Vichy Frances Production

[Sanctum]

I'd like to know how well Vichy France, Poland and other places conquered by the Germans contributed to the German war effort, like whether or not they produced the same amount of armaments as before they were taken over and whether or not production was overshadowed by the amount of power Germany had to use to administer them.

And also if many people were conscripted from those countries. I know that there was a lot of resistance in France (I'm not sure about the other places), so that might've interfered with production, but when you have a gun pointed at you, you'd probably be pretty motivated.

And if they were productive, how did the Soviets outproduce them? Europe was always generally more industrialised then Russia, so even after the Soviets brought up their industry I'd think that the odds wouldn't be so bad for the Germans.

 

[nonconformist]

In France, the Germans forced all young men into the Service de Travaille Obligatoire, STO, which was work towards the German was effort, which usually took place in Germany.
Obviouslty, this wasn't popular, anddespite being mandatory under harsh punishments, a lot of Frenchmen didn't go and joined the resistance instead.

Also, German armaments towards the end of the war, had a much higher rate of failure than their allied counterparts.
American GIs have said a number of times how lucky they were that a shell landed in their foxhole, but didn't explode.
This is undoubtedly because the Germans used slave labour, and that somne ingenuitive conscripts were risking their lives to damage the effort.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Er, Vichy France didn't produce anything for Germany.

 

[Verbose]

Except through the STO. Occupied France produced a lot.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Welll they traded goods with Germany, and Occupied France obviously was put to work for Germany, but Vichy France was an independent Nation. It didn't produce things for Germany, it produced things for France.

 

[Verbose]

Vichy's own figures from 1943 has it that 100% of the French aeronautics industry, 100% of the great foundries, 60% of the French rubber industry etc. was directly working to fill German military needs.

The mechanism for this was the instrument of "war reparitions". According to the imposed terms of peace, France was to turn over production in the order of the work of 4 million workers per year, as compensation for the German "costs" for the war.
Oh, and since Germany arbitrarily got to decide what the value of the French Franc was to the German Reichsmark, they could and did jack up the amount to be paid any time they liked.

The STO meant 600.000 Frenchmen were sent to Germany — at the expense and through the organisation of the Vichy government — to work in the German war industries (producing for Germany), by force, if it was necessary to make them go. (The O mean "obligatoire", compulsory. The original German demand was 2 million.)

It was one of the things that really got the internal French resistence going. Tens of thousands of young men slunk off into the "maquis", the Mediterranean backwoods so to speak. They joined up, as the alternative was deportation to Germany, joining the Nazi war effort.

 

[Sanctum]

Okay I've done some reading on Vichy France, so now I know better what it was (the French government surrendered to Germany and set up a new government in Vichy France, as opposed to what I thought happened, the Germans took over France and then set up the government). How much did the Germans have to expend to keep Vichy France under their thumbs though?

I also read somewhere (*cough* wikipedia *cough*) that the Soviets and Germans during the early war had roughly the same amount of men, so how did the Germans lose even with better commanders, the blitzkrieg and all the factories and arms they would've captured in the early war? I understand that they logistics problems with getting their supplies out that far, but I'd think that the Soviets would have the same problems.

And to add to that, on the history channel I heard that the Germans destroyed five Soviet tanks for every one that they lost and four allied tanks for every one that they lost, but they would've had to destroy 10 to 1 if they were to win the war. German tanks and commanders were generally better, however and the Germans chose to build quality tanks over quanity, as the USSR and allies did.

 

[nonconformist]

Okay I've done some reading on Vichy France, so now I know better what it was (the French government surrendered to Germany and set up a new government in Vichy France, as opposed to what I thought happened, the Germans took over France and then set up the government). How much did the Germans have to expend to keep Vichy France under their thumbs though?

Well, Vichy France was peetty short lived, as the Germans invaded in 1941.

I also read somewhere (*cough* wikipedia *cough*) that the Soviets and Germans during the early war had roughly the same amount of men, so how did the Germans lose even with better commanders, the blitzkrieg and all the factories and arms they would've captured in the early war? I understand that they logistics problems with getting their supplies out that far, but I'd think that the Soviets would have the same problems.

In essence: winter, scorched earth, German incompetance, and the Soviets' ability to mobilise hige numbers in a short period of time.

And to add to that, on the history channel I heard that the Germans destroyed five Soviet tanks for every one that they lost and four allied tanks for every one that they lost, but they would've had to destroy 10 to 1 if they were to win the war. German tanks and commanders were generally better, however and the Germans chose to build quality tanks over quanity, as the USSR and allies did.

The Russians had a saying: "Quantity has a quality of its own".

However, this is denying the quality of later-war soviet tanks.

While the early BT and T tanks were useless, the KV1 and KV2 were pretty damn good, and were superceded by the T-34, which is often called the best tank of WWII (though I'm of the opinion that the Panther was superior), and the IS1, 2 and 3 which were inpervious to anything but high-velocity 75 and 88 mm fire.
The Germans also had a number of problems with their tanks; for a start, they were too heavy, and their tracks were too thin, meanign they'd churn themselves into the mud during the Russian Rasputina (wet season).
They were also not designed with the cold in mind, so every morning their crews would have to build a fire under the tank to warm the engine enough to start it.

That was if there was petrol, that is.

 

[Verbose]

How much did the Germans have to expend to keep Vichy France under their thumbs though?

I'd have to say... nothing!

The conditions of the peace made sure they could get France to pay for its own occupation. France became a money-maker (or war-materiel maker) for Germany, once it was defeated.

 

[rilnator]

The Germans also had a number of problems with their tanks; for a start, they were too heavy, and their tracks were too thin, meanign they'd churn themselves into the mud during the Russian Rasputina (wet season).
They were also not designed with the cold in mind, so every morning their crews would have to build a fire under the tank to warm the engine enough to start it.

Thats true for the first year of the war in the east but you could say they over corrected their problems.

Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers were all very good tanks but the Germans took too much time in designing and building them. The T-34 was a crude, mass produced tank but had interchangeable parts and was quick and cheap to build. The German 3 on the other hand were expensive and very technically involved. Kinda like comparing a Mercedes to a Kia.

Its been argued that the Germans should have focused more on upgrading the PzIV, instead of wasting time and money on 'super tanks'. The late model PzIVs were awesome tanks, with guns capable of taking on any allied vehicle.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Vichy's own figures from 1943 has it that 100% of the French aeronautics industry, 100% of the great foundries, 60% of the French rubber industry etc. was directly working to fill German military needs.

The mechanism for this was the instrument of "war reparitions". According to the imposed terms of peace, France was to turn over production in the order of the work of 4 million workers per year, as compensation for the German "costs" for the war.
Oh, and since Germany arbitrarily got to decide what the value of the French Franc was to the German Reichsmark, they could and did jack up the amount to be paid any time they liked.

Ah, I forgot about the war reperations. That does change things. I was trying to get through the point that Vichy France had a great deal of autonomy, and it wasn't like the government of say, Quisling, which directly is counted in German war effort.

The STO meant 600.000 Frenchmen were sent to Germany — at the expense and through the organisation of the Vichy government — to work in the German war industries (producing for Germany), by force, if it was necessary to make them go. (The O mean "obligatoire", compulsory. The original German demand was 2 million.)

It was one of the things that really got the internal French resistence going. Tens of thousands of young men slunk off into the "maquis", the Mediterranean backwoods so to speak. They joined up, as the alternative was deportation to Germany, joining the Nazi war effort.

Yes, but that sort of economic production would fall under Germany's production figures, not Frances.

Okay I've done some reading on Vichy France, so now I know better what it was (the French government surrendered to Germany and set up a new government in Vichy France, as opposed to what I thought happened, the Germans took over France and then set up the government). How much did the Germans have to expend to keep Vichy France under their thumbs though?

Relatively little. The German's were leary about pushing Vichy too hard because it might re-enter the war. It's really not fair to call the Vichy Regime a puppet state, because it had basicly complete control over its internal and foreign affiars. Unlike any of the puppet states (Manchukou, Mengukou, Croatia, Quisling, the RRC etc.) America kept its ambassador with the Vichy government, because it had real power, unlike the others.

 

[Verbose]

It's really not fair to call the Vichy Regime a puppet state, because it had basicly complete control over its internal and foreign affiars. Unlike any of the puppet states (Manchukou, Mengukou, Croatia, Quisling, the RRC etc.) America kept its ambassador with the Vichy government, because it had real power, unlike the others.

It was even more complicated. Vichy France had a lot of say about things in the civil administration of the occupied zone as well, and for the most part worked excellently well with the German occupiers.

 

[Verbose]

Yes, but that sort of economic production would fall under Germany's production figures, not Frances.

The point is that Germany could pretty much commandeer most of the French industrial production capacity for its own ends. The STO was just the most direct form.
What they took out of France for production in Germany becomes as French deficit. The 1,5 million French POW were put to work for Germany in Germany as well, and also constitute a French production deficit, never mind a considerable reduction in French war-fighting capacity.

(Actually sending the 600,000 STO-workers did manage to spring some 200-300,000 of them from captivity. Pierre Laval did try to get them all released by playing nice like this, but Hitler wasn't really planning to send this French army home.)

 

[ParkCungHee]

The point is that Germany could pretty much commandeer most of the French industrial production capacity for its own ends. The STO was just the most direct form.
What they took out of France for production in Germany becomes as French deficit. The 1,5 million French POW were put to work for Germany in Germany as well, and also constitute a French production deficit, never mind a considerable reduction in French war-fighting capacity.

(Actually sending the 600,000 STO-workers did manage to spring some 200-300,000 of them from captivity. Pierre Laval did try to get them all released by playing nice like this, but Hitler wasn't really planning to send this French army home.)

Right, but I'm saying that any measure of Vichy France's production is probably more likely to deal with their production for their own uses.


...actually, I'm surprised at how little information is available on Vichy France's Armed forces, which probably were considerable.

 

[Verbose]

...actually, I'm surprised at how little information is available on Vichy France's Armed forces, which probably were considerable.

Probably because that's complicted.
The German imposed the exact same limit to the French armed forces as Versailles had imposed on them. So, no navy, no air force, no tanks, limited to 100.000 men with no more artillery than mortars.

But, there was no way for Germany to at the moment actually take on the French navy. And peeking into what the French did in Algeria and elsewhere outside continental France wasn't so easy.

Which meant the Minister of War of the Vichy govt., general Huntziger (I mistakenly had Weygand in that position in an earlier post, sorry), spirited away fighter aircraft, tanks, artillery pieces etc. to North Africa. Which was where the allies after Torch picked up the army Vichy had built more or less on the sly again, about 100,000 strong.

So, Vichy had more than the stipulated 100,000 men, but it's hard to know exactly what, and they mostly didn't keep them in France itself. If they had the Germans probably couldn't have instantaneously extended the occupation of France as a response to Torch.

 

[Marla_Singer]

France has been invaded in 1940, and later on, it didn't remain much of the French power. Vichy France is just the result of a negociation between a winner and a capitulating loser.

Here's a map showing the outcome in June 1940 :

Vichy France is what appears in white on that map. It is actually nothing less than a vassal state that France negociated to keep on a restricted area in order to make survive a form of living French government. It was actually rather powerless as it had no air force, no navy, and a strongly restricted land army having as sole purpose to maintain order. In November 1942, it's been finally fully occupied directly by the German military.

The only French territories which were not under German rule were actually the colonies. However, as both Vichy France and Free France were claiming their authority on them, the situation was some kind of messy right after the debacle. Finally, Free France had been firstly recognized by the French Equatorial Africa and New Caledonia, and had later expanded its power to the other colonies.

Anyway, to answer the question, things aren't as simple as to consider that once invaded, Germany could take advantage of the production capacities of conqueered territories. Globally, outside reluctant mandatory workers and prisonners of war, the occupied territories contributed very marginally to the German war effort.

The only French citizens who have been forced to join the German military are the people of Alsace-Lorraine for the simple reason that these territories have been fully integrated into the German Reich. These French people were then called the "Malgré-Nous" (Despite ourselves).

 

[ParkCungHee]

Probably because that's complicted.
The German imposed the exact same limit to the French armed forces as Versailles had imposed on them. So, no navy, no air force, no tanks, limited to 100.000 men with no more artillery than mortars.

But, there was no way for Germany to at the moment actually take on the French navy. And peeking into what the French did in Algeria and elsewhere outside continental France wasn't so easy.

Which meant the Minister of War of the Vichy govt., general Huntziger (I mistakenly had Weygand in that position in an earlier post, sorry), spirited away fighter aircraft, tanks, artillery pieces etc. to North Africa. Which was where the allies after Torch picked up the army Vichy had built more or less on the sly again, about 100,000 strong.

So, Vichy had more than the stipulated 100,000 men, but it's hard to know exactly what, and they mostly didn't keep them in France itself. If they had the Germans probably couldn't have instantaneously extended the occupation of France as a response to Torch.

That's Fascinating. I'm really surprised no ones written a book on it yet.

 

[Marla_Singer]

That's Fascinating. I'm really surprised no ones written a book on it yet.

Except that Verbose is wrong. 75% of France was militarily occupied in june 1940... and two years later, 100% of France was occupied. WW1 allies never occupied more than Rheinland after Versailles Treaty, they didn't invade Berlin and control it... and they haven't moved the capital city to a small town (that's what the US and the USSR did in 1945 actually). Furthermore, Vichy France had no independent foreign policy. Something which has never been true for post-WW1 Germany.

So overall, the comparison is more awckward than ever. If anything, what happened to France in June 1940 is closer to what happened to Germany in May 1945 than in November 1918.

 

[Verbose]

What are you talking about, Marla?

I never made any comparison between post-Versailles Germany and Vichy France. The Germans imposed the same limits on the French military as Versailles had imposed on Germany. That was it. You don't mean to say that is erroneous?

What I am saying is that Vichy in France proper had next to no military, and that everything was set up for convenient German exploitation of France, whether it was in the occupied zone or the Vichy zone.

Most of what military assets there was were moved to North Africa, where the Allies picked them up again to form the First French Army for the Italian campaign.

Something is bothering you about all this. What is it? Is it as simple as the fact that occupied/Vichyfied France could actually be exploited by Nazi Germany and prove a useful asset, or is it something more?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Your comparison with Versailles was somewhat misleading... as in one case there's an invaded country and not in the other.

Actually, the only reason why Hitler maintained a French authority was because he had no other way to get the French colonial empire under control. As he couldn't militarily reach it, he hoped that maintaining the colonial Empire under the rule of a French vassal would be the solution. Of course, De Gaulle has put his mess in getting control of most of it, however, I don't believe that this has ever been Hitler's main worry !