Casualties in the Battle of France?
Beachcomber
(360000 total wounded) vs. approx 45000 German deaths (+100000
wounded) in the short period beginning in May 1940 known as the the
Battle of France.
This seems high given the short duration of the battle and the speed
with which the Allied positions in France were overun.
Can anyone comment on the accuracy of these figures and perhaps point
to a source for a day by day breakdown?
Takata
Such a breakdown doesn't exist as the real figure is not that easy to
reconstruct. On the French side, nothing has been yet attempted to do
it as it would mean to check hundreds of thousands of personnel files
which are mostly not open for research. So, its look like only an
estimation may be provided from official sources which are far from
being clear about such figures which range from 90,000 to 100,000 KIAs
and 120,000 WIAs (other sources say 240,000 WIAs).
But in 2000, a publication claimed that this figure is far above the
real numbers:
During the May-June 1940 campaign, following the article from Docteur
J-J. Arzalier (Service de Santé des Armées /Army Medical Service) in
"La Campagne de 1940, actes du colloque : 16 au 18 novembre 2000, sous
la direction de Christine Levisse-Touzé, Tallandier, 2001 ; pages
427-447"
The total number for the period Sep, 1940 to Nov, 1942 is 123,079 KIA,
as provided by the "Direction de la Mémoire du Patrimoine et des
Archives" totaling the files of war victims (without period breakdown)
up to the end of Vichy. Which mean, that is all people recorded as
"Mort pour la France" under the law of February 28th, 1922.
Following this law, it should include:
- beside the Army, the civilian deaths during the operations which
total 16.000 people of French Nationality (+ 5,000 other).
- The POW who died later in captivity: estimation is between 30.000 to
40.000, say 35.000 (about 2% of the total POW).
- Losses before May 1940 and after June 1940 : Saar offensive, Norway,
Mers-el-Kebir, Dakar, Syria-Lebanon, Madagascar, and North-Africa
(Torch), estimated 10.000 +
- Wounded that died later from their wounds and deaths from deceases
in the armed forces, estimated 12.000.
So, the usual number provided from "official sources" is this total
less the POW deaths in captivity: 123.000 - 35.000 = 88.000 KIA
Now, Less civilians: 88.000 - 16.000 = 72.000
Less other deaths: 72.000 - 22.000 = 50.000 KIA (total estimated in
May-June).
On the other hand, the total number of wounded recorded evacuated
during the May-June 1940 campaign is 122.695 WIA, providing an
accurate statistical WIA/KIA ratio of 2.45 which is not the case with
usual figure of 90,000 KIA for 120,000 WIA.
Next, as an example, he's giving the total loss suffered by the 32e
division d'infanterie (which had the highest losses number during the
whole war 1939-1945). This division recorded 688 KIA, but only 369 KIA
occured during the May-June campaign (54%).
Olivier.
Louis C
> This seems high given the short duration of the battle and the speed
> with which the Allied positions in France were overun.
In addition to Olivier's figures, I would point out that the Allies
generally fought hard in 1940, just not particularly well.
That the campaign was over quickly doesn't mean that it wasn't fought.
That was pretty much a textbook decisive victory.
LC
Beachcomber
wrote:
It must be difficult to be a French historian if you have need access
to so much information that is suppressed by the government... Much of
the military and politcal history of France in the 20th Century is
beset by moral ambiguity, contradictions, and reversals of fortune
Examples:
Petain and Weygand, among the heroes of WWI and were considered
traitor and disgraced appeaser, respectively, during WWII. Some
official French histories due not even mention Weygand's role in the
1940 Armistice and he had the unique privilege of participating in
both the 1918 and 1940 events, perhaps the ultimate give and take.
The Forest of Compiègne, thanks to Hitler, lives on as both a place of
great pride (in 1918) where the German Armies were humbled before
France, and a place of great shame, where the Furher turned the tables
on the French in 1940.
In more recent times, an anti-war movies such as Paths of Glory, which
depicts a failed Niville-style offensive, and the subsequent
scapegoating and execution of the ordinary French soldiers thought to
be responsible, and was, for many years, banned in France.
A more recent (2004) movie with a similar anti-war theme, Un long
dimanche de fiançailles (A Fairly Long Engagement), seemed to be
shunned in France, because it had the misfortune of being financed by
the American Warner Brothers Company. The WWI French Army is not
portrayed as a heroic entity in this film and it seems that many do
not like to be reminded of this fact.
Beachcomber
Cubdriver
wrote:
>I've read from various sources that attribute 100,000 French deaths
>(360000 total wounded) vs. approx 45000 German deaths (+100000
>wounded)
A wildly successful air-ground battle like the invasions of France in
1940 and Iraq in 2003 is obviously going to inflict disproportionate
casualties on the losing side. I finder it easier to believe that the
French lost 100,000 men than that the Germans lost 45,000! (The
Americans and British lost about 300 in their blitz of Iraq.)
Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
from HarperCollins on August 21 www.flyingtigersbook.com
Rich
wrote:
> A wildly successful air-ground battle like the invasions of France in
> 1940 and Iraq in 2003 is obviously going to inflict disproportionate
> casualties on the losing side. I finder it easier to believe that the
> French lost 100,000 men than that the Germans lost 45,000! (The
> Americans and British lost about 300 in their blitz of Iraq.)
Sorry Dan, but what might seem "obvious" is not always true. :)
>From NARA RG242, T77, R826, F2114~ Report on the Central Statistics on
Manpower Losses in the War, 30 August 1944. There were three sources
for the number of dead in the Western Campaign:
1) The summary reports of casualties by the Wehrmacht-Führungsstab:
26,455 (including 1,253 officers).
2) The reports of the Sanitäts-Inspektur: 30,267 (including 1,558).
3) The reconciled reports including decisions on the fate of those
previously recorded as MIA: 46,059 (including 2,501 officers).
In my experience in working with the types of records described, I
would anticipate that the first said was simply incomplete. That is,
that all the records from all the units were not forwarded and
coallated in time to be incorporated into the those figures, which
were apparently published nearly simultaneously with the armistace.
They also probably did not include the Wehrmachtgefölge (non-military
Wehrmacht civilian personnel) and possibly many of the SS losses
(which were reported through the SS-Führungshauptamt IIRC at this
time). The second were probably more complete, but would not have
included either missing-in-action. Which leaves the final and most
complete set, which we must accept as definitive.
Takata
> It must be difficult to be a French historian if you have need access
> to so much information that is suppressed by the government... Much of
> the military and politcal history of France in the 20th Century is
> beset by moral ambiguity, contradictions, and reversals of fortune
>
Well, it would make a nice hollywood movie but it is not related with
the "French Government" conspiration. It's actually the French law
(published many years before such events) that prevent researchers to
access closed personnal records including medical information for any
people born less than 100 years ago or for 60 years after their death
date. To make such a compilation of May-June deaths and wounded, one
need to access all those files which are mostly only open to
relatives. Today, researchers are not limited with the 1914-1918
period and still are still focusing on it.
The second problem is that most archives from combat units were
destroyed or captured in 1940 which make it impossible to give a
complete and detailed figure, even from "official" army sources.
The third reason was post-war politics that focused on reunification
of French society rather than investigating too much the
responsabilities, beside obvious collaboration during occupation. The
French Army had three periods:
1. Sep.1939 - Jun 1940 (mobilization and defeat)
2. Jul 1940 - Nov 1942 (Vichy & France Libre)
3. Nov 1942 - Aug 1945 (reunification and victory)
So the official administrative continuum is from Sep.1939 to Nov 1942,
(the Free-French forces had separate records in England). But again,
in 1942 with the German free-zone occupation, the records were
captured or destroyed, including many investigations about the May-Jun
1940 period with attempt to reconstruct archives previously lost.
> Examples:
>
> Petain and Weygand, among the heroes of WWI and were considered
> traitor and disgraced appeaser, respectively, during WWII. Some
> official French histories due not even mention Weygand's role in the
> 1940 Armistice and he had the unique privilege of participating in
> both the 1918 and 1940 events, perhaps the ultimate give and take.
>
> The Forest of Compiègne, thanks to Hitler, lives on as both a place of
> great pride (in 1918) where the German Armies were humbled before
> France, and a place of great shame, where the Furher turned the tables
> on the French in 1940.
>
> In more recent times, an anti-war movies such as Paths of Glory, which
> depicts a failed Niville-style offensive, and the subsequent
> scapegoating and execution of the ordinary French soldiers thought to
> be responsible, and was, for many years, banned in France.
>
> A more recent (2004) movie with a similar anti-war theme, Un long
> dimanche de fiançailles (A Fairly Long Engagement), seemed to be
> shunned in France, because it had the misfortune of being financed by
> the American Warner Brothers Company. The WWI French Army is not
> portrayed as a heroic entity in this film and it seems that many do
> not like to be reminded of this fact.
Your following examples are not related either:
- Investigations and stuff about 1917 mutineries are well known from
ages and such death penalties for "treason" were even amnistied in
1936-37. More details came with time but there is nothing really that
would worry any French government from the last six decades. What you
are trying to say is far from being clear and I just do not understand
it. May be you should explain it a bit more as there was no "scandal"
with the movies you are talking about, etc.
The only thing I understand is a good load of Comics book history
then.
Olivier
Takata
wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:53:46 -0400, inva...@notreal.none (Beachcomber)
> wrote:
>
> >I've read from various sources that attribute 100,000 French deaths
> >(360000 total wounded) vs. approx 45000 German deaths (+100000
> >wounded)
>
> A wildly successful air-ground battle like the invasions of France in
> 1940 and Iraq in 2003 is obviously going to inflict disproportionate
> casualties on the losing side. I finder it easier to believe that the
> French lost 100,000 men than that the Germans lost 45,000! (The
> Americans and British lost about 300 in their blitz of Iraq.)
I don't think that Iraq has anything to see with the Invasion of
France.
If you consider that the battle ended once the B.E.F. was safe in
England, as it seems to be the general accepted description of this
event, then yes, the Wehrmacht overall casualities were still low at
this point. But the following battles in the Somme-Aisne took it's
toll on the German formations which is a less know fact and losses
rised like it was feared by many German Generals (including Manstein
and Guderian). They would have striken direct on Paris in May and
would have let aside the Northern Allied Army Group encircled. During
this second phase in June, German losses amounted to 4,762 German
losses per day between the June 5 and June 24 vs 2,499 German losses
per day between May 10 and the June 3 (Eddy Bauer).
The losses which occured mostly during the battles were not that
disproportionate:
- French losses: 50,000 KIA/MIA; 122,695 WIA
- German losses: 46,323 KIA/MIA; 117,615 WIA (Aug 31st)
- Belgian losses: 7,500 KIA/MIA; 15,850 WIA
- British losses: 6,724 KIA/MIA; 13,602 WIA
- Dutch losses: 2,890 KIA/MIA; 6,889 WIA
- Italian lossses: 642 KIA/MIA; 2,691 WIA
Allied:
...67.000 KIA/MIA
...159.000 WIA
...226.000 Total
Axis:
...47.000 KIA/MIA
...120.000 WIA
...167.000 Total
Now, a real losses disproportion would be obtained once one add the
1,830,000 French prisonners plus 40,000 British, plus the (no data)
Belgians and Dutch ones, which are the direct consequence of the
German brillant encirclement manoeuvers during the campaign.
Olivier
Louis C
> It must be difficult to be a French historian if you have need access
> to so much information that is suppressed by the government...
Does the French government suppress more information than others?
Are individual WWII personnel records available to anyone in the US?
Because that's the only way to make a "true" count of casualties.
Failing that, the fall back solution is to accept official statistics
compiled by the Army, which is what is being done at the moment AFAIK.
The narrative of the French campaign in 1940 hasn't changed all that
much since 1941. Many of the elements being "discovered" today were
outlined as part of the Riom trial (1941) and of the postwar
commission tasked with the same job (1946).
> Petain and Weygand, among the heroes of WWI and were considered
> traitor and disgraced appeaser, respectively, during WWII.
Petain was considered a national hero throughout WWII, so much so that
De Gaulle didn't even have him executed though Laval was on very
similar charges.
Weygand died of old age in retirement (he was already over the age
limit by 1940).
A continuous stream of authors has worked to "rehabilitate" the memory
of Vichy through Petain, almost as many as there have been American
authors claiming that Pearl Harbor was Roosevelt's doing. More
seriously, there a biographies of both by respected (French) scholars,
though one of the recent Petain ones by Pedroncini is too flattering
for my taste.
> Some
> official French histories due not even mention Weygand's role in the
> 1940 Armistice and he had the unique privilege of participating in
> both the 1918 and 1940 events, perhaps the ultimate give and take.
I'm aware of no history that has ever occulted Weygand's role, but
even though I read quite a few you may have read some that I didn't.
So which "official French histories" would that be?
> The Forest of Compiègne, thanks to Hitler, lives on as both a place of
> great pride (in 1918) where the German Armies were humbled before
> France, and a place of great shame, where the Furher turned the tables
> on the French in 1940.
...and in a fashion followed everywhere, the nation remembers it as
the place where the 1918 armistice was signed (complete with
reconstituted rail car) rather than as where the 1940 surrender was.
Just as the Versailles hall of mirrors is considered a "place of great
pride" rather than the location where the 1871 defeat was made final.
> In more recent times, an anti-war movies such as Paths of Glory, which
> depicts a failed Niville-style offensive, and the subsequent
> scapegoating and execution of the ordinary French soldiers thought to
> be responsible, and was, for many years, banned in France.
True, so was "la bataille d'Alger".
The reason wasn't the memory of WWI but the fact that the movie
strongly attacks the French army and its discretionary powers. Given
that the French army was at the time fighting another war in Algeria,
with "special anti-terrorist" (to borrow a modern phrase) powers the
authorities didn't want a parallel being established.
Add to that the fact that the movie makes a good point though
historical accuracy takes a definite back seat to making that point
(like other movies e.g. U-571), so when it was first released in
Belgium there was an uproar among veterans (Belgian, not just French
ones).
Regarding the point that the movie makes, a very good book was
published a few years ago on the executions carried out by the French
Army, and it quickly sold out.
> A more recent (2004) movie with a similar anti-war theme, Un long
> dimanche de fiançailles (A Fairly Long Engagement), seemed to be
> shunned in France, because it had the misfortune of being financed by
> the American Warner Brothers Company.
Nonsense, it was #6 in the national box-office for that year, despite
being released in October.
Being financed by Warner Bros didn't cause it to be shunned, what it
did was provoke a legal battle over whether the movie should be
considered French and therefore elligible to a package of subsidies.
> The WWI French Army is not
> portrayed as a heroic entity in this film and it seems that many do
> not like to be reminded of this fact.
Many more don't seem to have a problem with that, a similarly unheroic
movie was released the next year, focusing on how French and German
soldiers celebrated Christmas together rather than listen to their
hierarchy and go on with the war. That other movie, too, was quite
successful.
Back to WWII, it is true that for a long time, study of Vichy was
taboo. It wasn't actively discouraged by the government, and quite a
few scholars did study the era, but the whole 1940-44 period didn't
receive a lot of historiographical attention. But for the last 20-30
years or so, French historiography on that period has been thriving
and there are tons of high-quality works on that period. If there's a
difficulty in being a French scholar of WWII, then too much
competition would definitely come before government clampdown on
information.
LC
Louis C
> A wildly successful air-ground battle like the invasions of France in
> 1940 and Iraq in 2003 is obviously going to inflict disproportionate
> casualties on the losing side.
Hm, the Germans suffered less than 200,000 casualties and they
inflicted over ten times that amount (2 million+). Isn't that
disproportionnate enough to you?
However, the number of KILLED (as opposed to total casualties) was not
all that disproportionnate.
> I finder it easier to believe that the
> French lost 100,000 men than that the Germans lost 45,000! (The
> Americans and British lost about 300 in their blitz of Iraq.)
The Germans lost some 26,000 KIAs and the rest MIAs. Given that France
was overrun and all German POWs accounted for, the 20,000 or so who
had been reported as "missing" by their parent units were (correctly)
re-evaluated as "dead".
The level of military deaths isn't all that surprising when you look
at the size of the respective armies and the days of actual intense
combat. The Germans won that campaign mostly by manoeuver, e.g. the
drive to the sea didn't cost them much, it cost the Allies a whole
army group but it didn't physically kill all that many troops either.
Note that the pattern was the same in other WWII campaigns: attacker
takes heavier losses as part of the assault, then makes up for it
during the pursuit, mostly with POWs.
In the German case, the KIA count would have been lower had the
Wehrmacht refrained from relatively pointless prestige attacks like
those against the Maginot Line (e.g. Operation Tiger) in June 1940
despite the troops evacuating the forts and the whole position being
on the verge of encirclement from Guderian anyway.
LC
Haydn
> A wildly successful air-ground battle like the invasions of France in
> 1940 and Iraq in 2003 is obviously going to inflict disproportionate
> casualties on the losing side.
An exploded view of the butcher's bill of many wildly successful air-ground
battles may reveal casualties inflicted on the losing side in actual combat
are not that disproportionate.
When the winning side maneuvers or pauses to regroup or waits for supplies
or outflanks the enemy or pierces through token resistance in secondary
areas of the campaign theater or mops up loads of hapless, stunned prisoners
as it pushes ahead, and that's what a brilliant campaign is mostly made of,
real fighting tends to slacken and casualties (except enemy POWs in mopping
up phases) steeply decrease on both sides. When instead there's a position
to storm or a front to break and the enemy does not break or surrender at
once, the casualties ratio may be not that unbalanced, even though the
opponent is weak. I don't know about Iraq 2003, but the rule seems to apply
to most conflicts up to and including the Arab-Israeli wars.
Haydn
Rich Rostrom
>
>> Petain and Weygand, among the heroes of WWI and were considered
>> traitor and disgraced appeaser, respectively, during WWII.
>
>Petain was considered a national hero throughout WWII, so much so that
>De Gaulle didn't even have him executed though Laval was on very
>similar charges.
Well, he was considered a _former_
national hero who had gone wrong.
I don't think many French considered
him a hero in 1944-45.
He _was_ convicted of treason and
condemned to death, postwar, but
De Gaulle commuted the sentence.
Why was he not executed?
I would say:
Because he had been a hero.
Because his actions in 1940
were taken with the endorsement
of nearly the entire French
political class. (The "Assemblee
nationale" voted overwhelmingly
to suspend the constitution and
give Petain dictatorial powers,
in full knowledge that he would
immediately capitulate to Germany.)
Because he was 89 years old, and
regarded as possibly senile.
Because he was not directly involved
in the exploitation of France by
Germany.
Laval had no military record at all.
He was 27 years younger.
He had actively collaborated with
Germany.
--
| 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_ |
Louis C
> Well, he was considered a _former_
> national hero who had gone wrong.
No, in the minds of a lot of Frenchmen (possibly a majority in
1944-45, though that's hard to tell), he was considered a national
hero, period. Not "former".
Laval was thoroughly hated of course.
Think of it the way so many Germans thought that Hitler was basically
a good ruler but with bad advisors.
> I don't think many French considered
> him a hero in 1944-45.
He was cheered in early 1944, weeks before D-Day. It's not as if the
German authorities had had to round up an enthusiastic crowd.
He was enormously popular with a lot of Frenchmen (including all the
regular army that ended up fighting the Germans).
> He _was_ convicted of treason and
> condemned to death, postwar, but
> De Gaulle commuted the sentence.
Yes, because most people didn't believe that he had been a traitor.
Whereas it was "safe" to execute Laval, on whose behalf whom no-one
was going to intercede.
> Because he was not directly involved
> in the exploitation of France by
> Germany.
You must be kidding, he was in charge and was the one who initiated
the collaboration policy. That was a well-known fact to those who put
him on trial in 1945. That he later became more of a figurehead takes
nothing away from his involvement "in the exploitation of France by
Germany".
The notion of a senile and basically innocent Petain letting the nasty
Laval have his way with his collaboration policy is precisely one of
these postwar myths (along with Petain and de Gaulle being basically
in agreement as part of a common defensive/offensive anti-German
strategy) that were erected for the purposes of rehabilitating him.
LC
Cubdriver
wrote:
>> A wildly successful air-ground battle like the invasions of France in
>> 1940 and Iraq in 2003 is obviously going to inflict disproportionate
>> casualties on the losing side.
>
>Hm, the Germans suffered less than 200,000 casualties and they
>inflicted over ten times that amount (2 million+). Isn't that
>disproportionnate enough to you?
I'm really not sure what your point is.
Yes indeed: disproportionate. As I suggested.
I think you will probably find that much the same is true of the
German invasion of Poland in 1939 and of Russia in 1941.
Beachcomber
>> Well, he was considered a _former_
>> national hero who had gone wrong.
>
>No, in the minds of a lot of Frenchmen (possibly a majority in
>1944-45, though that's hard to tell), he was considered a national
>hero, period. Not "former".
>
>Laval was thoroughly hated of course.
>
>Think of it the way so many Germans thought that Hitler was basically
>a good ruler but with bad advisors.
>
pressed, many contemporary Germans who had lived through the 1930's
felt that Hitler was good, but for... (fill in the blank) or
especially, Hitler was good, he gave the country direction and put
people to work. A few felt that Hiltler's only crime was losing the
war.
I suspected that many of their children and grandchildren had similar
sentiments. This could explain why, up until fairly recently, Germany
has always been hyper-sensitive about neo nazism and swastikas and
sales of WWII relics on eBay, for example.
Beachcomber
>> I don't think many French considered
>> him a hero in 1944-45.
>
>He was cheered in early 1944, weeks before D-Day. It's not as if the
>German authorities had had to round up an enthusiastic crowd.
>
>He was enormously popular with a lot of Frenchmen (including all the
>regular army that ended up fighting the Germans).
>
>> He _was_ convicted of treason and
>> condemned to death, postwar, but
>> De Gaulle commuted the sentence.
>
>Yes, because most people didn't believe that he had been a traitor.
>Whereas it was "safe" to execute Laval, on whose behalf whom no-one
>was going to intercede.
>
>> Because he was not directly involved
>> in the exploitation of France by
>> Germany.
>
>You must be kidding, he was in charge and was the one who initiated
>the collaboration policy. That was a well-known fact to those who put
>him on trial in 1945. That he later became more of a figurehead takes
>nothing away from his involvement "in the exploitation of France by
>Germany".
>
Right!
But also the French women who slept with German occupation soldiers
are a metaphor for what happened to France as a whole from 1940-44.
The country was utterly bankrupt, pillaged, and sacked in defeat.
They had no one else to turn to but the 'conquerors'.
Takata
> >Rich Rostrom wrote:
> >> Well, he was considered a _former_
> >> national hero who had gone wrong.
>
> >No, in the minds of a lot of Frenchmen (possibly a majority in
> >1944-45, though that's hard to tell), he was considered a national
> >hero, period. Not "former".
>
> >Laval was thoroughly hated of course.
>
> >Think of it the way so many Germans thought that Hitler was basically
> >a good ruler but with bad advisors.
>
> In my travels to Germany in the 1980's and 90's, I found that, if
> pressed, many contemporary Germans who had lived through the 1930's
> felt that Hitler was good, but for... (fill in the blank) or
> especially, Hitler was good, he gave the country direction and put
> people to work. A few felt that Hiltler's only crime was losing the
> war.
!!!
>
> I suspected that many of their children and grandchildren had similar
> sentiments. This could explain why, up until fairly recently, Germany
> has always been hyper-sensitive about neo nazism and swastikas and
> sales of WWII relics on eBay, for example.
>
> Beachcomber
Well, you should have met different German people than I. Those I know
and still met everyday would be about 100% sure that Hitler committed
much more crime than "just losing the war", and that he was not "good"
for Germany, whilch explain pretty well such hyper-sensitivity about
Germany's close past. I'm not very sure that you are not mixing your
own opinion and theirs.
What a stupid metaphor and you missed Louis' point completely. Petain
was still considered a hero in 1944 by those who still recognized his
part on 1918's victory and "humanity" as a general who was saving a
lot of French soldier's blood: this was not related to WWII. Moreover,
Petain never had sex with Hitler.
Louis C
(snip)
> >That [Petain] later became more of a figurehead takes
> >nothing away from his involvement "in the exploitation of France by
> >Germany".
>
> Right!
> But also the French women who slept with German occupation soldiers
> are a metaphor for what happened to France as a whole from 1940-44.
I'm not sure how the number of women having sex with occupying troops
can be a metaphor of anything. By that standard, thanks to Soviet mass
rapes Germany must have been the WWII most compliant country to its
occupiers, metaphorically of course. As I deeply respect the
intelligence of your posts, I'll choose to believe that you just made
this up rather than that you were actually entertaining such a silly
thought.
Incidentally, while we can obviously never know the exact number, few
French women slept with German soldiers due to the way the society was
organized, and German regulations prohibiting sex with civilians. The
latter wasn't due to humanitarian concerns but so as to 1/ avoid STDs
(brothels are easier to control than independent operators), 2/
prevent procreation between racially different populations, 3/ prevent
fraternization between the racially superior occupiers and the
occupied population.
I'd be willing to bet that more French women were executed on racial
or suspected resistance grounds by the Germans than had sex with
members of the Wehrmacht, and of course not all resisters were
executed (thankfully).
> The country was utterly bankrupt, pillaged, and sacked in defeat.
> They had no one else to turn to but the 'conquerors'.
...and French women had sex with G.I.s instead?
LC
Beachcomber
wrote:
>(Beachcomber) wrote:
A thoughtful post... At that time, I wasn't even born yet, but I have
read the bona-fide historical accounts of the period.
The inland Panzer Divisions and the German soldiers defending the
Atlantic wall were distributed over a wide geographic area. The were
billeted in small towns and private houses throughout France. This
was over a period of several years. It is impossible for me to
believe that there could be nothing be isolated incidents of
corroboration and fraternization between the Germans and French. It
would be the same with any army of occupation.
In addition, many of the native young Frenchmen were away in prison
camps, concentration camps, in the service of the STO or hiding from
the threat of STO. In such an enviroment with millions of bored,
hungry, and lonely women, and a plethora of strong, fair-haired
conquering soldiers, it is easy to see how nature could take its
course.
After the war, Charles de Gaulle estimated that up to 20,000 French
men & women suffered from reprisals, vendettas and executions when the
former resistants took political power. The figures may actually be
much higher.
Then there are the pictures from almost every town depicting the girls
with the shaved heads for being just a bit 'too' friendly with the
Germans.
It is gentlemenly of you to defend the honor of many of these women,
but to paraphrase Groucho Marx, " That's probably more then they ever
did".
Beachcomber
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> In addition, many of the native young Frenchmen were away in prison
> camps, concentration camps, in the service of the STO or hiding from
> the threat of STO. In such an enviroment with millions of bored,
> hungry, and lonely women, and a plethora of strong, fair-haired
> conquering soldiers, it is easy to see how nature could take its
> course.
Indeed, there are what seem to be fairly reliable estimates that as many
as 200,000 "war babies" were born to French mothers and German soldier
fathers in the 1941-1945 period. Even the most conservative estimates
place the number at somthing more than 85,000.
Which would indicate that there was some considerable fraternization
between French women and their German occupiers.
Cheers,
Louis C
> The inland Panzer Divisions and the German soldiers defending the
> Atlantic wall were distributed over a wide geographic area.
It was not that wide, and largely away from the main population
centers. The most-populated areas were garrisoned by very few troops.
It doesn't take a lot of force to keep a relatively large population
in line, particularly when the ruthlessness of the occupying force has
been established and the population knows that the local troops can
get support from elsewhere if required.
I suggest that you look at maps of German deployments, some of which
are available online.
> The were
> billeted in small towns and private houses throughout France. This
> was over a period of several years. It is impossible for me to
> believe that there could be nothing be isolated incidents of
> corroboration and fraternization between the Germans and French. It
> would be the same with any army of occupation.
How many is "isolated"?
The German army of occupation was, as you wrote, an army. It had
separate living accomodations (former French army barracks or
requisitioned buildings), with the officers billetted with the
inhabitants. Not all these billets included unmarried girls or women,
and some of the officers were themselves married.
Add to this that, to repeat, it was official Wehrmacht policy that
fraternization *not* be encouraged. German troops were strongly
encouraged to patronize Wehrmacht-run bordellos. These did include
girls who had not been prostitutes before, but the total number
involved wasn't all that high.
> In addition, many of the native young Frenchmen were away in prison
> camps, concentration camps, in the service of the STO or hiding from
> the threat of STO. In such an enviroment with millions of bored,
> hungry, and lonely women, and a plethora of strong, fair-haired
> conquering soldiers, it is easy to see how nature could take its
> course.
Ah, the usual fantasies about the land of plenty, where lonely women
are longing for Real Men (tm) and its promises of unlimited sex.
Typical teenage stuff. Add to it the usual amount of boasting - I've
lost track of people who have lived abroad and pride themselves on
contributing to the local gene pool - and you have something far
removed from reality.
Two million people (mostly males) were away, a lot of them married and
with children, their wives or girfriends may have been "lonely" but
they did not live alone, making intercourse with German troops
difficult. The search for food and the necessities of daily life
involved a lot of queuing and home work (mending, knitting, sewing
etc), further limiting the opportunities of contact.
And at the risk of disabusing you of a fantasy, German troops were not
"a plethora of strong, fair-haired conquering soldiers". Most of them
weren't noticeably stronger or fairer than the locals, nor was fair
hair considered a bonus. Definitely not enough to offset the
"conquering" part which was bitterly resented. The Germans were - with
good reason - held responsible for the fathers, husbands, brothers who
had been killed or held away, they were held responsible for the
difficult living conditions, etc.
> After the war, Charles de Gaulle estimated that up to 20,000 French
> men & women suffered from reprisals, vendettas and executions when the
> former resistants took political power. The figures may actually be
> much higher.
A lot of settling of accounts took place, collaboration being part of
the picture (though not necessarily the main, let alone the only,
reason) but only a part. Private grievances were settled in such
occasions, too.
That being said, those who suffered from "epuration" were largely not
"convicted" of sex crimes but of something infinitely more serious
like denouncing Jews or resisters, getting rich by trading with the
Germans, etc.
> Then there are the pictures from almost every town depicting the girls
> with the shaved heads for being just a bit 'too' friendly with the
> Germans.
There are a lot of pictures showing the corpses of Mussolini, Petacci
and the Fascist higher-ups executed by Italian partisans, but when all
is said and done only seven corpses were dangling from these meat
hooks regardless of how many pictures were taken.
Shaving girls' heads happened in many countries that the Germans had
occupied like France, Belgium, Holland, Italy (I don't know about
central and eastern Europe). Here again, the event involved large
crowds cheering at (and taking pictures of) the shaving of relatively
few girls. Compare the number of victims with the pictures of civilian
executions for instance.
> It is gentlemenly of you to defend the honor of many of these women,
> but to paraphrase Groucho Marx, " That's probably more then they ever
> did".
I'm not interested in defending anything as much as I am in
determining what happened. I'd be thrilled to realize that I was wrong
and learn something new. Unfortunately (at least as far as I'm
concerned) all you've convinced me of so far is that you don't seem to
know anything that I don't.
LC
Louis C
> Indeed, there are what seem to be fairly reliable estimates that as many
> as 200,000 "war babies" were born to French mothers and German soldier
> fathers in the 1941-1945 period. Even the most conservative estimates
> place the number at somthing more than 85,000.
Between 1941 and the end of 1944, there were 185,000 "illegitimate"
births. These would normally be extra-marital births, though if a
married woman whose husband was in Germany gave birth the child would
be registered in the same way (especially under Vichy). Given how
French males far outnumbered German males and the ratio doesn't seem
to have been much different before and after the war, the majority of
these probably had French fathers.
So the figure of 200,000 war babies would require either massive
numbers of Franco-German weddings or that a significant number of
French mothers successfully pass their German-fathered children as
"legitimate" births. The former is flatly contradicted by
administrative records and Wehrmacht policy, the latter is quite
unbelievable in the social context of the time - small town or village
life. Therefore it's wrong.
Further remarks:
- The figure of 185,000 doesn't include the Alsace-Lorraine area
incorporated into the Reich, but given that the total population was
around 1 million compared to 40 million for the rest of France, I
doubt that the result would be much different.
- Remember that roughly one third of the country was only occupied
after November 1942
- German occupation became considerably harsher as time went on, as
resistance activity picked up and public hatred grew. While there were
children conceived after March 1944 and born in 1945, I feel quite
confident that they must have been a small minority of the total.
- An association of children born of French mothers and German fathers
was constituted in 2005, but as far as I know neither they nor anyone
else has reliable figures.
- 200,000 war babies would represent 6.9% of the 1941-45 births, and
8.5% of the 1941-44 ones.
Cheers,
LC
Beachcomber
>as 200,000 "war babies" were born to French mothers and German soldier
>fathers in the 1941-1945 period. Even the most conservative estimates
>place the number at somthing more than 85,000.
>
>Which would indicate that there was some considerable fraternization
>between French women and their German occupiers.
>
I believe that in early 1940, in France and in most parts of the
world, it was inconceivable to imagine what would happen to France in
May and June of that year. The shameful performance of the military
and the politicians, the forced, dishonorable terms of the armistice,
and Hitler's gloating about his conquest to the whole world, brought
humiliation to one of the greatest and most beautiful countries.
Likewise, after the occupation started, few in France (and many other
places) could imagine Britain holding out for 4 1/2 long years, the
formation of the resistance, and the US bringing forth its own
military efforts to the table, resulting in the eventual liberation
and redemption of an enslaved France.
Because no one could have predicted these events with perfect
hindsight, I believe it is pointless to be overly judgmental about the
moral ambiguity of aligning oneself with the occupiers, some 60+ years
after the event.