r/history • u/mendax135 • 21d ago
Why was France granted an equal status among WWII victors? Discussion/Question
How is it that France emerged from World War II with a similar status as the U.S.A., Britain, the Soviet Union, and China in terms of possession of a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, uncontested possession of nuclear weapons, etc?
I understand that Charles de Gaulle "somehow" managed to downplay his beloved home country's status as an early victim to German aggression in World War II and line it up among the victors instead. Is this the case and if so how (e.g. at what conferences) did he pull it off?
This is not to diminish the role of the French resistance (and de Gaulle's own contribution in that regard), but its role in defeating Germany seems hardly at the same level as those from the other allies overall (perhaps excluding China).
265
u/Stralau 21d ago
Short answer would be that the French wanted it and it was in the interests of the UK and the US.
It gave the western allies one more anti communist vote at the table and restoring French national pride also ensured no opportunity for a communist takeover in France, which was a possibility, or at least a concern at one stage.
The UK and US were fundamentally keen on keeping something like the status quo ante bellum, and hemming in the USSR: restoring France to great power status was a good way of achieving that, at least to some extent.
82
u/bangdazap 21d ago
I'd add to this that France had a huge colonial empire and if there had been a communist revolution in France they might have gained independence, further upsetting the post-war world order.
→ More replies38
u/anarchysquid 21d ago
The USSR was OK with France on the Security Council too. They may have been a capitalist democracy, but they had substantially different interests than Britain and the USA, so they could be a counterbalance to the Anglo-American alliance
9
u/Kered13 21d ago
It gave the western allies one more anti communist vote at the table
This wasn't such a big deal at the time, since China was still represented by the ROC and therefore was anti-communist.
→ More replies6
u/warren_stupidity 21d ago
Yes. 3 > 2. A better question is why the Russians agreed to it, although the veto given to each permanent seat makes it sort of a minor issue.
7
u/PryanLoL 21d ago
France was very socialist before the war and communists here were strong. USSR probably expected the country to turn.
And then De Gaulle flipped both the West and the East. I don't like the guy but he had some tremendous steel balls.
17
u/dorshiffe_2 21d ago
In 1945, the french communism party score 26% and socialism party 23% so the country was very close to go Communism. The US made everything to help the right wing (even if right wing were more pro-german during the war), they let De gaulle entering in Paris as the liberator to help him.
→ More replies3
u/Dawidko1200 21d ago
Interesting to see you say that. The version I've seen in Russian history books is that it was because of USSR's insistence that France was recognised, as the French, and de Gaulle in particular, were much less inclined towards hostility with USSR. As can be seen by de Gaulle's decision to withdraw from NATO in the 60s.
I know that both Churchill and Roosevelt had a rather unfavourable opinion of de Gaulle, while Stalin did not. During de Gaulle's visit to USSR in the 60s he spent 20 minutes at Stalin's grave.
→ More replies
27
u/MaverickDago 21d ago
Part of it was that the UK, while part of Europe, wasn't on the continent. Having an ally that was located on the mainland was vital. France had a history of being a powerhouse, had large oversea possessions, and if they broke towards the East, it would have screwed Europe.
22
u/Blueopus2 21d ago
History - France had been a superpower for centuries prior to the war
Geography - they were neighbors of Germany and Italy and were the only strong, clearly allied power there.
Contributions after capitulation - the French resistance and the free French were major thorns in hitlers side throughout the war
Contributions before capitulation - the French army folded in just two months but did a lot of fighting in that time and suffered more casualties fighting Germany than the US did
91
u/charly06 21d ago
All of this is correct but the most important reason is Churchill did everything in order for france to get that seat: Uk was a colonial power and was already thinking of post war era. having two anticolonial superpowers made him wary of uk's ability to have a say in world politics. Having a fellow colonial power at the UN security council would balance a bit this new shift in world relation
11
u/Jack_ofall_Trades85 21d ago
Two anticolonial powers on the security council? I think you're forgetting China.
10
u/elcabeza79 21d ago
Funny to think of the US and USSR as anti-colonial.
→ More replies10
u/Overwraught0202 21d ago
regardless of their actions as nations, both superpowers' ideologies were explicitly anti-colonial, and both had a vested interest in breaking up the old European empires- spreading their own ideologies and in the US's case, gaining access to markets that were previously under imperial monopoly.
3
u/elcabeza79 20d ago
I don't disagree. It's still amusing to think of the two expansionist superpowers as anti-colonial. It implies they were interested in the self-determination of the emerging nations. They were instead interested in their own new types of imperial influence and control.
50
u/sitquiet-donothing 21d ago
French foreign policy was wide reaching and concerned a lot of the world. If you look at a map of nations that list French as the or one of the official languages, you can see the pull they had. For a global organization devoted to keeping the peace, you had to have the guiding light of almost 1/5th of nations at the time.
→ More replies
141
u/Intranetusa 21d ago edited 18d ago
This is not to diminish the role of the French resistance (and de Gaulle's own contribution in that regard), but its role in defeating Germany seems hardly at the same level as those from the other allies overall (perhaps excluding China).
France may or may not have contributed more, but I think the contributions of China during WW2 is often underestimated. The Republic of China's armies (and to a lesser extent the communist guerillas) tied down the majority of the Japanese imperial army stationed outside of Japan (over 1 million Japanese troops in mainland China, another 700k in NE China/Manchuria and surrounding islands)...fighting in a grueling stalemate war of attrition. China was almost the Soviet Union in the far eastern front in terms of tying down large numbers of Axis troops - the USA and UK were worried that if China fell, Japan would roll over the rest of the Pacific without much resistance because the fall of China would free up the vast majority of the Japanese army troops for invasions elsewhere.
Edit:
An important event was when Japan signed the Japanese-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941 because most of Japan's armies was bogged down in a stalemate in China. Imagine if the successful conquest of China in the 1930s freed up the majority of Japanese armies, which would have allowed the Japanese to not have to sign this agreement and invade the Soviet Union from the east.
Furthermore, Japan had been fighting in China since the early 1930s with the majority of its army. Imagine if China surrendered in the 1930s...which would free up 80% of the Japanese army in the 1930s to take over the rest of eastern Asia. If that happened, then Japan wouldn't have or wouldn't have the same levels of the fuel and resource shortages they had since there are significant sources of natural resources (petroleum, rubber, etc) in mainland East Asia and in SE Asia they could've taken over. For example, today Indonesia, Malaysia, and China are significant producers of oil today. Japan did manage to capture the Dutch East Indies, but this happened pretty late (around 1942) and happened after the USA had already entered the war. The USA oil embargo against Japan was also significantly due to Japanese atrocities in China...which was heavily due to their army's frustration of not making much progress and getting stalemated in China. If China rolled over and surrendered quickly, the Japanese might not even have attacked Pearl Harbor or at least not prematurely attack it as early as they did because they wouldn't have been so dependent on American oil resources or the Americans might not have embargoed them at all.
That could altered the USA entering the war at the time it did since the US entry was mainly triggered by the Pearl Harbor attack - and could've changed the events of both the European and Pacific war.
56
u/wildskipper 21d ago
Was going to say this as well. ROC losses were huge and of course a key reason for their subsequent loss in the civil war to the communists.
12
u/Phokasi 21d ago
That's actually debated whether it's a key reason. The ROC still had a huge pool of manpower in 1945, their bigger problem was that the troops were leaving their posts, not fighting, and often defecting to the Communists.
8
u/wildskipper 21d ago
Of course, they might not have left their posts, stopped fighting and started defecting if they hadn't been fighting the Japanese for the previous eight years. Of course it's probably not the sole reason, there's never a single reason for anything in real life.
Mass disgruntlement with your government after fighting for them for so long (with little apparent reward) isn't uncommon either. Most famously the Russian army in the first world war, but even in the UK the government in power lost the next election and there had to be the committment to the creation of the welfare state to appease the populace.
31
u/Longers1 21d ago
Important to remember the Sino-Japanese war started in 1931. It's a conflict of its own really.
35
u/CezaryC 21d ago
I was just about to reply with the very same thing.
China had the second-highest number of military deaths for an Allied country, just behind the Soviets.
11
u/coleman57 21d ago
Americans never hear this (I certainly never did, until today), and I suspect people in many if not most other countries don't, either. When I was young during the Cold War, Americans didn't talk much about the Soviets' sacrifice (unless they were communists or sympathisers)--it only started being discussed widely after 1991.
I was aware from my parents that there was widespread sympathy for China before and during the war, but after 1949 the issue became complicated by the explicit split of China, and since both sides of that split were seen as brutal dictatorships there wasn't much appetite for casting Chiang as a hero (except by hardline anti-communists).
5
u/tafinucane 21d ago
By late 1944 Japan couldn't supply the troops they did have in the Pacific. Their biggest limiting factor was fuel for shipping and the navy, so trying to scatter more troops in the islands wouldn't have changed anything.
15
u/Intranetusa 21d ago edited 21d ago
By late 1944 Japan couldn't supply the troops they did have in the Pacific. Their biggest limiting factor was fuel for shipping and the navy, so trying to scatter more troops in the islands wouldn't have changed anything.
You're only talking about the fuel shortages in the very last stages of the war, and Japan's shortage of resources was partially caused by Japan's failure to take over China. Japan had been fighting in China since the early 1930s with the vast majority of its army. Imagine if China surrendered in the 1930s...which would free up 80% of the Japanese army in the 1930s to take over the rest of eastern Asia. If that happened, then Japan wouldn't have or wouldn't have the same levels of the fuel and resource shortages they had since there are significant sources of natural resources (petroleum, rubber, etc) in mainland East Asia and in SE Asia they could've taken over. For example, today Indonesia, Malaysia, and China are significant producers of oil today. Japan did manage to capture the Dutch East Indies, but this happened pretty late (around 1942) and happened after the USA had already entered the war.
Another important event was when Japan signed the Japanese-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941 because most of Japan's armies was bogged down in a stalemate in China. Imagine if the successful conquest of China in the 1930s freed up the majority of Japanese armies, which would have allowed the Japanese to not have to sign this agreement and invade the Soviet Union from the east.
Furthermore, Japan invaded China long before the USA even entered the war in 1941. The USA oil embargo against Japan was also significantly due to Japanese atrocities in China...which was heavily due to their army's frustration of not making much progress and getting stalemated in China. If China rolled over and surrendered quickly, the Japanese might not even have attacked Pearl Harbor or at least not prematurely attack it as early as they did because they wouldn't have been so dependent on American oil resources or the Americans might not have embargoed them at all.
Considering the US entrance into World War 2 was caused by the attack on Pearl Harbor, this alternate chain of events caused by the early surrender of China would've significantly changed the course of the Pacific War and even the European War.
→ More replies3
u/Mindless-Story931 21d ago
Yeah, what the shit. Japan suffered more than 3 million casualties in China. China was orders of magnitude more instrumental in victory than France.
→ More replies
16
u/LeaperLeperLemur 21d ago
I think a big part is that just before WWII , France was seen as a peer compared to US, UK, USSR. Them being overrun early into the war didn't immediately negate their status as a major power.
Compared that with Norway, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, etc. All of them were minor powers before the war, if not practically brand new countries. Postwar they continued to be minor powers.
62
u/Perpetual_bored 21d ago edited 21d ago
From a purely western perspective, the war was won and (in 1941) lost at large expense to the French infrastructure, architecture, monuments, art, countryside, etc. Even if an argument can be made that is was Charles de Gaulle’s shrewd political maneuvers that led to them receiving equal status among the victors, two out of the three other victors were able to use France as the playground while their homes went unmolested from the horrors of ground conflict. I think they attempted to pay back France back for that sacrifice. Not to mention that historically France was a major world power, and was still treated as such in WW2.
→ More replies
58
u/Bergeroned 21d ago edited 21d ago
It's because by 1945 France again had one of the largest armies in the world, and its role over the previous nine months had been critically important to Allied success.
It's difficult to convey how tapped out the rest of the Allies already were, manpower-wise. All of the allied nations had to make difficult choices just to keep the divisions in the field manned. So the addition of the two corps of French Army B on the far right flank in France was critically important.
And that was just one of their forces. Before that Leclerc's division was the centerpiece of Patton's own army, and the liberators of Paris. Before that French forces had helped open a second front in France with Operation Dragoon. Before that the French held part of the line in Italy. The French armies were really the only Allied forces that were actually still growing in 1945. I can't remember if they actually fought, but they had an expeditionary force on the way to fight the Japanese in Southeast Asia. By the end of the war the Free French had 1.25 million people in uniform and were again flexing as a world power.
They would take over all occupation of France, obviously, ensuring no German (or Communist) hijinks in the backfield would slow the Allies, then they would supply crucially important forces in the subsequent occupation of central Europe after the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France_during_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Army_(France)#World_War_II#World_War_II)
30
u/speedbumptx 21d ago
Creating a "balance" of power in favor of the democratic nations played a major role, IMHO.
→ More replies6
u/Special-Case-8020 21d ago
This is my understanding, and I would only add that it is also (less importantly) about a balance of power within Europe; that is, France was a major historic enemy of Germany and it would have seemed obvious at the time that France has a large say in the future of their biggest rival - both wars had massive fighting on French territory after all.
Things like the Coal and Steel Union and subsequent integration -> European Union are major parts of the post-war/cold war world and are understandably linked to the 1945 peace. Although NATO/USA were arguably the biggest actors in creating the Europe we see today, the role of French/German alliances + economic integration in Europe in both 'defeating' the eastern bloc & creating a peaceful and prosperous Europe should not be underestimated.
→ More replies
7
u/Kamenev_Drang 21d ago
Why not? France occupied a key strategic position in Western Europe, and it's military and economic might was essential for stabilising Europe.
36
u/PappiStalin 21d ago
Well WW2 wasn't the kind of war where after the fighting the victors would pick and choose what land they wanted from the nation they beat (unless your the Soviet union), it was for all intents and purposes a war of survival for European powers and that's all that mattered was truly their survival. So it isn't so much that France was elevated to the status of the true allied heavy weights like the UK, US and USSR, but rather that France was restored to that level of respect. It's also important to take into account Frances status on the world stage prior to the war. France was also (roughly) allied in it's views of the world like the US and UK, and could be a trusted Ally in the future tensions with the USSR. But in all reality, it was almost solely Roosevelt(then Truman), Churchill and Stalin that dictated which direction the war went, it was them who gave De Gaulle the power and respect he wanted and felt he deserved.
All that being said, it's also important to take into account that the french did continue to fight with us on the front lines when France fell, and then continued even after their liberation, they weren't just backseat drivers.
→ More replies
6
u/DonnkeyKongJR 21d ago
In addition to what others are saying, it seems likely that the US and the UK would want a mainland western European ally that they could prop up to counter the soviets and potential future German aggression. Spain and Italy weren’t options, so France was what was there. In addition to the historic position of France as always being a major European player.
5
u/Nynyano 21d ago edited 21d ago
People always forgot that an important part of remaining French army (see: Delatre de Tassigny) landed in provence from Algeria and went straight to Berlin while the Normandy landings were freeing Paris.
France militarily participated to Germany defeat and its militarily role is often underestimated in the 43-45 years because everyone is assuming its army was no more operational, which is untrue.
This is a common mistake, school's history tends to simplify WW2's ending by Normandy landing > Germany defeat while what happened is in reality a little more complex : several landings, several mixed army, several goals for each landed army.
11
u/Raammson 21d ago
Part of it was Russian influence when deciding on the five UN Security Council permanent members the Soviet Union aka Stalin wanted someone who would vote against US interests. Multiple candidates were floated and Stalin agreed on France.
4
u/jerjackal 21d ago
France's armies did fight back against the initial invasion and lost a tremendous amount of soldiers. They contributed a lot to staving off initial invasions, but were unsuccessful. They did manage to assist in the evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk, which was instrumental in the survival of the UK.
The "immediately" surrendered jokes are really overplayed - the fall of France was more a testament to Germany's rapid invasion strategies and the overall failure of Europe's appeasement strategies than any military shortcomings on France's side.
Keep in mind that France was a major force in WW1 and in post-WW1 politics in the region, as others have mentioned. Once liberated, France may have also officially joined in arms against Germany. They were considered allies the entire time.
→ More replies
5
u/half3clipse 21d ago
Becasue the only way France wasn't going to be one of the largest players in Europe and in the world would be to carve it up into much smaller nations. They had a colonial empire on par with the UK, and were far more powerful as a continental power.
Deciding seats based purely on the immediate post war situation would have been a fantastically foolish decision: There was no scenario in which France wouldn't be able to rapidly recover, rearm and return to it's status a great power. If France did not have a seat at the table, they would have just ignored anything to do with the UN or the Security Council and done whatever they wished regardless.
France wasn't some scrappy little nation trying to play with the big kids. They had a massive industrial base and population on par with or exceeding the other European powers. Snubbing a major nation like that could easily have resulted in France taking a more independent stance in the cold war or aiming to form it's own power bloc.
27
u/hagnat 21d ago
A lot of people believe that the USA won the Western European Front by themselves. Hollywood is really quick to show the brave American soldiers fighting and dying for the weak and dirty French civilians.
It was the sacrifice of millions of soldiers and civilians from several nations. Without intelligence from the locals, without the blood and sacrifice of the resistance groups, from the families that hid and fed spies, the war would've continued on for way longer than it did, and D-Day could have beeb another Garden Market moment.
So, yeah, France deserved a position on the security council, not only for its historical importance in Europe and the world, but because of the blood and sacrifice its people committed to during the war.
11
u/ifdisdendat 21d ago
I am french, and I can’t count how many time I’ve been called a “surrender monkey” in the US. Thanks Hollywood propaganda and the American education system.
3
u/imgrandojjo 21d ago
France might be wounded, but she was still a very, very powerful nation in 1946. everyone knew that France would recover much of its strength at some point, and it only made sense to take them seriously.
Besides, France paid one of the highest prices for victory of any of the Allied Powers, with the exception of the USSR. That, too, counts for something.
9
u/bessie1945 21d ago
the UN isn't rewarding countries based upon their military strength during the war. It's rewarding them based upon their political philosophy and intentions during the war. (why would it do otherwise?)
11
u/Caylinbite 21d ago
In addition to the other points made here, I think you are vastly underestimating the effects of a years long resistance campaign. Ultimately, Germany collapsed because they lost a war of attrition against the rest of the world. Feeding a constant stream of men, fuel, and machines into France was certainly felt on the front.
→ More replies3
28
u/BlindPaintByNumbers 21d ago
Because they were a victor, not to mention 250,000 military and 500,000 overall deaths in WW2. That 500,000 is a bit more than the US overall deaths, though the US deaths were almost all military.
Not sure I understand your argument. Because they bore the brunt of the German assault and capitulated they are no longer one of the victorious allies?
16
u/MaterialCarrot 21d ago
I understand why the French were granted equal status, but also understand his question. Poland bore the brunt of the German assault (as did Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, etc...), but certainly were not put in the same plane as France after WW II.
My summary would be that the French were given equal status primarily for reasons that had nothing to do with WW II.
2
u/BlindPaintByNumbers 21d ago
Churchill was really bitter about the way the Poles were treated at the end of the war. But it was Realpolitik and in the end the allies basically traded Poland to Stalin for Greece. Stalin didn't lift a finger to help the Greek communists during the civil war.
No one was willing to extend WW2 to fight the soviets out of eastern europe. It just wasn't going to happen.
15
u/Trippopotamus420 21d ago
I think the idea is that Petain and the Vichy government was in collaboration with the Nazis and therefore no longer an ally.
Under the Vichy regime the French army and navy stood in direct opposition to allied forces. As another comment noted, the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir was a direct result of Vichy France siding with the Axis powers.
21
u/Vinny_Cerrato 21d ago
The counter-argument is that the real government of France was led by De Gaulle and that Vichy France were just the collaborators installed by the Germans. French resistance played a major role in sabotaging the occupying German authority, and what was left of the French army did support the major allied forces in North Africa and the eventual Western Front. With that perspective, in a sense the real government of France was never truly defeated, and thus they were one of the victors that deserved a seat at the national security council permanent member table.
3
u/nuttyjawa 21d ago
Its very difficult to determine the "Real government of France". I don't think many Frenchmen saw him as that for a long long time
→ More replies-14
u/[deleted] 21d ago
[removed]
12
u/Vinny_Cerrato 21d ago
Literally five seconds of googling would show that I am correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France
The Free French army fought a lot in North Africa, and were what was referenced at the end of Casablanca.
-4
u/saltandvinegarrr 21d ago
You didn't read that article
"Initially, with the exception of the French possessions in the Pacific and French India,[1] and French Equatorial Africa
in August–September 1940, all the territories of the French colonial
empire rejected de Gaulle's appeal and reaffirmed their loyalty to
Marshall Pétain and the Vichy government"→ More replies9
u/BlindPaintByNumbers 21d ago
This is /r/history, not /r/AskReddit so you really need to do a cursory bit of research on your facts. The French troops in England chose to return to the battle in France. The fighting continued for three weeks after Dunkirk, so about two weeks after the French troops returned.
They chose to return and fight the Germans while they still could.
→ More replies3
u/Kookofa2k 21d ago
It's worth pointing out that the Soviets bore the brunt of Germany's advances, both in terms of military losses as well as civilian casualties. France certainly suffered, but in no way could they be said to have borne the brunt.
1
u/BlindPaintByNumbers 21d ago
Germany wasn't at war with Stalin during the Battle of France, so I'm not sure what your point is. Actually, since the BoF was a 1 front war and starting with Barbarossa Germany was in a two front war, technically France was under the entire might of Germany for a few weeks.
-2
u/Hill_Reps_For_Jesus 21d ago
How are we defining victors then? France was defeated by Germany. France as an independent, Allied nation ceased to exist. The only reason we can call them a victor is because post-war France is considered a successor state to the (defeated) pre-war France, and was an ally of the countries that defeated Germany. Was Belgium a victor of the war too?
→ More replies8
u/nuttyjawa 21d ago
Imagine being Belgian.
Imagine being in their army, retreating the fall of Belgium and France
Imagine joining the British army and fighting for 5 years, to eventual victory and a return to a very different home
Then some Redditor says "Was Beglium a victor too?"
→ More replies-28
u/Belisarius124 21d ago edited 21d ago
No they simply were not, the war would've turned out exactly the same even if they hadn't fired a shot, the poles and czechs, whilst still irrelevant in the great scheme of things, were much more useful than french were. Losing 500 000 men with nothing to show for it is called a disaster, not a victory.
The only WW2 thing french were succesful at, and that I will admit, was deceiving themselves into believing that they played a crucial role in the allied forces, which is coincidentally the only thing that clown de Gaulle got right.
8
u/Eryth_HearthShadow 21d ago
Lmao. You need to call a few historians then, tell them they are all wrong.
I'm sure a member of r/Conservative will convince historian to adopt their idea of how some war turned out.
1
→ More replies0
4
2
u/aldergone 21d ago
axis and allies
the negations were between the allied nations vs the axis nations
France was a allied nation
2
u/acceidalby 21d ago
Interestingly France was not going to be a permanent member on the security council, it was just going to be the US, USSR, china and the UK. But Stalin realised that he would be cornered by US allies. So when the question of a french seat came up Stalin was all for it, because France under d'Gaul was not fond of the US.
2
u/Plumrose 21d ago
Churchill wanted Western European colonialism to continue in perpetuity, and was the main proponent of France joining the UN Security Council. FDR wanted Brazil instead.
2
u/WilliamTheII 21d ago
This question has been answered fairly well but thought I’d include one additional fun fact. The Soviets were very pro France becoming a permanent member because it helped balance the Cold War allegiances on the council. Although France was undisputedly pro-west and a key member of NATO, they often defied the US/UK who dominated the organization. France was seen as a neutral power politically and so it was beneficial for the Soviets to agree to their membership when compared to someone like Brazil who was also considered.
2
u/techm00 21d ago
In addition to some excellent answers below, a lot of it was selling France as a post-WWII as a super power to the other powers by M. de Gaulle himself. The man was a force of nature and he insisted on equal standing with the other powers despite France having taken a brutal beating in the war.
2
u/vertigo42 21d ago
Another question in the same vein. How is PROC granted the seat at the table when the ROC(Taiwan) never fell?
The RoC military was the main force against Japan. The people's army sat back and kept their numbers strong.
2
2
u/BurningFyre 21d ago
Because the meme of the French being weak and ineffective is entirely a modern creation. Before 1941 the idea that France could fall in a month would be ludicrous. French resistance also worked throughout the war to sabotage German plans and fight wherever they could. When the allies landed in Normandy the French were right there with them, some on the beaches but many more behind the lines with paratroopers and beyond. The free french army landed in southern france around the same time but that campaign is never really discussed, at least not around here.
6
u/andthenhesaidrectum 21d ago edited 21d ago
This is just an odd and wrongheaded perspective from which to start.
What alternative could reasonably have been suggested?
Do you think the US, Britain, and Russia should have divided it up?
Also, consider the precedent and diminished motivation to fight and be an ally in the future if any other route were chosen. ie. why would any nation fight along the allies in the next world war, or next conflict of any kind, if by doing so, they were in jeopardy of losing sovereinty if they were defeated on the way to their side's victory. to put it another way - you're with 2 buddies walking through a bad neighborhood. If you the 3 of you get jumped, and you all agree to fight together, but one of you gets knocked out, the other two shouldn't leave you there. They certainly shouldn't beat up the attackers, then rob you and divide your possessions. No, if you want them to fight with you next time, it's ride or die.
this guy might be daydrinking.
4
u/BunkytheClown 21d ago
I don't think the permanent security council seats depended on being able to kick ass.
→ More replies3
2
u/Mischief_Makers 21d ago
Once again, the contribution of the french resistance goes overlooked. Just because the country fell doesn't mean they stopped fighting.
→ More replies
2
2
u/No_Establishment6754 21d ago
Also worth remembering that the French army kept fighting in Africa, Italy and eventually mainland Europe. A large number of French troops also left for the UK, doing dun kirk, who participated in the battle for Europe (mainly after D day for some reason).
2
2
u/Neil_youngs_voice 21d ago
Never forget that the US won the war against Japan by mass murdering civilians.
→ More replies
-1
1
u/way2funni 21d ago
As a fledgling nation , France was one of our first friends.
We may not have survived the revolutionary war if it were not for the French Navy - first ferrying supplies and then in open combat vs. the British. They also had thousands of troops stationed here and they ultimately ended up under the command of General Washington, who would become our first President.
3
u/acceidalby 21d ago edited 21d ago
Historical allies maybe, but de Gaulle and Roosevelt dissagreed on everything, and the relationship between France and the US was very cold after WW2, leading to france leaving the NATO high command during the cold war.
When talking about geopolitics historical relations are meaningless.
3
3
u/atreides78723 21d ago
And when their revolution came around, we turned our backs on them. When the new French government came to claim the money we owed France, we said “Piss off, we owe Louis XVI, not you.”
And France already got their original value out of helping us, removing a massive material and economic resource from British hands while tying up its military.
1
u/Vaudge55 21d ago
A major reason was that Britain did not want to manage European security. For a large part of the war, France was in the axis powers as the French State or Vichy (the Free movement was quite insignificant until Case Anton). Even most allied nations choose to negotiate with the Vichy state as it was recognized as legitimate. The US wanted France to be treated as a conquered nation however Britain feared soviet aggression. You see many Western powers feared a Soviet invasion of Western Europe and as a result Britain would be expected to be the primary defender which wasn’t a position Churchill wanted. Britain was ravaged by war and was not in the best position to defend the continent. Therefore they pushed for France to be treated as a member of the big 5 (UK, US, China, USSR and France). Basically France was treated like an Ally because Britain was tired of helping Europe lol
0
1k
u/joeri1505 21d ago
One big factor in that is the fact that France was a traditional superpower.
France had been one of the most powerful countries in the world for litteral ages.
Basically all the people at the negotiations litteraly grew up with the concept of France being a superpower cemented in their minds.
Also, dont forget that the invasion of France wasn't just a French defeat.
The British army was in France too and they only managed to escape at Dunkirk, thanks to the rearguard of the French.
And then there was that small incident where the Brits sank a large part of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
If diplomatic relations were to be normalised, it would be crucial to treat France according to its own perceived status.
Besides Europe itsself, the French colonial empire was also rather large.
Returning all these teritories to French rule would almost automatically return France to a position of authority.