"Dubious Liberators: Allied Plans to Occupy France, " Topic
15 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Media Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land World War Two at Sea World War Two in the Air
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleYou can pick up a toy blimp in the local toy department for less than a dollar.
Featured Profile ArticlePaul Glasser previews the upcoming expansion set for War at Sea.
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 15 Feb 2018 12:54 p.m. PST |
..1942-1944. "…French historians have tended to react ambivalently to American policy on France during the last half of World War II. They describe a dual American role as liberators and thwarted oppressors, citing first-hand knowledge of American distribution of U.S.-printed "occupation francs" and clashes between Allied and Gaullist civil affairs authorities as evidence of the Allies' initial intentions. The French enjoyed fewer civil rights and food rations after liberation than they had under Nazi rule throughout the summer of 1944—a fact that became less understandable after the triumphant troops had rolled eastward. Franklin D. Roosevelt personifies the roots of French mistrust of the United States. The president often expressed contempt for France's quick defeat to Germany in May-June 1940. In Roosevelt's view, that defeat, coupled with the shame of the subsequent Vichy collaborationist régime, justified his belief that France should never again rise to the stature of an international power in the postwar world. Roosevelt's May 8, 1943 letter to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill appears throughout French accounts: I am more and more of the opinion that we should consider France as a militarily-occupied nation and governed by British and American generals…We would keep 90% of the [Vichy] mayors and a large percentage of the lesser bureaucrats of the cities and departments. But the important posts would remain the responsibility of the military commander, American and British. This will last between six months and a year…Perhaps [General Charles] de Gaulle can become governor of Madagascar…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
Tacitus | 15 Feb 2018 1:38 p.m. PST |
Governor of Madagascar. He would have had to deal with Bongolesia… |
ColCampbell | 15 Feb 2018 2:54 p.m. PST |
There ya go, Murphy. A worthy opponent for Phat Daddee! Jim |
robert piepenbrink | 15 Feb 2018 4:18 p.m. PST |
You know, at the time FDR wrote that, the French had probably killed more American and Commonwealth soldiers than they had Germans. Quite possibly they'd killed more Allied soldiers than Italy had. The article also seems to have missed the point that no one had elected de Gaulle to anything. And just picture the article which could have been written if we HADN'T trained and organized men to make sure public services were restored, food, water and medicine provided and cultural artifacts protected. And from all I've read on the FDR administration, it's usually stretching a point to talk about "American policy," especially as regards something we hadn't done yet. But sending de Gaulle to administer Madagascar seems a bit harsh. What had Madagascar done to us? |
N0tt0N | 15 Feb 2018 4:51 p.m. PST |
"…French historians have tended to react ambivalently to American policy on France during the last half of World War II." That has to be better than how they must react to the First Half! :) Can't make all the revisionists happy all of the time except in the past |
panzerCDR | 15 Feb 2018 5:45 p.m. PST |
"The French enjoyed fewer civil rights and food rations after liberation than they had under Nazi rule throughout the summer of 1944—a fact that became less understandable after the triumphant troops had rolled eastward." "Fewer civil rights" than under the German occupation? I know revisionist historians have to publish SOMETHING but I really don't recall any Gestapo equivalent in any of the US or UK occupation forces TO&E. Jeez . . . |
hindsTMP | 15 Feb 2018 5:51 p.m. PST |
You know, at the time FDR wrote that, the French had probably killed more American and Commonwealth soldiers than they had Germans That sounds pretty unlikely, given the relative scales of the battle for France in 1940, versus Syria, Madagascar, and North Africa. You have a source for that? MH |
14th NJ Vol | 15 Feb 2018 7:04 p.m. PST |
Comparing US troops to the Germans in occupation is ridiculous. Modern politics encroaching history. Write a book & it becomes fact. |
Ryan T | 15 Feb 2018 8:56 p.m. PST |
The following was taken from various Wikipedia sites. German losses in the Battle of France in 1940: 27,074 KIA, 111,034 WIA, 18,384 MIA. Allied losses in Madagascar 1941: 107 KIA, 280 WIA. Allied losses in Syria in 1941: Australia 1552; Britian and India 1800, 1200 POW; Free French c. 1300, and 1100 POW (I assume the Free French count as Allies) Allied losses in Operation Torch in 1942: US 526 KIA; Britain 574; Allied total 756 WIA Even assuming half the losses in Syria were KIA and including the Free French as Allies that give about 3500 KIA that the troops of Vichy France inflicted on US and Commonwealth forces. Now it may be that the 13 British, 22 Belgian, 10 Dutch and 2 Polish Divisions in France in 1940 did all the fighting and the 104 French Divisions stood and watched (and still took 58,829 KIA) but I rather suspect that the French actually did have something to do with the 27,000 German KIA in the Battle of France. |
hindsTMP | 15 Feb 2018 11:50 p.m. PST |
Interesting article. I wonder how many of my fellow TMP-ers complaining about "revisionist" historians above actually *read* this article, rather than Tango's extract? MH |
15th Hussar | 16 Feb 2018 4:23 a.m. PST |
And, again, for the "Hard of Learning" crowd, if it wasn't for revisionist historians, starting with those that already knew the "kernel of truth" way back then, when they first put pen to paper, we would not see the tarnish removed from the person's listed below. MG George H. Thomas (The Rock of Chickamauga) FM Sir Claude Eyre Auchinleck FM 1st Earl of Wavell FM Slim (though, one must admit, the efforts to start tarnishing his record began, in public, towards the end of WW2) MG Eric Dorman-Smith (Thanks to Corelli Barnett and BH Liddel Hart for the first glimpses and to Lavinia Greacen for blowing the doors off of this one). Other than Thomas, all of the above are WW2 figures and the attempts to show these men in a better light began with BH Liddell Hart, C. Barnett and RW Thompson, less than ten years after the war and was pretty much an uphill struggle until others joined the fray. It may have ended up "Revisionist", but it started with others just trying to set the record straight! Yeah, some revisionist's do junque work and cloud things up, but there are too many great researchers and authors out there who strive to rehabilitate worthy careers that have usually been shattered due to the workings of a few behind the scenes. (Montgomery and Alanbrooke, anyone???). Pshaw! |
robert piepenbrink | 16 Feb 2018 5:39 a.m. PST |
Thank you Ryan T. My error. Yeah, I can think of a few ways to inflate the total--French volunteers under German command in Russia, for instance--but you're right. I should have done my homework. That said, for about a year and a half, the lawful government of France had repeatedly been at war with the Allies and de Gaulle hadn't exactly stood for election. Yes, everyone in France was pro-Allied and almost everyone was pro-de Gaulle--after it was clear we were going to win. There is a class of revisionist historians who tend to make their point by omitting context, and I'm afraid this article is an example. |
panzerCDR | 16 Feb 2018 6:46 p.m. PST |
I read the entire article. If truth be told, in today's legal mindset, Gaullists killing accused "spies" would not be considered that much different from the German methods, only in quantity. Allied Civil affairs in liberated/occupied France was a haphazard affair, though far better than in Germany or Italy. In the midst of a World War, one can grant some leeway to the Brits and Americans as they fought their way across France; establishing a new freedom loving democratic French government was not one of Eisenhower's main objectives. Still, while Allied response to De Gaulle's actions were less than wholly supportive, they still helped feed the French population at some cost to the logistic support of current operations. Were some feelings hurt? Probably. Was some economic damage done? Without a doubt (heck, the Allies had been bombing the French rail system for months). Did the Allies massacre any portions of the civilian population? I don't think so (though the bombing was not trivial in French casualties). To make that comparison to the German's granting of civil rights makes the author look like he is pushing his own agenda as opposed to objectively looking at the actions of the different belligerents as occupying forces. Perhaps liberation by the Soviets would have been preferred to cement the local population's civil rights at a higher level than the Western Allies provided. We could get a Polish, Danish, Greek, Norwegian and Dutch judge to rate which occupying force was the worst, with the Polish judge allowed two votes based on that nation having been occupied several times by both Germans and Soviets. Revisionist history is fine. Non-critical thinking is trash, like this article. |
hindsTMP | 17 Feb 2018 3:04 p.m. PST |
That said, for about a year and a half, the lawful government of France had repeatedly been at war with the Allies Robert, that's a bit distorted. For about a year and a half the lawful government of France had been intermittently defending their territories from invasions, when they occurred. It started with Mers-el-Kebir in 1940. That is different from being "at war" in the full aggressive sense. IIRC, one reason they defended their territories was to prevent the Germans from taking over the rest of metropolitan France, as occurred after the invasion of North Africa. After North Africa, the Germans invaded them, as I recall, because they didn't think the French resisted hard enough. Now I personally think that the French should have joined the Allies in 1940 as a government in exile. Still, that's easy for me (or you) to say, as I wouldn't have suffered the consequences. Perhaps liberation by the Soviets would have been preferred to cement the local population's civil rights at a higher level than the Western Allies provided. PanzerCDR; kind of a straw man here, on your part, isn't it? I didn't get the impression that the author was advocating this, and I did get the impression that the author was looking at the different behaviors fairly objectively. The main issue I had with the article was that the logic supporting at least one of his conclusions seemed weak. But the discussions themselves seemed (given my lack of historical background) to be objective. When you dismiss the entire article as "trash" is this by chance because you object to American motives being represented as being based on self interest? Or is it (more reasonably) this: "The French enjoyed fewer civil rights and food rations after liberation than they had under Nazi rule throughout the summer of 1944—a fact that became less understandable after the triumphant troops had rolled eastward". On the face of it, it sounds strange, I admit. However, the portion of France being referred to is Normandy. So the food rations statement sounds as if it could be true, based on the agricultural nature of the region, which the author plausibly claims had a food surplus prior to the invasion. The civil rights statement sounds more strange, but perhaps again it makes more sense in the context of Normandy rather than in the context of occupied France as a whole. The allies for good military reasons implemented a strict curfew, whereas perhaps the German curfew prior to invasion had been less strict, etc. |
bruntonboy | 18 Feb 2018 1:24 p.m. PST |
It is the correct task of any historian to question the received wisdom of any historical theory, fact or narrative. That is what historians are supposed to be doing, if they don't they are merely storytellers. |
|