Why this talk of France as a "friend"?

Thanks ott,

I had never before realized that France actually joined the axis powers at the start of WW2....I always thought that the Vichy government was a puppet government installed by the Germans...I, thanks to my public education, had never been told that the French government actually signed a treaty with the Nazis. I never realized that there was actually a second invasion of France in November of 42�..I did realize that during the early part of WW2 France had over 100,000 uniformed troops actively fighting the allies�I did realize that France sent close to 100,000 fellow Jewish citizens to their deaths. I also realized that the milice (sp?) was a SS type French force which probably doubled their troop strength, and also freely cooperated with the Nazis. I did realize that France actively fought with allied forces around the world for about two years�.however thank you for making me research how many French actually help the Nazis during WW2�oh almost forgot the 650,000 French that went to Germany to work in the factories during WW2.

Originally posted by keholmes
Thanks ott,

I had never before realized that France actually joined the axis powers at the start of WW2....I always thought that the Vichy government was a puppet government installed by the Germans...I, thanks to my public education, had never been told that the French government actually signed a treaty with the Nazis. I never realized that there was actually a second invasion of France in November of 42�..I did realize that during the early part of WW2 France had over 100,000 uniformed troops actively fighting the allies�I did realize that France sent close to 100,000 fellow Jewish citizens to their deaths. I also realized that the milice (sp?) was a SS type French force which probably doubled their troop strength, and also freely cooperated with the Nazis. I did realize that France actively fought with allied forces around the world for about two years�.however thank you for making me research how many French actually help the Nazis during WW2�oh almost forgot the 650,000 French that went to Germany to work in the factories during WW2.

Ouch, I never knew all that, makes you wonder why so chummy with the Germans now huh?

Keholmes - I'd like you to direct me to the source of the numbers and information you quote. Yes, the Vichy government was a traitor government, and had its shameful moments. Pierre Laval, P�tain's prime minister, was hanged at the end of WWII. P�tain was condemned to death (his sentence was commuted to life emprisonment because of his old age - he was 88). In a good number of cities and villages, women who were suspected of having "collaborated" with the Germans were humiliated, among others, by having their head shaved in public under the insults of the population. Men who had collaborated with the Germans disappeared mysteriously.

That's what Charles de Gaulle and the forces of Free France fought against for four years, as I showed. I gave numbers in the source I quoted.

And by the way, a few other facts...

1) Belgium and Holland fell before France in WWII. I don't see anyone calling them surrender monkeys.

2) If you think the French population as a whole was happy to greet the Germans... look at this picture, among others.

library.thinkquest.org...

(Edited for picture size)




[edit on 23-10-2004 by Otts]

The French leaders considered retreating to French territories in North Africa but the vice-premier, Henri Philippe P�tain, and the commander-in-chief, General Maxime Weygand insisted that the government should both remain in France and seek an armistice with Germany.

P�tain began negotiations and on June 22 signed the surrender agreement with Germany. The key section of the agreement divided France into two zones - occupied and unoccupied.

Joseph Darnand was head of the Vichy Milice, the wartime police. He had an SS rank and took a oath of loyalty to Hitler.www.wordiq.com...

In the link you will find some of the figures. However, the site that quoted the zenith of Vichy French troops of 300,000+ I can not find now�the figures of just how many French cooperated are pretty hard to find from my experience, although that probably is due to the victors writing the history. The link also documents Dakar, Senegal, Iraq, Syria, Madagascar and some of the other places that the Vichy government fought the allies, largely unprompted by the Nazis. This link is only the tip of the ice berg�..regarding the numbers that you quote from the other site are interesting, in that until the Vichy forces in Africa surrendered and joined the free French instead of going to POW camps. The free French forces remained very small and the vast majority of the French participating world wide in hostile action did so for the axis cause.

As for the other countries not being known as surrender-monkeys that would be from them being conquered, they didn�t negotiate to continue to control large portions of their nation and send their fellow citizens to certain death.

And I never said that all French citizens welcomed the Germans�I just don�t believe that on as a whole they cared all that much�I think it was more of the Germans teaching them that they should care. Kind of like the Russians who overwhelmingly welcomed the conquering German forces�.at first.

"Of all the crosses I have to bear, the heaviest is the Cross of Lorraine." -Winston Churchill 1942

I was thinking about your surrender-monkey statement and I don't believe I answered it quite fully.

Surrenders by France during WW2: After the invasion of France, the French government signs a treaty and joins axis powers....fights the allies for a while. Then later in several battles with allies around the world surrender several times in large numbers after fighting rather unsuccessfully for a while. Then during operation torch the French fight back and then vacillate for several days before surrendering and joining the allied forces again....however, not all of France surrenders and still many Vichy French wait until someone shows up fights for a while and then surrenders. the French then mange to surrender to the Germans again.....before surrendering to the allies later.........as for surrender-monkey....I don't know of any other time in history that ANY nation has surrendered more than once or twice....let alone half a dozen time in half a dozen years...the national government itself surrendered three times in three years. that's got to be some kind of a record...surrendering to one country twice and another within such a short time....simply amazing. that is a lot of underarm hair flying around pretty darn fast.


[edit on 23-10-2004 by keholmes]

You're absolutely right to point out the horrors of the Vichy regime, and in fact I learned about the 1942 Rafle du Vel d'Hiv (Winter Velodrome Roundup) when I was doing a journalism internship in France in 1992 and was asked to cover some of the ceremonies commemorating the 50 years of it. Not a happy affair.

The French are aware that a portion of their population collaborated whole-heartedly with the Germans, and like the Germans themselves, they aren't proud of that episode. They despise P�tain, and until the 1990s there were high-profile war crimes trials - namely Maurice Papon (en.wikipedia.org...).

Speaking of how many French troops collaborated with the Germans, I'm surprised by that 300,000 figure. From the sources I've consulted, I learned that the French army was reduced to 100,000 after 1940.

As for the Free French forces... I don't look at the motives, I look at the results. Maybe a number of soldiers joined those forces to avoid POW camps, but the fact is, they added 100,000 troops to the invasion of Italy. The end result is there - just as Abraham Lincoln had no specific agenda, in 1860, to end slavery, but the end result of his action in the course of the Civil War was the Emancipation Act.

And don't forget that as shameful as French collaborationists were, there were also a good number of R�sistance fighters. And no matter how many they were (we might never know - they were underground for a reason) they did inflict a lot of damage on the Germans. If memory serves, I've posted numbers on that too elsewhere on this thread.

So yes, the French had shameful moments during WWII and they know it, even recognize it. The Papon trial, among others, was a way to make peace with that. On the other hand, they also had pretty noble people and moments - Jean Moulin and the Resistance, Charles de Gaulle, etc. So France's record for WWII may be iffy, but it's certainly not all black.

As for the rest... I believe that this entire thread has enough historical links to show that the French are not the corrupt nation of cowards that some Americans make them out to be.

Every country has had shameful and dark periods in its history. Britain has had a shameful colonial history (which everyone seems to conveniently forget since she's an ally in the war in Iraq) as well as a marvelous performance in WWII. Germany has had the shameful Nazi regime, but has also produced some of the world's greatest authors, thinkers and musicians. The United States has had the shameful episode of slavery, but has also come through for Europe and civilization on two occasions in the 20th century.

All this to say that I don't really understand the need for Americans to find France faulty in all things. Nobody says France is perfect, nobody says the French are always right. They're human beings, after all.

But on the flipside, whatever feud the United States has with France doesn't deserve that she be stripped of every ounce of respect as a nation.

Deny ignorance, guys. Don't deny tolerance.

Ott,

Regarding the 100,000�.I�ve seen a couple of websites (however can not find them now) that explain that the order was given and was largely gutted soon after although not rescinded. So with all involved being allies and the order being better PR of course it is well documented. However, soon after the order was given largely due to colonial acquisitions the order had it�s teeth removed and world wide troops remained nearer the higher figure than the lower�.that only makes sense as they still had troops in France and elsewhere when 100,000 surrendered in Africa�additionaly, those figures also did not include French troops that joined the Nazi military such as the SS. they had some all french outfits as well (except the officers)

While looking at the numbers it is hard to come to any other observation then, the majority of French involved in hostile action during WW2 did so for the axis powers. While it is nice to quote the 'I�m sure there must have been mores'�.it just doesn�t add up so looking at WW2 I have to conclude that the period was much more black then anything else. For me the end doesn�t justify the means. They killed the �good guys� while taking the easy and convenient path to save their own a$$es, that just doesn�t sit well with me.

It is my belief that while there were many brave and heroic resistance fighters; much like the Russians they only did so because of the how the Germans treated them�the government still sent over 700,000 of their fellow citizens to death camps or forced internment camps that is just an amazing number to me. I�ve always felt that the resistance numbers were padded to help our ally after the fact, but they still don�t add up to the other numbers.

As for the slavery thing with America you would have done much better to have pointed to the Japanese internments�.not to disregard slavery but every country had that�it might have been called by some other name, but they all did it at some time�..as for the Japanese internments, that�s what we get for letting liberals be in charge.

And I don�t believe the French to all be corrupt I�ve just never been under the disillusion that they have ever been anything other than a fair weather friend (that would be the denying ignorance part)�.throughout American history the French have only helped when it was painfully clear that it was in their own self-interests and have rattled their collective swords in our directions more than once. for example as quickly as they helped us in order to hurt the british they were at our throats trying to cease our existence.

However, even with all that considered it is the current France that I�ve always had a problem with and the current Iraq conflict was only a confirmation not the impetus. After WW2 England started to divest itself for the most part of it�s colonial booty�France rushed to embrace it to prove they are still a world power�.and have created a lot of trouble for America and caused a lot of American blood to be spilled in their pursuit of days gone by�..my only wish is that France had understood after WW2 that they were no longer a world power. Think of the messes they have created I can think of at many former French colonies where American lives have been lost and most of them you can draw a pretty straight line to France. French foreign policy since WW2 and before, can pretty well be summed up as 'lets be a thorn in the side of America'�.unfortunately due to our political system, we as a nation have not realized this�.the latest gaffe may just do the trick...i hope.


[edit on 23-10-2004 by keholmes]

[edit on 23-10-2004 by keholmes]

Keholmes - I value and respect your point of view, because unlike others, it's presented with research to back it and an openness to discussion.

About France holding on to its colonies

It lasted 12 years. When the interim French government ushered in the Fourth Republic, in 1946, Charles de Gaulle was appalled, because he was convinced that the French politicians of the day had learned nothing of the lessons of the Third (which had ended when P�tain took power). Not only did the Fourth Republic stick with a weak presidency, it also doggedly kept colonies who wanted to be rewarded for their services in WWII. As a result, France lost Indochina despite brave military engagements, and almost went into political crisis over Algeria.

So when Charles de Gaulle was called back into power in 1958, the first thing he did (after commissioning an assembly to draft the constitution of the Fifth Republic) was to draft plans to disengage from all colonies. While the Algeria question lingered until 1962 (the Evian accords granted full independence), almost all French colonies in Subsaharian Africa became independent between 1958 and 1961.

On France not recognizing it was no longer a world power

Actually, this in part answers a question asked by edsinger earlier - after 1962, from what I've seen, France rarely got actively involved in military conflict and chose instead to assert an important diplomatic power. However, by 1960 France was the fourth nuclear power in the world (and the third independent one - Britain's was strongly tied to the U.S.), so in De Gaulle's mind France still did have some clout - and indeed, in the 60's the development of the EU was centered a lot on France and Germany.

It should be noted that 60's France was closer politically to present-day America than a number of people would care to admit. De Gaulle believed more in nations and their relative strengths than in world organizations - his nickname for the United Nations was "The Thing". However, his belief in the power of nations wasn't guided - like Bush's - by a belief in the uselessness of the UN. I believe that instead of seeing the post-WWII context as one where France couldn't play any major role anymore, he probably saw it, from his 2,000 years of European history perspective, as the nth time France was weak after being strong, just like other European nations had had their moments on top and at the bottom.

On France being a fair-weather friend

I can understand why Americans would see it this way. Actually, all countries display a certain amount of self-interest when cooperating with other countries. While it is part of the EU, Britain didn't join the Euro zone because it thought it would be better off with the pound. The United States decided not to support the Kyoto Agreement, even though close to 150 countries had signed it. From a good number of other countries' point of view, it's been seen as betrayal. From the United States' point of view, it made sense from a national-priorities standpoint. Hence, the same with France - even a few months after 9/11, it had been made clear that unless something proved in a concrete manner that there were new developments in Iraq and/or Iran which made them a lot more dangerous, France couldn't support an invasion of those countries. However, it should be noted that after September 11, 73 percent of the French population favored France participating in military retaliation against those responsible for the attacks (namely Osama bin Laden).
www.brookings.edu...

Also, in the aftermath of 9/11, Jacques Chirac opened France's airspace to American military aircraft bound for Afghanistan. It announced on Nov. 22, 2001, that 5,000 troops would be committed in Afghanistan. So the will was there to help the US.

In the case of Iraq, well, we'll see as things develop what the oil-for-food scandal played in France's decision. But one thing is for sure: politicians aside, the French public wasn't alone in being opposed to a unilateral strike against Iraq - in September 2002, just over half of the French opposed such an action, while 53 percent of the Russians, 49 percent of the Italians and 48 percent of the Spanish (www.guardian.co.uk...).

Furthermore, a recent poll shows that the Italians, the Australians and the British are all pretty iffy about their leaders' handling of the war (well, setting aside the Italians' increasing aggravation with Berlusconi's corrupt government) while leaders of non-aligned countries (France, Canada, Mexico, Spain and Germany) all get high marks for their handling of terrorism and their non-participation in the War in Iraq. www.phillyburbs.com...

So what I'm saying is that oil-for-food scandal aside, France, Russia, Germany, Mexico and Canada felt they had their own backyard - their population and national interest - to worry about, just like the U.S. in other areas.

Which doesn't mean that the U.S. and France should sever relations. I think both countries realize that it would be counterproductive at best and disastrous at worst.

On Charles de Gaulle:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Otts
1) Belgium and Holland fell before France in WWII. I don't see anyone calling them surrender monkeys.

Well At least they fought! Do you know how fast the BlitzKrieg hit? The French saw it comming just becuase of (1). Yet what did they do? They finally had the proof that the Germans were rearming as the British had been saying when.....

edsinger - It took me three hours to put together what I posted this morning. I'm interested in real facts, not fictitious stories or pictures that make the French look like complete the idiots they are not.

Besides, I will not change your mind and you will not change mine. So there's no use in discussing it.

Originally posted by keholmes
"Of all the crosses I have to bear, the heaviest is the Cross of Lorraine." -Winston Churchill 1942

I was thinking about your surrender-monkey statement and I don't believe I answered it quite fully.




[edit on 23-10-2004 by keholmes]

Oh that is so damn funny! Surrendered 3 times! In 3 years!


Wow , when you say surrender monkeys, I didnt know exactly what you meant, now I do. Damn I dodnt know half the stuff of the Vichy French. Thanks I am learning, I cant believe it but they are worse than I thought.




And to think they did not know it was coming?



[edit on 23-10-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by Otts
edsinger - It took me three hours to put together what I posted this morning. I'm interested in real facts, not fictitious stories or pictures that make the French look like complete the idiots they are not.

Besides, I will not change your mind and you will not change mine. So there's no use in discussing it.

Fair enough. keholmes sure is posting some interesting information. I never knew this stuff , these things dont look good.

Originally posted by OttsAnd don't forget that as shameful as French collaborationists were, there were also a good number of R�sistance fighters. And no matter how many they were (we might never know - they were underground for a reason) they did inflict a lot of damage on the Germans. If memory serves, I've posted numbers on that too elsewhere on this thread.

And this is a very good point, they did contribute a hell of a lot. Not all the French are bad I admitt that for sure

Originally posted by OttsAlso, in the aftermath of 9/11, Jacques Chirac opened France's airspace to American military aircraft bound for Afghanistan. It announced on Nov. 22, 2001, that 5,000 troops would be committed in Afghanistan. So the will was there to help the US.

Its a shame they did not do this in 1986.

[edit on 23-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 23-10-2004 by edsinger]

Anything to crucify another nation... so much hate.

As of now, I'm not posting anything else in this thread. The information is there, people can consult it if they want.

Happy lynching.

About France holding on to its colonies

what you posted was exactly what I was referring to�.there was no intelligent way to look at the situation after WW2 and think things could go back to how they were, yet France did�then when they finally realized the bungling of their ways they didn�t prepare those colonies they just found the first guy walking by handed him a set of the city keys and beat feet. That also plays into the fair weather friend point. again leading back to my point of american blood on the ground because of french policy.

Originally posted by Otts
�����. conflict and chose instead to assert an important diplomatic power. However, by 1960 France was the fourth nuclear power in the world (and the third independent one - Britain's was strongly tied to the U.S.), so in De Gaulle's mind France still did have some clout - and indeed, in the 60's the development of the EU was centered a lot on France and Germany.

and this would have been my point there is no such thing as diplomatic power without the ability or will to project force, so it would be only in his mind�.for which they shamelessly relied upon America to pull their load.

As for France and american policy being to each other there is one very important difference. De Gaulle disliked the UN because he felt that France was being denied their rightful diplomatic power�.the US dislikes the UN because we keep getting dragged into places our troops should not be�.paying in both blood and money a disproportionate amount for that privilege, and then have the same organization used to club us over the head repeatedly. And more importantly to the average citizen�liberals keep trying to use the UN to circumvent the US Constitution to attack our guaranteed freedoms�.kind of like the Kyoto treaty�a blatant attempt by other nations to extort money out of the US and other industrialized nations�.the main reason that I believe france and other industrialized nations support Kyoto would be a parallel to the oil-for-cash to line our pockets program.

As for French opinion and public polls on the current Iraq situation�you can look back to gulf 1 and you had the same stupid polls, of stupid people�although by hook or by crook�probably largely because Mitterrand wasn�t getting a kick back from a yet to be invented oil-for-pocket lining cash scheme yet. We somehow got France on board that time, although it was a last second France still trying to be a thorn type situation.

As for the stout support from France after Afghanistan�many of those troop are and were and arrived after the heavy lifting was done, largely ceremonial�I don�t have the link any more but I believe the number of actual combat troops was somewhere around 300�.although there is at least one French liaison officer posted at ever level in the command post and they want to be consulted on strategy�.what a POS way to do business. They want us to actually pay the price and still want to call the shots, simply amazing. And as for the poll of support, that sure was grand of them as long as we strictly limit it to who they think we should then a slight majority favor us being allowed to protect ourselves, thanks�how freakin grand. And they even let us fly over this time wow what an honor. In my opinion way too freakin little, way too freakin late�.a few decades too late. I would have had more respect for them had they been consistent�not political.

As for polls, again when I look at something I find out myself the actual facts and make my own opinion, quite often I�m definitely in the minority�.I don�t wait for public opinion to give me mine. The funny thing is if you ask the majority of the people in those polls that you quote, why they have the opinion that they do; they will probably mumble and maybe tell you of another poll they have read�.if you ask me, chances are you will get solid reasoned fact. I�ll stick with the solid reasoned facts thank you very much. And I�m not very often swayed by polls, let alone even think of changing my opinion on something because of them. However, if you think that this engagement would not have been much more well received in fact even more so than the first, had France simply been neutral�your fooling yourself. So basically the only reason that it is an unpopular engagement is because Chirac�s largest campaign contributor (SH) and the scumbag head of the UN (who is rich from oil-for-cash to line our pockets program) didn�t want it. Great reason�.the nation that will send a bunch of liaison officers and a handful of combat troops along with a huge navy contingent and REMF types doesn�t think it�s a good idea�..why you ask, because they are being bribed, nice reasons.

And while your free to your opinion about France and America not severing relations�I would like to see America get a WHOLE lot more aggressive with regard to France�severing relations is about the minimum that I would like to see. I�ve never liked disloyal friends very much�.I understand enemies and can even converse with them; for I understand them, and their motivations�but disloyal friends in my opinion are the ultimate in spineless as far as I�m concerned.



[edit on 23-10-2004 by keholmes]

have the french changed any? Has Chirac changed now that the elections in Iraq are over? Was there any support given now that Iraq has asked for help and not the US?


Friend my "donkey"...

I will let you in on a little secret some americans hated the poms in the 60s for not sending troops to vietnam.
All this france is evil rubbish can be put in the same basket as liberals hate the world and childrens TV promots gay tolerance a load of rubbish its so dumb its funny.
Whats dumber the fact that people believe this rubbish or the fact it ends up on ATS?
Bring on the laughs.
If you believe some Americans the USA only has two allies England and Australia and the rest of the world is undermining the USA. Meanwhile the rest of us are living in the real world.

Well Fact no. 1 is France is no ally of the United States unless it has some benefit to them,

Allies do not deliberately undermine their friends and French are masters at that.....

Prove me wrong!

PS Take a poll and see how much the French are liked around the world not just the USA as we know what that answer would be....

edsinger in the real world econmics speake louder then freedom and human rights. Truth be told the USA is no better then France. If the USA really supported "freedom" Bush would be telling the people of China to overthrow there government.
Why dosnt Bush oppose the human rights abuses in China ?
The shrit on his back is made in china and the USA has "interests" in the booming Chinese econmy.
Everytime you buy a prouduct that is made in China you undermine the freedom of billons of people nobody seems to be to bothered by that.
It just happened that France had it own "interests" in Iraq and they choose to protect there interests it is no differnt from what the USA and the developed world dose everyday.

Originally posted by xpert11

Everytime you buy a prouduct that is made in China you undermine the freedom of billons of people nobody seems to be to bothered by that.
It just happened that France had it own "interests" in Iraq and they choose to protect there interests it is no differnt from what the USA and the developed world dose everyday.

In all seriousness we do get them on human rights issues and since Tienanmen square they can not do certain things but China is changing from within, and that we are helping....


France - Iraq......

I see why they call them surrender monkeys!

Your right about one thing China is changing from with in people now have the ablity to buy consumer prouducts and companys manufacture there goods in china due to low wages. Dont confuse capitalism with free speech and human rights and be honest you dont care about the freedom of the chinese people because the shrit on your back is made in China.
The same gose for France why should have they given a toss when they were trading with Iraq?