Vichy France....

[Jon Patrick]

I found last week, and just finished reading an old book by Len Deighton called "Blitzkrieg - From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk".

An excellent book and a good read, for anyone who cares!

But, the book fails to address, and I've never really undestood, why the Germans allowed Vichy France. Was the defeat and surrender of France and the capture of Paris enough for Hitler, with the knowledge of a peaceful and compliant southern France? The French were defeated and on the run... I don't understand the whole situtation and why they didn't just take the whole country and have that southern port..

Anyone?

[Comrade Trapp]

Vichy France was one of France's conditions for a armistice. I'm willing to bet that if Germany turned down that condition, France would've fought on.

However, you are right about the condition of the French military on continental France by that point, Southern France was pretty much overrun or about to be overrun by time the armistice was signed.

But if France had fought on, the Allies would still had control of ALL of the French colonies and the remainder of the French military (which was still a lot).

Another reason and probably one of the main reason Hitler stopped where he did was because he still had Great Britain to worry about. It would be hard to fight the British when his military was still cleaning up in Southern France.

He wanted to get in gear to attack the British from the air as soon as possible and fighting in Southern France didn't fit into those plans.

[Cantum Americus]

This is funny.

I'm actually in the middle of re-reading that book. It's my "sitting in the hottub" book, so progrss is slow.

Thanks for ruining the ending for me!! Now I know what happens to France!!- You bastard!!

[Comrade Trapp]

It's my "sitting in the hottub" book, so progrss is slow.

I wish I had a hottub.......

[Some_God]

Hitler needed the Industrial region of Southern France intact so the Axis military machine could steamroll through all the major European countries (Except the Soviet Union, of course).

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

...But if France had fought on, the Allies would still had control of ALL of the French colonies and the remainder of the French military (which was still a lot)...

Good point. It's also possible that Hitler wanted a "quick kill" for political reasons. The average German soldier/people had no idea that Hitler was already looking East for further conquest. A quick victory would get the Army and people on his side (for a while, anyway).

My 2 cents,

Ken

[Some_God]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

...But if France had fought on, the Allies would still had control of ALL of the French colonies and the remainder of the French military (which was still a lot)...

Good point. It's also possible that Hitler wanted a "quick kill" for political reasons. The average German soldier/people had no idea that Hitler was already looking East for further conquest. A quick victory would get the Army and people on his side (for a while, anyway).

My 2 cents,

Ken </font>

[JerseyJohn]

Well, I read Mein Kampf, twice, thirty years apart and that is most assuredly what is stated in it. How much of that is Hitler and how much is Hess can be difficult to determine.

-- I bought the book as two volumes in a used bookstore in Brooklyn when I was thirteen. The place was owned by an Orthodox Jewish family who didn't seem to realize they had those two books packaged in a hard cardboard box. Up till that day they had always been pleasant and friendly with me and I liked the owner a lot, a scholarly guy in his sixties. Then I bought those books, I think it was $2.00 for the set, and my former friends suddenly became openly hostile to me. It was a neighborhood of mixed nationalities and their reaction did more to make me anti-Semitic than any of Hitler's already tired cliches. I was just curious and wanted to read the damn thing. Lousy reading, by the way, the second time through, in my thirties, I understood a lot more of it but unless you're a storm trooper it's a hard thing to wade through, just like Das Kaptial by Marx on the opposite side of things and also multi-volume gibberish.

Pretty much agreed with what Comrade said. Part of Hitler's reasoning was he didn't want French Indo-China to become a Japanese prize. About this time he made a remark that in it's zeal to destroy the Red and Blue Empires Germany didn't replace them with a more dangerous Yellow one.

Why he set up Vichy is a very complex issue and much of it has to be seen through Hitler's eyes. Almost from the start he began trying to swing Petain over to the Axis and was sure that would happen after the British taking of Syria and it's attack on the fleet anchored at Mirs el Kabir. Among other things he offered the return of French POWs, but Vichy tried to remain neutral. True, it cooperated with Germany in almost every way possible, but like Switzerland and Sweden it didn't have much leverage.

Cantum Americus

You've got the wrong hot tub book, you ought to try Mein Kampf, you'll fall asleep and boil!

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Some_God:

What are you talking about? He clearly states the "Germany's future will be decided in the East" in Mein Kampf, not that I read it or anything.

I don't have my sources handy, but I believe at a private level (amongst Hitler's inner circle) he was already voicing his intent for the Soviet Union in the Summer of 1940. However, he had to keep the possibility of further conflict from the public and most of the army. There was no way the German people would be agreeable or willing to take on the sacrifices it would take to deal with Russia. Even after the stunning German victories of 1939-40, many in the army were not so sure (as Hitler was) of a quick kill in Russia. On the German home front, I don't believe there was even a total mobilization for war in 1940. Hitler was being a good politician by keeping the conflicts to a 4-8 week long duration and not having to switch over to a "Total War" economy. Ending the conflict quickly (with the creation of Vichy France) may have been a skilled political move for both the home front and the international scene.

Does this make sense?

Ken

[JerseyJohn]

It was always Hitler's intention to turn east, not only that it's stated in Mein Kampf, but also in that Germany occupied most of Poland throughout the First World War and it was conceded to them by the Soviets at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917. As far as the Nazis and many non-nazi Germans were concerned all of Poland was German territory stolen from them at Versailles.

But the Danzig Corridor had always been part of Prussia and this was the tinder box.

In Mein Kampf Hitler says, paraphrased, "When we speak of German expansion we are always speaking of the east and especially of the Russian Steppes." I'll try to find the exact quote and page later, but that's the gist of it.

There was nothing particularly skilled about the Vichy move, the Germans assumed Britain would negogiate a peace with them, they were willing return most of France to it's rightful owners if they were allowed to keep everything else they'd conquered, and then it was the turn around on Russia. Staling knew that was the intention, in his devil's pact he was only being practical and also assuming that there would be a World War One type war somewhere in France.

The Soviet Army had plans for an attack of it's own on Germany, but it needed first to be be rebuilt after the purges and then have it's logistical system modernized. They might have been capable of this in three years. The French and British only gave them one.

Hitler's only deviation from his original intention was in turning east while things were still uncertain in the West. He didn't think it would matter because he expected to finish off the Soviets in a quick summer campaign.

If it hadn't been for Mussolini's Greek stupidity, pushing back both the starting date and weakening Army Group South, Germany might well have won that Eastern Campaign. They were most certainly robbed of both Leningrad and Moscow in that first phase by Hitler's direct and unwise meddling. The capture of those cities might not have won the war but it would have been much closer to ending sometime during the fall or summer of 1942.

His assumption was that with the USSR out of the picture the British would have been much more likely to negotiate a peace, which is what he wanted. He never wanted to actually conquer the British Isles or end the empire.

[ April 24, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Jon Patrick]

The first reply gave the best answer I've heard...The quick political kill and remove the other French colonies from the picture.

(sorry for ruining the end of the book for you there Cantum!)

So, my next thought is this: Hitler never wanted the war with Britian - not only feeling that G.B. wouldn't declare war on him for poland (wrong), but stating that GB and Germany were meant to be allies...

With that in mind, after the stunning defeat of France and the humiliation of the British, did Hitler ever even OFFER Churchill a truce? Seriously. GB has not much in the way of a military, and Germany controlls the continent. I would think an offer that "lets just stop fighting and start trading and we won't starve your little island into oblivion" could have worked, but I've never even heard someone say the Germans had ever OFFERED a truce?

Anyone?

Jon

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Some_God:

...EDIT: BTW Hitler already had the Army, OKW, the German people, etc. behind him after the successfull campaigns in Poland, etc...

Well... There was a reason Hitler had a "Palace Guard" (the S.S.) and the Gestapo: to crush revolt and dissent.

While the average German certainly wanted a strong Germany, I doubt that the Germans who came of age before Hitler (and thus were aware he was a politician first, and not the Savior of Germany as depicted in the media) were fully ensnared in his BS. However, when one sees the consequence of speaking out in dissent, they soon learn to keep their opinions to themselves.

A while back they had a show on the History Channel about the Hitler Youth. At the end of the show a former HJ mentioned that the youth of today often ask him... "How could you be so stupid to fight on for such a worthless cause?"

He replied: "How lucky you are to be allowed to ask that question... We were not."

Ken

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Jon Patrick:

...With that in mind, after the stunning defeat of France and the humiliation of the British, did Hitler ever even OFFER Churchill a truce? Seriously. GB has not much in the way of a military, and Germany controlls the continent. I would think an offer that "lets just stop fighting and start trading and we won't starve your little island into oblivion" could have worked, but I've never even heard someone say the Germans had ever OFFERED a truce?

Anyone?

Jon

Good question. I believe Hitler was waiting for the political situation in England to change (the removal of Churchill) so that he could accept peace offers from the new English government/monarchy. However, Churchill was never removed for this to happen.

There has been some interesting TV shows and articles surrounding Rudolf Hess's flight to England for a peace initiative and his mysterious death in Spandau Prison after the war.

It seems there was an upper-class element in England who had a lot to lose (land and titles) if Great Britain was invaded. It's been rumored that this "Peace" element may have had members in the Royal Family.

I saw a show where a woman swears the blackout was deliberately broken surrounding a potential landing field on the estate where she worked at, on the same night that he was captured (Hess could not find the landing spot and bailed out). There was also much debate on whether the man imprisoned in Spandau really was Hess. His "suicide" is mysterious as well. An infirm and ill, 80+ year old man (who was supposedly unable to even lift his arms over his head) was able to throw a rope over a pipe, tie the required knots, climb up on a chair/table etc.

Obviously, IF there were ANY members of the Royal Family or Monarchy (extended, or otherwise) involved in ANY unauthorized peace initiative with ANY member of Hitler's government (crazed or otherwise), this would be a black-eye on the popular fiction that "We were all in it, together".

The popular fiction for both the Allies and Axis is that they were all united and focused (from top to bottom) on victory.

Ken

[Skanvak]

To add to the goods arguments developped here for the quick kill explanation. One has to remind Hitler's experience of WWI. In the end of WWI the german population was very anti-war and they was some rebellion in geramn cities by socialists.

Part of the army think that German population will not tolerate hard condition for a long time. So for domesctic reasons Hitler didn't not push Germany to war economy before after 1942 (I don't remind the exact point).

Some historians have advocate that the dunkirk evacuation was made possible by Hitler's decision. It would have been a way to give the British a sign of good will, in a hope of a peace treaty.

[Cantum Americus]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Cantum Americus

You've got the wrong hot tub book, you ought to try Mein Kampf, you'll fall asleep and boil!

LOL....I just finished E. Bauer's "The History of WWII" as a "Too much time on my hands at bedtime" book.

I read Mein Kampf in University, as a "I should be studying for finals, but I'm a lazy, unmotivated SOB" book. It was long, and most of it was bloody boring, but it beat studying for finals. Surprisingly, Hitler's a better read than Carl Jung.

[JerseyJohn]

Cantum Americus

Comparing Mein Kampf to Das Kapital was pretty bad, but my hat's off to you, Carl Jung is even more boring than either of them!

Luckily, the first time I read Mein Kampf I was too young to know what a real book should read like. It still seemed pretty boring but at thirteen I was a bit of psycho and enjoyed the irrational sincerity of it. Twenty years later I wanted to see if it was as crazy as I remembered and read it again, it was and all I could do was turn pages and shake my head. Still, I think anyone who wants to understand what the Nazis were about should read it. I was amazed to see some crazed young skinheads on TV quoting it. Awfully sad, actually.

"I read Mein Kampf in University, as a "I should be studying for finals, but I'm a lazy, unmotivated SOB" book."

That's horrible, too bad you couldn't do a paper on it. Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be quoting that thing!

I think the royalties were Hitler's sole income -- of course he got everything for free so it didn't matter much, but it was a perenial best seller all the same.

Glad to have finally found someone else who's suffered through it -- hopefully we'll get credit in the hereafter.

Deranged Literary Giants, the authors Adolf Hitler and Rudolph Hess (uncredited)

[ April 25, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]