Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Aktan Mart's avatar

Some good points about the convenient myths, but many of your quotes range from poor to erroneous and both them and your analysis are not devoid of what you mention as possible in the end ie a bias, a very common one indeed.

A few examples. stating that French tanks overall were superior omits the fact that the most recent ones (many of those operated were obsolescent 20's models) were single man operated and devoid of modern communication device not alone isolated, what made them of low use in fast moving operationel context. In 40 France were only starting to receive planes able to compete with Bf 109, GER air superiority was real.

Reducing Fr politics as "they didn't have the stomach" in 36 is convenient indeed, and very on par with the broadly post 2003 francophobic rhetorics. 36 France was in the middle of a political crisis and the non-reaction of France was in the end the product of its isolation. Britain would have not supported any reaction, and was actually favorable to a remilitarisation, Belgium was on its "neutralité" politics, Poland had signed a non-aggression treaty in 34 and would latter ally with Hitler to dismantle CZ, the US were on a isolationist mood. Although criticizable, blaming France non-reaction as "lack of stomach" without analyzing the context and the more passive stance of virtually all others (except Italy, but this is another untold of interwar politics) is actually a very biased selecive analysis.

Your analysis about France's humiliation is broadly right, but failing to mention Free France in another way than "De Gaulle felt like a cuckold" is laughable actually. FF was administrating large territories from 1940 on and won alone small yet significant battles such as Bir Hakeim. 250k FF troops landed in Provence '44 while FF was fighting in Italy, liberation army ultimately around 1m. France in the winner side is not out of thin air, the although political, post-war consideration do apply. Judt's depiction as if the Fr occupation zone was drawed from nothing is actually scandalous. As a reminder, there were more military deaths/pop for France than for the US WWll. But this is very significant of the historical myths, and also the explanation of why resistance role have been exagerated. This myth is not a French made one, the French post war myth is about "the shield and the sword", resistance is secondary there, and submitted to DG. Resistance has been exagerated by the Americans and subsequently in the anglo world because they had to explain somehow the legitimacy of De Gaulle after having ignored him all over the war. DG was not at odds with Churchill overall, but with Eisenhower, who considered Vichy as the legitimate government, played Giraud against him, didn't inform him about D-Day, refused Churchill's request to end French city bombardment who were killing ten of thousand french civilians for dubious military objectives. (about 60k dead civilians + injured in the 100K's, as late as April 1945, but those are unconvenient deads). DG made himself and Free France with him despite Eisenhower complete disdain. He was not naive vs Stalin, but managed to have him push the French communists back him (the few squadrons of FF fighters operating on the eastern front helped).

The quotes about epuration are again, lacking context and very selective to fit the biased narrative. Around 10k people have been executed for collaborationism, way more in proportion than "upright Norwegians" who were in absolute numbers (and even more in proportion) way more to volounteer in the German Heers. Most of the epuration process took place in 44 before the institutions were completely reinstated and were conducted by local resistance, out of legal juridiction, while in Norway it is the opposite. Closer than Yougo context indeed. Destructions and economic exploitation were also not comparable between FR and fellow aryans DAN/NOR.

A few more could be said, but overall you start your paper by adressing the question of historical myths, while blindly endorsing the very myths that fit well your apparent negative, if not francophobic biases. Our loss of face was real, but history has been consistenly instrumentalized to keep it alive and deepened because indeed, France didn't surrender its autonomy within NATO. The reason while on every unrelated article about Fr hospitals or car manufacturing indusries historical illiterate, 2 digit IQ joke about "French surrenderrrrrr" while ignoring their country's responsabilities in the 30's is not the result of surrendering, but of NOT surrendering. A convenient scapegoating, and France payed and still pays a heavy symbolic and cultural price for refusing to participate in that "destroy Irak on false claims journey". As a former FR president says, "there is a fight taking place undercover...a fight without deads...and yet a fight to death".

Expand full comment
TGGP's avatar

I had heard of Mers El Kebir, but then I've been watching a lot of WW2 content on youtube recently.

> to death one by one by a local enthusiast while crowds to death one by on by a local enthusiast while crowds

Looks like some text got repeated there.

I find it odd that you discuss the Napoleonic Wars & WW1, but not the Franco-Prussian war. France's sense of humiliation from German defeat can't really be discussed without that, and French revanchism between those wars was a big deal. Wolfgang Schivelbusch discusses them as as a parallel to the US south after the Civil War & Germany after WW1 in "The Culture of Defeat".

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts