French communist parties sabotaging the 1940 defensive war against Germany?
Roman Werpachowski
affinity with the Soviet Union, sabotaged the French defense effort
during the 1940 war with Germany?
Louis Capdeboscq
There was only one French communist party, and it had been outlawed in
September 1939 due to the Soviet alliance with Germany.
Additionally, party membership was down because the rank and file hadn't
understood the turnaround from being at the forefront of opposition to
fascism in 1934-39 to recommending opposition to "the capitalist war".
So the French communist party as an organization was seriously crippled
in 1939-40. A lot of cadres had renounced their membership, others were
in jail, exiled or under close police scrutiny (which in wartime could
be decidedly unpleasant). That being said, what was left of that
organization did advocate sabotage of the war effort.
Now the point about sabotage is that it's usually difficult to tell
deliberate sabotage from normal production accidents. We know that the
bulk of the French workers did not sabotage the war effort, we know that
the French police considered that the communists were not an effective
threat to the war effort, we know that there were production problems,
and we even know of actual sabotage inspired by the communist party.
So it depends on what question you ask.
Are there documented instances of sabotage of the war effort? Yes.
Were these instances common? No. Many frontline troops reported
"sabotage" but upon enquiry it turned out that most cases were "normal"
production errors. Even if you attribute all of the grey area (was it
really carelessness or was it disguized sabotage?) to malicious intent,
the proportion of actual sabotage was not significant.
Are there documented instances of sabotage of the war effort out of
communist rhetoric (rather than sabotage by a worker hating his
supervisor or other non-ideological reasons)? Yes, at least one IIRC.
Was the French communist party advocating sabotage of the war effort? Yes.
Was the French communist party generally successful in sabotaging the
French production? No.
LC
--
Remove "e" from address to reply
Roman Werpachowski
> So it depends on what question you ask.
Thanks for detailed answer. I was particularly interested in
communist-organized strikes in factories vital for war effort.
YM
> Roman Werpachowski wrote:
> > Is there any proof that the French communist parties, due to their
> > affinity with the Soviet Union, sabotaged the French defense effort
> > during the 1940 war with Germany?
What about in the French Army itself? Was there any attempt
to set up Soldiers Soviets like happened in Germany
in 1918 advocating ending the war?
Louis Capdeboscq
> [...]
>
> Thanks for detailed answer. I was particularly interested in
> communist-organized strikes in factories vital for war effort.
The general answer is "there weren't any".
As in all belligerent countries, there were strikes - including in
war-related industries - though not very many. What strikes there were
mostly had to do with working conditions and/or wages. There was no
strike directed against the "imperialist war".
Still, clandestine communist newspapers obviously supported these
strikes (they were better than nothing), and there is no doubt that
remaining communist cadres must have agitated for them at the workplace.
We can never know for certain, but so far the balance of evidence is
that the French communists were quite unable to organize strikes.
That is not just the opinion of leftist intellectuals, but that from the
French police including the "Renseignements Generaux" (which were, and
still are, specifically tasked with identifying such domestic threats).
The "RG" leadership, which really can't be suspected of communist
sympathies, believed that the French communist had no meaningful impact.
French authorities did fear communists again, but that was in June 1940.
What they feared was that with a general collapse of authority and of
the institutions, what communists there remained would creep out of the
woodwork and take control. But as long as things were running normally,
i.e. late May, the French police thought that the communists were no
threat. And they did investigate sabotage and other claims, including
under Vichy when there was institutional incentive to discover some "5th
column action", so the fact that they came up blank seems to indicate
that there really wasn't much evidence.
Henry Reardon
@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I don't know about any attempts to set up soldiers' Soviets but I know
that William Shirer made a blanket statement in Berlin Diary to the
effect that the top military leadership were fascists and that the vast
majority of the rest of the French armed forces were communists. He said
that the communists had refused to co-operate with their fascist leaders
to put up meaningful resistance to the Germans.
There is no elaboration or justification of this statement in Berlin
Diary and the sweeping nature of the remark makes it rather suspect in
my eyes. Then again, Shirer was an active journalist who knew Europe
quite well and had been there continuously for the decade leading up to
these events. He was also clearly opposed to the Nazi ideology so it
would seem unlikely that he would go out of his way to cast aspersions
on one of the Nazis great foreign rivals unless he had significant
evidence. Perhaps his generalization was so self-evident to people of
the day that he didn't feel any need to justify it?
On the other hand, the only book I've ever read by a French soldier on
the French defeat in 1940, Strange Defeat by Marc Bloch, gives no
impression that the soldiers simply refused to fight because they
loathed the politics of the top leaders of the French armed forces. Mind
you, Bloch made a big deal of the fact that, when he arrived at various
posts to meet other French officers, he always shook hands with these
officers rather than saluting them; the egalitarian symbolism of an a
handshake apparently meant a lot to him. This may indicate some sort of
a widespread egalitarian sympathy although it hardly proves that French
soldiers largely supported communism.
--
Henry
Chris Morton
>Are there documented instances of sabotage of the war effort? Yes.
I have read similar allegations regarding communist activity in the US, re
defective war materiel shipped to the Philippines prior to 12/07/41. I can't
remember if it was in Toland's "The Rising Sun" or elsewhere.
Does anyone have any more information?
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Roman Werpachowski
> Mind
> you, Bloch made a big deal of the fact that, when he arrived at various
> posts to meet other French officers, he always shook hands with these
> officers rather than saluting them; the egalitarian symbolism of an a
> handshake apparently meant a lot to him. This may indicate some sort of
> a widespread egalitarian sympathy although it hardly proves that French
> soldiers largely supported communism.
There's still a long way from "Liberte, egalite, fraternite" to
communism.
Louis Capdeboscq
> In article <448331AC...@yahoo.com>, Louis Capdeboscq says...
>>Are there documented instances of sabotage of the war effort? Yes.
>
>
> I have read similar allegations regarding communist activity in the US, re
> defective war materiel shipped to the Philippines prior to 12/07/41.
To reiterate: *allegations* of communist sabotage are plentiful. By the
military, and taken up by commentators. Like Schirer.
Documented evidence of actual sabotage is much harder to come up with,
as opposed to the normal production SNAFUs that can be expected when an
unfamiliar yet complex item is being produced by recently-hired workers
(because the war economy is expanding quickly), when corners are cut in
quality control due to the need to increase output, when the mechanics
at the front are unfamiliar with proper maintenance procedure, when
packaging was inadequate (particularly damning for overseas shipments
like the Philippines), etc.
I don't know about the Americans, but regarding the 1940 French there
are plenty of examples of people mentioning sabotage. Evidence of actual
sabotage is, however, very scarce. And evidence of communist-inspired
sabotage even scarcer. The bottom line is that the communists may well
have tried, but generally were too few to matter.
Louis Capdeboscq
>
> I don't know about any attempts to set up soldiers' Soviets but I know
> that William Shirer made a blanket statement in Berlin Diary to the
> effect that the top military leadership were fascists and that the vast
> majority of the rest of the French armed forces were communists. He said
> that the communists had refused to co-operate with their fascist leaders
> to put up meaningful resistance to the Germans.
>
> There is no elaboration or justification of this statement in Berlin
> Diary and the sweeping nature of the remark makes it rather suspect in
> my eyes. Then again, Shirer was an active journalist who knew Europe
> quite well and had been there continuously for the decade leading up to
> these events.
Schirer knew what the people around him thought. There is no doubt that
many people thought that the 5th column was a reality. There is just as
little doubt that there was no actual 5th column worth mentioning (yes,
there were a few agents, but overall they were not particularly
successful). Ditto with communist sabotage and fascist leaders.
Just because many French generals eagerly jumped in on the Vichy
bandwagon doesn't mean that they *wanted* France to lose so as to get
Vichy. Most of them had their priorities right, i.e. first let's deal
with the external threat (the Germans) and then the internal threat
(Reds, Jews, Masons, whatever) can be dealt with. Only when France had
been beaten did they agree to reverse their priorities, mostly because
Germany had become effectively out of reach.
This is not to excuse them, but it's important to note that because
someone eventually collaborated with the occupier it doesn't mean that
this was the person's first choice. If you believe that, then Guderian
and all the postwar German generals were democrats...
> Mind
> you, Bloch made a big deal of the fact that, when he arrived at various
> posts to meet other French officers, he always shook hands with these
> officers rather than saluting them; the egalitarian symbolism of an a
> handshake apparently meant a lot to him. This may indicate some sort of
> a widespread egalitarian sympathy although it hardly proves that French
> soldiers largely supported communism.
French culture was (and to a significant extent still is) largely
egalitarian, at least in outlook. There's a big step between that and
communism, though.
Rich Rostrom
>Chris Morton wrote:
>> Louis Capdeboscq says...
>>>Are there documented instances of sabotage of the war effort? Yes.
>>
>> I have read similar allegations regarding communist activity in the US, re
>> defective war materiel shipped to the Philippines prior to 12/07/41.
>
It's known that Communists and fellow-travellers
tried to incite labor problems at factories
producing war goods for shipment to Britain.
Of course this stopped on 6/23/1941.
How extensive this was, or whether there was any
real effect, Idunno. I don't believe it ever got
to the point of deliberate sabotage of goods
produced.
The point was to make a _public_ stand against
"imperialist" war, and to appeal to the isolationist
wing of the U.S. public.
Sabotaging goods meant for use by U.S. forces
would hardly appeal to Americans.
>To reiterate: *allegations* of communist sabotage are plentiful.
>By the military, and taken up by commentators. Like Schirer.
Stories of sabotage and fifth columnism were rampant,
and still are, even when unsupported.
For instance, recently there were some stories about
the Mafia being tasked to prevent sabotage on the
docks of American ports - it being claimed that the
Mob, which controlled a lot of the union locals, was
particularly suited to this. The story was malarkey
at all levels. The relevant detail is that supposedly
the 'official' security agencies adopted this policy
in the wake of the destruction of the giant ex-French
liner NORMANDIE by fire while under refit in a New
York dockyard. The author asserted that "_everyone_
knew" that the fire was started by Nazi saboteurs,
even though the government pretended it was an
accident
In fact the fire was an accident, there were no Nazi
spies or saboteurs in the harbors of America, and no
security agency ever made arrangements with the Mob
to watch for such.
In this newsgroup, we've seen recently:
Claims by a Canadian that Nazi agents were active in
Newfoundland during the Battle of the Atlantic.
An Australian suggesting that Japanese agents erected
markers along Australia's northwestern coast to enable
Japanese bombers to find their targets.
Both stories being essentially unsupported hooey.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
YM
> bandwagon doesn't mean that they *wanted* France to lose so as to get
> Vichy. Most of them had their priorities right, i.e. first let's deal
> with the external threat (the Germans) and then the internal threat
> (Reds, Jews, Masons, whatever) can be dealt with. Only when France had
> been beaten did they agree to reverse their priorities, mostly because
> Germany had become effectively out of reach.
I do recall reading that at the time of the rise
of the Popular Front government in France,
people (who exactly?) were saying
"Better Hitler than (Leon) Blum"
What did that mean, were people
looking for a "purifying" war as early
as 1936?
Ian MacLure
news:1149422306....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Is there any proof that the French communist parties, due to their
> affinity with the Soviet Union, sabotaged the French defense effort
> during the 1940 war with Germany?
Yes. Incontrovertible.
IBM
Stephen Graham
Then you can provide us with five documented instances of such sabotage?
Bald assertion alone doesn't prove anything.
Louis Capdeboscq
>
> I do recall reading that at the time of the rise
> of the Popular Front government in France,
> people (who exactly?) were saying
> "Better Hitler than (Leon) Blum"
> What did that mean, were people
> looking for a "purifying" war as early
> as 1936?
There were people saying "Better red than dead" in Germany in the 1980s,
this doesn't mean that they represented the majority opinion in Germany,
let alone than they really wanted to become part of the Soviet Union.
People who were saying "better Hitler than Blum" were in exactly the
same position: they hated Blum, they considered Hitler preferable
because they thought him an arch-conservative (in which they were very
wrong), and most of them supported going to war against Hitler in 1939
anyway.
Haydn
> It's known that Communists and fellow-travellers
> tried to incite labor problems at factories
> producing war goods for shipment to Britain.
> Of course this stopped on 6/23/1941.
Rumors about Italian workers sabotaging weapons, equipment and assorted
items earmarked for the troops operating on the various war fronts were and
are running wild over Italy. At all levels. Aerial torpedoes sinking like
stones once dropped? Sabotage. Water mixed with gas in jerrycans? Sabotage.
Italy being the realm of conspiracy theories and bottomless secrets, that
fits the nation's character well.
A few persons, genuine or self-styled Communists, claimed (post 1945) they
had actually carried out some sabotage and were proud of it, but no proof
has ever been shown. Perhaps they were telling the truth, or perhaps they
were just boasting false anti-Fascist merits, a valuable asset in post-war
Italy. In any case Italy didn't lose the war because of individual sabotage,
assuming some was actually perpetrated.
> For instance, recently there were some stories about
> the Mafia being tasked to prevent sabotage on the
> docks of American ports...
That story may be malarkey, but the shrewd use of Mafia connections on the
part of Donovan's OSS (and FDR was in the know of course) to further smooth
Operation Husky out and facilitate AMGOT's job is a fact beyond dispute. The
extent of it can be discussed, as well as the extent and nature of Lucky
Luciano's involvement in the deal. I'm not saying the campaign was won
thanks to Mafia connections. I'm saying OSS put some equivocal
Italian-American ties to good use. And without any moral qualms.
If we discount it as rubbish, then it's hard to explain why the first
post-Fascist Mayors in many a Sicilian town turned out to be Mafia bosses;
why Calogero Vizzini, one of pre-war Mafia's chief ringleaders, got into the
saddle again after 1943; why a controversial Italian-American type like
Charles Poletti could be appointed AMGOT vice-Governor of Sicily - by the
way, Poletti himself appointed Vizzini Mayor of his native town. And more
strange events like that.
Haydn
Ian MacLure
lhjZnZ2dnU...@speakeasy.net:
Read your history. And-uh as others have pointed out while the
Communists were actively attempting to impede the war effort, they
weren't always successful.
> Bald assertion alone doesn't prove anything.
Sure it does. This is the internet. And as to bald assertions, I
have a full head of hair which is my own.
IBM