The American Spectator : Saving France

Text Size

Saving France

By Roger Kaplan on 6.18.10 @ 6:08AM

Seventy years ago today, Charles de Gaulle joined Winston Churchill in pledging to fight another day.

Addressing the House of Commons on the morning of June 18, 1940, Winston Churchill observed that the battlefield situation in France was calamitous. "Our army and 120 thousand French troops were indeed rescued by the British Navy from Dunkirk but only with the loss of their cannon, vehicles and modern equipment." Now was not the time, he insisted, for recriminations or excuses. The important thing now was to understand that the war continued and that it was winnable.

It was not just a matter of death-is-better-than-tyranny, though, Churchill said, in response to appeasers of all times, that was a valid argument. "But I can assure [Members of Parliament] that our professional advisers of the three Services unitedly advise that we should carry on the war," and he reported warm support from the overseas Dominions, "these great communities far beyond the oceans who have been built up on our laws and on our civilization…[and who] declare themselves ready to share our fortunes and to persevere to the end."

After all, it was not unreasonable in the middle of that grim June to think of throwing in the towel. The Germans had cleverly drawn the Allies into Belgium and Holland, then turned around them by attacking through the Ardennes. By early June the French army had lost close to a hundred thousand men, Verdun-level casualties. The clash of Teutonic and Slav armies a year later would be less deadly.

Churchill was concerned that it be clear that the British Expeditionary Force had not abandoned the field at Dunkirk, but had retreated across the Chanel to fight another day. French political and military leaders who wanted to continue the war chose to understand this; those with defeatist inclinations chose to see yet another example of Albion's perfidy.

There was no perfidy. Churchill had visited his allies on May 16 and had learned to his dismay their forces were spent. There were no reserves. The French army had fought ferociously, but it had been out-generaled. Churchill and his French counterpart, Paul Reynaud, hastily hatched a plan for joint Anglo-French citizenship, which, above and beyond treaty obligations, would create a legal basis for keeping France in the war, but it fell through. The two prime ministers understood that in fact there were reserves -- in Britain itself, of course, and in their countries' respective empires and, eventually, America.

People could be forgiven for not taking the long view during those terrible days. Civilians fleeing southward from the battle zones were attacked by Stuka dive bombers. The government abandoned Paris and regrouped in Bordeaux -- fittingly, a city of ancient English ties. But Reynaud and his loyalists no longer had the votes. Reynaud resigned on June 16, and a new government was immediately formed by one of his ministers, the hero of Verdun, Marshal Philippe Pétain.

Pétain was known as a defeatist. On June 17 in Bordeaux, the issue was not whether you were pro-German, pro-Nazi, or anything of the sort, but whether you thought defeat was inevitable or, on the contrary, victory was possible in the longer term. The old marshal (he was 84) went on radio and said, "We have fulfilled our obligations to our allies. With bitter heart, I request that you [French troops] cesser le combat, stop fighting." He announced he would make contact with the enemy in view of negotiating an armistice. (It was signed on the 22nd.)

Another minister in Reynaud's government, however, was a 49-year old brigadier who had been brought in to the cabinet after leading a spectacularly successful tank counter-attack at Montcornet in the Picardie. He shared Churchill's determination to continue the resistance. It was essential that legitimate French authority say so. It was therefore as government minister and general officer that, completely by surprise, he jumped aboard the twin-engine plane that was about to take off with General Edward Spears (Churchill's liaison to the French government) when the latter, on the 17th, took off from Bordeaux.

Spears had boarded the plane thinking he would bring the prime minister the bad news of total French abandonment; instead, he brought back a flicker of hope that at least a part of France, infinitesimal at first, to be sure, would stay in the fight.

The hope was named Charles de Gaulle. World War I hero, one-time junior staff officer to the old marshal who now viewed him as a traitor (he was condemned to death in absentia a few weeks later), he was an austere and frugal Catholic, raised by a royalist family but imbued with a sense of duty to the republican state whose only purpose was to serve the nation. To de Gaulle, a government that reneged on treaty obligations and its highest purpose of defending the national territory could not be legitimate.

This was, admittedly, a questionable view point legally, but politically de Gaulle had grasped the same key issue as Churchill (who also had his defeatists to contend with), namely, the war was global and ideological, one might almost say religious, in that compromise was unthinkable. The European powers were not fighting over territory but over the premises of civilization.

Arriving in London with Spears, de Gaulle immediately requested an audience with Churchill, who did not hesitate to grant the general's request to broadcast a speech over the BBC. In the coming onslaught, he placed his confidence in the Royal Air Force, but he was happy for moral support as well.

He received it, gratefully, from Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, and others who came to London, formed governments-in-exile, joined British units, and he thanked them. His interest in the French was, of course, somewhat different. France represented a huge part of the balance of forces. Its fall was a catastrophe, and Churchill was concerned to keep the French Empire's resources out of German hands, notably the human resources which, eventually, formed the bulk of what came to be called Fighting France. (The French divisions in the African and Italian theaters, as well as in the 1944 campaign in France, were largely composed of colonial troops.)

Churchill immediately understood de Gaulle was in effect the best bet to lead the pro-British side in what was already a French civil war. He saw this far better than others, including some of his generals and the American leadership, who could only see the French nationalist. De Gaulle was a patriot, not an Anglophobe. Traditionalist as he was, he understood England (not Great Britain, England) and France were "hereditary enemies" in terms of their interests in Europe. A man of the French north, he also understood how closely they were linked, and how vital to both were their shared political principles.

It is 70 years since June 18, 1940, and the French are commemorating it because they love commemorations and to take their minds off the present, which is of course one reason, and not a very good one, for loving commemorations. The other reason, better, is that as Faulkner said, the past is not even past. He said it with a double-edge, but you cannot help but notice the French feel they are losing control of their individual and collective destinies. Maybe they would like someone to send them a broadcast from London and restore their faith in themselves and their country.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Roger Kaplan is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (42) | Leave a comment

WRTolkas| 6.18.10 @ 8:30AM

This is an excellent article on Charles De Gaulle. I always have had this "like/dislike" relation with the old general. This writing tips the scales to the like.

Thank you and all have a safe weekend,
WRTolkas

nicolas ziener| 6.18.10 @ 4:27PM

Personnally I feel indeed it is a very good article on General de Gaulle and France as a whole

Alan Brooks| 6.19.10 @ 8:24AM

French infantry were among the swiftest moving of 1940-- the French could sometimes make over 40 miles a day!

Alan Brooks| 6.19.10 @ 8:45AM

...btw:
Roger,
Are you sure the clause, "the clash of Teutonic and Slav armies a year later would be less deadly", is accurate?
Barbarossa was extremely ugly. But as the definition of "is" is open to question, so is "deadly".

Old Soldier| 6.18.10 @ 9:46AM

Same here. Whenever I read about the de Gaulle's egotistical nonsense Ike had to tolerate while trying to liberate France, I swing the other way.

Quartermaster| 6.18.10 @ 6:02PM

DeGaulle was a constant thorn in the side of the Allied war effort. Most of it was because he was an arrogant SOB that saw liberation of France as the only legitimate war aim of the allied cause. Also, as a soldier he wasn't much. The article hypes DeGaulle as a soldier, when he spent most of WW1 as a prisoner, iirc, and his command of armored troops in 1940 accomplished almost nothing.

He also committed repeated affronts against NATO, withdrawing from NATA and ordering NATO troops out of France, and cut off most support for the alliance.

Sorry about the article, but it is just a hagiography of the man, and leaves off the most important stuff that really defines what he was in WW2 and the aftermath.

Alan Brooks| 6.19.10 @ 9:00AM

"The other reason, better, is that as Faulkner said, the past is not even past."

Faulkner has been proved correct. History did not end in 1989 or we wouldn't still be fighting wars today.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 10:03AM

While de Gaulle's contributions to the Allied victory were substantial, a case can also be made that his presence was more of a distraction than an asset to the allies.

In the first place, de Gaulle was a highly controversial figure within French politics, distrusted by both the communists and the Vichyites alike; his colossal ego and identification of the interests of France with his own person were a large part of the problem.

Second, de Gaulle had an exalted view of France's role in the grand coalition, and while the primary objective ought to have been the rapid defeat of Nazi Germany, de Gaulle constantly had his eye on the post-war settlement and his main objective was getting France a favorable position at the negotiating table.

Despite the fact that the Free French Forces were small and entirely dependent upon the U.S. and British for materiel and logistic support, de Gaulle insisted that French commanders work through him and not through Eisenhower as Supreme Commander. On occasions, this led to French forces working at cross purposes with other allied forces. The most noteworthy incident was his refusal to have 1st French Army abandon Strasbourg at the height of the Battle of the Bulge, creating a dangerous salient in the allied lines and preventing the redeployment of U.S. divisions to serve as an operational reserve. Eisenhower was reportedly so furious with de Gaulle that he intended to appeal directly FDR and Churchill to have General de Lattre relieved and cut de Gaulle out of the loop altogether.

In general, the French were very bad allies and not worth the trouble they caused--in contrast to the Poles, who were worth their weight in gold, and fought like fiends against the Germans, even after they realized they had been sold out by the Big Three.

Pat| 6.18.10 @ 2:45PM

Stuart, accurate and balanced historical facts but, as allies, the French had both good and bad moments. For example, it was the Brits who initially objected to Eisenhower's Bombing Plan, the pre-invasion bombing of key railheads, repair and maintenance yards and highway junctions within France. Ike wanted to prevent the Germans from rapidly moving reinforcements to the Normandy area after the D-Day invasion. For the most part, his plan succeeded, the heavy allied bombing of France disrupted, in many cases severely, the French transportation network and caused the Germans to move men and equipment by horse drawn wagons once D-Day occurred.

Strangely, the Brits worried that the bombing would result in high casualties among French civilians, they claimed they didn't want to be remembered for wholesale slaughter among French men, women and children. When approached with this dilemma, De Gaulle shrugged off the British fears, his comment was that this is war, casualties are to be expected. Fortunately, the casualty rate among French civilians was far less than predicted and the average Jacque or Pierre in the streets of Paris seemed to accept the situation with understanding.

Politics also played a part, the Brits were committed to strategic bombing of Germany and didn't want to divert the air resources to tactical bombing in northern France. Saturation bombing of German cities left a bitter historical legacy of guilt for America and England, including the hundreds of American Army casualties who were accidentally bombed during the Normandy breakout in late July of 1944. The allies' committment to death from above regardless of the cost didn't put us or the Brits in a good light.

Our erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union wasn't the best of supporters either. They soaked up casualties from German forces which otherwise would have been directed at the Americans, Brits and Commonwealth forces. But, as friendly allies serving a common cause, they made the French forces look like our closest wartime friend.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 4:44PM

"Fortunately, the casualty rate among French civilians was far less than predicted and the average Jacque or Pierre in the streets of Paris seemed to accept the situation with understanding."

Approximately 71,000 French civilians died in Allied bombing attacks, the vast majority of them in Normandy, in the period from March-September 1944. That's only a few thousand less than the number of British civilians killed by German bombing in the whole war.

Pat| 6.18.10 @ 5:32PM

You're probably correct on the numbers, but the Brits had predicted over 100,000 casualties alone for the areas within the Bombing Plan identifed targets. As you probably know, these areas were outside Normandy in other parts of northwest France, the allies wished to prevent reinforcements from the heavier German formations around the Pas de Calais and east of the English Channel ports.

The 71,000 seems high since aerial bombing was light within the Normandy area, occurring mostly on and shortly after D-Day, perhaps you meant northern France including Normandy. However, deaths related to field artillery and naval gunfire could account for the losses solely related to the Normandy area, which are higher than I remember reading. Plus, the allied armies had departed Normandy for points forward after the end of July.

Stuart Koehl| 6.19.10 @ 11:03AM

The figure of 71,000 comes from the French government, and covers the entire war from 1939-1945. The majority of the casualties were in Normandy, where, during the fighting between June and August 1944, several towns, most notably Caen, were almost totally obliterated.

The the casualties were lower than the 100,000 predicted by Air Marshal Harris is not surprising: Harris knew Churchill was sensitive about French casualties; Harris also did not want Bomber Command diverted from his "Battle of Berlin" to support the invasion. Fortunately for the allies, and especially for Harris, Ike got his way, and both Bomber Command and VIII Air Force were subordinated to SHAEF prior to the invasion. This most certainly saved Bomber Command from certain destruction, as the German night fighters and FLAK were inflicting casualties in excess of 5% per mission--an attrition rate so high that Bomber Command was on its way to extinction when Harris was forced to call off his offensive.

Petronius| 6.18.10 @ 10:28AM

To be fickle is it's own reward. Today so many people in this country from the boomers onward identify with the French revolution more than our own.

Achilleus| 6.18.10 @ 12:24PM

Thank you for the outstanding article about Charles De Gaulle and his importance in organizing resistance to Nazi tyranny. At last, a fair and informed account of the situation in June of 1940, without the oft-repeated calumny of French cowardice in the face of the enemy.

However much we are impressed by Churchill’s gutsy and implacable rhetoric, we always should bear in mind that Britain was very fortune to have the Channel as a natural barrier to invasion from the Continent. Without it, the Wehrmacht would have rolled across Kent, Surrey and on into the Midlands, continuing the Blitzkrieg that had just overwhelmed France and the Low Countries.

De Gaulle, like Churchill realized the necessity to regroup and marshal the material resources of their overseas dominions and then to buy time until that “sleeping giant” the United States, could be roused from its slumber to take decisive action.

Yes, De Gaulle was a nationalist, as was Churchill, and like Churchill one of the giants to stride across the world stage in the 20th century. De Gaulle spoke of restoring the honor of France. In this, he succeeded admirably and we should be grateful for his valor, tenacity and yes, nobility.

Old Soldier | 6.18.10 @ 12:56PM

Just to clarify - everything I have read points to great bravery by French soldiers and junior officers. Their senior leaders were the incompetent cowards.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 2:25PM

Indeed, once the Germans regrouped and began attacking southward from Paris, they had very hard going--the Poilus were putting up a real fight, and not giving the Germans many opportunities to create the kind of breakout that destroyed the Allied armies in Belgium and northern France. Had the French government not packed it in, there was a good possibility of a stalemate along what became the Armistice Line.

JP| 6.18.10 @ 3:46PM

According to von Manstein's memiors, his 38 Infantry Corps went from thier stagin area, through the Loire Valley and to the Atlantic coast in only 10 days and suffered less than 500 casulties (38th Corp had 2 infantry divisions and support troops). Guderian and Kleist pretty much said the same thing. The entire French army collapsed after Dunkirk.

The best French troops were sacrificed defending Dunkirk. An estimated 75,000 French soldiers fought a brilliant rear guard as they fell back towards the Channel. General von Reichleiu, who commanded the German 6th Army had nothing but praise for them.

One other note was the viscious counter attack the French made southwest of Sedan against Colonel Balck's motorized infantry regiment. Balck and his 4000 soldiers were tasked with defending the fulcrum point where between the German panzers heading north and the infantry who were still making a forced march through the Ardennes. Balck, in later years described the great bravery of the French soldier .Three French and North African ad-hoc groups pounded Balck for a week before General List's 12th Army arrived. It was Balck's position which gave von Rundstedt fears. He believed right up until the end, that the French would pull a rabbit of thier hat like they did at the Marne in 1914 (Rundstedt was a junior staff officer serving in the West at that time).

Paul D| 6.18.10 @ 1:42PM

Test

Cuneo| 6.18.10 @ 1:58PM

Judging from the picture above, De Gaulle bears a striking resemblance to Geoffrey Rush in that photo angle.

Tim*| 6.18.10 @ 5:39PM

" I have understood you ! " was said by de Gaulle before the population of Algiers after they had called upon him to take power, June 4, 1958.

Charles Martel| 6.19.10 @ 12:50AM

My brother was there and laughs about that to this day: each person who heard it thought it meant something different.

+++

Bertrand| 6.18.10 @ 4:33PM

Without De Gaulle, France would have become another American puppet -- yes, France loves him.
Bertrand David

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 4:45PM

Not enough to keep him around in 1968, though.

Tim*| 6.18.10 @ 5:55PM

Without The American Military , France would be Etat Francais controlled by Nazi Germany.

moulig| 6.22.10 @ 8:23PM

Yes, this is an important point. Roosevelt stated that after June 1940 France was a "regus nulls" and his plan was that it would be ruled by AMGOT (american military government) much the way as was Italy. Scaring up a state out of nothing, DeGaulle prevented this. For that alone, he will ever deserve the respect of all free peoples.

Michael| 6.18.10 @ 4:35PM

CDG was a devoted Catholic who put his country first. He is a role model for Americans in office today.

WRJonas | 6.18.10 @ 5:35PM

Most of my age group (75-80) have a special regard and affection for the French. Mostly I would guess because they helped us when we were on the edge of defeat and became early advocates of revolution
In addition we have admired their culture , food and passion for art.
Even though it is oft reported that the French loath Americans some people have told me that was not true on an individual level. We have romanticized their country in film and song and in the end we are so very glad they survive .
I don't know if there is enough love left to rescue their country one last time or not . Viva la France.

nand

dw| 6.18.10 @ 6:33PM

Wasn't De Gaulle smoking a Marlboro in that picture originally?

Stuart Koehl| 6.19.10 @ 11:08AM

It would not surprise me if he had a pack of Galloise for smoking in public, and a pack of Marlboros for private pleasure.

The vertically gifted de Gaulle always made it a point to be seen disembarking from his official Sud Aviation Caravalle airliner--French pride and all that. Anyone who has ever been inside one realizes it is amazingly short on both head and leg room. So, for long flights, de Gaulle would travel on a French air force Boeing 707, land at a military air base near his final destination, transfer to the waiting Caravalle, then make a glorious official entry riding the cutting edge of French aerospace technology.

nicolas ziener| 6.19.10 @ 5:15PM

cutting edge of french aerospace industry ?
what about airbus and ariane space launcher today ?

Stuart Koehl| 6.19.10 @ 10:03PM

Came much later, and, if I may be so bold, French aerospace has always been rather derivative.

Dan| 6.18.10 @ 10:23PM

He pledged to fight another day and then he ran.

Charles Martel| 6.19.10 @ 12:52AM

He no more ran than did Churchill. Did you not read the article?

+++

Stuart Koehl| 6.19.10 @ 11:09AM

He who fights and runs away. . . lives.

Robert Fahl| 6.19.10 @ 4:47AM

There are 9500 graves of brave American soldiers at Omaha Beach, France. There are thousands of British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Dutch, Poles and others that fought to defeat the German Wehrmacht in the Battle of France. There are also 184 French graves. DeGaulle NEVER forgave the British and Americans for liberating France in TWO World Wars. What a sorry piece of dung, DeGaulle was.

Will| 6.19.10 @ 1:33PM

In early 1944, when De Gaulle was being even more difficult than usual for the American and British commands, he went to a party for all the senior politicians & generals hosted by Churchill. Chuchill's wife, Clementine, liked De Gaulle, and advised him "General, you must learn to treat your friends better than your enemies".
De Gaulle replied- "Madam, France has no friends, she has only interests".
A great man, but also an ungrateful bastard.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.19.10 @ 2:17PM

Mr. Kaplan
Thank you for the article.

Folks,
Thank you for your thoughts.
I learned some neat stuff here.

Dan| 6.19.10 @ 3:08PM

Charles Martel: The article is no more than putting a bow on a pig. It's still a pig. I remember the war very clearly and remember the ungreatful coward that was DeGaulle and, in fact, most of the French people at the time. I don't believe they have changed much over the years.

Charles Martel| 6.21.10 @ 3:13PM

Thank you for your illuminating comment. At least now we all know what you're full of.

+++

Tomnj| 6.22.10 @ 10:59PM

Great article by Mr. Kaplan and a wonderful buffet of comments by the readers both pro- and anti-De Gaulle. But here's a question for everybody involved here -- wound't the USA today be better off with an American De Gaulle than with our current President who apparently doesn't really like America or its people all that much?

Charles Martel| 6.23.10 @ 3:05PM

"[America] has no friends: [America] has only interests." That doesn't quite have the same ring to it, but a president and a secretary of state who were actually protective of our interests would definitely be an improvement.

When this is over, we must all resolve as a nation never to let anything like this happen ever again.

+++