Who is your favourite statesman of the WW2 era and why?

[loup99]

Well Lyon has fallen and the German troops were nearing Bordeaux. The only major French city still far enough from the front was Marseilles, maybe a whole week would have needed for the Germans to get there. Petain was as a much a defetist as Dönitz.

No, because Dönitz supported war in the first place, Pétain had opposed it before it had started. The comparison does not really apply.

Irrelevant

It is relevant, since you pretend that any minor defeat means the country should peace out, no matter the consequences of that peace. Other countries than France never signed any armistice and did not see any scenario as the one described by Herbert West. For example Norway comes to mind, where armed forces indeed capitulated after a total rather than a partial defeat, but a government in exile was established.

The total death rate of Metropolitan France in WWII (as % of the pre-war population): 1.44%
Total death rate of Metropolitan France, as best as I could gather, in the France-Prussian War: 0.7%

Duration of WWII in France: 4 years.
Duration of the Franco-Prussian War: 6 moths.

Averaged yearly death rate for WWII for France: 0.36%
Averaged yearly death rate for Franco-German war: 1.4%

The point of this demonstration being that you compare a war in the 1870s with a war in the 1940s, of which the scopes were vastly different. Not a very credible argument.

 

[Herbert West]

Loup, it wasn't a minor defeat.

I implore you to take a look at this map. What, exactly, screams minor defeat here? The rate of advance of the German forces from the 13th of June seems to be limited mainly by the driving speed of their trucks.

Where, exactly, is the French Army to regroup, reorganise, and dig in? What would that achieve? Another Dunkirk, only on a bigger scale?

 

[loup99]

Loup, it wasn't a minor defeat.

You say Pétain was right in arguing for armistice and due to that it was also stated that it makes him a "favourite statesman". Then explain to me how this "favourite" was right in opposing war in the first place, on the grounds of his sympathy with both Hitler and Franco. My argument is that Pétain never supporter war against Nazi Germany, openly sympathised with the aims of the country and was hostile to the French Republic. How exactly is Pétain credible here? This question has been repeatedly dodged, and while it was clear that you respectfully disagreed, we never got to know why you disagreed with the facts about Pétain.

I implore you to take a look at this map. What, exactly, screams minor defeat here? The rate of advance of the German forces from the 13th of June seems to be limited mainly by the driving speed of their trucks.

Where, exactly, is the French Army to regroup, reorganise, and dig in? What would that achieve? Another Dunkirk, only on a bigger scale?

I did not say it was a minor defeat, just that your argument is that any defeat is total, because all the logic about the death toll could have been applied since day one of the conflict. The armistice was not a military act, it was a political one. Weygand considered France to be defeated, others in the military did not share that conclusion, including but not limited to De Gaulle. I'm denouncing a political will of the traitor Pétain to conclude an armistice with the enemy. Politically France could instead have united with the UK, continue fighting from the colonies with the armed force that remained, and launched an internal resistance on the metropole. This might not have been a military success immediately, but it would certainly have allowed the fight to continue.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I never thought our friend loup was such a warmonger

I found it disturbing how many lives such people want to throw away for national glory.
Other lives of course.

 

[loup99]

I found it disturbing how many lives such people want to throw away for national glory.
Other lives of course.

How exactly did giving Pétain plenipotentiary powers preserve any lives? It is absurd to claim that defending the lives of Jews, homosexuals, communists, socialists, trade unionists and any other one not desirable in the society of Hitler is to "throw away for national glory". Reducing any resistance to Nazi occupation to a quest of "national glory" is however disturbing to me. The amount of lives that were thrown away in the armistice are apparently to be ignored, because in an alt-history scenario you imagined it would lead to a bad outcome to have an union state with the UK. In revising history you minimise the deaths of innocent civilians.

 

[Herbert West]

Easy, Loup. You can choose between two years of Vichy and light-ish occupation, or no years of Vichy, and all of Metropolitan France under a harsher German occupation.

No third option.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

How exactly did giving Pétain plenipotentiary powers preserve any lives? It is absurd to claim that defending the lives of Jews, homosexuals, communists, socialists, trade unionists and any other one not desirable in the society of Hitler is to "throw away for national glory". Reducing any resistance to Nazi occupation to a quest of "national glory" is however disturbing to me. The amount of lives that were thrown away in the armistice are apparently to be ignored, because in an alt-history scenario you imagined it would lead to a bad outcome to have an union state with the UK. In revising history you minimise the deaths of innocent civilians.

You create some alternate history out of your mind and claim knowing the truth.

What people here trying to tell you is that France didnt face a worst case scenario historically but could have if it pressed on. So you would throw away soldiers live and propably from the populace for a harsher occupation very likely.

What you proclaim is alternate history with little basis in reality. Yes, there is a slim chance France would have been better of continuing fighting. At least no one can disprove that since we cant rerun history at our leisure to find the best results.
We have however comparable scenarios with countries who fought Nazi Germany like Poland.


So please go on and preach your ideas if you want but dont pretend they have any form our ground in reality.

This is the same Guderian driving to Moscow and win the war stuff.

End of line.

 

[loup99]

Easy, Loup. You can choose between two years of Vichy and light-ish occupation, or no years of Vichy, and all of Metropolitan France under a harsher German occupation.

No third option.

No full powers to Pétain and no armistice means the lives of hundreds of thousands are preserved and that the lives of millions at the time would be more bearable. All of those were at risk in appeasement with Nazi Germany.

You create some alternate history out of your mind and claim knowing the truth.

Do I really create alternate history? Who was the one who cited historical facts about Pétain's opinions? Who cited the union option with the UK? Is that alternate history? I don't think so, even if the first was ignored (the only one who seems to have reacted to it was you, and you respectfully disagreed without explaining why) and the second dismissed by citing later events.

What people here trying to tell you is that France didnt face a worst case scenario historically but could have if it pressed on. So you would throw away soldiers live and propably from the populace for a harsher occupation very likely.

What I'm saying is that a traitor getting plenipotentiary powers to establish an antisemitic dictatorship in complete illegality and sending significant parts of the population to death camps, other even larger parts of the population as hostages in work camps is a worst case scenario. I don't know what would had happened if resistance had continued from the French colonies, but your own scenario about the population being held as hostage was indeed what historically happened under Vichy and the occupation.

What you proclaim is alternate history with little basis in reality. Yes, there is a slim chance France would have been better of continuing fighting. At least no one can disprove that since we cant rerun history at our leisure to find the best results.

I don't think France would had been better militarily with continued fighting from the French colonial empire, I think it was a strictly political choice that should had been made. So either you did not understand my opinion, which would be unfortunate since you strongly respectfully disagree with it, or you are just creating a narrative which did not correspond with my views and disagree with that.

What I find unfair are the personal attacks about it not being my life which is sacrified being used to justify Pétain as a "favourite" statesman. Certainly a very easy argument to make today, 80 years later, but not one particularly respectful of all of those who had to live through the rule of Pétain.

 

[Avernite]

Easy, Loup. You can choose between two years of Vichy and light-ish occupation, or no years of Vichy, and all of Metropolitan France under a harsher German occupation.

No third option.

Fighting on MIGHT reduce the total occupation time too (sans Vichy Italian Africa is likely to fall far sooner, reducing pressure on Allied shipping and hence making the UK stronger). Sure, it'd be harsher to choose the Dutch option over the Vichy one, but it's not like the Netherlands as a country was particularly harshly treated (though, given local conditions, it was horrid for Jews and such).

 

[bz249]

Easy, Loup. You can choose between two years of Vichy and light-ish occupation, or no years of Vichy, and all of Metropolitan France under a harsher German occupation.

No third option.

Add to the fact that it contains the element of hindsight too... as of June 1940 everyone, including Mussolini thought that there will be a peace conference no later than Automn. Thus they put their stakes accordingly.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Fighting on MIGHT reduce the total occupation time too (sans Vichy Italian Africa is likely to fall far sooner, reducing pressure on Allied shipping and hence making the UK stronger). Sure, it'd be harsher to choose the Dutch option over the Vichy one, but it's not like the Netherlands as a country was particularly harshly treated (though, given local conditions, it was horrid for Jews and such).

We dont know, it might also mean no invasion of Russia since Germany has it hands full in North Africa. Which propably means no D Day in 1944 and maybe an occupation of France till the 70s.
Its all speculation.

 

[bz249]

We dont know, it might also mean no invasion of Russia since Germany has it hands full in North Africa. Which propably means no D Day in 1944 and maybe an occupation of France till the 70s.
Its all speculation.

Or Paris nuked because that's the only way to (temporarily) disable this important transportation hub which is indispensible for the success of the invasion. Sorry French, it is all for your well-being.

 

[loup99]

Add to the fact that it contains the element of hindsight too... as of June 1940 everyone, including Mussolini thought that there will be a peace conference no later than Automn. Thus they put their stakes accordingly.

Fully agreed, in 1940 we only know that with Pétain Jews, homosexuals, communists, socialists, trade unionists, and any other one not desirable in the society of Hitler, risk death due to the armistice. We also know that French workforce can be sent to work camps as hostages.

 

[Avernite]

We dont know, it might also mean no invasion of Russia since Germany has it hands full in North Africa. Which means no D Day and maybe an occupation of France till the 70s.
Its all speculation.

Sure it is speculation; I can also speculate that the Nazis occupying the rest of France would not cost a single extra French life. Not all speculation is equal.

Italy, as we know, was doing horribly in Africa, when the Germans shipped in troops through Tobruk. But the thing is, Tobruk is in easy reach from French North Africa (unlike from Egypt). So if the Italians still mess up majorly in Africa, and there's no specific reason why not, they stand to lose the only real avenue for serious German reinforcements. Through Benghazi or over the beach you could deploy a few infantrymen, but nothing that would affect Barbarossa.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Or Paris nuked because that's the only way to (temporarily) disable this important transportation hub which is indispensible for the success of the invasion. Sorry French, it is all for your well-being.

Maybe but its not to much speculatuion to assume a destroyed city at least.

 

[loup99]

This is the same Guderian driving to Moscow and win the war stuff.

Rather the opposite:

I don't think France would had been better militarily with continued fighting from the French colonial empire

Speculation nonetheless however.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Sure it is speculation; I can also speculate that the Nazis occupying the rest of France would not cost a single extra French life. Not all speculation is equal.

Italy, as we know, was doing horribly in Africa, when the Germans shipped in troops through Tobruk. But the thing is, Tobruk is in easy reach from French North Africa (unlike from Egypt). So if the Italians still mess up majorly in Africa, and there's no specific reason why not, they stand to lose the only real avenue for serious German reinforcements. Through Benghazi or over the beach you could deploy a few infantrymen, but nothing that would affect Barbarossa.

I would say the Allies siting in North Africa and France and the UK still in the war is a good reason to scratch Barbarossa even for Hitler.

 

[Avernite]

I would say the Allies siting in North Africa and France and the UK still in the war is a good reason to scratch Barbarossa even for Hitler.

Yes, I get that, but I'm not sure why; when Barbarossa was launched, North Africa wasn't safe historically, and he still did it anyway.

 

[loup99]

Yes, I get that, but I'm not sure why; when Barbarossa was launched, North Africa wasn't safe historically, and he still did it anyway.

It was safer than in a scenario where France keeps its colonial empire within the Allies.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Yes indeed.
That said I find such discussions exhausting/pointless and wont participate anymore. Its all speculation, nothing can be proven and noone will be convinced.