christian Democrats, Gaullists, if not openely in war, were not so far. That is why De Gaulle sent Jean Moullin, a Socialist but Prefet de Region, to unit the different movements. French are specialists in civil war.[/QUOTE]

You do seem to do your civil wars with "style." We've only had the one, and it was ghastly, and we have fortunately never revisited the genre.

[Kraxis]

Actually, as a result of the Battle of the Frontiers (August 1914) French casualties in the first month of active combat in WW1 were between 300,000 killed, wounded, and captured.

If you add wounded and captured to the French 1940 losses, then you will see that the 1914 losses pales. France suffered more than 1 million losses to combat, killed, wounded and captured. That is hefty.

Of course it is hard to know exactly when and where all that happened.
But I will tell you this. The French defense after Dunkirk was spirited and strong, but very very much doomed. Why?
Not so much because they didn't have the means to fight, or the men for that matter. Sure the French were now outnumbered, but we have seen worse.

No it was because the defense was centered around fighting the Blitzkrieg in pockets. Hitler insisted on similar 'hedgehog' positions late in the war.
Those positions could fight, and would be avoided by the German armour, seeking to get into the rear. But there was no rear, or at least that was the idea. In reality the 'hedgehog' positions only served to ensure the dismemberment of the army. No chance of victory when your army is being taken apart piece by piece.
And since these positions were generally centered around towns, you would ensure that the civilians would suffer in an unneeded fashion. For what reason? To save your honour?

As to Germany not being able to mount a major offensive for a year... She had taken a year to mount a major offensive after Poland too... Hardly because she wasn't able to. In July 41 Germany lost more troops killed than she had in France. The same again in August, September saw equal losses to France ect ect. It was costly... Yes, but not the extent that Germany needed a breather.
She even disbanded some units.

[Brenus]

“You do seem to do your civil wars with "style." We've only had the one, and it was ghastly, and we have fortunately never revisited the genre.” Yeah, we’ve got a lot of experience: Armagnac vs Bourguignon (100 Years War), War of Religions, La Fronde, the Revolution, la Commune de Paris, etc. And most of the times, we were busying to fight against external enemies as well. But not so much style than a hard labour to smash and slaughter each other family who believe that the egg was before the hen, when OBVIOUSLY, the hen was before the egg. How the egg could have to done, if not? BE CAREFUL about your answer….

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you add wounded and captured to the French 1940 losses, then you will see that the 1914 losses pales. France suffered more than 1 million losses to combat, killed, wounded and captured. That is hefty.

Indeed, its been a while since I read the numbers on France '40, and most of my sources address the killed/wounded rather than the trifecta total. Do the "captured" figures include those captured as a result of the armistice or just those kessellen swept up before the finish?

[Kraxis]

Well... I don't really know. But I know that almost a million and half Frenchmen went into captivity. And they included the armistice captives.

[Franconicus]

“Britain had attacked and killed French soldiers without declaration of war” Ok, this one is difficult to explain. I had a member of my former family in law who was in the FNFL (Forces Navales Francaises Libres) at the moment of Mers El Kebir. He told me that that was a tough moment for the Free French. However, the German propaganda trying to exploit the thing made a mistake. The diying French Sailor was wearing the 2 black ribbons of the Kriegsmarine, not the Red pompom of the French Navy.

I never heard that before. Can you confirm that. From all I heard I always had the feeling that the Germans did not have any influence on the French fleet in Africa and furthermore, that Hitler did not want to take it away from the French, at least not in 1940. Therefore the British operation would have been hyperbolical.

By the way, did you know that the French bombed Gibraltar as a responce to the attack of the French fleet. So war between GB abd France was very close I guess. Can you imagine that a nation makes an air raid against Gibraltar and Britain does not declare war, esp. with a PM like Churchill?

[Brenus]

Euh, I can confirm the propaganda mistake because I got a reproduction of it in a book, in France. So I can’t scan it, I am living in U.K. nowadays.
Now, about Mers El Khebir, my former father-in-law said to me that it was a real moment of tension between the FNFL and the Royal Navy, between the crews. More, it was another humiliation for the French, they were sitting ducks, and it isn’t a pleasant thought for a war Navy.
However, for Dakar, this time the French Navy succeeded to push back the Royal Navy, damaging severely some ships, it prove that the French sailors weren’t so bad, when chances were equal.
And the guy who told me that was with the English…
Human emotions, patriotism and politic demands made things difficult to understand.

“By the way, did you know that the French bombed Gibraltar”. No, I didn’t, but I am not really surprise. Something had to be done. Now, the solely real asset of the Vichy was the fleet and the Empire. To engage the fleet against the Allies could have been a blow for the Allies. However, it could have been the end of the French Colonial Empire. So why to go in war with a nails-clipper (or equivalent), to gain what, when ultimately, you have a lot to loose?
Even when the British invaded Syria, Vichy refused German help. With good reasons: In Tunisia, the French Army fought with the Allies.

Can you imagine that a nation makes an air raid against Gibraltar and Britain does not declare war, esp. with a PM like Churchill? I think he had enough ennemies without the need to add some more. And, politically, Churchill recongnised De Gaulle as legitimate representative of France.