Vichy France vs Occupied France

[Saigon]

I was watching the movie 'Charlotte Grey' the other day, in which a French officer collaborating with th Nazis claimed that 'there is no more patriotic act than collaborating, because only collaboration ensures France will survive'.

It's an interesting idea - tens of thousands of French people died fighting the Nazis, only to eventually be overwhelmed by the strength of Nazi forces.

Were they right to fight, or would they have been better to have admitted on day one that they had no chance of success on the battlefield, and simply accepted Nazi rule as an inevitable, but short-term, reality.

 

[Toro]

Yeah, I'm not surprised this hasn't gained on traction on a US board.

 

[AmyNation]

Can you imagine if everyone had had that mentality? To simply surrender because they might not win?

What's that saying... A hero dies once but a coward dies a thousand times.

 

[rightwinger]

They are French....

What else do you expect of them?

 

[Saigon]

Hm....predictable responses and my initial thoughts as well, but there is another angle on this one.

What did the French gain by throwing tens of thousands of lives into a war that was lost from day one?

 

[rightwinger]

Hm....predictable responses and my initial thoughts as well, but there is another angle on this one.

What did the French gain by throwing tens of thousands of lives into a war that was lost from day one?

In retrospect, they gave a minimal effort defending their country. The French Resistance suffered more and contributed more to liberation

Why was DeGaulle such a Douchebag?

 

[theHawk]

I don't think anyone knew at the time just how good the Nazis were at the time, and how ill-prepared the French were (as well as the English). So it wasn't a stupid decision to oppose the invading army at first.

What was stupid was the French not giving up their fleet to the British. It forced the Brits to sink their ships otherwise they could of been taken by Germans. Nearly 1300 French died from the British attack.

 

[Saigon]

I think the French fought valiantly to defend France, but they were hampered by terrible planning. The Maginot Line was a fatal error from which they could never recover. I've never understood the preconception that the French were "surrender monkeys" - they were simply outgunned and out-thought.

I agree that the Nazis were stronger than anyone realised.

 

[Meathead]

Hm....predictable responses and my initial thoughts as well, but there is another angle on this one.

What did the French gain by throwing tens of thousands of lives into a war that was lost from day one?

The Czech's army inaction in the face of German occupation remains a touchy issue here. At the end of the day, not fighting on their end resulted in some poor (probably Russian) bastard dying in the fields of his country. The munitions and personnel and other resources that the Germans saved as a result were used elsewhere.

 

[Saigon]

Hm....predictable responses and my initial thoughts as well, but there is another angle on this one.

What did the French gain by throwing tens of thousands of lives into a war that was lost from day one?

The Czech's army inaction in the face of German occupation remains a touchy issue here. At the end of the day, not fighting on their end resulted in some poor (probably Russian) bastard dying in the fields of his country. The munitions and personnel and other resources that the Germans saved as a result were used elsewhere.

That is a good point - anyone fighting the Nazis slowed them down and used up their resources. I suppose we could say that in the end that attrtional loss of manpower cost them the war.

Certainly Finland take pride in the fact that we stopped the Red Army in their tracks and help them up for the best part of three years - during which time they lost thousands of men who would otherwise have been in Stalingrad.

So quite apart from saving Finland, we also may have turned the balance of the war thousands of miles away.

 

[Sunni Man]

You can never over estimate the French ego and self importance ........

 

[Decus]

The French never recovered from World War I. Their methods were locked in the past (Maginot and a system of fortresses were just one example). French leadership was abysmal and frought with incompetency. Troop discipline, weaponry and tactics were wholly inadequate. Arrogance however was in no short supply, having been the on the winning side of WWI, many in the French armed forces were dismissive of the threat Germany presented.

 

[MHunterB]

I think the French fought valiantly to defend France, but they were hampered by terrible planning. The Maginot Line was a fatal error from which they could never recover. I've never understood the preconception that the French were "surrender monkeys" - they were simply outgunned and out-thought.

I agree that the Nazis were stronger than anyone realised.

It's a particularly gratuitous insult when it comes from Americans, since we really did benefit so greatly from French support in our war for independence - and I think it can be argued that the War of 1812 would have been more damaging to us if the English hadn't been drained by the effort of fighting Napoleon for so many years.....

There's also the nagging little question of how much did that help the French gave us, exacerbate their domestic difficulties and propel the French Revolution? Might it have been less of a bloodbath if the peasants weren't actually starving due to excessive taxes? Remember, dollars that go to war produce no GDP.....

Of course, my jingoistic fellow citizens aren't given to deep thought on most matters.....

As to 'nobody knew how strong the Germans were': if anyone had their eyes and ears open to the reports from Spain - I think they might've figured it out.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Nazis would have preferred that the whole world collaborate rather than fight them. Collaborators (today we call them democrats) look first to how collaboration would help them. Which is why when WWII was finally won, collaborators were dealt with so harshly, such as summary execution.

 

[Saigon]

The French never recovered from World War I. Their methods were locked in the past (Maginot and a system of fortresses were just one example). French leadership was abysmal and frought with incompetency. Troop discipline, weaponry and tactics were wholly inadequate. Arrogance however was in no short supply, having been the on the winning side of WWI, many in the French armed forces were dismissive of the threat Germany presented.

Yes, that's definitely true.

Warfare changed so rapidly from the Napoleonic Wars through to WWII, and it seems the French leadership were still stuck in the thinking of Waterloo and Crimea, not of Dunkirk and El Alamein.

 

[Saigon]

As to 'nobody knew how strong the Germans were': if anyone had their eyes and ears open to the reports from Spain - I think they might've figured it out.

I'm not so sure - I wasn't alive in 1938, but it seems that the Nazi regime only really revealed its hand when it roared into Poland, crushing everything in its path. They used new tactics, they were more mobile, had better planes, and were more uncompromising than perhaps any amy in history.

I can understand the French were totally unprepared for that power.