But if they hadn't surrendered, at least the UK wouldn't have actively attacked them.
Several claims in this post are what one could call historical revisionism. First of all, on the "rerun of 1870-71", I invite you to reconsider the nature of the Occupation and Vichy. Justifying a high treason that lead to four years of ruthless occupation with saying that otherwise there was the risk of a "rerun of 1870-71" is a rather audacious claim to make, to say the least. Secondly, you claim that "France was not exactly happy with the UK". What do you base this claim upon? Propaganda clips from Vichy that tried to portray the UK as the enemy? Thirdly you claim that the union implied "getting suborned into the UK". That is blatantly false, it was a proposal for an union between the two countries as equals. Apparently, to my regret, false information about the situation in France in 1940 and about Pétain's intentions has been spread, since you are the second poster who make this sort of comments that would supposedly justify qualifying Pétain "a favourite statesman".
The UK attacked Nazi Germany which it was at war with. They would have done it no matter what happened in France, because to the contrary of the traitors that abolished the French Republic the UK was committed to continue to fight, and did not fall to elites who wished collaboration with Hitler in order to pursue common ideological agendas.
The issue is that in France while partial military defeat reinforced a sentiment of demoralisation it is largely a vicious circle since before the war with Nazi Germany had even started large parts of the high command opposed any war happening, admired Franco's regime in Spain and were not committed to defending a Republic they did not believe in. Occupation and the partial defeats, which were by no means total by the time of the armistice, were largely a consequence of that leadership. The role played by the Resistance later and isolated successes shows that fighting could have continued. An union with the United Kingdom would probably also have meant British distrust of France would had largely disappeared.
The UK also attacked the French at Mers-El-Kébir, is what I was alluding to (nevermind all the sortof attacks that flipped Vichy colonial territories to the Free French or UK).
To cite the emblematic example of Pétain, despite his sympathy for Hitler and Franco, he was still seen as the victor of Verdun and thus a hero who had saved the Republic. Therefore he was trusted as such and got the plenipotentiary power.
Mers-El-Kébir was fully comprehensible from the British perspective, but was badly handled in the sense that the embryonic Resistance was not informed. It was then used by collaborationists and Vichy and thus blown completely out of proportion by their propaganda. The need for such propaganda, which did not work on the French population, shows the deep sympathy that existed for the British ally.
Yes, because French police officers and collaborationists dealt with the worst of the offences themselves?
The problem is that Pétain exploited a partial defeat to pretend France was completely defeated, when he had always opposed war against Nazi Germany in the first place. It was just an occasion to advance his personal cause, hence why he was prepared to commit high treason and intelligence with the enemy.
To me the question does not pose itself, in a such configuration it is unthinkable to surrender to an enemy that wants to annihilate the French Republic. The collaboration and the ideas of Pétain himself and his co-traitors, which were no secret before he got the plenipotentiary powers, caused far more damage than all of the fighting with Nazi Germany.
While the UK (and especially the US later) had a tendency to want to pick their own French interlocutors after the surrender, France not shamefully signing an armistice would have meant the Resistance would never had to build up a legitimacy and that the French Republic would have continued to function, in exile if needed. The constant fight of De Gaulle and unification of the Resistance would not have been necessary to the same extent.
If you hate the French that is.
Far better to be held as hostage in work camps in Germany, right?Yes, fighting from the colonies with the French population as hostage of Nazi Germany.....now thats brilliant
Most of the territory was not occupied, most of the army was not defeated and France had one of the largest colonial empires?
Hindsight is not "I make up an alternate history where France continues to fight and is totally defeated". Because knowing the facts about the situation at the time is not hindsight.
So tell me, at what point should France have peaced out WW1? Christmas 1914, I suppose?
You were surely thinking France should have separately made peace with the German Empire in August 1914.
If me not having been sent to the front poses a problem, why don't you ask one of those who did continue to fight then? Explain your dilemma to them. Otherwise you could ask someone sent to the work camps in Germany... Or read up on one of the accounts of the actual state of the army at the time, as opposed to citing the opinion of someone guilty of high treason and intelligence with the enemy, which is maybe not the most reliable source. It is a bit as if you based your whole understanding of the UK war effort on Mosley's speeches he made at the time. Actual first hand accounts do exist, and I can only encourage you to take a look at them.
As opposed to over 85 millions dead during WW2 in total? Or how is this argument supposed to be relevant, since Nazi Germany ultimately did do a hostile occupation of France, which progressively escalated.
