Talk:Military history of France during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:France
 France Portal
Military history of France during World War II is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.


This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] structure

Instead of the generic overview currently on this page, I'd like to propose the following structure.

  • Background
  • France enters the war
  • The Phony War
  • The Norwegian Campaign
  • The Battle of France
  • France occupied
    • Vichy France
    • Free French
  • Liberation of France
  • Aftermath

Oberiko 23:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It could also use some substantial editing for accuracy and NPOV. France was not actually as badly off in May 1940 as this article would lead you to believe. (Might be interesting, as well, to have a "Memory" or "Blame" heading under "Aftermath", since these two ideas seem to have a great impact on how the history of France in WWII is recorded.) --Deepsix 04:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lacking in NPOV and historical accuracy. The representation that Vichy officials "aided" in persecution of Jews distorts the reality that Vichy enacted anti-Jewish legislation, expropriated Jewish property and rounded up Jews of their own accord. Mascarasnake 02:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


Inaccuracy: French Army was not outnumbered. Richard Overly: "[France's] defeat in six weeks - a product not of numerical inferiority, but of poor organisation and fighting skills" in Why the Allies Won, 1995, Pimlico The allies had considerable amounts of tanks and aircraft, but the German combination and concentration proved decisive. (see blitzkrieg)

the French themselves were outnumbered, that happens when 40 mio. French stand against 60 mio. Germans. Additionally the French had been hit far worse than Germany by a decline in birthrate during WWI,with the comparative lack of 20-25 year olds meaning France could field even less forces than expected by the size of it's people. However the reason for the desaster were others, such as splitting up the tank force into small units being attached to infantry divisions while the Germans massed their tanks into Panzerdivisons.213.191.70.226 10:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Strangely, the Germans had a lower fully trained manpower base than the French: they hadn't been able to train conscripts between 1918 and 1935. Many writers have made a caricature of the tank issue. In fact even the French had six armoured divisions (and hastily tried to form another three after the invasion). The independent tank battalions were combined into Groupements and allocated at army level: apart from the "mechanised" infantry divions no infantry units had an organic tank component.--MWAK 10:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Suicide Bombers

German suicide bombers were used against French tanks

I have never heard of that anywhere, beside of a german squadron training for ramming attacks against B17s in 1944. Also the Luftwaffe would have run out of planes well before the allies would have run out of tanks. Unless a source is given I'm going to take it out soon. 213.191.70.226 10:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancy regarding date of surrender of France in June 1940

Please see Talk:Armistice with France (Second Compiègne)#Timeline. --Mathew5000 19:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] humiliated?

you have no right to use a judgement term (feeling) like "humiliation" to call a defeat. were the Polish "humiliated"? were the Belgian "humiliated"? were the Norwegian "humiliated"? the Finnish? the American at Pearl Harbor... not even the German? No, so why are you trying to humiliate the French with your arrogant POV?! (i have my idea of course). My grand father made war in the French navy, he fought in a carrier (the "Arromanches" or "Colbert" maybe, i'll ask my father) from 1939 until the end. he fought for 6 years and was not "humiliated". he wasn't alone. the french troops were sent in first lines by the british in the "overlord ops" and the Nouvelle Armée Française fought in Italy and Germany. A few Free French pilots were sent in the East Front in support to the Russian. Other french fought in the "Provence" operation. This article lacks facts like de Gaulle's colony travel, he visited all colonies asking the army to not follow Vichy France and to join the Free France against the Axis. he was greeted with cannons in some colonies and with hurrays in others (i'll check archive videos to list the colonies who joined him). there's no mention about the isolated French Indochina troops attacked by the Japanese. And i haven't seen facts about the LVF, the STO etc. Shame On You 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez all-right please calm down. You are right, in a sense. A lot of people have brought this up and I've finally figured out that they are right. But please do understand that in 1940, the French did feel humiliated, mainly because they were so certain that they would defeat the Germans. The French thought that if they could not defeat the Germans, no one else could. This only exacerbated their ill sentiments...but anyway I see your main point. I can see how you think the word might suggest certain POVs, but it was meant to be historically accurate, not pejorative.UberCryxic 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
"The French thought that if they could not defeat the Germans, no one else could" where the hell did you heard that? i never had. considering i am french i should have heard about it. this is arrogant cliché and lies, sounds like propaganda. what the french government saw was that many european nations were overwhelmed by the Nazi, the French fought with the UK in Norway, they were defeated, they helped Belgium but King Leopold surrendered (like did Marshall Petain) which led some Belgians troops to move in France with the UK and fight in France were they were defeated. the german troops were industrialized (the Nazi army was from many points the strongest army in the world by that time fighting everywhere in the same time -US analysts have since recognized the nazi warfare was most efficient than the US, famous exemple is the Kubelwagen topping the Jeep- hence many captured material was used and tuned by the the US and the Russian, the V2 giving space rockets) and highly motivated (you can call this endoctrined) while the French were not ready for war (like the Russians hence the separate peace treaty), Nazi were well trained, they were a professional army, in the other side the French had no professional army (unlike the UK or the US) this is really important. You seems to not realize the french communists were pacifists by that time (exploiting the Verdun and Marne useless massacre with humans wasted, really wasted by officers just to get one hill meter that will be lost the day after) and the most important was the US did not accepted to move to join its European allies. do you know how many times Churchill asked Roosevelt? he ended supplicating him but he never moved. some US did not wanted to be involved in a foreign war, it was a period of autarcy. they only moved when they were directly attacked. without Pearl Harbour the US would have not joined. the french government surrendered because politicians thought it was the end. they thought the UK would soon fall. the nazis won all campaigns by that time, the situation was desperate from the french politicians point of view. i didn't invented this, this is stated in an american archive documentary. i'll check it and try to youtube it so you can see with your own eyes and learn the real situation which is not what most unaware people think. "in 1940, the French did feel humiliated", do you know the true origins of WWII and motivation for the german to support hitler? it was the exploited humiliation sentiment felt by German veterans by the treaty of Versailles and occupation of their territory partially by the French occupation army. some generals felt betrayed by the german surrending and thought they could pursue WWI. in his early speeches, hitler was repeating about "the stab in the back" german officers received in WWI by politicians. don't forget hitler was an officer in the german army during WWI (as defeated he experienced humiliation himself). Catholics and non-nazi veteran officers felt touched by this as they felt the same. Skillfully hitler used this traumatizing narcissic wound to convince people. I've heard this from fr:August von Kageneck Wehrmacht panzer lieutenant and writer (Lieutenant de panzers, Examen de conscience) interview (i have audio material if you understand French). what led Roosevelt to join WWII while Churchill was supplicating him for years to help the UK and the French? It was the humiliation of Pearl Harbour. What led Bush to invade Afghanistan and Irak? September 11th humiliation. I think it is not acceptable or descent for the people who experienced that to speak about humiliation feeling. this is unrespectful and highly suggestive. This article is not about human feelings but historical facts. Feelings are not objective (they are part of complex psychology) and then have not to be mentionned here.

I think we are agreed on the part about how this does not deserve to be mentioned here. That's why I'm not reverting. The point is that people like Petain or Gamelin did feel very humiliated at what had just happened. As I said, the French were supremely confident that they would win against Germany. Many French commanders believed they had the best army in the world; once they were defeated, many believed that no one else could defeat the Germans, hence some of the collaborationist tendencies. Now, obviously these feelings were not uniform, but they were important and indicative. Many around the world had also counted on France to stop Germany (like it had done in World War I), so there was some sense of disappointment in the French military and political leadership on that note. That's just how they felt. I'm not making a judgment on whether they should or should not have felt that way; I'm just telling you what happened.UberCryxic 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, so let me clarify: the French military and political leadership felt humiliated.UberCryxic 23:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
and just how do you know what these people tought or did not tought? some were desperate and surrendered others were revolted and refused to surrender flying to UK or to French Algeria with Algiers becoming the Fighting France's capital. what is humiliating and irritating for us is the arrogant claim that France was humiliated because they were defeated. humiliation is universally part of defeat and proudness is part of victory. you don't mention the winners were proud to win? so there's no reason to mention the defeated felt humiliated. Shame On You 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see....I think it's called their writings. Their statements, reports...all of them suggest that. Petain surrendered France and was willing to establish a collaborationist regime precisely because he thought Germany would ultimately win the war (again, the idea was that if France could not stop them, no one could).UberCryxic 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

their writings? you mean propaganda! you do not even cite any source, articles witout reference have no value. Petain and Laval used propaganda, you cannot use this Vichy propaganda as the French general opinion. Petain was an old man he was called "grand father" by the French and he is today one of the most hatred French in history. with de Gaulle voted few years ago as the most important French (like Churchill in the UK). Facts are far most complicated than just "the French thought they were the most beautiful in the world". Archives: audio, video, photo at National Audiovisual Institute & European Navigator Shame On You 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also just to clarify: the word did not signify anything about the later Free French. It was only talking about May and June in 1940. Although it must be said: even in May and June 1940, the French fought fairly well.UberCryxic 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
using a such term is just shocking. neutral articles doesn't mention feelings nor opinion, just general data. feelings are interpreted and used by propagandists. Shame On You 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, agreed.UberCryxic 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with you now. Previously I felt like this case was special enough to deserve this designation, but now I no longer feel that way.UberCryxic 23:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vichy France fighters

As often, France was divided in two positions (French Communist Party was created in 1920). The Legion of French Volunteers (French article, Deutsch version) was an anticommunist small unit consisting of Vichy French volunteers. the french article claims they were right-wing militants who chose to fight in the eastern front rather than becoming forced workers sent in germany to help the industry. i was taught the same at school.

Shame On You 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] know what you're talking about

Divide & Conquer (Pt.2, Pt.3 & Pt.4): US military 40s documentary about the Axis (DE/IT) and Allied (UK/FR/BE) operations from Denmark to France. Tactics analysis and social background. Highly educative material a must see to learn what did really happened!

  • Prologue:
1936: Spanish civil war: communists vs fascists (SP vs SP/DE/IT)
Sept.1st~27th, 1939: Poland campaign (DE vs PL)
Sept.3rd, 1939: UK/FR declared war to DE
Sept. 1939: non-agression pact between DE & RU
  • Documentary part 1 out of 4:
Denmark campaign (DE vs neutral DK)
Norway campaign (DE vs NO/UK/FR/PL)
  • Documentary part 2 out of 4:
Sept.1939~April 1940: Phony War -psychological war:French spirit/German spirit- (DE vs FR)
May 1940: German invasion of neutral countries (NL/LU/BE)
Netherlands campaign (DE vs neutral NL)
  • Documentary part 3 out of 4:
Netherlands bombing by the German
Belgium campaign (DE vs BE/FR)
France campaign: Battle of Ardennes (DE vs FR)
  • Documentary part 4 out of 4:
France campaign: May 13 1940 Namur Ruse (DE vs FR)
France campaign: May 14/15 1940 Breakthrough of Sedan (DE vs FR)
France campaign: May 20 1940 British counterattack of Arras (DE vs UK)
France campaign: May 28 Belgian allied army defeated in North east France (DE vs BE)
France campaign: British defeated at Dunkerque, North France (DE vs UK)
allied retreat toward England (UK/FR/BE), RAF support, UK civilian rescue boats
France campaign: (DE vs FR)
3/5 of the French army remains (-20 divisions), no French reserve army available
the French send their children in the South of the country to protect them
poorly equipped remaining French set barricades in Paris to resist the invasion as long as possible
France campaign: June 5 German offensive break the north-west resistance front (DE vs FR)
Overwhelmed French resistants standing in the north east withdraw to the Marne and the Seine rivers areas
France campaign: June 9 German main offensive and overall attack from north east to west and south (DE vs FR)
outnumbered, outpowered the remaining French are pushed to the south and west, north east front army is surrounded, official talks of an armistice begin
France campaign: June 14: Maginot Line attacks (DE vs FR)
two successful attacks on the Maginot line, French are defeated
France campaign: June 14: Italian cross the border (IT vs FR)
Italian cowardice is named "stab in the back" by Roosevelt
France campaign: France faces two choices: retreat in French Algeria and pursue the fight with the african colonies or to surrender. the New York Times titles: "Reynaud resigns, Petain is now premier; new cabinet considers fate of France; German troops gaining on all fronts." Old French government refuse to fight until the end.
June 16: Reynaud refused to surrender and live the government, he is replaced by old Petain adviced by Laval to surrender and collaborate with the German. France is cut in two North is under German rule, South is ruled by a collaborationnist government accepted by hitler.
~2,000,000 French prisoners of war are sent to Germany as forced workers to support the Nazy armament industry
Protesters against occupation are executed
June remaining French troops pushed to the south not yet occupied bu the German retreat to Africa and head to the colonies
June General de Gaulle who led some counterattacks in May, refuse to surrender
he gathers a loyal Free French (aka Fighting French) army made of remaining French troops exiled in North Africa, loyal French navy, French Foreign Legion, French Algeria muslim Harkis, and other French colonies troops

The documentary is long (+56 minutes) so it was cut in four parts. You need to watch all parts to get the full understanding of course.

  • DOWNLOAD (Hi-Fi 368x480):
download MPEG2 version Pt.1/4 383MB
download MPEG2 version Pt.2/4 347MB
download MPEG2 version Pt.3/4 404MB
download MPEG2 version Pt.4/4 356MB
  • STREAM (Hi-Fi temp):
stream MPEG4 version Pt.1/4 14"31
stream MPEG4 version Pt.2/4 13"09
stream MPEG4 version Pt.3/4 15"19
stream MPEG4 version Pt.4/4 13"29

This is public domain material that can be used in wiki! Shame On You 19:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this! Nice find, although I should note that I'm already very familiar with the campaign. Nevertheless, I will watch some of these.UberCryxic 00:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Koh Chang

never heard of this before just found it now at random, it is part of the article though. it involved the Vichy French army in Thailand it was then part of the French Indochina colony, the Vichy army fought versus the Thai army and the Vichy guys won.

Shame On You 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French-Japanese Battle

alright just checked the European Mediatheque, actually Japan attacked French Indochina on March 9, 1945. so correct chronology is

  • Vichy France vs Japan 1945 (im' not sure if it was "Vichy" France then) look this is the English version

Shame On You 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

according to this 60th celebration article on the French Defense Ministry it was a large scale invasion of French Indochina by Japanese forces. it is called "coup de force" (like the algerian war was called in france "the events" instead of war). seems like it is not "Vichy France".

"following the backing of its troops on the French Indochinese territory, the Japanese planned a secret attack over the French colonial garrison and civil administration. The Japanese army launched its overall attack in the night between the 9th and 10th of march 1945 in Indochina. The isolated French were defeated with 242 officers and 2,400 soldiers killed. Japanese occupation of Indochina started then. There was no french administration in the colony anymore, the Japanese supported independist movements and jailed the French colonial civilian population in the six largest cities of the colony." this is a translation. additional material are welcome in order to create the section "French conflicts in Asia" sectio. Shame On You 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

in the very same time of the japanese pearl harbour style attack over the French colony, the US Air Force's B-29 bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 japanese... more are aware of this US war crime, much more are ignorant about the japanese crimes the same day (including in france). Shame On You 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shame On You 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • japanese leader of the attack was "T. Shigeoru." i don't know yet his name.

Shame On You 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • the French Foreign Legion site mentions the FFF General Juin in australia was reported by australian ally intelligence three days before the attack and warned de gaulle at paris who answered don't report to the garrison and: "let the blood flows", indochina was ruled by vichy french admiral Decoux. this move is not surprising from de gaulle. Shame On You 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] seprated article for Vichy French and Free French

actually there were many battles in both cases, hence separated articles is relevant and a better way to manage all the campaigns and battles of the two forces. Shame On You 00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Free French:
THE CAMPAIGN OF TUNISIA
RELEASE OF CORSICA
THE CAMPAIGN OF ITALY
THE CONQUEST OF THE ISLAND OF ELBA
THE UNLOADING IN NORMANDY
THE UNLOADING IN PROVENCE
some units also fought in Abyssinia, in Egypt, in Lybia. a few pilot were sent in the eastern front and fought the germans with the soviets allies.
source for the preceding list is administrative and official as the Gers prefecture http://www.gers.pref.gouv.fr/acvg/documents/4244ang.htm
source for eastern front is from a documentary i've watched, i'll try to get more info about this.
  • Vichy French
Thai-French war (1940-41)
Japanese-French battle of indochina (1945)
French SS and other voluntaries fighting agaist the communists in the eastern front
many battles in the colonies againt the british, americans and free french

Shame On You 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Picture

This picture could be interesting for this article.Randroide 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMilitary_history_of_France_during_World_War_II_f414.html"