Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

April 12th, 2006

Tags

Comments

10 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The French didn’t lose…

This week’s Economist features a brilliant turn of phrase in its obituary for WWII French fighter pilot Pierre Clostermann :

Yet this was not a glorious moment for France. The surrender was followed by the setting up of a puppet regime in Vichy and a period of collaboration with the German occupiers that was to haunt Frenchmen for half a century. Officially, it was not so bad. The more shameful episodes of 1940-45 were not discussed, and in international councils post-war France was treated as a victor. But everyone knew that, actually, it had, er, come second.

I say old chap! Well played!

Comments to this entry

Dan tdaxp
April 12, 2006
12:52 am
While the Free French were busy shooting at Allied troops, their fellow frogs were busy with propaganda talking about the EEC!
Catholicgauze
April 12, 2006
1:23 am
I think France was the only country to lose the Second World War twice
Chief Wiggum
April 12, 2006
4:46 am
It's a mystery to me why France enjoyed any kind of elevated stature in the world following WWII. Oh, I forgot. Vichy was the best and most stable government they had enjoyed since 1789.

According to author Tony Jugt in _Postwar_, "_the Nazis administered France with only 1,500 of their own people. So confident were they of the reliability of the French police and militias that they assigned (in addition to their administrative staff) a mere 6,000 German civil and military police to ensure the compliance of a nation of 35 million._"
lirelou
April 12, 2006
8:04 am
Chief, probably because France was the communications zone, or COMMZ, for the very respectably sized Army we (the U.S.) kept forwrad deployed in Germany. Indeed, we had done much to re-arm the French Army during the Second World War (which allowed us to obtain the services of some of the finest mountain troops in Italy, under Mark Clarke's Fifth Army command) and which we were counting upon to provide a major portion of NATO's manpower in the '50s. Of course, that all came crashing down when De Gaulle showed us the door in the '60s.

Dan, I am unaware of any Free French forces fighting against the U.S., and indeed the 2nd Free French Armored Divison was, for a time, under Patton's command, while De Lattre's First French Army fought its way up from Southern to Eastern France and ended the war on the shores of Lake Constans. While there are many French who deserve criticism for their acquiescence to occupation, we should not lump those who had to guts to fight on among them. You are not, perchance, referring to the Vichy French in North Africa who opposed the Operation Torch landings? I will give you a link below to a French language site which lays out the dilemma that French troops faced in North Africa prior to the U.S. invasion.
lirelou
April 12, 2006
8:12 am
Chief, an account by a retired Foreign Legion cavalry colonel who, as a young man, evaded through Spain to reach North Africa and rejoin the French Army for the purpose of returning to fight Germans. This link is for year 1942. His entire site is well worth learning French just to view: http://www.duhamel.bz/souvenir/1942.htm
Chirol
April 12, 2006
8:20 am
Catholicgauze: Indeed. I've been saying that for years!
Dan tdaxp
April 12, 2006
1:08 pm
No, I'm not talking about the actions of the generally accepted Vichy French forces. Off Canada, for example, de Gaulle attacked islands against the wishes of his allies, and even held out when his allies threatened to send in their own military forces.
Alfred Russel Wallace
April 12, 2006
3:23 pm
De Gaulle seems to be the root cause of much of Europe's problems post-war. The Allies were so keen to ally themselves with anyone opposed to Hitler that they allowed him to attain a power that he exploited for decades. And it gets worse... Milosovich seems to have tried to out-de Gaulle him by adding thuggery to ridiculous jingoism....
Dan tdaxp
April 12, 2006
6:09 pm
Milosovich seems to have tried to out-de Gaulle him by adding thuggery to ridiculous jingoism"¦.


Interesting that de Gaulle and Milosevic both saw the disollution of their Empires -- de Gaulle by betraying the Algerians, Milosevic by attacking his fellow Yugoslavs.
lirelou
April 13, 2006
12:37 am
Dan, since no shots were exchanged between Free French and Canadian troops, your assertion that the FF "were busy shooting at allied troops" is overstated. Reference De Gaulle's "betraying" the Algerians, his responsibilities were to the French, not to the Algerians. With over forty years of hindsight, I think it safe to say it was a wise decision, however tragic for the Pieds-noir and harkis.
Dear co-discoverer: The particular "Ally" in question was Winston Churchill, who had to lean on Roosevelt to accept De Gaulle and the Free French. As you know, Sir Winston later commented that the greatest cross he ever had to bear was the Cross of Lorraine, but he evidently considered it worth the drudgery.