Skip to main content

France, the third Axis power and Dunkirk.

Vichy France (Light Blue)
Now that the Cold War is over it is legitimate to revisit the French role in the Second World War (or the 'European Civil War' as the Germans call it). The French army was riddled with Nazi sympathisers and even during the defence of France some generals behaved treacherously, for instance by removing their forces so that the British Expeditionary Force could be nearly encircled and forced to retreat to Dunkirk (see Note 1).

The French had a bloodless military coup and surrendered in 1940. Once the French had surrendered the senior generals formed a government that was sanctioned by the National Assembly and seated at Vichy.

"The commander in chief of the French forces, Pétain, happily collaborated with the German occupation to a high degree. Vichy forces refused to surrender or save the fleet at Mers-el-Kebir for the Allies, put up a staunch resistance to British forces in Syria and Algerian landings, and out of a force of 48,000 men, only a few thousand decided to join Free French after the Lebanon campaign (the rest choosing German-occupied France as a destination). After the landing of the Allied forces in North Africa on 8 November 1942, Hitler ordered the occupation of France's free zone. The Vichy leaders collaborated as far as ordering the French police and the local milice (militiamen) to go on raids to capture Jews and other minorities considered "undesirables" by Germany." (See Wikipedia article on Vichy France.

However, it is not the French actions against the Allies in North Africa or even the pro-Japanese actions in Madagascar that are of great importance. It is the pro-Japanese stance of French Indo-China that was most disastrous. The Vichy French invited the Japanese into French Indo-China (modern day Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam),signing an accord with the Japanese on September 22nd 1940. The Japanese took excessive advantage of these accords and the Vichy forces came into conflict with the Japanese for a few days. On September 27th the Japanese entered into alliance with the Axis and were allowed full access to French Indochina. The French provisioned the Japanese forces and provided full access to ports and airfields in preparation for the Japanese attack on Singapore in 1942 and on British controlled territories. The French continued to administer Indo-China as an Axis power until 1945. It was this French alliance with the Japanese that led to the fall of Thailand, Malaya and Burma. The British forces were caught in an impossible situation and had to re-group in present day Bangladesh.

The Japanese stronghold in French Indo-China also allowed them to thrust towards Australia through the Solomon Islands and on to Papua New Guinea.

What makes me sick about this French treachery is that it is forgotten. Certainly the French needed to be humoured during the Cold War but now there is no excuse for forgetting. The effects of this treachery are still used to denigrate the British. The Malaysians joke that the British ran from the Japanese and the Americans treat the British stand in SE Asia as incompetent. The truth was that an ally switched sides and provisioned and aided a barbaric enemy at huge cost to the allied cause.

The British administration even advised the British in SE Asia to 'stay put' during the Japanese advance because the French had got on so well with them and they did not appear to be barbarians. Thousands of Allied men women and children died as a result.

Both the Malaysians and the Americans forget that when the tide of the SE Asian battle turned in 1944 the Anglo-Indian forces inflicted a series of devastating defeats on the Japanese who lost their entire SE Asian army. This military defeat was accomplished with relatively low allied losses and, apart from the atomic bombs at the end of the war, was the most decisive operation against the Japanese in the Second World War.

It is interesting that the two terrible defeats that almost lost the Second World War for the British were Dunkirk and Singapore and both of these defeats were heavily influenced by French treachery. It is only from history that we can learn how to cope with the future...

See:


Note 1:  Dunkirk It is well known that Dunkirk was the result of the first stage in a soft coup by Nazi sympathisers in France.  There was remarkable discord in the French forces prior to Dunkirk with 20 senior officers being dismissed by Gamelin, the French Supreme Commander in early 1940.  In May 1940 Gamelin was replaced by Maxime Weygand as Supreme Commander of the French army.  He was a Nazi sympathiser:

"Weygand arrived on 17 May and started by cancelling the flank counter-offensive ordered by Gamelin, to cut off the enemy armoured columns which had punched through the French front at the Ardennes" Wikipedia

He did this despite clear information from British Intelligence (and French Intelligence) that there was a huge German army about to push through the Ardennes and an ongoing invasion in that sector.  Dunkirk (26th May- 4th June 1940) became inevitable within a week of the withdrawal.  The French signed an armistice with Germany on 22nd June.

It might be argued that Weygand was "not really" a Nazi sympathiser but within months of being appointed Minister of Defence (16th June 1940) in what was to become the first Vichy government he set up concentration camps in North Africa for Jews, Freemasons, Gaullists and Communists.

Don't believe this? Try reading this US report about the French administration in 1940: The Ambassador in France ( Bullitt ) to the Secretary of State

Written 2/4/2011



Threats and friends of the English

Comments

lasancmt said…
It happened a long time ago. Get over it. If historic facts or suppositions make you 'sick', maybe engage in a different hobby. Please do not use this propaganda to derail the EU experiment which is built on peaceful cooperation, not collaboration.
John said…
History is the guide to the future. That people forget such recent history is what makes me sick. The EEC was cooperation but the EU is simply government by the EU - see The European Union - What Happened on Nov 1st 2014.

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage