French forces after 1940

Hi, I was reading about the French vichy forces after Dunkirk and I still find it hard to belive that the French army regarded the British as there enemy. I know that we sunk there fleet in oran but only to stop the Germans using it against us, we gave then plenty of time to join the cause to rid there country of the Nazis. They just wanted to fight us any were they had forces, the middle east, Madagascar & various places in Africa, the British and its Allies were only trying to beat the Axis and free europe and this Frence farce was a big drain on what forces we had to do the job (Britain was still under threat across the channel) the British took a lot of Frence troops back with them from Dunkirk and still the British people look on France as a friend but the Vichy must have resented us, I've even heard stories about French farmers in Normandy shooting at Allied troops and even worse some even wanted the Germans to stay, I know that some one will come up with a logical reason for all this so I wanted to do this post to see what others think, and by the way I dont hold any Grudge against France it justs seems to me that if Germany had invaded Britain I could not see the North of our country saying 'ok we accept this and let the rest of the country and the world take it and like it' and if anyone tries to free us we will fight them.

 

The French were not going to let the Germans gain access to their fleet as shown when the Germans occupied the rest of France. The French scuttled their ships. Had the British not attacked the French, I believe those ships would have joined the allies once the Germans occupied Vichy France. So I do believe that the French had every right to be angry with the British. It was French lives that were lost in Oran. An ally does not attack another ally. Can the action against the French really be justified?

 

Remember thier were french troops who fought along side british troops in northafrica fighting off German and Itialin troops in the fortress of bigazi? It was omthing like that also French troops fought in Italy and landed with American troops in operation Dragoon look it up.

 

Yes there should be a distinction made between Vichy forces , which garissons in Norht Africa claimed they would defend themselves against any attack from a foreign power : Mers eL kEBBIR and Dakar by the British in 1940 , Morocco by the U.S. in 1942 and Toulon by the Gerrans in 1942 (they sank their own fleet to avois the Germans form having it.
The Propaganda worked in 1940 , not so good in 1942 when many soldiers realised they were fighting on the wrong side. Therefore many of them (from Syria and North Africa for instance) joined Delattre's 1st Army in 1941 in North Africa (flanking the Britsh wing in Lybia and Tunesia and later fighting along with the USA ( Leclerc's 2nd armored Division) in Italy France , Germany and Austria.
Others called the "Free French" joined de Gaulle in london and fllew in the RAF or joine dthe SOE , or fought at D-Day under British Command (Kieffer Commando).

Finally the FFI and the Resitance were fighting the Germans in occupied France.

Those who sided with Vichy were the Milice fighting the FFI and deporting Jews ( these guys were worse than the SS) or "collaborators" ( either Petain followers, convinced Nazis, traitors, opportunists and even evaded criminals) . The was also the LVF (French Waffen SS) fighting on the Ostfront.

 

Thanks guys, I know that a lot of very brave French men fought with the Allies, it just confuses me more about the Vichy crew.

 

It is confusing. Even in the mind of those who served in the French army between 1940 and 1942. Imagine being a soldier and receiving an order from a superior to open fire: you either obey or you get considered a deserter (which meant being sentenced to death).
Also should one defend a garisson when its attacked or not ?
Some followed orders, others deserted, others switched sides when they could or when they realised they were fighting on the wrong side.
In 1940 Petain appeared as a savior, just like at Verdun when he halted the Germans there. They followed the man blindly and it took some more time than others to realise that the old man was going astray and was no longer the Hero of Verdun but a collaborator.
The trouble was that getting to London wasn't that easy. (google about the free French of the island of Sein ) Escaping via the Channel was very risky. Gibraltar was another possibility but those who were caught in Spain were often interned first.

General Vallin made it to London in 1941 via Brazil...

 

We should remember that Germany found supporters in every country occupied by them. Had England been occupied they too would have had thousands of collaborators. Heck the Klan in the American south would have traded in the white sheets for SS black if it meant the chance to do what they liked.

 

the white would be better cammo on the Ostfront

 

even villin's love it when a plan ciomes together!

 

I suppose people are only human after all and you would get a minority who will fight it, a majority who will dislike it and say nothing and another minority who will embrace it either to save there own skins or actually think things like putting people in concentration camps is pretty cool.

 

Estimates were 200.000 collaborators , the same amount resistants and the large majority waiting for the storm to end.
80.000 resistants were caught and deported. Many did not survive or vanished with the Nacht und Nebel progrmamme.

 

We know that now but could Churchill be sure of that in 1940? 100% sure?
Because with the Vichy fleet added to the German, Sealion looks much more likely, not to mention loss of naval superiority.
Remember that France had just broken the agreement with the British that neither would sign a separate peace agreement with Germany.
Additionally, Petain had some significant dislike of the British.

But they were most certainly not allies at this point, they were collaberating with Germany, attacks against the UK were launched from France, and French guns & munitions were given (surrendered) to Germany to strengthen their army.

It was without a doubt a most regrettable & distateful action, but Churchill wasn't going to place the security & survival of the British nation in the hands of Petain, who dislike the British and had already betrayed them. (In the opinion of Churchill)

 

Agreed, considering the risk was that the French fleet ended in German hands, the British action was understandle and a strategic move (with debatable results). The French would probably have done the same if the situation would have been reversed.

 

What happened to Petain did they hang him ?, going back to people from occupied europe joining the Axis, I gather a measly 200 British men joined the SS.

 

Petain was a WWI hero, and I believe he was allowed to quietly retire into obscurity. As Britain was never occupied, Germany could only recruit from POW camps. Rather more Indian Commonweath troops 'joined' the German side, but then there was some appeal in a India free of the British empire. These numbers were quite small none the less, 1,500?

 

I know very little about this time frame but I can suggest you remember two things. France was occupied, Germany could exact any revenge it wanted on an unarmed population if the troops refused to fight for Germany. Second, Germany had thousands of French POW's and could do the same to them.

 

The Klan was doing what they wanted to do anyway, with little to no interference from the authorities. They didn't need no stinking nazis to let them do anything. And do you really think that the Klan would wear black....

And I think that the British jumped the gun a bit when they blasted the French fleet in North Africa. Look at what happened to the French Naval Squadron at Alexandria. Total compliance, and no need for offensive action. The French fleet was bottled up in the Med, with the Royal Navy controlling the exits at Gibraltar and Suez. They could have waited a bit longer before opening fire on the French. A British covering force could have alerted the Admiralty if the French sortied in strength. Nothing good came of what the British did. I do understand their motivation, and hindsight is 20/20, but they could have waited and struck when the threat presented itself, not when the threat was per-sieved.

 

Also, keep in mind that the Vichy French did offer resistance to the initial Allied landings in North Africa. Also keep in mind that the Germans demanded that the Vichy French surrender there ships to the Germans after the ships were damaged (5 cruisers I believe). It is regrettable to attack a former ally but it was probably the right move. Even after the war the people of France were still very unhappy with the British about the events. I believe that over 1200 french sailors died in Oran. This is deeply regrettable but in my mind understandable.

 

Vichy French opposition to Allied landings in North Africa during Operation Torch were in November of 1942, long after the British attacked the French fleet in Algeria. The only time the Germans tried to get their hands on the French fleet was in 1942 at Marseilles, after Allied landings in North Africa were opposed by light resistance from the French garrison there. The French Navy countered the German effort by scuttling the entire fleet.