Vichy - part two

[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.