| bemahan
|
| 521407. Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:33 pm |
 |
|
| OK, so I have 2 people with me, one of whom is saying France (as a country, not including the Resistance Movement) did nothing to help Britain in WWII and the other is saying they did. They are now shouting very loudly so I am turning to the great brains of QI for adjudication. Any facts to support either side, please? |
|
|
|
 |
| mckeonj
|
| 521420. Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:17 pm |
|
|
Filleted history:
Northern France was occupied by Germany in 1940, and therefore became German territory. Southern (Vichy) France signed a peace treaty with Germany and became an ally of the Axis powers, and therefore an enemy of Britain.
So neither of the two Frances was in any position to help Britain; in fact it was the other way round, Britain sheltered the French Goverment in exile, French cilvilian refugees, and the remnants of the French military forces. |
|
|
|
|
| djgordy
|
| 521542. Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:11 pm |
|
|
| mckeonj wrote: | | in fact it was the other way round, Britain sheltered the French Goverment in exile, French cilvilian refugees, and the remnants of the French military forces. |
On the other hand, you could say that Britain did nothing to help France until the Americans showed up. |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 521546. Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:16 pm |
|
|
It's a bit of a meaningless question really. All it says is "what was the official government policy of France" which is well-documented.
More relevant is what the French did - and as noted above, the Resistance were operating in an environment which was either actively hostile to British interests (German occupied France) or passively supportive of Britain's enemies (Vichy). Which makes them extremely brave.
You could, more damningly, ask what did the British do to alleviate the plight of the suffering Europeans? The short answer is not a lot really. |
|
|
|
|
| Posital
|
| 521548. Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:19 pm |
|
|
| We even attacked the french fleet in algeria - tally ho!!! |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 521551. Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:20 pm |
|
|
| Tis true Posital - I'd forgotten about that. |
|
|
|
|
| Posital
|
| 521558. Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:31 pm |
|
|
| To be fair, it was to stop it falling into "the wrong hands". |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 521567. Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:40 pm |
|
|
| Oddly though - Saddam setting fire to the oilwells wasn't seen in the same benevolent light was it? |
|
|
|
|
| Posital
|
| 521570. Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:46 pm |
|
|
I guess it was a kind of smoky, flickering light - no match for the light in the south mediterranean which many artists prefer.
Perhaps it was the "carrying traffic lights out of Kuwait" that really gave Saddam away as a vandal. |
|
|
|
|
| bemahan
|
| 521592. Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:20 pm |
|
|
| bobwilson wrote: | | It's a bit of a meaningless question really. All it says is "what was the official government policy of France" which is well-documented. |
You are quite right, of course, but QI forummers have a good way of (a) putting things in a nutshell and (b) looking at things from all different aspects. |
|
|
|
|
| roundhead
|
| 521842. Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:42 pm |
|
|
| bobwilson wrote: |
You could, more damningly, ask what did the British do to alleviate the plight of the suffering Europeans? The short answer is not a lot really. |
The landings and subsequent actions in Europe in 1944/45, at the cost of thousands of allied lives, to alleviate the the plight of the suffering Europeans was a more effective answer than any you might possibly come up with (short or otherwise). |
|
|
|
|
| Sadurian Mike
|
| 525041. Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
|
In 1940 Britain landed the BEF to fight alongside the French. As allies they ought to have helped each other but various prejudices and differences of thinking at the operational level (i.e. Generals and politicians) meant that any joint operations usually fell apart before they even got going. Examples of such divides meant such fiascos as well-entrenched British troops having to fall back from natural defence lines (such as canals) because their French neighbours had withdrawn after their supporting artillery had withdrawn through misallocation of shells, or attacks using one nation's tanks supported by the other's infantry failing because one or the other was running to a different schedule. It also has to be said that many French units compromised neighbouring units (both British and French) by surrendering or routing with very little provocation.
With such difficulties already engendering suspicions and mistrust, the British decision to withdraw to Dunkirk was seen as a betrayal by the French, despite the fact that the decision was only made after the French high command had decided that all was lost (something that alarmed Churchill so much that he sacrificed several British regiments by landing them at Calais with little chance of withdrawal or strategic success, in a futile gesture of support).
The French blamed the British for the Fall of France thereafter, a prejudice that was reinforced when the (Anglophobe) Admiral Gensoul rebutted the Royal Navy's demands that the French fleet be handed over to Britain or sent to be interned in the US (something that Admiral Darlan, Gensoul's superior, had left standing instructions to be agreed to), and he Royal Navy then bombarded and destroyed the French fleet.
Add to this DeGaulle's widely reported arrogance and awkwardness towards his hosts, and Churchill's increasing exasperation at DeGaulle, and the scene was set for little cooperation apart from that which was absolutely necessary for both countries.
Come Operation Torch, the landings in (Vichy) French North Africa in 1942, and as many French units resisted the Allies as welcomed them. It took a great deal of negotiation and political manouevring before the Allies persuaded the French commanders to accept DeGaulle and join against the Germans.
Once they did join, however, they had to be equipped from scratch, their best equipment having been taken by the Germans. The Free French then went on to fight enthusiastically alongside the British and US forces, and were a politically, if not militarily, vital part of the Allied armies. When the surrender was eventually signed, the German generals were amazed when they saw a French delegation being represented at the table, but given the political aims of the War (from the Allied viewpoint), they could hardly have been left out.
In conclusion; the French helped the British by becoming part of the Allied armies facing the Germans and other Axis forces. Had they not joined the Allies, the North African campaign might have been longer and bloodier, with consequences for the subsequent landings in Italy, the surrender/change of alleigance of that country, the withdrawal from the Eastern Front of German troops to occupy Italy and the balance of forces in Russia which eventually turned so dramatically against Hitler. |
|
|
|
|
| bemahan
|
| 525143. Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:46 pm |
|
|
| Thanks Mike - I haven't read it yet - I've printed it off so that I can read it more easily. |
|
|
|
|
| bobwilson
|
| 525185. Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:01 pm |
|
|
| roundhead wrote: | | bobwilson wrote: |
You could, more damningly, ask what did the British do to alleviate the plight of the suffering Europeans? The short answer is not a lot really. |
The landings and subsequent actions in Europe in 1944/45, at the cost of thousands of allied lives, to alleviate the the plight of the suffering Europeans was a more effective answer than any you might possibly come up with (short or otherwise). |
Ah - I didn't put that very well/clearly did I?
Spain 1936-39, Czechoslovakia 1938, the policy on German emigrees (particularly Jews) prior to September 1939 etc. It's certainly arguable that the September 39 - May 45 war with Germany was not to alleviate the suffering of Europeans but to protect British interests (although it did have the effect of alleviating the sufferings of the Europeans). |
|
|
|
|
| roundhead
|
| 525209. Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:37 pm |
|
|
| So, one way or another, Britain did do a great deal to alleviate the plight of the Europeans. |
|
|
|
|
