There were plenty of examples of French bravery and sacrifice in the 1940. It's just unfortunate that many choose to listen to their inner bigotry/prejudices and historical innaccuracies to make their flawed conclusions. Also, there is not as much interest generated by 1939-1940 than there is with 1944-45, and very few French publications on 1940 unit/regimental actions of the May-June battle have been translated into English. Lastly, I think a lot of attention has been given to their commanders who were inept at controlling the situation as opposed to the actual soldiers in the field. But the facts are there and they remain: for all the flaws and disasters which befell the French during those dark 6 weeks of 1940, they have the right be proud of a very many units/regiments/divisions which fought bravely and courageously under the very worst of circumstances. They didn't lose approximately 92,000 KIAs by running away.
i reckon that when the french guy surrendered in that railcoach in compiegne,the nation had the franco/prussian defeat still in the nations psyche.maybe they thought o.k,we will lose alsace-lorraine,but that wont be too bad.when they did give up,vichy was a large area,could france have continued to the very last bullet.yours,lee. That is an interesting question, and one which I've wondered about myself. Before learning of the details of the Armistice, I do wonder if the French expected there would be a change of territorial ownership, in France and in the colonies, followed by large sums of reparations and perhaps a temporary occupation of sorts? Certainly, indefinite occupation by a foreign power bent on Eurasian domination and using racial superiority as one of it's primary justifications, was surely something new.
, the war had been lost by their politicians & Generals not the French soldier. Couldn't agree more! After reading several accounts by French soldiers lifted off the beaches of "Dunkirk", they were saddened (and surprised) that they were being taken out of the war (no matter how temporarily) as they believed that they would (and should) be getting transported out of the trap and being re-landed further down the coast to continue the fight. hardly the mentality of a defeated army. Originally Posted by 4th wilts i reckon that when the french guy surrendered in that railcoach in compiegne,the nation had the franco/prussian defeat still in the nations psyche.maybe they thought o.k,we will lose alsace-lorraine,but that wont be too bad. The memory of the defeat of 1871 was very much in the psyche of most Frenchmen - after all that was what was behind much of the ideas behind the suicidal attacks of 1914. Hatred became a very underestimated emotion in the France of the post-1871 years as it ran a lot deeper than "just" losing a bit of land of having to pay reparations. The country was almost crippled and the effects were felt down to the lowliest peasant with civil war almost being the outcome (hence the recall of German troops). There's no way that a Frenchman in 1940 would have seen surrender to the Germans as an "easy option" - they'd been there before! Dave
but the french were certainly used to fighting prussia-germany,three times in 70 odd years.what i want to know is why,if the hatred ran so deep,was the vichy area so large.why did they not fight to the bitter end.yours,lee.
i cannot see churchill sueing for peace,halfway up the midlands of england.yours,lee. Well, that is pure speculation on your part.
Exactly! It might well have been taken out of his hands by that stage. Halifax could well have been Prime Minister if that had happened. But this is all conjecture.
but the french were certainly used to fighting prussia-germany,three times in 70 odd years.what i want to know is why,if the hatred ran so deep,was the vichy area so large.why did they not fight to the bitter end.yours,lee. Because they came to a point where they were out manouvred and had absolutely no reserves left. Some of the French Government wanted to continue the fight but other parts wanted an end to the bloodshed as the war was effectively lost anyway and they didn't want to see France laid waste and her manhood destroyed for no gain.
i am in no way calling french cowards.do you think the maginot line made france complacent at all,from the government down to the generals and so on.yours,lee.
i am in no way calling french cowards.do you think the maginot line made france complacent at all,from the government down to the generals and so on.yours,lee. Well, we should keep in mind that the Maginot Line, as originally planned, was essentially incomplete. I think it made the French high commanders more over-confident rather than complacent.
i am noot privy to the complete plans for maginot,but i dont understand why they never fortified the belgian border too.yours,lee.
i am noot privy to the complete plans for maginot,but i dont understand why they never fortified the belgian border too.yours,lee. The ofiicial line is that the ground was too soft and the water table too high for such a large underground stucture. If you bewleive that or not?? Poltical maytbe. At the time Belgium was very much of the Allies making, building a large fortification on the doorstep either shows little faith in your ally or is just plain rude?? Kev
Belgium was neutral not an ally. France had to hope Germany respected that. Germany didn't. Only then did Belguim become an ally.
the french should have known about hitlers ambitions,perhaps they did,but it seems to me a blunder of the highest order not to fortify the belgian border.yours,lee.
Well the actual blunder was building the line in the first place imho. It engendered a defensive mindedness that the French could not shake off once war had started.
so getting back to the question about french fighting,do you think this defensive mindness was a factor in the battle of france,certainly in the high command,but also running down the military ladder.yours,lee.
To be accurate, the Belgian border was fortified. It had a complex, and numerous series of bunkers, plus minefields, anti-tank rails, barbed wire and much else. The fact that it was "un-fortified" is one of the myths of the Maginot Line. However, it can certainly be argued that the defences, say, at Lille, were not the same at Fermont, Villy la Ferte or many other locations were the Maginot Line was at its strongest. The majority of these locations were never breached or conquered by the Germans.
The Belgians had their own forts around Liege, Namur and the most famous one at Eben Emael. As Paul says most on the Maginot forts held out until the Armistice in June 1940. The French soldiers believed as they had not surrendered they would not be classed as POWs under the trms of the Armistice. Unfortunately for them the Germans had other ideas and carted them of to captivity. Another term of the Armistice with German was that for the French had to make a seperate Armistice with the Italians who had attacked France very late on in June. That upset the French as they had repulsed the Italian attacks easily. They hadn't been defeated by Italy at all. It was all part of Hitlers revenge on France for German humilation after WW1.
i seen an australian bloke on t.v some time ago,who was a f.o.o.he won a v.c i think,he was fighting in syria i believe.he praised the french big time.i believe this was 1940.yours,4th wilts.
