What Happened When France Fought Hitler In 1939-1940? Huge Fighting, Followed By A Temporary Ceasefire. Then War Again Until Nazi Defeat.

WAR FROM And FOR CIVILIZATION:

History, in first approximation, is the history of war. Civilization is, in first approximation, how to achieve military supremacy. This is what the powers that be never want We The People to perceive, here, there and everywhere, because, if they did, they have a higher probability of revolting.

Putin is, not kindly, reminding us of this. And now the tyrant from the Kremlin intends to win, with meat waves tactics: start by killing on the battlefield thousands of convicts.Putin and his gang have adapted to their surrprise, dismay and despair. Just like the Nazis, who knew they were probably doomed as early as 1939, hope springs eternal, even, and especially with, the most hellish miscreants one can find anywhere.

It is therefore timely to remember that World War Two proceeded by fits and starts in a stop and go fashion. As I have advocated, WWII truly started in 1931, when a rogue Japanese army invaded Manchuria. WWII started, because the rogue Japanese high command got away with it: a massive war crime was found to pay handesomely. Same when Putin invaded Georgia, Crimea and the Donbas, or Hitler Austria.

Any strong coordinated reaction of the leading democracies in the next eight years, would have aborted WWII. But it didn’t happen, as the Anglo-Saxons refused to collaborate with the French until it was too late to prevent the alliance of the tyrannies: Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Mussolini’s, Franco’s, and others… until 1942, much of US plutocracy was more interested in financing Hitler, Franco and Stalin…

Similarly WWIII may have started with the invasion of Georgia, and certainly Ukraine in 2014, with the active complicity of Obama (who disguised his collaboration with infamy, by claiming infamy had no power, thus was a friend…) A firm war now of all the united democracies against tyranny could well abort WWIII, as other tyrannies may think twice to join Putin if he looks like a loser.

***

FRANCE FOUGHT THE NAZIS FOR 6 YEARS… With A Little Intermission While The US Was Not Even In The War:

With these admittedly violent and sinister observations above, out of the way, let’s have fun with Quora and its often debasing, perverse and twisted sense of exploitative reality. Here is a Quora question: 

Are the French proud of their military history despite surrendering early in WW2? [1]

France’s military history is 17 centuries when about the Franks/French alone. If one counts the Gauls, 30 centuries… My answer:

Please be informed and learn that a ceasefire is not a surrender. France did not surrender in 1940. France and the Nazis instituted a time out…an armistice…and that’s what the Nazis wanted too, because the Nazis had no hope of conquering French North Africa , or defeat the French Navy, and would soon find themselves fighting a three-front war (as they did anyway, but just over a year later).

A French junta agreed to a conditional ceasefire on June 26, 1940 with the Nazis, upon the dissolution of the French Republic. Within two years, both sides would violate the ceasefire and parts of French territory would be liberated, as the French armed forces continued the war. In 1944-1945, more than a fifth of the Allied forces in the west belonged to the French army which liberated the major cities of southern France, and was going to enter and liberate southern Germany from the Nazis (more of 5,000 French soldiers were killed in the last weeks of the war fighting Nazi formations inside Germany).

The fact is that in May-June 1042, a small French force under General Koenig prevented Rommel from winning his war by surrounding the retreating British Eighth Army… So the facts say, and Winston Churchill himself. That French force was eleven times more numerous than the Spartans at Thermopylae. It suffered a casualty rate of 50%, but succeeded in its mission, which was to prevent Rommel’s Afrika Korps to encircle the Eight Army.

The Nazis’ losses in France in May-June 1940 were such that it took them a year to regain enough strength to attack Stalin. It was Hitler himself who said it, and more than once. Hitler even specified that this was why he, Hitler, was losing the war against the Russians: he had to attack the USSR 18 months later than he wanted, because of those cursed Frenchmen… This delay allowed Stalin to over-arm himself… said the Nazi leader.

In May-June 1940, more than 13,000 soldiers were killed or injured every day. The total of Allied and German-Italian military losses in May-June 1940, in six weeks, is heavier than the three months of the Battle of Normandy in June-August 1944: 610,500 Allied and German-Italian soldiers hors de combat ( killed or wounded) in May-June 1940, compared to 466,000 German and allied soldiers (killed or wounded) in June-August 1944. The Nazis admitted to having lost 50,000 killed… But these were soldiers and elite airmen. The losses of the Nazi aviation are also gigantic.

France therefore participated in the Second World War more than the United States (which cowardly, but profitably, waited for Hitler to declare war on them).

Claiming that France did not fight in the Second World War, when in fact it declared war on Hitler on September 3, 1939, is an attempt by the Anglo-Saxons to hide the culpable and voluntary collaboration with Hitler, Mussolini , Franco, Stalin and even Hirohito of the Anglo-Saxon oligarchs… Collaboration which allowed the existence of fascism. This allows, in passing, to refute the existence of these.

Interestingly, the same pattern of Western oligarchs collaborating with abject tyranny and the same type of cover-up has resurfaced in relations with the Kremlin, yet again, over the past few decades… This time, however, the French oligarchs and Germans helped the tyrant become all he could be…

Patrice Ayme

Nazi tank destroyed by the French army in 1940. And what were the US doing then? Money from Hitler’s hell.

***

[1] This question is not phrased with neutral and sincere language  Its wording makes a derisive statement, rather than looking for an helpful answer. This is typical of the old racist anti-French Anglo-Saxon attitude, which is worse than racist, as it is a cover-up of something much worse: friendliness to Nazism and supremacy of the profitability race.

Tags: war, WWII