French Surrender 1940... what ever happened

[Johnnie]

OK guys. Could we try to stay on topic here? French bashing and the need to defend the honor of France are both going to get this thread canned, and I believe we have the chance to honestly explore a interesting part of the Second World War here.
I'm not trying to act like a Mod, would just like to see this thread explored a bit for historical learning.
SOOOOOOO, does anyone who has studied this subject have an objective explanation as to why the Germans were seemingly so magnanimous to the French in regards to the French fleet?

Cheers,
Johnnie

[Fabio]

Italian lower act

As usual, with all the respect for the italian soldiers who died like ants, the worst actor of this theater of war was my country.

We decide to enter into war when our french cousins where already down on their knees, and we gave them what they still call a stab in teh back.

Obvously we did it our way, so lots of propaganda but in fact we weren't able to conquer a single inch of territory.

We had an armistice with France and Greece only because Adolf wanted them to sign a piece with us but the simple truth was different: military talkin we have been beated

Remember always, when you hear about ww2 italian armed forces that privates and NCO's were good soldiers, most of the officers were good too and all the High Ranks were ...... people we should forget and delete from our history.

Sorry, French cousins, for the disgusting stab in the back.
Best regards
Fabio

[JPhilip]

Hello Gentlemen,

Fabio : Grazie mille....
this is the past, it's over.
I'm proud that french troops helped to liberate Italy from fascism, especially in Florence and Sienna, were some very good friends of mine live.
anyway we'll settle the case in the next EURO 2008.....while some others will stay at home.....

Johnnie : defending the honor of France is pointless. History is history, the battle was lost, but the war was won...what i can't tolerate is reading that french soldiers were cowards that dropped their rifle in front of the enemy..this both insult their memories and is not true.
concerning the official document, french one should be at the "Service Historique de l'Armée de Terre" near Paris. For the german one, i guess that a goumier, a spahis or a Tirailleur algérien wiped his $ss with it on his way back from the Berghof

Jack : try to learn some accurate history before making jokes. Do some research and you'll find that in only 40 days the french soldiers wounded & killed more german soldiers than the Red Army in the first seven months on the Ostfront. And please, remember that while the french soldiers sacrified themselves around Dunkerque, the BEF was swimming away from the germans (everybody is able to make bad jokes). By the way enjoy your fish&chips and you Lager while watching Les Bleus or La Squaddra Azzura in the next EURO 2008 in Switzerland and Austria

[Johnnie]

Hi JPhillip,

I certainly understand your frustration at the bad rap the Frech soldier has taken because of the Battle of France. Any serious military student knows that the French soldier fought bravely and efficiently thoughout the war. (the same thing can be said for the Italian soldier also)
I'm just hoping that we can salvage this thread and get some good positive dialogue going in regards to the terms of the surrender document of 1940.
Specifically, can anyone give a valid reason as to why the Germans allowed the Vichy government to retain control of the French fleet instead of forcing them to surrender these excellent warships to the Kriegsmarine? Considering the lingering bitterness over the Versailles Treaty where the German fleet was forced to surrender and then scuttled itself, I am surprised that the Germans left this powerful military force in limbo instead of confiscating it for themselves, which if efficiently manned, would have allowed them to actually be in a position to challenge the Royal Navy and perhaps prevent the naval blockade of Germany.

Best regards,
Johnnie

Hello Gentlemen,

Fabio : Grazie mille....
this is the past, it's over.
I'm proud that french troops helped to liberate Italy from fascism, especially in Florence and Sienna, were some very good friends of mine live.
anyway we'll settle the case in the next EURO 2008.....while some others will stay at home.....

Johnnie : defending the honor of France is pointless. History is history, the battle was lost, but the war was won...what i can't tolerate is reading that french soldiers were cowards that dropped their rifle in front of the enemy..this both insult their memories and is not true.
concerning the official document, french one should be at the "Service Historique de l'Armée de Terre" near Paris. For the german one, i guess that a goumier, a spahis or a Tirailleur algérien wiped his $ss with it on his way back from the Berghof

Jack : try to learn some accurate history before making jokes. Do some research and you'll find that in only 40 days the french soldiers wounded & killed more german soldiers than the Red Army in the first seven months on the Ostfront. And please, remember that while the french soldiers sacrified themselves around Dunkerque, the BEF was running away from the germans (i mean sailing away...). Enjoy your fish&chips and you Lager while watching Les Bleus or La Squaddra Azzura in the next EURO 2008 in Switzerland and Austria

[JPhilip]

can anyone give a valid reason as to why the Germans allowed the Vichy government to retain control of the French fleet instead of forcing them to surrender these excellent warships to the Kriegsmarine?

just because Hitler decided that France placed under the authority of the Vichy Government would remain a neutral country, with its own army and navy (both small sized). He also accepted that french warships would be laid up in North Africa....and you surely know the rest...Mers el Kébir, and everything...

[Nische]

Ohh dear, I'm really sorry if I opened a can of worms here with my post. My only intent was to see if anyone may know of what happened to the treaty signed between the French and Germans following the outbreak of military conflict.

About a week ago, I watched a very good film showing the formal surrender in 1940, and I guess that my "curious" side wondered if this document was still in existance.

I do very much appreciate all of those that answered my original post with information about the document. (particularly the link to the written text) Amazing to say the least.

So, my thanks again to fellow forum members.
Cheers

[Jono]

Hi JPhillip,

I certainly understand your frustration at the bad rap the Frech soldier has taken because of the Battle of France. Any serious military student knows that the French soldier fought bravely and efficiently thoughout the war. (the same thing can be said for the Italian soldier also)
I'm just hoping that we can salvage this thread and get some good positive dialogue going in regards to the terms of the surrender document of 1940.
Specifically, can anyone give a valid reason as to why the Germans allowed the Vichy government to retain control of the French fleet instead of forcing them to surrender these excellent warships to the Kriegsmarine? Considering the lingering bitterness over the Versailles Treaty where the German fleet was forced to surrender and then scuttled itself, I am surprised that the Germans left this powerful military force in limbo instead of confiscating it for themselves, which if efficiently manned, would have allowed them to actually be in a position to challenge the Royal Navy and perhaps prevent the naval blockade of Germany.

Best regards,
Johnnie

Maybe it was something to do with keeping the Vichy government happy. Also they might have been thinking of manning them with Frenchmen and having them fight on board them. Using French lives instead of German ones? Seems strange

[Johnnie]

I havn't read the whole document, but so far, I am actually a bit amazed at how seemingly conciliatory the Germans were in a number of areas. I doubt they were planning on using the French fleet manned by French sailors. This was immediately at the end of the French campaign, and they were still at war with the U.K. There realy was no "Vichy" government at that moment. Placing the ships under immediate German control before they could organize a "free French" concept would make more sense to me. Of course we know what happened later to the French fleet after the occupation of the rest of France, where Britain destroyed much of it to prevent it from falling into German hands. That was a true tradgety.
Other items in the document are also interesting, such as the offer to let the government of the unoccupied territory to retain their government seat in Paris.
I am wondering what long term effects the provisions of the surrender document had on the final outcome of the war.

Cheers,
Johnnie

Maybe it was something to do with keeping the Vichy government happy. Also they might have been thinking of manning them with Frenchmen and having them fight on board them. Using French lives instead of German ones? Seems strange

[JPhilip]

Placing the ships under immediate German control before they could organize a "free French" concept would make more sense to me.

Hitler didn't want to place french warships under german control to avoid scaring UK as he planned a separate peace with britons. that's why he let a big part of the french fleet go to North Africa to be lay up. Same thing than for the Dunkerque battle. Hitler stopped the Panzer and his army to allow the BEF to re-embark for UK, just to treat tactfully the british and have a separate peace...as simple as that.

As for the treatment of France that you seem to find quite fair, like i wrote it previously, he wanted France to become a neutral state, so he couldn't apply the same treatment than for Poland...

[Johnnie]

An iteresting psycological study of Hitler then at that time. I supose if he honestly thought the UK would agree to a peace treaty then it might of made sense. However, that seems to have been a major misjudgement of the British.
I don't necessisarily see the treatment of France as "fair" in the surrender document. Attacking France to begin with was a bit "unfair". I just find it interesting that in light of the lingering bitternes over the Versailles Treaty, much of which was at French insistance, that Hitler didn't use this opportunity to exact terrible revenge.
Interesting.

Johnnie

Hitler didn't want to place french warships under german control to avoid scaring UK as he planned a separate peace with britons. that's why he let a big part of the french fleet go to North Africa to be lay up. Same thing than for the Dunkerque battle. Hitler stopped the Panzer and his army to allow the BEF to re-embark for UK, just to treat tactfully the british and have a separate peace...as simple as that.

As for the treatment of France that you seem to find quite fair, like i wrote it previously, he wanted France to become a neutral state, so he couldn't apply the same treatment than for Poland...

[Jack Dutton-Roberts]

Sorry my joke was not very politically correct JPhilip. My joke was a light hearted bash at the French, something us Brits have done for a couple of hundred years now. If you knew me properly, you'd know I have great respect for anyone who fights for their country.

It's sad that a joke can't be made nowadays for fear of offending anyone.

And while we're on the subject of war, don't forget who helped you out after Dunkirk.

And now on the subject of sport, it's pathetic that we couldn't make EURO 2008. It's embarrassing. But don't forget who knocked you out of the Rugby World Cup on home turf.

Jack.

[Fabio]

I don't necessisarily see the treatment of France as "fair" in the surrender document. Attacking France to begin with was a bit "unfair". I just find it interesting that in light of the lingering bitternes over the Versailles Treaty, much of which was at French insistance, that Hitler didn't use this opportunity to exact terrible revenge.
Interesting.

Johnnie

Well dear Johnnie, it depends from the point of view.
This is what I found on wikipedia about the armistice France - Germany and it seems a little different from our point of views.
Let's take a look.


When Adolf Hitler received word from the French Government that they wished to negotiate an armistice, Hitler selected Compiègne Forest near Compiègne as the site for the negotiations. As Compiègne was the site of the 1918 Armistice ending the Great War with a humiliating defeat for Germany, Hitler saw using this location as a supreme moment of revenge for Germany over France.

In the very same railway carriage in which the 1918 Armistice was signed (removed from a museum building and placed on the precise spot where it was located in 1918), Hitler sat in the same chair that Marshal Ferdinand Foch had sat in when he faced the defeated German representatives. After listening to the reading of the preamble, Hitler - in a calculated gesture of disdain to the French delegates - left the carriage, leaving the negotiations to his OKW Chief, General Wilhelm Keitel.
As commented in William Shirer's book Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, the armistice terms imposed on France were far harsher than those France had imposed on Germany in 1918. They provided for German occupation of three-fifths of France north and west of a line through Geneva, Tours and the Spanish border so as to give the German Navy access to all French Channel and Atlantic ports. All persons who had been granted political asylum had to be surrendered and all occupation costs had to be borne by France. A minimal French Army would be permitted. As one of Hitler's few concessions, the French Navy was to be disarmed but not surrendered, for Hitler realized that pushing France too far could result in France fighting on from French North Africa. The unoccupied third of France was ostensibly left free to be governed by the French, until a final peace treaty would be negotiated, and was eventually occupied by Germany in 1942 in Case Anton.

The French delegation - led by General Charles Huntziger - tried to soften the harsher terms of the armistice, but Keitel replied that they would have to accept or reject the armistice as it was. Given the military situation that France was in, Huntziger had "no choice" but to accede to the armistice terms. None of the French delegation, believing the war would last just a few more weeks now that Great Britain was fighting alone, objected to a clause that said all French POWs were to remain prisoners until the end of all hostilities with the British. A million and a half Frenchmen were thus forced to spend the next five years in prisoner of war camps. The cease-fire went into effect on 25 June 1940, 0:35.

Afterwards, the carriage was moved to Berlin as a trophy. It was later destroyed by the Germans at the end of the war.
The Armistice site was demolished by the Germans on Hitler's orders three days later, The carriage itself was taken to Berlin as a trophy of war, along with pieces of a large stone tablet which bore the inscription (in French):

HERE ON THE ELEVENTH OF NOVEMBER 1918 SUCCUMBED THE CRIMINAL PRIDE OF THE GERMAN REICH. VANQUISHED BY THE FREE PEOPLES WHICH IT TRIED TO ENSLAVE.
The Alsace-Lorraine Monument (depicting a German eagle immolated by a sword) was destroyed and all evidence of the site was obliterated, with the notable exception of the statue of Marshal Foch: Hitler intentionally ordered it to be left intact so that it would be honoring only a wasteland. The railroad car itself was taken to Crawinkel in Thuringia in 1945, where it was destroyed by SS troops and the remains buried.>>,

Well, Adolf was Adolf, even when he did it ... softly, isn'it?

[JPhilip]

Sorry my joke was not very politically correct JPhilip. My joke was a light hearted bash at the French, something us Brits have done for a couple of hundred years now. If you knew me properly, you'd know I have great respect for anyone who fights for their country.

It's sad that a joke can't be made nowadays for fear of offending anyone.

And while we're on the subject of war, don't forget who helped you out after Dunkirk.

And now on the subject of sport, it's pathetic that we couldn't make EURO 2008. It's embarrassing. But don't forget who knocked you out of the Rugby World Cup on home turf.

Jack.

Hello Jack,
As far as i'm concerned you can make jokes about Rugby, football, french women, french president, even french people, everything you want in fact, but not about those men, most of them were brave and died on their soil....Now everybody knows that the Battle of France was lost because of the leaders, the tactics and the atmosphere that was reigning in the prewar years. But after 1945, when the french soldiers of 1940 went back from captivity, each single of them had to assume the defeat that occured five years earlier. Leaders were new or victorious, the french forces took part in the final victory, and there was no place for the losers of 1940...it's always the underling who gets the blame....and believe me they didn't deserve this kind of treatment from their own nation...that's why this joke made me react like this....old stereotypes and german propaganda are not dead yet...
but....don't push too much on football as well....
cheers!

[Sal Williams]

I really think everyone should be a little thicker skinned. I think that when joking no harm is done. We Americans get called all kinds of stuff too , it rolls off my back if the intent is not mean. I think it stands to reason that anyone who will hold a gun and be shot at and shoot back can't be called anything but brave. We all know the French did this. But light hearted kidding about the stereotype doesn't take anything away from the soldiers who were on the line. We Americans are known to be loud, classless, spoiled, having no culture among other things. It doesn't bother me. If we all take a deep breath I am sure we can all agree a joke is just a joke.

Best, Sal

[Jono]

Interestingly, i was reading Mein Kampf last night and came across the section where Hitler talks about Britain being Germany's natural ally and the nation who he believed would watch Germany's back as they extended their land into the East. As we all know that he planned to invade Russia all along, i think his surprising treatment of the French was probably to do with forging a separate peace and later down the road maybe an alliance with Britain. Obviously a wild miscalculation but it would help to explain part of the terms