Talk:Free French Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Numbers

I'd like to see detailed numbers of FFF per year. For 1940 the text gives ~10,000: , by the end of July that year, only 7,000 people had volunteered to join the Free French forces. The Free French Navy had fifty ships and some 3,600 men operating as an auxiliary force. No numbers are given for 1941 r 1942. 1943 states 100,000 and 1944 400,000 (100,000 Free French soldiers fought in the Allied side in Italy in 1943. By the time of the Normandy Invasion, the Free French forces numbered more than 400,000 people). Those seem like a very rough estimates to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Communists during the liberation of Paris

Should the presence of the French communists in Paris during the liberation be included in the section about De Gaulle and the participation of the FF in Paris' liberation?

It certainly can be mentioned; however they probably do not count as Free French Forces themselves (FFL), rather as FFI (if affiliated with the central command of the Resistance). This was basically a state of civil war in France, so things might get subtle and blurry. Rama 07:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Review of Article

The author of this article tries to paint a picture of a small, outnumbered, yet dedicated cadre of French nationalists, crusading against the overwhelming forces of continental fascism. In the section entitled “Prelude”, he states that even though de Gaulle addressed the French people on June 18th, 1940, urging soldiers and civilians to join the Free French cause, very little support was won. The author continues by describing it as one of the most famous speeches in French history. “Nevertheless, on the 22 June, Petain signed the surrender and became leader of the puppet regime known as Vichy France.” He tries to discredit the decision of Petain, the French President at the time, to surrender by using de Gaulle’s modern-day and historical popularity.

By using this strategy, of using modern popular opinions regarding the Resistance effort combined with negative portrayals of the Vichy government, the author creates an interesting profile of the French people. First, he portrays de Gaulle, the Free French government, and the Free French forces as a vanguard group of patriots who gradually won back the support of the French citizens. On page two of the article, the author states that “despite repeated broadcasts, by the end of July that year (1940), only 7,000 people had volunteered to join the Free French forces.” His use of the word “only” shows the author’s belief that 7,000 volunteers were not nearly as much as the Free French expected. It could also show the author’s opinion that more than 7,000 French citizens should have wanted to prevent the Nazi occupation. I doubt that the latter is true.

Further down the page, the author describes the incidents at Mers El Kebir and Dakar. On July 3, 1940, the British Navy attacked the French fleet at these locations in North Africa to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Germans. The author then writes a very revealing statement. “This caused bitterness and division in France, particularly in the Navy, and discouraged many French soldiers from joining the Free French forces in Britain and elsewhere. Also, the attempt to persuade Vichy French forces in Dakar to join De Gaulle failed.” The author is not trying to blame the unpopularity of the Free French forces on the natural opinions of the French people, but rather effect of outside sources on their actions. In this instance, British military actions against the French fleet are seen as a major volunteer deterrent. On the first page of the article, the author claims that De Gaulle’s “Appeal of June the 18th” was not successful because it “was not widely heard.” He even claims that there were those in the British Cabinet who tried to prevent De Gaulle from making the radio broadcast, without mentioning any of their names.

The French people are portrayed as easily swayed by the actions of opposing governments. For instance after the direct occupation of Vichy France by the Germans in 1942, the author states, “In response, the 60,000-strong Vichy forces in French North Africa…joined the Allied side as the French 19th corps.” This makes them sound like mercenaries; moved to fight not for whoever pays them more but whoever’s ideology and actions they prefer at the time.

This fits in perfectly with the author’s portrayal of De Gaulle and his followers. Throughout the article, he gradually mentions the increased support the Free French forces received. On page two he references the support of French colonies, without giving any concrete examples or motivations for such an action. This is a major question that I feel the author should have addressed. As mentioned earlier, he references the defection of Vichy forces in North Africa. He includes De Gaulle’s negotiations with various Resistance groups still in France, calling for them to create a united resistance. By the year 1944, the author has mapped the rise in popularity of the Free French forces from 7,000 volunteers in 1940 to 400,000. (page 3). He references multiple campaigns in which French troops were involved and fought gallantly. I believe that the author gives too much credit to the actions of various governments in regards to the actions of the French people. He does not include pre-war opinions of the French government at all. There is no attempt to explore underlying French sentiments regarding the war or the Nazi movement overall. The author makes a convincing point that events such as the attacks at Mers El Kebir and Dakar and the Nazi occupation of Vichy France did affect French attitudes towards the Allies and the Axis. I am not convinced, however, that these opinions had the lasting affect on the French psyche that the author expects us to believe.

One must also call the author’s sources into question. There is no section in the article in which he lists he sources, per se. At the bottom, he gives five “external links” to websites on the subject. Two of these websites are personal websites, neither of which have a published author or bibliographical information. One site leads to an article in the National Review, and seems to be very well written and oriented for a more intellectual audience. One of the links does not work anymore! The last link goes to Charles-De-Gaulle.org, a very pro De Gaulle website. This is a very biased source for information, favoring any the side of the Free French. If the author used these websites as sources for his Wikipedia article, the validity and soundness of his methods should be brought into question. unsigned edit by . 128.239.218.34, 20:09 21 March 2006'

Interesting points. Please improve the article. ...dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The reviewer appears to be new to Wikipedia, both as work-in-progress and as a concept. This is indicated by a number of spoken and unspoken assumptions in his, rather over-long, solid text, his failure to address the perceived weaknesses by editing the article himself and the anonymity of his review. It is confirmed by his amend log. ;-)
Look, mate, there was no single author, male or female. A number of editors have contributed, as with all other Wiki articles, so it's unlikely that there's a concerted effort to present a particular point of view (POV): I certainly didn't try. I'm sure that many of us lack the high intellect that you aspire to, but we do our best. If you wish to contribute to the common effort, welcome. If you have some cast-iron, rigorous sources that support a different reading: excellent (that's neither irony nor sarcasm - it's honest), if you wish to re-work this or any other article to improve it, you won't be the first or the last. Just please remember that Wiki seeks to inform, educate but not just to impress.
It's polite to sign and date your submissions on talk pages - use 4 tildes (on my keyboard it's upper-case #) and it would be even nicer if you acquired a username.
A couple of comments: I think that you read implied meanings where none exist. For example, as you accept, French military opinion moved when the Germans occupied Vichy. This prompted the switch to the Allies of the French Army in north Africa, although I suspect that their officers (who tended to remain loyal to whatever legitimate political structure existed) didn't "switch" - they reacted to changed circumstances and German revocation of the armistice. Either way, I think your imputation of "mercenaries" is a flawed reading - or perhaps the text should be reworked. (One thing that is missed, I think, is the see-saw influence of the Soviet Union upon the Resistance.) I think that some of your points could rest better in other articles, eg Vichy France. Do you really doubt that Allied/British actions at Mers-el-Kebir (and later in Syria, Madagascar, etc) angered French Naval commanders? Hundreds of French seamen died! Britain had been an Ally! The effect must have been to sour and dissuade French fighters from abandoning France and sticking with the fight! Of course one is influenced by external factors!! I am, aren't you? Enough, I'm getting as verbose as you! RSVP Folks at 137 22:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that informed comment. I've left a welcome at User talk:128.239.218.34. So far the anon appears to have only made this one edit. ..dave souza, talk 19:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Africans and Polynesians

With all these African and Polynesian colonies joining the war what portion of the Free French forces were non-French? Also, were any promises made to the colonies to gain support? Were any major independence leaders of the decolonization period part of the Free French Forces? Finally, did the experience of fighting in the Free French forces alter race relations (I had a class which talked about how battlefield bonding and exposure to soldiers who didn't care about maintaining colonial relations undermined colonial rule in the Pacific, so there's something)? I'm not an expert and so I'm not really sure about the answers (though I'm sure a large chunk of the Free French forces were African so I'll throw that into the article, though it would be nice to have a number or general figure), but these are important questions for this article Jztinfinity 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free French Expeditionary Corps / Italy 1944

I am working on the article for the Battles of Monte Cassino and I'm trying to work out how the French Expeditionary Corps under General Alphonse Juin (consisting of 4 Divisions plus 12,000 Moroccan goumiers), which had a key role in the final battle, fits in with this article which makes no mention of the French exploits in Italy. Can anyone help? Stephen Kirrage 10:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I guess I saw an archive video of the Nouvelle Armée Française (New French Army) equipped with US-built material in the campaign of Italy in INA.fr National Audiovisual Institute. You'd better check in! I can't do it myself i'm currently involved in a database. i'll add public domain FFL pictures later.

The campaign of Italy must be spoken in this article as well a list of all colonies who joined de Gaulle (inc. French Algeria) as well of those who were loyal to the Vichy government (French Indochina: the isolated garrison was attacked by the Japanese, very few are aware of this fact).

What strikes me is the English called their colonies (AU/NZ/South Africa) to join the battle in 1940 while the French did not though they had colonies all over the world. I think this was a political/strategical mistake. Shame On You 05:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Stephen see, if you haven't already, Goumier.
Shame, you are right in that British Commonwealth troops were initially intended to go to France. But it had fallen before any of the Commonwealth troops got there. One Canadian division was landed and withdrawn almost the same day. I guess France's North Africans weren't too far away and colonial troops certainly fought hard for the Vichy regime in Syria and Madagascar in 1941 and 1942. Maybe there were training issues, etc. Grant65 | Talk 02:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
THE CAMPAIGN OF ITALY, found this: C.E.F. Corps Expéditionnaire Français (French Expeditionary Corps aka French Task Force)
  • Leader: General Alphonse Juin
  • CEF Units (colonies fighters: indigenous+colons):
november 1943
2nd division of Moroccan infantry (General Dody)
3rd division of Algerian infantry (General of Monsabert)
april 1944 (reinforcements)
4th Moroccan mountain division (General Sevez)
1st free French division (General Brosset)
other troops in CEF:
3 Moroccan groups of Tabors (General Guillaume)

(source: http://www.gers.pref.gouv.fr/acvg/documents/4244ang.htm) Shame On You 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fighting units

Shame On You 17:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French SAS

the French SAS squadron was created in 1941 and led by Captain Georges Bergé. SAS fought in Africa with the British then in Crete and Lybia. source: http://www.france-libre.net/forces_francaises_libres/1_1_6_2_SAS_creation_Special_Air_Service.htm Shame On You 17:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] public domain docs

Shame On You 17:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] colonial troops in may-june 40

actually i've watched video news archives by the french army (SCA Cinematographic Service of the French Army) "Journal de Guerre" (War Diary) N°33 up to N°36, and i can testify there were "indigenous" (indigènes) fighters in the battle of france. i've seen them in action, black men, algerians and morrocans! by the way several footages from Journal de guerre #33 were used Frank Capra's Divide and Conquer. i wish i could create screenshots to illustrate the campaign of belgium, luxembourg and france where fought the french. unfortunately it seems that unlike the us war ministry material, french war material are not public domain. i've asked other others to know we could do. Shame On You 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template map

The template map is very, very wrong. It cites only the metropolitan territory, over which the FFL only had effective juridiction in the last stages of the war. And it completely fails to mention

  • Western Africa (Dakar, the Fleet, the people and infrastructures)
  • North Africa (the Mediteranean, Oran, Alger...)
  • New Caledonia (used as base against the Japanese)
  • St Pierre and Miquelon
  • Territories in the Carabean

Also, stating "London" as de facto capital is awfully simplistic: a great deal of the operations were decided from Algiers. Rama 10:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Confusion

I am sory to see that you confuse Free French Forces and the French Army.

Free French Forces finish at the end of july 1943 when the too french armys in north Africa have been reunified.

And many people that you call "Free french" should not think that it's an honor.

No, Marcel Marceau, Jean de Lattre de Tassigny, Jean Monnet, Jean René Champion (who's this one ?) and Antoine de Saint-Exupéry where realy not Free French

(but my father was a real one) Jacques Ghémard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.248.222.253 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Feel free to correct the article, providing appropriate references, or suggest improvements. Rama 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok man, you will corect my poor english Jacques Ghémard 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
My fatherinlaw was in the original Free French, #67 I think. His name is Daniel Nevot. he lives in Ft Worth Tx.

He is being honored in the May 8th celebration. I know he definitely feels it is an honor.

Sorry if I sound greedy, but he wouldn't happen to have taken photographs at the time, would he ? Rama 07:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Marocchinate

Should there not be some mentio of this and other alledged attrocities carries out by Free French forces? [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Goumiers, who are usually accused of having commited those acts, were not Free French troops. PpPachy (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, the present article Free French Forces covers not only the FFL, but essentially all "French goodies" of the Second World War, and in this perspective, Slatersteven has a point. The remedy is probably to rework Free French Forces so that it'd deal with the FFL only and create other articles for the subsequent developments of the French Army of the Liberation (we don't even have an article about the Liberation itself ! :p). Rama (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Then whose troops were they? as they were part of the Free French (CEF)? Moreover there are also accusations leveled against other colonial ellemensts of the CEF. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)]]

"Free French Forces" are not simply the French who fought on the"good side" during the Second World War: the term designates the "happy few" who joined De Gaulle's organisation before the capture of French Northern African possessions by the Allies in 1943. The later French force are usually termed "Armée de la Libération". In this sense, PpPachy's remark is accurate.
Depending on their country of original, colonial units might or might not have been Free French (for instance Chad was, Algeria was not). Of course individuals joined De Gaulle in England privately.
It must also be noted that tales of French colonial units committing war crimes was a classic of Nazi propaganda. Jean Moulin is famous for having been arrested for refusing to sign testimonies in this vein forged by the Nazis. Rama (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the troops were raised in the same country as a number of the divisions listed on this page as Free French. It is an accusation, if it can be proved to be false then that should be said if it cannot then it should also be said (if we accept thse as Free French, and the definitio seems open to debate).[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)]]

First, the definition is not opened to debate at all, officially. However the fact is 80% of non-French-language sources (as well as some French-language ones) do not use the correct definition. Regarding the French Expeditionary Corps (1943-1944), only 1e DFL was Free French, other units were part of the Army of Africa (France) (hence, created before the FFL existed) with newly recruited troops. Regarding crimes commited by French troops against the Italian populations, Jean-Christophe Notin's book gives figures from the French archives but I don't think there is a breakdown by unit. PpPachy (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Should not then all those units be removed from the list of Free French divisions in ths artciel. Should it not also include the figurrs you refer to?[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] Cross of Lorraine

I just wanted to point out that the Cross of Lorraine article attributes the idea for the cross's use as a symbol of the Free French to vice-amiral Émile Muselier not Captain Thierry d'Argenlieu. I don't know which is correct, but I'm sure someone can clear this up. Dusen189 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that my father in law, Daniel Nevot is the last true free French soldier of 1940. He is the last of the batle of Kufra and is being honored next week by his original division in Noyon France. If you want the true history of the Free Frenc, you should talk to him!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.246.226 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Free French

The Free French were not a government-in-exile, and Free France was not a state, as the article falsely asserted until I corrected it. From September 1941 de Gaulle used the title Chairman of the National Committee of the Free French - he never called himself a president or a prime minister, nor did any of the Allied governments recognise or treat him as such. Not until June 1944 (that is, well after the title "Free French" had ceased to be used), did de Gaulle adopt the title Chairman of the Provisional Government, but this was not a government-in-exile, it was a government established on French soil. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Read Mémoires de Guerre, L'Appel, chapter La France combattante. It cites the composition of the government, and states "le Comité serait le gouvernment" and "le chef des Français Libres prît des responsabilités d'État".
And the British government did recognise the Free French over Vichy. Rama (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: And of course the decree founding the Comité national, article 1 and 3 notably. Rama (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to quote a passage in which de Gaulle describes the Free French before 1944 as a government, and you haven't done so. Unfortunately my copy of the Memoires is packed in a box somewhere at present. I will check these references, but I am quite certain you are wrong. Churchill most certainly didn't recognise de Gaulle as head of a government. His agreement with de Gaulle recognised him as commander of the Free French forces, and nothing else. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that the article French Committee of National Liberation doesn't describe this body, formed in 1943, as a government. How could the Free French have been a government in 1940 but the French Committee of National Liberation not been one in 1943? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have just provided citations by De Gaulle referring to the Comité as a government. As for the rest, would you care to provide sources sourself, other than Wikipedia articles? Rama (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't. Le Comité serait le gouvernment is a statement in the future tense, and expresses an aspiration, not a fact. If they were intending to act as a government, why did they call themselves a mere committee? They never claimed, and were never accorded, the same status as the Dutch or Norwegian governments in exile. I want you to cite me any document in which the Free French before 1944 describe themselves as "the government of France" or "a government." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For a start, "serait" is not a future indicative but a present conditional. In the context, De Gaulle describes the institutions of the Comité and concludes by saying "Overall, the Comité would be the government" ("En somme, le Comité serait le gouvernement"). I understand your caution, but you need to read the source. I cannot translate and copy the entire book for your convenience, nor can I read it for you.
Also, I don't understand your insistence on the term "government". If you read the decree instauring the Comitee (it should be in the notes of the Mémoires), you can see it referring to the Constitution of the 3rd Republic; to international obligations and representatives; to a number of public functions including Justice, foreign affairs and economy; to legislative process, including a representative Assembly.
To sum up, we have an official decree defining the framework for a body aiming at directing all aspects of French affairs, and qualified as being a "government" by De Gaulle himself. Even the exact word "government" is present. So I don't know what more you want. Rama (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will have to leave this in abeyance until I can find better sources, which I can't do at present because all my books are packed. But I am quite certain you are wrong, and even if de Gaulle says in his memoirs that the Free French were a government in exile in 1940, that's not what he said at the time. His memoirs are after all notoriously self-serving. If he was setting himself up as head of a government, why didn't he style himself as president or prime minister? Why did he call his organisation a mere committee and not a government? The answer is that he knew there was no consensus among the French exiles that there should be a government in exile, let alone that he should lead it, and he also knew that Churchill (on whom he was totally dependent) would not recognise such a claim. Even in 1943 in Algeria they didn't call themselves a government, which would have been a dangerous provocation of Roosevelt. I will have to find the primary sources but I can't do that just now. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should he call himself President of Prime minister, incidentally? It's just another title. "Comité" is a typical name for a provisory government in French History. Rama (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Because governments are headed by presidents and prime ministers. As you note, de Gaulle cited the constitution of the 3rd Republic. By what process under that constitution could he have claimed to be head of the government of France in 1940? Sovereignty lay with the French people and was expressed through the elected National Assembly. The National Assembly, elected by the people in 1936, had quite lawfully appointed Petain as head of the government. Even if de Gaulle rejected the authority of that government because it had betrayed France at the armistice, there was no constitutional means for him to replace it, and he never claimed to have done so. His position was that that France had effectively lost its sovereignty and had no legitimate government until 1944, when he announced a provisional government shortly before the return to France. Anyway, that's all for tonight. I won't revert the article as it now stands, with its ridiculous assertion that London was the capital of France and other nonsense, but I will return to this debate later. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but your assertion that "governments are headed by presidents and prime ministers" is ridiculous. There are a bunch of other possible titles.
Also, you seem to parrot the positions of the US government of the time -- a government no less self-serving than De Gaulle, incidentally, though at least De Gaulle's was fighting Nazi Germany. This position is notable, but does not constitute the only source of historical truth.
The National Assembly did not "quite lawfully" appoint Pétain. His "election" is marred by numerous irregularities and he is no more legitimate than De Gaulle was as only member of the last government able to excercise power.
As for "de Gaulle (...) never claimed to have done so", I have repeatedly cited the Mémoires and I strongly advise you to read them before making claims so easy to invalidate. Rama (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a totally clear cut issue. In some ways, the Free French Committee obviously acted as a government - controlling some French colonies and military forces, for instance. In other ways, it explicitly denied being a real government until 1944, as Mr. Toad says. I don't think de Gaulle's memoirs are a reliable source for what the Free French claimed to be between 1940 and 1944. At least initially, Pétain's government was pretty much universally recognized by neutral states as the legitimate government of France - the United States continued to recognize it until the Torch landings, I believe. No state, not even the British or any of the proper governments in exile, recognized the Free French as a proper government. john k (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The decree founding the Comité certainly is a reliable source. De Gaulle's comments on it being a government is a highlight of its meaning, it's not my main source.
The Comité was a temporary, emergency body, of course. Notably, the representative assembly gave only consultary advices, and laws were decreeted. This was not acceptably as a permanent government for France, and was not meant to be.
The Conseil de défense de l’Empire, was recognised by the British on 24 December 1940. I know that the USA found Vichy to be more to their taste, but so it is. Rama (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

John K knows more about European history than anybody else I have encountered at Wikipedia, which is why I asked him to comment on this question. He agrees with me that the Free French "explicitly denied being a real government until 1944", which is the key point in a discussion as to whether this article should describe them as a government-in-exile. He is right of course that they exercised some of the functions of a government, but that is not the same thing as being a government. You say "The Conseil de défense de l’Empire, was recognised by the British". I have already told you that Churchill recognised de Gaulle as commander of the Free French forces, and not as a head of government, so this is an invalid argument. No-one recognised the Free French as a government, and they did not claim to be one. Will you now acknowledge this point, or will I have to refer this to a formal process of arbitration? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, try to present good arguments instead of threats (and by the way arbitration is in no case over the content of an article). De Gaulle declaration as quoted by Rama is enough to shot down your own personal opinions on the matter and so far you have not been able to show that this quote would not be genuine. Free French authorities governed territories under their control, it was a government (and otherwise tell me who governed the territories under Free French control). The question is not if the USA for instance, which favoured the illegal fascist Vichy puppet government (and therefore the nazis) at the time, recognised Free French authorities or not, this is of no importance at all. De Gaulle says it was a government. I fear that he was on the matter slightly more competent than anyone of us here. The actual name of it (which has changed several times reflecting the evolution of the war) is of no importance too, what is important is the actions. Additionally from a legal point of view, Free French authorities are considered as a government: “Le Conseil des prises français a jugé après la guerre, que la légalité de cette capture ne pouvait être mise en doute, dès lors que les Forces françaises libres avaient été reconnues par le Gouvernement britannique et le Comité national français par celui-ci et son homologue soviétique en 1942. Curieusement, aucune allusion n'est faite à quelque reconnaissance par l'Italie, qui avait pourtant conclu un armistice avec la France en 1940, par l'intermédiaire des autorités de Vichy. Que cet armistice ne fut jamais reconnu ni par les Forces françaises libres ni par le Comité national français a suffi pour écarter l'argument. Le motif implique que les autorités de Londres ne puissent se voir opposer les accords conclus durant la guerre par les autorités de Vichy.”[1]. And would you deny the status of the Polish government in exile too for instance? It had much less power than the various french autorities and no territory (not even mentioning that the Wikipedia article does not end on 6 July 1945). Regards, Med (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No-one has yet produced a contemporary citation from the Free French or anyone else describing them as a government before 1944. Until someone does I will maintain my position. Both Rama and Med seem to want to turn this into an exercise in anti-US rhetoric. I have not said anything about governments recognising the Vichy regime (which the US and Canada did until 1943, and the Soviet Union until 1941), because it is not relevant. The only relevant issue here is - did the Free French describe themselves as a government in exile? No evidence has yet been produced to show that they did. The quotation Med has produced says nothing about this, it just says that a court retrospectively held that seizures of shipping by Free French forces were legal, because the Free French had been recognised as combatants. I have already said several times that the British government recognised the Free French as combatants, but not as the government of France. Churchill was quite clear about this. If the Free French claimed to be the government of France before June 1944, there will no doubt be lots of documents in which that claim is asserted: "Issued by de Gaulle in the name of the provisional government of the French Republic", or words to that effect. So it is up to Rama or Med to produce one. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Med asks who administered those (very few) French colonies which gave their support to de Gaulle before 1943. The answer is that the colonial governors and their administrations did. The Free French in London did not directly administer these colonies. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Mr Toad, please read the Mémoires and their annexes. Also, please refrain from making inferences about personal opinions; as far as I am concerned, you are the one who is trying to twist History through an exclusively USA-centric prism.
We have the founding document of the Conseil, which clearly assumes the prerogatives of a government; we have recognition by the United Kingdom and by USSR; we have citations explecitely refering to this body as a "government". Your counter-arguments come down to "give me more citations" and "heads of government must be called 'President' or 'Prime Minister'". If these are you true concerns, they are not so uch of a problem; if you have others, please state them clearly. Rama (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There was certainly not "recognition." john k (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Free French, Part II

I have now located the relevant documents on this matter, here: http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/france/co1940fl.htm. Although the website is titled "Les gouvernements de la France libre de la France combattante et de la Libération", the documents themselves make it clear that the Free French, during the period in which that name was used, did not purport to be a government in exile, and that the Free French were never recognised as a government by the Allied governments. The issue as far as this article is concerned is not whether the Free French exercised some of the functions of a government, which they clearly did, but whether they were, as the article claims in the first paragraph, the de jure government of France, which I contend on the basis of these documents that they were not and did not claim to be.

  • First is the agreement between de Gaulle and Churchill, signed on 7 August 1940, under which the Free French are recognised as a combatant force, under the overall command of the British. Nowhere is the word "gouvernement" used in relation to France, nor is there any phraseology suggesting that de Gaulle was asserting that he was a head of government. Churchill signs as "Le Premier Ministre du Gouvernement de Sa Majesté dans le Royaume-Uni." De Gaulle signs as "Le Général de Gaulle, Commandant la Force Française."
  • Second is the Brazzaville Manifesto of 27 October 1940, in which de Gaulle seeks to rally the French Empire to the Free French cause. Again, nowhere does he style himself as a head of government or make any claim that the Free French are the government of France. He says: "J'exercerai mes pouvoirs au nom de la France" (I exercise my powers in the name of France), which is very different to saying "I exercise my powers as head of the French government." In the "Déclaration organique" he sets out his case that the dissolution of the 3rd Republic was illegal, but makes no claim that the legitimate government of the republic has devolved upon him. He refers to the Free French as acting in the name of the French people until such time as they are free to elect a government in a constitutional manner. This makes it quite clear that the Free French are not, and cannot be, such a government, because they have no constitutional right to make such a claim. He signs as "Nous, Général de Gaulle, Chef des Français libre." If he was claiming to be the head of a government, he would have signed "Nous, Général de Gaulle, Chef du gouvernement temporaire de la République française" or some such formulation.
  • Next we have samples of Ordinances issued by de Gaulle from Brazzaville, setting out his claim to act in the name of France in the free territories of the French Empire. In Ordonnance n° 1, organisant les pouvoirs publics durant la guerre et instituant le Conseil de défense de l'Empire, he says: "Aussi longtemps qu'il n'aura pu être constitué un gouvernement français et une représentation du peuple français réguliers et indépendants de l'ennemi, les pouvoirs publics, dans toutes les parties de l'Empire libérés du contrôle de l'ennemi, seront exercés, sur la base de la législation française antérieure au 23 juin 1940." (Since it has not been possible for some time to constitute a French government and a representation of the French people which is lawful and independent of the enemy, the authority of the people (pouvoirs publics), in all the parts of the Empire released from the control of the enemy, will be exerted, on the basis of French legislation former to June 23, 1940). This could not be clearer. Since there is no lawful French government, the Free French will, in certain limited spheres, exercise the functions of government on the basis of the law as it was before the German occupation. Far from asserting a claim to be the government of France, de Gaulle explicitly renounces such a claim.
  • Next is the Ordinance of 24 September 1941, creating the Comité national français. This ordinance created a much more sophisticated political structure with quasi-governmental functions, in reaction to the increased status and legitimacy of de Gaulle's movement. It is still quite clear, however, that the Comité national is not claiming to be a government. De Gaulle now styles himself "Chef de la France combattante, Président du Comité national," not as a president. The quasi-ministerial powers created by this ordinance are to be exercised by "Commissaires nationaux", not ministers. René Pléven is "chargé de la coordination des départements administratifs civils," but he is not styled as a prime minister. This was still the case in May 1943 when de Gaulle reorganised the Comité national.
  • Finally we have the key document, the ordinance of 3 June 1944 "substituant au nom du Comité français de la Libération nationale celui de Gouvernement provisoire de la République française". Since this ordinance formally changes the Comité national to a provisional government ("Le Comité français de la Libération nationale prend le nom de gouvernement provisoire de la République française"), it must follow that it had not claimed the status of a provisional government previously.

On the matter of recogntion, there is some history here http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_14.html: "The cross-Channel invasion of June 6, 1944, was followed by a rapid Anglo-American movement through France in late July and August. The Allied armies were often aided by local uprisings of the French resistance. These events altered the relations between de Gaulle and Roosevelt, who had remained unwilling to recognize the Committee of National Liberation as a French government even when the invasion was launched. That had not prevented de Gaulle from proclaiming it the provisional government of the French Republic on June 2. Roosevelt's anger at this fait accompli was calmed when de Gaulle visited Washington in July. The United States then gave de facto recognition to the provisional government. French units participated after August 1 in the liberation of France, and de Gaulle staged a triumphant parade in Paris on August 26, the day after the city was jointly liberated by French and American forces. De jure recognition of de Gaulle's regime was granted formally by Britain, the USSR, and the United States on October 23 [1944]. At this time and in the months to come, de Gaulle made plain his determination that France should be treated in all respects as an equal of the great Allies."

Thus we learn that "De jure recognition of de Gaulle's regime was granted formally by Britain, the USSR, and the United States on October 23 [1944]". It must follow from this that no such de jure recognition had been given prior to that date. In other words, Churchill in 1940, and Britain and the USSR in 1941, had recognised de Gaulle only as a combatant, not as a head of government.

I will be interested to see how the evidence of these documents can possibly be refuted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I think it would be better to separate two questions: (1) the status of the Free French 1940-1942, and (2) the status if the CFLN 1943-1944. Unlike the Free French, the CFLN had significant territorial sovereignty, and enough self-sufficient military power to organize brigade-sized operations by itself (eg, liberation of Corsica). It was, really, much more like a government than the "other" government-in-exile at the time, the one in Vichy, that had zero territorial sovereignty and zero military forces. OTOH, this article is about the Free French, and should focus on the 1940-42 era. PpPachy (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That is of course true. But the CFLN still didn't call itself a government. De Gaulle may have been vain but he wasn't stupid. He knew he could not afford to antagonise Roosevelt, and proclaiming himself to be a head of government in 1943 would have been a foolish provocation. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There may be an unwritten rule saying something like "nothing that sits outside Paris can call itself a government of France". One could mention Louis XVI's Flight to Varennes, but also De Gaulle's earliest speeches from Britain in June 1940, where he expressed much disdain for the "gouvernement de Bordeaux" (not yet in Vichy). The message amounted to this hastily-formed government has fled, it has lost legitimacy, hence the Armistice it signed is null and void. This was possibly the reason the CFLN didn't call itself a government. PpPachy (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, since no-one has attempted to refute the documentary evidence I have presented, I am now returning the article to the corrected version. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. Your citation further prove that the successive authorities set up by De Gaulle assumed all functions of governments, and that they are explicitely declared as alternatives to the puppet government of Vichy. Your development on the term "government" amounts to a wordplay. With the same logic, one could state that there is no habeas corpus in the USA because nowhere does it state so.
These organisations are governments in function, in intent, and are explicitely named "government" by De Gaulle himself.
Your interest for the views and intentions of the US government of the time is commandable, but US intentions have never made history, and in this particular case they were never the central question at hand. Rama (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You are just being silly now. Anyone can see that the documents I have cited prove conclusively that the Free French did not claim to be a government and were not recognised as a government until 1944. These citations far outweigh the vague references to de Gaulle's memoirs, which is the only source you have cited.
  • I am not an American and I am not interested in your efforts to turn this into a debate about the US. Kindly stick to the subject. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You are the one turning the USAyan position into a source of historical truth. I have repeatedly said that it should not be given undue weight.
The documents you cite conclusively prove that the Free French claimed to be an alternative to the Vichy government, and that they assume the functions of a government. Thus your denying is a mere wordplay.
This wordplay is voided and nullified by the citation by De Gaulle. Rama (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Rama: As I, unfortunately, have no access to de Gaulle's Mémoires, I would appreciate your kindness in posting the whole sentence - even paragraph - of your quote re: "Read Mémoires de Guerre, L'Appel, chapter La France combattante. It cites the composition of the government, and states "le Comité serait le gouvernment" and "le chef des Français Libres prît des responsabilités d'État". I would like to see these in their context. You are correct in noting that the first is in the conditional; however, in reading the on-going argument, and the comment by Med in the last revision: rv. "le Comité serait le gouvernment" and "le chef des Français Libres prît des responsabilités d'État". (See talk.), I am left under the impression that "le chef des Français libres prît des responsabilités d'État" is being translated as "the chief of the Free French took on the responsibilities of the State". This would be an incorrect translation. This phrase is not written in the “prétérit de l’indicatif” (preterite of the indicative), thus not stating that the "chief of the Free French took on responsibilities of the State". The accent circonflexe on the "i" of prît marks the use of the imparfait du subjonctif (imperfect of the subjunctive), in which mode, the author was not stating that the chief of the Free French took on responsibilities of the State: the whole statement is a “could be/should be/would be” type of conditional, as in "should this be done, the following could/would happen." Frania W. (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The quotation is
Je pouvais donc donner au Comité une composition valable. Pour la France Combattante, le Comité national serait l'organe de direction réuni autour de moi. Les « commissaires » y délibéreraient collectivement de toutes nos affaires. Chacun d'eux aurait à diriger un des « départements » où s'exerçait notre activité. Tous seraient solidaires des décisions prises. En somme, le Comité serait le Gouvernement. Il en aurait les attribution et la structure. Toutefois il n'en porterait pas le titre, que je réservais pour le jour, si lointain qu'il dût être encore, où pourrait se former un pouvoir aux dimensions de l'unité française.
(emphasis added).
Frania W., as you see, is this context, the “could be/should be/would be” does not mean "should this be done, the following could/would happen", but "in the past we had this prospect, and the following would happen later, and in fact did happen".
The quotation fully supports my statement that the Comité was in fact a government and that the avoidance of the term was purely a political manoeuver without factual substance. Rama (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, and thus original research. To say that the Free French were a government, you must produce a contemporary document in which they claimed to be a government. So far, despite repeated requests, you have failed to do so. De Gaulle's memoirs are not a contemporary source. In any case, in the quote you have given, de Gaulle actually says that the Free French were not to describe themselves as a government. Given that, and given that no other government recognised them as a government until 1944, there is no basis for asserting that they "really" were one. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

First it is not an opinion, it is de Gaulle position. Then you need to take some french lessons as it precisely says it is a government and that he only did not want to use this name for certain reasons. Saying that Rama has failed to produce the documents is bad faith from your part. He has produced the most pertinent first hand document on the subject which you just do not understand. The source being contemporary or not is strictly of no importance at all. Please do not try to invent ad hoc criteria. Med (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The Comité matched every criteria in the definition of a government; it was said to be a government; and it is said that if the word "government" does not appear officially, it was for political purposes. So yes, as facts matter, it was a government.
As far as words do, it might not have been. But
1) Intelligent Mr Toad has already tried to make "being headed by something called a 'president' or 'prime minister'" a criteria for being a government, so I question his competence for fixing criterias
2) with similar wordplays, one could deny facts like the USA having habeas corpus.
Rama (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Rama, for the quote. What I understand from de Gaulle’s lines after reading them in the context of the whole paragraph is that his Comité national would have the same composition as that of a government, but would not have the name of government until one could be formed after consultation of the French people.
Further, nowhere can I find that de Gaulle’s Comité in London was a government, “provisoire” or “en exil”, or that London was the "capital-in-exile" for any such French government. The first mention of “gouvernement provisoire” is that created in Algiers on 3 June 1944.
Here are two links, one to the Archives nationales de France, the other to the Assemblée nationale:
http://www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/chan/chan/pdf/sm/A_2007.pdf
http://www.assembleenationale.fr/histoire/histoire-1940.asp Frania W. (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What de Gaulle says is that the Comité is a government but will not use the word “gouvernement” in its name for political reasons. Med (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rama needs to learn something about Wikipedia's rules of evidence. Whatever de Gaulle's motives or intentions may have been, he states quite clearly, in the source Rama has himself provided, that the Free French would not style themselves as a government. Since there is no contemporary document in which they do style themselves as a government, and since no other government recognised them as being one, that is the reality that a Wikipedia article must reflect. To say that de Gaulle intended to act as a government may or may not be true, but in the absence of evidence it is only an opinion. Rama should drop his tone of arrogant sarcasm and present us with some evidence that the Free French ever styled themselves as a government. If he can't do so, his position is untenable. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And you have to stop being arrogant and having a bad faith. de Gaulle's quote explains that 1) the Comité was a governement 2) he did not use the word “gouvernement” for political reasons. De Gaulle's quote completely shots down your position and pretty much closes the debate. You are just playing on words. Med (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Trying to understand how different meanings can be put into de Gaulle’s written words, I read the paragraph over & over. If the quote ended with “En somme, le Comité serait le Gouvernement”, I would have to agree that de Gaulle did form a government as early as 1940, which could be considered a government in exile in London, although British authorities would have had to officially recognize it, which they never did. De Gaulle & the French who were with him in London were exiles, not representatives of a French government in exile.

Continuing:

(1) “Il en aurait les attributions et la structure.” : a clear statement that the Comité is constructed like a government. De Gaulle is a military man with the expressed desire to save his country and who is surrounded with military people & politicians (in exile) used to work within rules & regulations. There is nothing strange that he should create a Comité in the image of a government. Which does not mean that it was a government, as what follows clearly states:

(2) “Toutefois, il n’en porterait pas le titre…”, so de Gaulle himself refuses to officially give his organization the name “government”.

(3) “… que je réservais pour le jour, si lointain qu’il dût être encore, où pourrait se former un pouvoir aux dimensions de l’unité française." In this last sentence, de Gaulle leaves no doubt that the Comité, although formed like a government, is not a government, and will be only when the French people are united behind the new power to be formed. The words “que je réservais” are quite explicit in that he “reserved” the name “government” only after the French people were united.

From reading the above, it is clear to me that, even if in all regards the first Comité & the couple more "organisms" that followed were French government “provisoire” or “en exil”, it was not de Gaulle’s intention to call them so. He had enough on his hands trying to persuade the Anglo-Americans to take him & his followers seriously & include them in the battle against the Axis, and willingly avoided the word "government" while he was in London. He knew too well what Roosevelt’s opinion of him was. One faux pas & his dream for France was gone in smoke.

En résumé, and from de Gaulle's own admission, there was never a French government in exile in London, only Frenchmen in exile. And it is only when the" « Comité français de libération nationale » took the name of « Gouvernement provisoire de la République française » on 3 June 1944 in Algiers that there was a “gouvernement provisoire”. And that government was not in exile, but on French soil - Algeria, a French département at the time. Frania W. (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You have forgotten the key sentence : “En somme, le Comité serait le Gouvernement”. This totally contradicts your conclusion “there was never a French government in exile”. Please, do not cherry pick a sentence here and there. De Gaulle explicitely says this was a government and why he does not use the word government in the title and there is nothing you can do about that. His last sentence is only the explanation about why he did not use the word government while the Comité is a government from his own words. Regarding Roosevelt, contrarily to what you may think, de Gaulle did not seek his approval on what he did and fought so that France interests would prevail ("De Gaulle et Roosevelt" by Kersaudy is an interesting book regarding their relation for those who are interested in the question). You may read about the Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon liberation for instance while at the same time the USA were collaborating with the fascist puppet regime of Vichy or you may read about the AMGOT attempt soon after d-day, which failed thanks to De Gaulle. Those actions (among many others) did not precisely please Roosevelt. Med (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about de Gaulle and Roosevelt, nor about the status of the Vichy regime. Nor is it a discussion about points of French grammar. It is a discussion about whether or not the Free French organisation in London described itself as a government, or whether any other government recognised it as a government, before June 1944. So far neither Rama nor Med have produced one scrap of evidence that either of these things occurred. In fact Rama has conceded, based on de Gaulle's own statement, that the Free French did not use the word "government" to describe themselves. Rama may be right that this was done only for tactical reasons, but that is not the point. A Wikipedia article must describe what actually occurred, not enage in speculation or mindreading. I would be happy to include a sentence to the effect that de Gaulle intended the Free French to function as a government in exile, provided it is properly sourced. But assertions that the Free French were a government, or called themselves a government, or were recognised as a government, are plainly false, and must be removed. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. It is about whether the Comité was a government. And is this respect, it had all attributes, and therefore was one.
The attitude of focusing on the use of the term to style themselves is a denial of reality. Again, with such arguments, one could deny facts like the USA using habeas corpus; which has indeed been denied, only to ridicule those uttering the argument. Rama (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not deal in what individual editors happen to think was the reality. They deal in what can be documented. You cannot document the Free French calling themselves a government, because they didn't do so, as you have conceded. Therefore this article cannot say that they were a government. All it can do is to say that in someone's opinion they acted as though they were a government - though even this must be sourced. I am not going to go on repeating this point endlessly just because you are too stubborn to accept it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could stop insulting other contributors here and elsewhere, i would be thankful. Med (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree with Intelligent Mr Toad that this is not a discussion about points of French grammar, but when proof of an argument is given with a quotation in French taken out of context & not translated correctly, thus giving the wrong impression as to what the author was saying, then French grammar has to be used in the argument. This being said, I am leaving the matter to rest.

When I entered this discussion, I gave two links that seemed to have been ignored:

one to the Archives nationales de France http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:9sjA6Bd8ZFkJ:www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/chan/chan/pdf/sm/A_2007.pdf+Archives+nationales+Fran%C3%A7ais+libres+Londres+1940&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

the other to the Assemblée nationale. http://www.assembleenationale.fr/histoire/histoire-1940.asp

At the risk of making this an even longer page, I am adding excerpts relative to de Gaulle’s 1940-1944 organisations.

  • 1

ARCHIVES NATIONALES (please note the numbers ahead of the names of articles are the archives « carton » numbers) :

État général des fonds des Archives nationales (Paris). Mise à jour 2007.

SÉRIE A COLLECTIONS ORIGINALES DE LOIS ET DE DÉCRETS

Intitulé : COLLECTIONS ORIGINALES DE LOIS ET DE DÉCRETS

Niveau de classement : série du cadre de classement.

Dates extrêmes : 1789-1944.

Importance matérielle : 432,50 m.l. (1912 articles).

Conditions d’accès : librement communicable mais, dans la mesure où les documents sont fragiles et où toutes les lois ont été publiées, les originaux des lois ne sont sortis que pour les expositions ou les photographies.

Noms des producteurs : Assemblées, ministère de la Justice et Présidence du Conseil.

Sources complémentaires :

- Archives d’autres producteurs en relation : Six registres d'enregistrement des lois et décrets, 25 mai 1940-23 avril 1946, se trouvent en F/60/1 à 6.

- Sources complémentaires sur le plan documentaire :

- Journal officiel de la France libre (Bulletin officiel des Forces françaises libres, 15 août 1940 et Journal officiel de la France libre, 20 janvier 1941-16 septembre 1943), Paris, Éditions du Journal Officiel, 1995.

- Journal officiel de la République française. Édition d'Alger de juin 1943 à août 1944, Paris, Éditions du Journal Officiel, 1996.

Sources de la notice :

III. COLLECTION ORIGINALE DES LOIS PROVENANT DE LA CHANCELLERIE ET DU SERVICE LÉGISLATIF DE LA PRÉSIDENCE DU CONSEIL

A1847 à 1858. État français : lois. Juillet 1940-16 août 1944.

A1859 à 1892. État français : décrets généraux et individuels. Juillet 1940-17 août 1944.

A1893 à 1895. État français : décrets individuels classés par objet (nationalité, dispense d'âge; changement de nom).

État général des fonds des Archives nationales (Paris). Mise à jour 2007.

A1896 à 1899. France libre, puis France combattante, Londres : textes organiques, ordonnances, décrets généraux et individuels, arrêtés, décisions, instructions, circulaires, citations, accords internationaux. Octobre 1940-juin 1943.

A1900 et 1901. Haut-Commissariat de France en Afrique française, 13 novembre 1942- 5 février 1943 ;

Commandement en chef français civil et militaire, Alger, 5 février-1er juin 1943  : ordonnances, décisions générales, arrrêtés, instructions, circulaires, décisions individuelles. 2 volumes reliés.

A1902 à 1912. Comité français de la Libération nationale (C.F.L.N.), 3 juin 1943-3 juin 1944, puis Gouvernement provisoire de la République française (G.P.R.F.), Alger, 3 juin-9 septembre 1944 : ordonnances, décrets généraux, décrets individuels et décrets individuels classés par objet (nationalité, dispense d'âge, changement de nom), arrêtés, décisions, circulaires.

La suite des lois et décrets originaux du Gouvernement provisoire de la République française et de la Quatrième République sont au Centre des archives contemporaines à Fontainebleau.

  • 2

ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE :

Le 18 juin 1940, le général de Gaulle lance, sur les ondes de la B.B.C., mise à sa disposition par le Premier ministre britannique Winston Churchill, un appel aux Français et à la résistance française. Peu à peu s'organisent en métropole des réseaux et des mouvements de résistance. Le 26 juin 1940, le général de Gaulle crée à Londres le Comité français. Le gouvernement britannique reconnaît le général de Gaulle comme chef de tous les Français libres; l'accord du 7 août fixe les rapports entre le Royaume Uni et la France libre. Dès l'automne, après le ralliement des Nouvelles-Hébrides et de la Polynésie, des comptoirs de l'Inde, de la Nouvelle Calédonie, l'Afrique équatoriale française et le Cameroun sont placés, grâce à l'action du commandant Leclerc, sous l'autorité de la France libre et du Comité français. Le 27 octobre 1940, est créé, à Brazzaville, le Conseil de défense de l'Empire, composé de représentants des territoires ralliés à la France Libre, de chefs militaires et de personnalités de la France libre. Il sera reconnu, le 24 décembre, par le Gouvernement britannique. En janvier 1941, est décidée la publication d'un Journal Officiel de la France Libre. Un décret du 29 janvier 1941 organise les services civils de la France libre. Le 24 septembre 1941, est créé le Comité national français, composé de huit "commissaires nationaux (qui) assurent toutes les attributions, individuelles ou collectives, normalement dévolues aux ministres français."

Après le débarquement des Alliés en Afrique du Nord, en novembre 1942, de longues et difficiles négociations se déroulent entre le Comité national français, créé par le général de Gaulle à Londres en 1941, et le général Giraud, installé à la tête de l'administration et de l'armée françaises en Afrique du Nord avec le soutien des États-Unis. Le 3 juin 1943 est créé à Alger, le Comité Français de Libération Nationale, co-présidé par le général de Gaulle et le général Giraud. Il compte en outre cinq puis douze et enfin dix-sept commissaires. Les États-Unis essaient, par tous les moyens, d'imposer au général de Gaulle le général Giraud, finalement évincé le 9 novembre 1943,. restera commandant en chef de l'armée jusqu'en avril 1944.. Le Comité est officiellement reconnu par les États-Unis, la Grande Bretagne et l'Union soviétique en août 1943 puis par 37 pays à la fin de la même année.

L'ordonnance du 1er février 1944 crée les Forces françaises de l'Intérieur (F.F.I.), regroupant toutes les formations militaires : Armée secrète, Francs-Tireurs et Partisans français, Organisation de résistance de l'armée. Le 21 avril 1944 est approuvée l'ordonnance concernant l'exercice des pouvoirs civils et militaires sur le territoire métropolitain au cours de sa libération. L'Assemblée consultative débat et approuve un grand nombre de textes qui marquent le rétablissement de la France et préparent sa libération. Le 3 juin 1944 le Comité français de libération nationale prend le nom de Gouvernement provisoire de la République française. Le 12 juillet 1944, le Gouvernement américain fait connaître que : "Les États-Unis reconnaissent que le Comité français de la libération nationale est qualifié pour exercer l'administration de la France". Le 23 octobre 1944, les trois grandes puissances, les États-Unis, l'Union soviétique et le Royaume Uni reconnaissent le Gouvernement provisoire de la République française. La France obtient bientôt l'assurance d'un siège de membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité de l'Organisation des Nations Unies dont elle sera l'un des membres fondateurs. Elle obtient également la promesse d'une zone d'occupation en Allemagne.

Frania W. (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Frania, you obviously understand French well enough to get a grasp of the meaning of the sentence but not well enough to get its exact meaning. I do not criticise you, de Gaulle literary style is not simple. De Gaulle sentence is beyond any doubt for anyone perfectly fluent in french. Sorry to repeat it but it is a key point, de Gaulle said that 1) the Comité was a government and 2) he explained why he did not use the word gouvernement. Your quotes are perfectly in agreement with his explanation and do not bring anything new to the debate. Rama has given a quote of utmost importance which proves beyond any doubt that the Comité was a government (and it acted as such in all territories under its control). I still fail to see any quote from your part that would contradict de Gaulle's quote. Med (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, lots of speciousness in the case that the Free French were a government - treating sentences in the conditional and subjunctive as though they are stating definitive facts, treating De Gaulle's memoirs as though they're the dispositive documents on the subject, etc. The basic fact is that the Free French were very distinctly not a government in exile of a sort comparable to the Polish, Yugoslav, Greek, Norwegian, Belgian, or Dutch governments in exile, or even to the extent of the Czechoslovak government in exile. They obviously took on some of the functions of a government, but not really very much until after the Torch landings and the business in Algeria, which was actually only related to the Free French in a fairly complicated way. Anyway, it's pretty clear that it was only on June 3, 1944, that the Free French declared themselves a proper government. The use of "former state" templates, by the way, is particularly stupid. Even the Polish government-in-exile article, which is indisputably about, er, a government-in-exile, doesn't use that template. john k (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear John. I think de Gaulle is far more knowledgeable on the subject than any of us here. De Gaulle says the Comité was a government. Perhaps the sentence looks confusing for a non native, but for a native french speaker such as Rama and i, it is clear. I still fail to see any quote stating the Comité was not a government de facto, that could be put into balance with it.
Here a first try for a compromise. At the very least it should be stated that the Free French considered themselves as a government-in-exile (as opposed to a government-in-exile in general) specifying de Gaulle's explanation why they did not use the word gouvernement on purpose and that they were a de facto government for territories under their control. No particular need to repeat that several times, just once in the introduction so readers are aware about the ambiguity and we can get rid of the "government-in-exile" in the remaining part of the article. About the infobox i liked it as it was but i am open to suggestions. Perhaps a specially tailored one would make everyone happy but we need to reach an agreement first. What do you think of this? Please to you all propose improvements taking into account all sides arguments no just your own side or we are in a dead-end. I have no idea what Rama thinks about my proposal, as we seem to share a similar arguments his contributions would be most welcome too. I sincerely feel my proposal is midway between our position and yours. Regards, Med (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That they functioned de facto as a government-in-exile over territories they ruled is, I think, indisputable. That they considered themselves a government-in-exile seems highly disputable, and I would dispute it. De Gaulle is obviously knowledgeable about the subject, but he is biased, and memoirs are never the best source for things like this. De Gaulle's memoirs tells us what De Gaulle thought about it decades later, not what he thought about it at the time. Beyond that, if this were an issue of my comprehension of French, then why is the French wikipedia article on France libre unwilling to say that it was a government in exile? john k (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, I am rather surprised at the way this issue is a matter of debate (and a rather polarised one, at that) rather than documentation in the article. Because in essence there seems to be a general consensus on the key points:
  1. the Free French were de facto a government in exile
  2. they circumvented the term "government" officially
Considerations like De Gaulle being biased or whatever are not crucial, since we use his testimony as commentary to the official documents founding the Comité and other bodies of government of the Free French.
Eventually, it all comes down to a matter of wording. Rama (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
john k, the French article says
  • À la suite de la Charte de l'Atlantique, adoptée le 14 août 1941 par Churchill et Roosevelt et proclamant le principe d'autodétermination des peuples, de Gaulle les prit au mot et créa enfin à Londres un véritable gouvernement de la France libre, sous le nom de Comité national français le 24 septembre 1941.
  • Ce ralliement d'un nombre appréciable de civils, avait contribué à encourager de Gaulle à constituer à la tête de la France libre un véritable organisme politique avec pour objectif de se faire reconnaître comme un gouvernement en exil. Il avait pourtant fallu attendre le 24 septembre 1941 pour voir émerger le Comité national français, qui fit réellement fonction de gouvernement de la France libre.
I leave the rest to your fine command of the French language.
Note that it also mentions recognition of the Comité by the British and Soviet governments. Rama (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I saw those bits. The first says basically that he created the Comité, which it chooses to call a "veritable government." It does not, however, describe it as a government in exile. The second quote merely states that it was their "objective" to be recognized as a government in exile, with no indication of success, and that it had the "function of government." As to recognition, I am fairly certain that the British did not recognize the Comité as a government in exile, but merely as the "representative of Free France," or some such. There were no ambassadors commissioned to the Free French as there were to the de jure governments in exile. john k (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how there can be a "de facto government in exile." A government in exile is by defintion a symbolic continuation of the legitimacy of a government which no longer controls its territory. The Luxembourg government in exile governed no part of Luxembourg, but maintained the de jure independence of Luxembourg at a symbolic level. If a group of exiles is to be described as a government in exile, they must assert that they are one. De Gaulle's various organisations did not do this. They controlled armed forces and gradually asserted control over France's colonies, but they not claim at a symbolic level to be the government of France. This was not just a matter of tactics as Rama asserts. Constitutionally, that could only have been done that if President Lebrun had commissioned de Gaulle as prime minister, which he didn't. De Gaulle could not claim to be leading a government without violating the constitution, and he didn't.

I have already shown that the UK and USSR did not recognise de Gaulle as head of a government until 1944. Asserting the contrary is just dishonent.

Also I dispute that the Free French in London directly administered any French colonies before 1943. Those (very few) colonial governors who supported de Gaulle continued to the administer the colonies themselves. De Gaulle had no means from London to exercise control over colonies. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Free French exercised the entirety of the powers devoted to a government. They were not simply a military command. The way in which they pose themselves as an alternative to the Vichy government voids your assertion that they would not "claim at a symbolic level to be the government of France".
You may disagree with De Gaulle regarding the tactical nature of not officially calling the Free French a government. However, De Gaulle's opinion is notable. Yours is not.
You have not shown anything like this about the UK and USSR. You have shown that they did recognise the government in 1944, which noone doubts. You are fooling yourself in a logical fallacy. Furthermore, I deeply resent people questoning my honesty; I do not call you a liar, I would appreciate that you returned the favour.
I fail to grasp your point regarding colonies. Power was exercised through colonial governors. I don't see how this is different from what the Third Republic did. Rama (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is all very tiresome. The most important thing about the Free French is that they were not a government in exile in the way that the Dutch or Greek or Belgian or Polish governments-in-exile were. They were a weird beast. Certainly, they exercised some of the functions of a government after 1941, but that's not the same thing at all. And, once again, de Gaulle's memoirs are not a reliable source. Find a reliable secondary source which makes this claim. john k (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Free French exercised the entirety of the powers devoted to a government." This is a ridiculous assertion, and shows your total ignorance of wartime history, despite your arrogant pomposity. During 1940 and most of 1941 de Gaulle commanded a small military and naval force and a handful of civilian supporters. He exercised no "powers" at all, not even symbolically.
  • "I don't see how this is different from what the Third Republic did." The Third Republic had a colonial office and an army of civil servants which supervised the government of the colonies. De Gaulle had nothing.
  • "I deeply resent people questoning my honesty." Then stop making statements which you know to be untrue, such as that the UK and the USSR recognised the Free French as a government.
  • Since, however, you have chosen not to revert the article to its incorrect form, I think we can regard this debate as concluded. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent Mr Toad, I would really appreciate if you could refrain from insulting people. It is possible to address people's concerns in a civilised manner.
The founding document of the Comité certainly does define a whole range of powers, at least symbolic ones. Incidentally, I do not understand your "even symbolic": most governments in exile exercise symbolic power. By your implied standard, governments in exile cannot exist.
De Gaulle had people like Éboué. What is your point?
I did not claim that the UK and the USSR recognised the Free French as a government. Calm down and read what I write instead of what you invent. Rama (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


After what I believed to be the best "pièces à conviction" from the Archives nationales de France & Assemblée nationale to oppose to Med & Rama's argumentation, I found this fr:wiki article "Historique des gouvernements de la France": http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historique_des_gouvernements_de_la_France

I also checked all articles pertaining to French History. None of the infoboxes show de Gaulle's first Comité & following in the 1940/1943 period as being either a "gouvernement provisoire" or a "gouvernement en exil", are listed only: 3rd Republic to 1940, Vichy 1940 to 1944, Gouvernement provisoire 1944 to 1946, then 4th Republic etc. If only one of de Gaulle's "governmental" organisations was considered to be a "government", then it would be included somewhere - maybe in parallel with the Vichy régime, but it is not. However, the "gouvernement provisoire" in Algiers is. The only French government that could have been declared "en exil" if it had chosen to go to London would have been the one in place at the time of the defeat of France, ie. that of Albert Lebrun/Paul Reynaud.

Med & Rama, si vous avez raison, vous avez pas mal de travail sur la planche pour corriger les omissions et erreurs de tous ces articles, autrement en quel article pourrait-on avoir confiance si Wikipedia racontait un truc ici et son contraire là ? Bon courage, Messieurs!

By the way, cher Med, quant à vos doutes sur mon français, je me débrouille pas mal dans l'emploi de l'imparfait du subjonctif et n'ai besoin ni de dictionnaire ni de traducteur pour lire de Gaulle. Frania W. (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)