http://mapage.noos.fr/euro2004/petitdrapeau/etatsunis.gif http://mapage.noos.fr/euro2004/petitdrapeau/urss.gif http://mapage.noos.fr/euro2004/petitdrapeau/royaumeuni.gif http://mapage.noos.fr/euro2004/petitdrapeau/france.gif

I've just read a book about the relationship between Churchill and De Gaulle from the June 1940's debacle untill the End of the war. What was especially interesting about it was to compare the different visions each one had of Europe after the war.

By the way, it's really interesting to see that neither Churchill nor De Gaulle had doubted the war would be won by the allies. In June 1940, when France had capitulated and an invasion of Britain seemed as much imminent than unavoidable, both men considered Germany couldn't resist to the industrial powerhouse of the United States once it would join the war.


But anyway, let's talk about serious things. How those 4 men were seeing Europe after the war ?

According to Roosevelt and Stalin, it was clear that the upcoming Europe would be powerless and reduced under both of their influence. Roosevelt considered all continental traditional powers had to be weakened. As such, he was thinking about dismantling Germany with an independant Bavaria and an autonomous Prussia.

But Germany wasn't the only country which was supposed to lose all its power in Roosevelt's vision. Indeed, Roosevelt considered France as a vanquished country, and he will spend all the years of the war to insure France will lose its status of European power once the war ended. As such, Roosevelt wanted not only to dismantle the French Colonial Empire, but he wanted also to divide France itself. Indeed, Roosevelt wanted to create a new country he was calling "Wallonia". That country consisted into French speaking Belgium, Luxembourg, Alsace and Lorraine.

There's no need to say Churchill didn't see all those changes in a good way. Churchill is perfectly aware that once Hitler defeated, Europe will be divided between the US and the USSR. From the British point of view, such a situation is highly uncomfortable for obvious reasons. To keep a powerful Britain, Churchill needed a powerful enough Europe. And such a powerful enough Europe was requesting at least a powerful enough France.

Roosevelt knew that and that's the reason why he was seeing De Gaulle as Churchill's creature. As a result, from 1940 to 1945, Roosevelt and his secretary of state Cordell Hull made everything to maintain De Gaulle out of anything looking like power. However, what Roosevelt hadn't seen is that De Gaulle wasn't at all Churchill's puppet actually. Indeed De Gaulle didn't want a powerful enough France, he wanted to keep France as powerful as it was before the war. And that makes a huge difference.

Because of that, De Gaulle actually spent most of his time to struggle against Britain and the US than against Germany. And there were good reasons for that. An interesting event about it is the conference of Casablanca. The conference was a meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill to discuss of the organization of the post-war Europe. Besides, they considered it as a good opportunity to solve the French issue. Roosevelt had his puppet to put in power in France, the General Giraud, and he was considering De Gaulle as Churchill's puppet. Roosevelt finally decided to invite De Gaulle and Giraud at the conference to get an agreement... the point being actually to get rid of De Gaulle. Roosevelt wanted "to marry both brides" (he used that expression many times). But even if Giraud was undoubtedly Roosevelt's toy, De Gaulle wasn't at all Churchill's toy... and the conference didn't go at all in the direction Roosevelt wanted.

Once again, Roosevelt was victim of his misinterpretation of De Gaulle/Churchill relationship. Roosevelt considered De Gaulle existed only because he was financed by the British Government... but at that time, De Gaulle was already a well-known Freedom combatant. He was controlling a part of the French colonies, and he had just united the French Resistance with Jean Moulin. In other words, De Gaulle had already aquire enough freedom of movement to not be so easy to get rid of. Especially that De Gaulle was symbolizing the fight for the Liberation as much to the French opinion than to the most important British and American opinion.

After Casablanca, both Churchill and Roosevelt united their energy to get rid of De Gaulle as a political strength. But that hasn't been enough. The Free French knew perfectly the situation and they knew the two leaders of the Free world couldn't afford an open war with France as long as Germany wasn't vanquished yet. As a result, De Gaulle succeeded to install Free France as the de facto authority on the liberated France. Of course, it's been more complicated but I won't write you the whole book.


Anyway, on the November, 11th 1944, the day celebrating the end of WW1, Churchill is invited in Paris by De Gaulle. And during this meeting, both men will determine what will be the main international politics of their country for the next 50 years !

That day, De Gaulle proposed to Churchill a special partnership between both of their country. Both men agreed it couldn't be good for Europe's stability to be divided this way between the USSR and the USA. As such De Gaulle offered to Churchill to unite each other to become a counter-power in the middle between the two Giants.

To this proposal, Churchill answered that in his opinion it would be wiser and more efficient to remain a close ally of the United States and influencing its decisions. According to him Britain could easily make change the US opinions on several hot topics if there are real reasons to do so. As such, Churchill rejects De Gaulle's proposal even if he knew that France, as the loser of the war, will never be able to follow the same path as Britain since it doesn't have the same credibility in Washington.

You know what has been the result of that disagreement. Britain has followen the direction given by Churchill. And finally the special partnership proposed by De Gaulle had been finally made between France and Adenauer's Germany.


De Gaulle will spend the rest of his life to struggle for France's independance towards the United States, which didn't get rid of the idea to make of France a country under US guardianship : He will fight against the French dollars issued from Washington as official currency in France. He will fight so that France occupy a zone in Germany beside the UK, the US and the USSR. He will fight for France to get a permanent seat at the UN security council. He will fight to keep certain colonies long enough so that he could insure France couldn't be put aside of the international affairs so easily. And he will fight to devellop France's nuclear arsenal, the ultimate tool guaranteeing the independance of any country.

If I consider all that story so interesting, it's because I consider it explains quite well today's world. Since WW1, France always had a special place in the heart of Churchill, and even if it was against his policy towards Washington, it is sure that De Gaulle alone couldn't have the zone of control in Germany, and he couldn't have also the permanent seat at the UN security council. Anthony Eden, which was at this time at the head of the British Foreign Office, was also De Gaulle's best ally even if the General was too proud to ever admit it. Without Churchill and de Gaulle, it's obvious Western Europe would have never come up in the international scene as it is the case today.


http://mapage.noos.fr/euro2004/fourmen.jpg

From your article, it seemed like De Gaulle was more interested in sticking it to the U.S. -- the liberators -- versus Germany, who was their actual enemy. De Gaulle to me, is at best, an ingrate.

It was a special time that those 4 countries had leaders who were the best leaders for their time at that time for that war.
Nice thread marla, i enjoyed reading it.
de Gaulle was a great leader, Sharpe.
A bit excentrix nonetheless but he helped reassure France and germany would never do war again by connecting each others economy. the steel pact.
He solved the problem in Algeria (it could had been a lot worse )

Splitting Germany in two and having foreign troops on the ground there is what prevented Germany from going to war again. Militant nationalism doesn't work too well when there's hundreds of thousands of foreign soldiers just 20 minutes away from the capital.

Splitting Germany in two and having foreign troops on the ground there is what prevented Germany from going to war again. Militant nationalism doesn't work too well when there's hundreds of thousands of foreign soldiers just 20 minutes away from the capital.

LMAO! :crazyeye: :lol:
You're saying that you actually believe that Germany would've entered into a third world war, in the direct knowledge that America, Britain, France and the USSR would be on top of them almost instantaneously? You're insane.

Splitting Germany in two and having foreign troops on the ground there is what prevented Germany from going to war again. Militant nationalism doesn't work too well when there's hundreds of thousands of foreign soldiers just 20 minutes away from the capital.
now that is something you are wrong in.Those forces were to get the nazi leeches out .
But You can't occupy a country forever and degaulle realised that

LMAO! :crazyeye: :lol:
You're saying that you actually believe that Germany would've entered into a third world war, in the direct knowledge that America, Britain, France and the USSR would be on top of them almost instantaneously? You're insane.

Actually, I said the exact opposite.

You can't occupy a country forever and degaulle realised that

It's a shame he didn't apply that knowledge to Indochina and Algeria.

Splitting Germany in two and having foreign troops on the ground there is what prevented Germany from going to war again. Militant nationalism doesn't work too well when there's hundreds of thousands of foreign soldiers just 20 minutes away from the capital.
That's not a fact but an opinion. Nobody can possibly know this.

Anyway, this topic is rather pointless. At the end of the war, Germany was destroyed and it was obvious that the whole Europe was now a dwarf in the middle of two Giants... the US in the West and the USSR in the East.

I do believe that the division of Germany did contribute to that feeling Europe had no more power in itself. As such, the division of Germany between two Giants did participate to the upcoming of a Peaceful Europe.

But anyway, it's also obvious that when De Gaulle and Adenauer decided to bring their country closer, they did much for the European reconciliation. Of course both needed the other one, Germany was destroyed and France reduced as a dwarf. But that doesn't mean they didn't accomplish a big step together, especially that it's been done so close to the end of the war.

Hmmm... Intruiging since there was something of a long standing dislike between De Gaulle and Churchill. I'm not that sure Churchill was pro-french though, but rather a realist who knew that De Gaulle and the free French were important. Churchill was quite prepared to support France, witness his sacrifice of British troops in Normandy during 1940 t rather than withdraw them. At the same time, he was more than prepared to do things against France when he felt that they were needed such as the attacks on French fleets. Churchill tended to do things because they were necessary, or in Britain's interests rather than to support De Gaulle.

As for De Gaulle himself, he was not so much interested in sticking it to the US as keeping the French independent of US influence. That's hardly ingratitude IMO. He did do some rather unfortunate things though, like veto British entry into the common market and so on :mischief:

All my books are in boxes scattered across our new home at the moment but my understanding of Roosevelt's and Churchill's attitude towards De Gualle was far less conspiratorial and much more circumspect. France was a defeated ally that had formed a collaborational government with the enemy (Vichy); the Allies wanted to maintain a French component of the alliance even if only for propaganda purposes but still the British had to destroy the French fleet anchored at Mers-el-Kebir (Algeria) in July 1940 and the late 1942 Anglo-American landings in North Africa were resisted by the Vichy forces, causing some 1500 Allied casualties. The French resistance to Nazi and Vichy rule was very small and disorganized in the first few years, only developing into a real and effective organized resistance in 1943-44.

To London arrived (among others) De Gaulle after the May-June defeat of 1940, a temporary Brigadier General who had commanded a tank brigade who claimed leadership of the Free French and ultimately of France itself. He wasn't even a full general, had never been elected to any post in a French government (though he'd been briefly appointed) and was only one of many who claimed leadership of French resistance efforts - so it should be no wonder the Allies would distrust him initially. He also had many enemies within France who conspired against him in London, and the Brits & Americans either sometimes played along with these schemes or didn't understand them, such was his manner even among his fellow countrymen. Add to that the fact he proved to be extremely obstinate and often treacherous - I recall how he tried to create a Franco-Soviet alliance secretly behind his British and American allies' back, though Stalin never took him seriously - and you can see why both Washington and London both wished for someone else. They only fully accepted him after it became clear by 1943 there was no one else (for now), and even then there was a fear he would try to install himself as a French dictator after the war. I recall reading one incident where Eisenhower almost had De Gaulle arrested for breaking orders and disseminating sercet information to unauthorised personnel, to which De Gaulle reacted by sending a lengthy message to Eisenhower apologising profusely.

It should also be noted that while the French often portray the Alliance as an "Anglo-Saxon" conspiracy against France, but in reality the Brits and Americans also had loads of distrust for one another and the alliance several times was saved from collapse by level-headed people like Eisenhower and King. The two sides often used De Gaulle against one another as when the Americans recruited De Gaulle to pressure the British into acquiescing to the 2nd front in France at Marsailles.

At several points in the 1940-45 crisis for France De Gaulle proved to be the absolute right man for the moment, but from the standpoint of the alliance (i.e., the interests of the whole alliance) he more often than not acted in his or France's own interests to the exclusion of London's or Washington's, with the knowledge that any successful scenario for the alliance required a liberation of France anyway. He proved a critical component to the alliance in the French phase of the war and sometimes even proved his allies wrong when he ignored their decisions, as for instance with the liberation of Paris - the 60th anniversary of which I believe we are celebrating this week. In the over-all war effort though, De Gaulle more often than not proved a liability than a help to the alliance even though I'm sure he thought his motives correct. I say this of De Gaulle, not France. Contrary to what he may have believed, there was a difference.

That's my final point, which is that the ultimate issue between the Americans, British and De Gaulle was one of perspective. The British and even moreso the Americans did not have the immediacy of a homeland under occupation so they felt they had the room to plan and study things extensively before acting while De Gaulle represented a country under foreign occupation by a ruthless foe. The Anglo-American perspective certainly had its validity, as they were planning (the Normandy invasion) the largest seaborne invasion ever launched with logistical nightmares on a scale never experienced before and against an enemy who had all the natural defense advantages (coast, inland roads, shorter supply lines, the bocage, experienced troops, etc.) but De Gaulle faced the prospect of liberating his country and as well making sure that liberation really was a liberation. In Paris and some other towns the leading edge of the French resistance were the communists, and there was a real danger they would/could seize power in the vaccuum of a German expulsion from France. This is one of those historical ironies that will never be "resolved", that De Gaulle represents a critical figfure for France in this time and yet was also such a liability for his allies, giving them much reason not to trust him.

Also, De Gaulle made much of the (especially American) plan for a post-liberation military governance of France, but this was not due to American ambitions to rule France or keep France "down", but rather Roosevelt's view that all post-war political matters should be discussed at a post-war peace conference rather than being settled during the war. This was due to a great distrust Roosevelt had of Churchill and the British, as he feared they would try to expand the British empire after the war. Much has been made of this because it led Roosevelt to put greater trust in Stalin - a strategic error that caused Washington grief in 1945-47 - than Churchill. This is the underlying cause behind the division of Germany and Korea, the American belief that border and political issues should be postponed until after the war, with all decisions made during the war being for immediate military necessity alone - in other words, temporary. These arbitrary lines drawn on military maps in 1943-45 solidifed into permanent political borders in the Cold War because of Roosevelt's short-sightedness during the war. (This is a topic that is studied at great length in Eastern Europe, because it had very obvious consequences for us; "Yalta to Malta".) But as regards France, the Americans simply planned a standard military government until French (non-Vichy) civil authorities could be re-established and elections held. In comes De Gaulle who demanded immediate French sovereignty with himself as (unelected) ruler; should it be surprising that London and Washington would hesitate? After his parade down the Champs Elysees both the Brits and Americans knew there was nothing they could do now short of shooting him so they just accepted De Gaulle, but I think there were many valid reasons for having reservations about him.

In the later years of the 4th and 5th republics De Gaulle would continue to play a similar role - saving France from the Algeria quagmire for instance - but at least in those years he paid closer and more diplomatic attention to his allies and the overall alliance's needs, even with his 1966 withdrawal from NATO's military structure stunt. I personally see him as a kind of spoiler, having the vision of the coal agreement but also promoting what really was just another form of nationalism on a continent that did not need more nationalism.

It's a shame he didn't apply that knowledge to Indochina and Algeria.

He wasn't in a position to. From IIRC 1946 to 1958,
DeGaulle was not in the government at all. So he
certainly cannot be held responsible for Indochina. And
when he did come into power, he set up French
withdrawal from Algeria, causing the OAS crisis of 1962.

As to his being an ingrate - privatehudson is right.
His real goal was to be independent of, but not hostile
to, the US.

@Marla - Nice article.

...I'm not that sure Churchill was pro-french though,..

Churchill was a great Francophile - it was just De Gaulle that gave him problems. ;)

Churchill BTW, just before France fell in 1940 proposed that France and the UK should be united as one country, presumably so that even if France proper was completely overrun by the Germans, she wouldn't be forced to surender completely. Not surprisingly, at this point no-one was interested.
An interesting point for alternate historians was that returning from France after proposing this, churchill's plane was almost shot down by a German fughter.

...but in reality the Brits and Americans also had loads of distrust for one another and the alliance several times was saved from collapse by level-headed people like Eisenhower and King.
Surely you don't mean US admiral King? He was notoriously Anglophobic.

@Crazy Eddie - Maybe he meant the King. You're right
about Adm. King's attitude towards Britain. Not to mention
he's the bozo responsible for the U-boat feeding frenzy off
the US East Coast in 1942...

To London arrived (among others) De Gaulle after the May-June defeat of 1940, a temporary Brigadier General who had commanded a tank brigade who claimed leadership of the Free French and ultimately of France itself. He wasn't even a full general, had never been elected to any post in a French government (though he'd been briefly appointed) and was only one of many who claimed leadership of French resistance efforts - so it should be no wonder the Allies would distrust him initially.Your way to imagine De Gaulle as any French guy in London who no one cared about at the beginning is totally wrong.

De Gaulle has been in London thanks to the British government. Churchill has recognized De Gaulle as the representative of the Free France in 1940, and if he has picked him, it's because they were no one more serious than him in London. So yes, De Gaulle was alone, but he was fully supported by Churchill and Spears... in the beginning.

By the way, I'm quite amazed you call a "conspiracy" the fact the United States wanted to remove from France its status of "power". Because it means you haven't been aware of all the struggle between France and the USA from 1944 to 1970 !!

This is simply about realpolitik. France was vanquished and freed by the allies. There was no reason to let it become again what it used to be before 1940 without anything in exchange. The vision Roosevelt had about France after the war was the one of a country under a US guardianship. Something which wasn't really different than what happened in Germany or in Italy. And that was exactly what De Gaulle wanted to avoid.

They (London and Washington) only fully accepted him (De Gaulle) after it became clear by 1943 there was no one else (for now), and even then there was a fear he would try to install himself as a French dictator after the war.You're also wrong in here. In 1943, De Gaulle wasn't at all accepted. Actually, Roosevelt had convinced Churchill right at that time that we should get rid of De Gaulle because he wasn't manageable (i.e he wasn't a puppet).

Actually, Roosevelt has simply never accepted De Gaulle ! After the landing in Normandy, it was prepared to install an AMGOT (Allied Military Government in Occupied Territories) in France. The same thing that in Italy or in Germany. In other words, Roosevelt wanted to install (of course temporarily) a US General at the head of France during the time necessary to make of France a country under guardianship (like Germany and Italy).

If it didn't happen this way, it's because when the Free French landed in Normandy on Sword Beach, they've brought with them politicians who self-proclaimed themselves as the new legal authorities in France. That has been done in the week after the June 6th... before the US could do any move. As De Gaulle and Free France was deeply popular in France, it was then too risky for the US to dismantle that authority.

By the way, don't forget that Washington has recognized De Gaulle's authority only in November 1944, three monthes after the liberation of Paris ! All other governments in exile had already recognized De Gaulle then.

No seriously Vrylakas, I strongly advise you to read this book. You don't picture at all things as they actually occured.

However, what is true is that Brits and Americans didn't agree at all about post-war Europe. I thought that appeared in my initial post !

Churchill was a great Francophile - it was just De Gaulle that gave him problems. ;)

Churchill BTW, just before France fell in 1940 proposed that France and the UK should be united as one country, presumably so that even if France proper was completely overrun by the Germans, she wouldn't be forced to surender completely. Not surprisingly, at this point no-one was interested.
An interesting point for alternate historians was that returning from France after proposing this, churchill's plane was almost shot down by a German fighter.Actually, the proposal for a unification of France and Britain as one country has been originally done by Jean Monnet, who became interestingly a "founding father" of what became the European Union. It's true that Monnet had convinced Churchill to pick this choice but unfortunately, the French authorities in Bordeaux had then capitulated and chosen Pétain as the new leader of the occupied France.

What is the real shame of France, is actually the generalized pessimism and defeatism which was making almost the unanimity then. If the General de Gaulle had been chosen to represent the Free French, it's actually because Churchill had found no one better who was ready to replace him. :(

What's this book called Marla?

i think that if they put the resources of the maginot line into infantry and tanks we wouldn't be having this conversation ;)

It's a shame he didn't apply that knowledge to Indochina and Algeria.
He did. He wasn't in power for Indochina (retired), and when he came back, it was to end Algeria.

i think that if they put the resources of the maginot line into infantry and tanks we wouldn't be having this conversation ;)

I've always wished to have been in the room the day they first planned the maginot line to say "And what if they just go round it by invading Belgium then?" :mischief:

i think that if they put the resources of the maginot line into infantry and tanks we wouldn't be having this conversation ;)

Only if they had changed their armor tactis as well!

I don't remember the exact figures, but France had about the same number of tanks as Germany, and they weren't all that much worse than the German tanks of the time, but their tactics sucked... they were still using tanks piecemeal for infantry support, which gave them no chance against the German blitzkrieg tactics.

I've always wished to have been in the room the day they first planned the maginot line to say "And what if they just go round it by invading Belgium then?" :mischief:
But sir, they can't, Belgium is neutral :eek: ! And beside, no army can cross the Ardennes with tanks... :cry:

Yeah, I mean the Germans would NEVER invade Belgium would they? Surely there's no reason to think that :lol:

On another matter, I've always found it highly ironic that a country that laid out the theories of blitzkrieg, and had the most highly motorised/mechanised army in the world still managed to get battered in 1940 :(

When you say the country that laid out the theories of Blitzkrieg, you overestimate the French generals at the time.

True, we had a colonel who wrote a book for the theory of blitzkrieg. But the generals discarded it... It was read by another one though... Guderian, do you know him? :wallbash:

At last, we invented the best slogan ever "nous vaincrons parce que nous sommes les plus forts" (we will win because we are the strongest).

Imagine the beating if we hadn't been the strongest :eek:

Liddell Hart and JC Fuller were people which Guderien also based many of his principles on, he attributes things to both in Panzer Leader apparently. Unlike the German army, the entire BEF was suited to the idea of mechanised warfare too. What a shame the morons who ran the army didn't think to pay attention to him though...

Ahhh French WWII generals, too much wine, not enough Brains :lol:

What I love with Americans is that if Germany hasn't invaded Paris in WW1, it was thanks to Brits and Americans. On the other side, if Germany did invade Paris in WW2, it is the fault of the French alone. Should I remind you Brits did participate to the French debacle of 1940 ? And about the US, as usual, they were trading with Nazis, comfortable far away accross the Ocean. ;)

After all, the fact Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium and France were all invaded was obviously not enough to declare war to Hitler...

Anyway, to be fair, more than the military skills of France which was after all those of a country almost half less populated than Germany, what was truely awful was the defeatism of French politicians... and especially when they've decided to capitulate the way they did.

When you say the country that laid out the theories of Blitzkrieg, you overestimate the French generals at the time.

True, we had a colonel who wrote a book for the theory of blitzkrieg. But the generals discarded it... It was read by another one though... Guderian, do you know him? :wallbash:

At last, we invented the best slogan ever "nous vaincrons parce que nous sommes les plus forts" (we will win because we are the strongest).

Imagine the beating if we hadn't been the strongest :eek:

i read the book on guderian (literally)

What's this book called Marla?The book is called "Churchill De Gaulle", it's from François Kersaudy. Actually, it's been firstly written in English in the 80's if I trust the bibliography inside the book.

Anyway, to be fair, more than the military skills of France which was after all those of a country almost half less populated than Germany, what was truely awful was the defeatism of French politicians... and especially when they've decided to capitulate the way they did.

Military skills and France??? Isn't that a contradiction in terms...??? :lol:

After a terrible blow in 1870-71 and eager for revenge they mobilize in 1914 and are this time saved from certain defeat by the English and later the Ameriacans. Had the English not DoW'd Germany after the advance through Belgium we would probably have seen yet another glorious defeat of the french. Especially significant re. French military skills was when in 1916 the English sacrificed innumerable young men on the battlefields at Somme trying to shift German pressure off the French when a large part of the French army just deserted and went home.

Wotan are you sure you're a Swede ? You talk like an American...

Ah la la ! North Sea people... :mischief:

What I love with Americans is that if Germany hasn't invaded Paris in WW1, it was thanks to Brits and Americans. On the other side, if Germany did invade Paris in WW2, it is the fault of the French alone. Should I remind you Brits did participate to the French debacle of 1940 ? And about the US, as usual, they were trading with Nazis, comfortable far away accross the Ocean. ;)


Though the campaign was a combined effort, the performances of the British army when in battle against the Germans were almost entirely without exception good. What really screwed up the allies in 1940 was more their campaign plan and their inability to deal with and counter Blitzkrieg, individual battles were usually less of a problem, witness Calais for example, or Samur. However, in battle alone, the British were rarely beaten during that period with exceptions like Arras. Besides, how are we meant to know that the flank near Belgium was suspect, that was your responsibility :mischief:

Lets not forget that while Hitler's panzers were in Poland for a couple of months and The Ruhr was defended by a handful of German divisions the French were content to sit behind the Maginot line and twiddle their thumbs. I don't even think the allies bombed German cities at this stage due to fear of revenge.
France had Europe's largest army and yet all they wanted to do was fight a defensive war. This is despite the fact that the Poles were finished in less than 3 weeks, which pointed to Germany's offensive dominance.
The pessimistic French high command first let down the Czechs, and then their own people.

Well, what you say about the French debacle is indeed completely true.

However, most of the times when we think about the winners of ww2 Roosevelt and Stalin come in our mind because they are indeed the great winners of it. My point was simply that they were other great men outside of those who were De Gaulle and even more Churchill.

When we see how France survived from the debacle, it's impossible to not consider De Gaulle was someone, especially that there really few people behind him at the beginning. And about Churchill, well, Churchill was a great man who did much not only for Britain but also for the whole Europe.

Churchill is a founding father of Europe, he has supported fiercely the idea of a European Unification, he and his successors Attlee and Eden did much to re-introduce Germany as a deep partner. If someone should be on those bloody Euro notes, it should certainly be him. But anyway, I've just forgotten here that Churchill was British.

in america we like churchill just almost as much as fdr

General de Gaulle was in a difficult position.

General de Gaule had proclaimed himself head of France when most of France had surrendered. He sought equal status with USA, GB and the USSR, but he had no independent army, the Free french were effectively functioning as British military units. He was a proud man and unwilling to be temporarily subordinate to Churchill in the way that the representatives of the other occupied european countries, Begium, Holland, Denmark, Greece and Norway etc were. Many of his various independent schemes were opposed by Churchill not so much because they were dangerous or wrong but because they constituted an untimely distraction or diversion of effort when the allies need to co-ordinate better.

General de Gaule was in the horrible position of having to be a bystander while his allies (UK) sank his ships and (UK and USA) bombed his country to free it.

Rooseveldt, with the popular myths of the US revolution behind him, was deeply hostile to the French overseas empire (as he was to the British overseas empire and the Dutch overseas empire; while hypocritically forgetting about the US overseas empire), was remarkably naive about soviet communism and even went behind Churchill's back to discuss dismembering India with Stalin. Bearing in mind that Britain had signed the Atlantic Charter and thereby promised the Indian Sub-Continent's peoples that they would have their own governments and that foreign colonial rule would end, which it later provided for; Rooseveldt acted quite dishonourably.

The US government's plans to appoint a miltary governor for France reflected muddled thinking. I don't believe the US military and politicians in the USA ever really understood the distinction between the Mussolini government that had been willing partner of Germany and an enemy, and the Vichy government which was coerced by Germany. General de Gaule had argued against dealing with vichy, so arguably US misunderstanding reflected free french talk. The US was also in an emotional snub after General de Gaule had a French, not US, ship formally liberate St Pierre and Miquelon from a vichy supporting governor. Churchill told him that the USA regarded the new world as their hemisphere and that this would annoy the US, but de Gaule adopted a legalistic position. What would have happened if they had been liberated by French Canadians?

By the way, I think General de Gaule was right to veto Britain's application for common market membership. He correctly understood that the the British people had not voted for it and no doubt remembered what Churchill had said to him. "If forced to choose between Europe and the open sea, the British will always choose the open sea".

The strategic requirements of the war resulted in the occupation of territories such as Madagascar and Algeria. General de Gaule suspected Britain of planning to permanently take over overseas French possions (in fact Britain had become greatly over extended from the take-on of former Ottaman empire areas as LoN mandates in the inter-war years and its WW1 loan debt to the USA and had no such intentions) while Britain suspected that french officers might pass on secrets to the Germans by threatening to torture their families so necessarily had to keep the French ignorant.

In reality Britain did restore the French possessions to the French despite US hostility, and supported Fance to become one of the four powers dividing and occupying Germany.

What I love with Americans is that if Germany hasn't invaded Paris in WW1, it was thanks to Brits and Americans. On the other side, if Germany did invade Paris in WW2, it is the fault of the French alone. Should I remind you Brits did participate to the French debacle of 1940 ? And about the US, as usual, they were trading with Nazis, comfortable far away accross the Ocean. ;)

The Brits did participate. After all, their army was christned "Back Every
Fortnight" :D.

As to ourselves: we were trading with you and the British,
too, you know. ;)

@privatehudson : My understanding is that the British and French *did*
think the Germans would come through Belgium, but that their planning was
based on Germany's repeating the Schlieffen Plan. And so when they
actually came through the Ardennes + did that airborne operation at the
Belgian fort at Liege, the plans became so much waste paper, and niether
the British nor French commands were able to recover.

It's important to remember, the Allies figured that the invasion through Holland and Belgium (inc airborne landings) was the main axis of advance, hence why they moved their forces into those areas to counter it. It was only when the massive armoured thrust to the south by the rest of the German forces came that the allies were caught out, cut off from their supplies and in the case of the British forced to retreat headlong out again. The Ardennes assault was not expected as such as the invasion of Belgium had occurred also in other in a similar way to WWI.

They certainly did not expect an assault through the Ardennes, I know one or two annecdotes that prove it :)

Belgium and Holland could have been a bit more co-operative with the Allies too. They chose an isolationist policy despite all the evidence that proved Hitler was coming.

I know the Allies still would have been caught in a trap, but they may not have had to commit so many of their forces to the low countries when Hitler did move.

True, but nothing about anglo-french planning back then made much sense :lol:

True, but nothing about anglo-french planning back then made much sense :lol:
"anglo-french" seldom make a positive sense anyway ;)

Yup, who needs all that wine and garlic after all :mischief:

Not the English, they haven't any taste anyway.

That must be because we spend too much time learning how to win the wars we get ourselves into then :smug:

Stop threadjacking, you two...

Military skills and France??? Isn't that a contradiction in terms...??? :lol:

After a terrible blow in 1870-71 and eager for revenge they mobilize in 1914 and are this time saved from certain defeat by the English and later the Ameriacans. Had the English not DoW'd Germany after the advance through Belgium we would probably have seen yet another glorious defeat of the french. Especially significant re. French military skills was when in 1916 the English sacrificed innumerable young men on the battlefields at Somme trying to shift German pressure off the French when a large part of the French army just deserted and went home.

You must have been reading the British chauvinist version of this.

The British army in 1914 performed excelently (pure professionalism) but they were extremely few. (Four or six divisions stuck into a line of 80+ French ones if I remember correctly). The French army stopped the German advance. First in a sacrificial battle between the rivers Sambre and Meuse, and later at the Marne (with the British stuck in after Joffre personally pleaded with their commander John French to stand and fight and not ship his army home from Bordeaux). The million French casualties taken in 1914 might be an answer to the US question/joke of "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?" (The figure was hushed up because they feared that the British would throw in towel if they knew how badly mauled the French had been.) The British didn't experience the kind of fighting the French did from day one until the Somme. France had to do the fighting and the dying until the British managed to build an army like the German and French ones.

As for the mutinies in 1917, you had French units refusing to get back into the trenches. They weren't going home. And if one of the authors in the anthology "Facing Armageddon" is to be believed, the German army exprienced similar problems at the same time. Ludendorff was just better at covering it up, than the more democratic French army.

I can't imagine how you have formed your picture of the French army in WWI? Taking it from Jay Leno? :crazyeye:

John French was an arrogant fool, when his second in command heard that French intended to give battle on the Marne, he asked French whether he intended to be defensive or go on the offensive. French replied not to ask impertinent questions and to do his job! :lol:

Roosevelt wanted to create a new country he was calling "Wallonia". That country consisted into French speaking Belgium, Luxembourg, Alsace and Lorraine.


De Gaulle wanted Wallonia ( I mean the real Wallonia, not Roosevelt's idea ) to be part of France. He was from Lille, at the French-Walloon boundary, and he came to school in my country. He knew the situation very well and he wanted to create a "Grande France". And some Walloons still want so.

Belgium and Holland could have been a bit more co-operative with the Allies too. They chose an isolationist policy despite all the evidence that proved Hitler was coming..

I don't know about the Netherlands, but the sutuation in Belgium was much more complicated. Don't forget that, in that country, EVERYTHING comes to a political struggle between Flanders and Wallonia. We wanted to sign a military cooperation treaty with France ! But the flemishs refused, maybe because of historical and cultural reasons... So, saying Belgium was not cooperative is much too simple !

It probably is much too simple, I have no idea about racial and political rivalries in Belgium then and now.

What surprises me is their short memory. 25 years earlier the Germans had come to belgium uninvited and done a lot of damage. As war was looming on the western front in ww2 surley they should have realised there was a good possibilty it could happen again. By 1940 the whole world (excluding Germany) must have realised Hitler was a man with very few scruples.

De Gaulle should be praised for seeking friendship with Germany, but his mistrust towards 'the Anglo-Saxon' rule was a genuine misfit, fed by hunger for an important role in a post WWII world.

Roosevelt was as naive as a 3 year old child to trust Stalin's post WWII plans. Stalin was simpy evil.
Though Churchill has his bad sides, he was the only one that did things pretty rigth, reagrding the post WWII world.

@Rilnator : I don't think it's a matter a short memory. I think some people here had no problems about becoming part of the Reich. :mad: Just one think. Do you know who created the first "Vlaams Raad" ( Flemish Parliament ) ? Hitler...

We have to advoid the "cliche" : there where traitors and resistants both by Walloons and Flemishs. But it was in very different proportions. As an exemple, Flanders want to give money to traitors who had "problems" after the liberation ! In Wallonia, we just can't understand.

WWII is still a major source of conflict between the two nations composing Belgium.

John French was an arrogant fool, when his second in command heard that French intended to give battle on the Marne, he asked French whether he intended to be defensive or go on the offensive. French replied not to ask impertinent questions and to do his job! :lol:

French had planned to take the BEF BACK to England and RELAUNCH it. The "Great Retreat" I think he called it.

There's a pretty good book, The Guns of August, that you guys might want to check out. Very interesting stuff about pre- and opening months of WW1.

I'm aware of that thank you art, just commenting that French wasn't exactly predisposed to being helpful to his subordinates or allies :D

De Gaulle should be praised for seeking friendship with Germany, but his mistrust towards 'the Anglo-Saxon' rule was a genuine misfit, fed by hunger for an important role in a post WWII world.De Gaulle mistrust was certainly not as paranoid as you're picturing it. And actually, instead of being "hungry", De Gaulle simply wanted to not be eaten. That's as simple as that.

If De Gaulle hadn't fought so hard during the war to maintain a bit of independance for the post-war France, no one in France would have had ever enough freedom to get closer to Germany as De Gaulle could with Adenauer.

Roosevelt was as naive as a 3 year old child to trust Stalin's post WWII plans. Stalin was simpy evil. Though Churchill has his bad sides, he was the only one that did things pretty rigth, reagrding the post WWII world.Roosevelt was surely naive towards Stalin. I think he was sure Russians would arrive in Germany before the allies and as such all the diplomatic agreements have been made on the wrong basis. And actually, I think it wouldn't have been that bad for the "Anglo-Saxons" to have invited De Gaulle in the negociations.

Roosevelt was sick, Churchill was in good shape despite his 70 years old, but Britain was not considered as really important by both Giants. I think that if De Gaulle had participated to those things, Stalin would have felt more isolated no matter about the fact the French General actually represented nothing. Indeed, De Gaulle was quite a convincing man.

The symbol of a De Gaulle invited in Yalta would have been quite strong, the leader of an occupied country in exile who decided to continue the struggle. However, there were two problems which explain quite easily why that alternative has never been taken seriously by the Prime Minister and the President. First, France was simply part of the discussion. Second, if they had invited De Gaulle, then they would have considered him de facto as the leader of France, and no one wanted this. That was certainly not an option.

@Rilnator : I don't think it's a matter a short memory. I think some people here had no problems about becoming part of the Reich. :mad: Just one think. Do you know who created the first "Vlaams Raad" ( Flemish Parliament ) ? Hitler...


Is this parliment still functioning today?