PDA

View Full Version : Liberation of Paris: The hidden truth



Crassus
02-09-2007, 08:15 AM
Found this from Wehrmacht-Awards forum:


Liberation of Paris: The hidden truth
Months before D-Day, American and British commanders decided that only French troops who were 100 per cent white could take part in the operation to free Paris. John Lichfield reports
Published: 31 January 2007

Posted: rommelshq@yahoogroups.com

The story is one of the most written about events in modern French history. The first large Allied military force to reach Paris on 24 August 1944 was the only French unit in France at the time.

The second armoured division led by General Philippe Leclerc swept aside all opposition - including American objections - to be the first to liberate the capital. What was not known, until now, is that Leclerc's division was hand-picked for the task five months earlier. It was chosen partly because it was French but, more specifically, because its soldiers were white.

According to a book published in France this month, British and American generals insisted in early 1944 that non-white French colonial troops should be excluded from the liberation of Paris. The revelation, drawn from US and UK military archives, coincides with the success of the Franco-Algerian film, Les Indigènes which tells the almost forgotten story of the north African troops who fought in Italy and southern and eastern France in 1943-44. The movie has just been nominated for an Oscar as best foreign film of 2006.

A book on D-Day and its aftermath published this month by a distinguished French historian, Olivier Wieviorka, includes much other new material from American and British archives. It reveals, for instance, the depths of the crisis of morale which threatened to incapacitate the Allied armies in Normandy a month after the landings on 6 June 1944. At one point, according to US records found by Professor Wieviorka, one in three "wounded" American soldiers suffered from psychological, rather than physical injuries. British infantry fighting spirit at the time was equally poor.

The stated aim of the book (Histoire du Débarquement en Normandie", Seuil, €24) is to tear away some of the legends of glory and "willing sacrifice" surrounding the D-Day invasion. These legends have perhaps survived longer in France than in Britain or America.

The most startling revelation occupies only two out of the book's 416 pages. It throws new light on one of the most mythologised events in French history: the liberation of Paris. At the start of 1944, Leclerc's armoured division was stationed in Morocco. It was chosen, from all other units in the French army to play a headline role in the liberation of the capital because - in the words of one of the most senior US D-Day generals - it was the "only French division which could be made 100 per cent white".

All other units in the French army at that time were two thirds or more African. They fought in Italy and took part in the secondary invasion of France, on the Mediterranean coast, in August 1944. Their role in the defeat of Nazism was little acknowledged during and after the war. Many of the colonial veterans were denied full French army pensions until the Franco-Algerian film Les Indigènes, directed by Rachid Bouchareb, appeared in September last year.

The book reveals that American and British commanders agreed months before D-Day that, for reasons of propaganda and French national morale, a French division should help to liberate Paris. However, they - and not the French leader, General Charles de Gaulle - insisted that the unit must not include colonial troops. In an interview with The Independent, Professor Wieviorka, said that the motives of American and British commanders may have been more political than racial.

"It was agreed that a French unit should be present for the liberation of Paris because that event would inevitably attract great publicity in France and internationally," he said. "Once that decision was made, it was perhaps important to the Allies, for the same propaganda reasons, that the unit should appear French to the people of France. But this was something that the British and Americans insisted on, not De Gaulle."

Professor Wieviorka says that the episode remains perplexing. US military attitudes might have been influenced by the fact that its army refused to allow black conscripts into combat units. On the other hand, the US military made no objection to fighting alongside French colonial troops in southern France.

Equally, the British view is somewhat puzzling. Comments made by a very senior British officer in the memos found by Professor Wieviorka appear tinged with racial fears about the presence of French colonial troops in Britain. On the other hand, the British Government made no objection to - and ordinary Britons largely welcomed - the black American troops serving in logistic and menial roles with the D-Day invasion force.

A memo from 28 January 1944, found by Professor Wieviorka in the National Archives in Washington, was signed by General Walter Bedell-Smith, Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D Eisenhower. General Bedell-Smith, who was to head the CIA in the 1950s, wrote: "It is highly desirable that the [French] division should be composed of white personnel, which points to the second armoured division, which has only one quarter native troops and is the only French division which could be made 100 per cent white."

The Americans initially wanted the French unit to be infantry, not an armoured division. Leclerc's American-built Sherman tanks were awkward to transport by sea all the way from Morocco to Britain. There were plenty of American and British armoured units available in southern England. Infantry was scarce. General Bedell-Smith suggested a way around this problem. "If sea transport problems make it impossible to send an armoured division, we might find it necessary to create a [French] force, from all arms, composed of white troops and designated as a division."

A British general, Frederick Morgan, the officer who headed the D-Day planning team, made the same argument. In a memo written on 14 January 1944 found in the American archives, he wrote: "I am convinced that it is of the greatest importance that there should be French troops among the first units to enter Paris. The bigger these units are the better."

However, the French troops would have to be based in Britain before the invasion. This worried General Morgan and also General Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to Winston Churchill, later the first secretary general of Nato. General Morgan wrote to the Americans: "General Ismay and I have made it clear [to the French] that we would accept only with great reluctance anything but troops from France proper... It is unfortunate that the only white French unit is an armoured division stationed in Morrocco... The other French divisions are only 40 per cent white. I told [the French] that they would get [a place in the invasion force] far more easily if they could produce a division of white infantry."

In the event, the decision was made to send the second armoured division from Morocco, with its Sherman tanks but shorn of its 25 per cent non-white troops. The division landed in France on 1 August 1944 and played a role in the Allied break-out from Normandy. Despite American doubts about the wisdom of attacking the capital immediately, Leclerc sprinted east and, on 24-25 August, relieved the army of resistance fighters and policemen which had begun the liberation of Paris. General Leclerc's force was all white - but it was not all French. It contained many volunteers from Spain and a few from Portugal.

There were 550,000 men in the French army in 1944. They were partly assembled from the Free French forces which had gathered around Charles de Gaulle in Britain from 1940. Many others were recruited - not always voluntarily - in the French African colonies. Of these [leaving aside colonists of French origin], there were 134,000 Algerians, 73,000 Moroccans, 26,000 Tunisians and 92,000 men from colonies in black Africa.

This multiracial army was first thrown into battle in Italy in 1943, particularly in the grim struggle to dislodge the Germans from Monte Cassino. The same troops landed with the Americans in the south of France on 15 August 1944, while the main German force was still engaged in Normandy. After advancing through France with little opposition, the southern invasion force became involved in terrible winter fighting against the German armies which had assembled to defend the approaches to the Reich in the Vosges mountains and in Alsace in north eastern France from December 1944.

Les Indigènes, follows the boot-steps of four north African soldiers, all played by well-known French actors of Arab origin: Jamel Debbouze (Amélie), Samy Naceri (Taxi), Roschdy Zem and Sami Bouajila. Bernard Blancan plays a pied-noir (white Algerian colonist) sergeant, who is revealed - to his fury - to be half-Arab. All five men shared the male actor's prize when the movie was shown at the Cannes Film Festival last May.

Professor Wieviorka's book also includes new material on the collapse of the morale of British and American troops in Normandy a month after the D-Day landings. The reluctance of some Allied soldiers to fight - and the reluctance of senior officers to send them to their deaths - has already been described in classic recent accounts of the battle of Normandy by the British historians Max Hastings and John Keegan.

Professor Wieviorka adds a mass of telling detail. According to US Army medical records, a third of all soldiers listed as "wounded" in mid-July 1944 suffered from psychological, not physical, injuries. Both the British and American armies suffered an epidemic of self-inflicted wounds at this time, the book says. Professor Wieviorka quotes an account by one of Eisenhower's aides which says that the Supreme Allied Commander was "depressed" to find 1,100 cases of self-inflicted wounds by American soldiers when he visited a large field hospital near Carentan in Normandy in July 1944.

At this time, after the initial success of the landings, the British, Canadian and American armies were being held back by the Germans in a series of murderous close-quarter battles comparable to the bloody struggles on the Eastern Front or in the First World War. Morale rose sharply after the Americans broke through on 24 July.

In his book, Professor Wieviorka suggests that part of the problem was that many of the US and British infantry in Normandy were a "weak link" - poorly selected and undertrained. "Thrown into infantry units by default, less educated than the average sailor or airman, they often had little pride in their units," he writes. "And yet the battle fell largely on their shoulders ... the infantry took 76 per cent of all battle losses in Normandy and 76 per cent of the psychiatric cases".

Professor Wieviorka said his intention was not to denigrate the achievements of the Allies. "Quite the opposite," he said. "The standard picture of young men ready and eager to lay down their lives to defeat Nazism is too simplistic. Only when you look at what these troops really went through do you have a proper understanding of their achievements."
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202876

StukaJr
02-09-2007, 01:57 PM
Professor Wieviorka says that the episode remains perplexing. US military attitudes might have been influenced by the fact that its army refused to allow black conscripts into combat units. On the other hand, the US military made no objection to fighting alongside French colonial troops in southern France.

The number of Black combat units in the US Army contradicts that statement. If something is denied by blanket refusal - it cannot exist, can it?



Professor Wieviorka said his intention was not to denigrate the achievements of the Allies. "Quite the opposite," he said. "The standard picture of young men ready and eager to lay down their lives to defeat Nazism is too simplistic. Only when you look at what these troops really went through do you have a proper understanding of their achievements."

Right... Taking acts of cowardice of individuals (which obviously happened on all fronts and on all sides) and re-write them as "the collapse of the morale of British and American troops in Normandy a month after the D-Day landings" - that's not denigrating someone's achievements at all...

Number 76% of psychiatric casualties is interesting, but there is not source to how this number was accumulated... Percentages are also not very accurate when describing casualties - what is it fraction of? 76% of the entire Army? Because, 3 shell-shocked GI's sent to the rear and one physically wounded GI in the ambulance would make 76% - means nothing on the large scale... 76% of all casualties were infantry and 76% of all casualties were psychological... How convenient (I love number 76)... Now, how many of those psychological casualties were back in action days, weeks, months later? How many of those casualties were taken off the line for only a few days or even hours? I'm certainly aware of many instances of soldiers running away from the hospitals to return to the front line (with physical wounds at that) - apparently, Professor Wieviorka didn't find a single case of that? Sky was falling, US GI's were shooting themselves and men were refusing to go into battle - brilliant!


were a "weak link" - poorly selected and undertrained. "Thrown into infantry units by default, less educated than the average sailor or airman, they often had little pride in their units," he writes. "And yet the battle fell largely on their shoulders ... the infantry took 76 per cent of all battle losses in Normandy and 76 per cent of the psychiatric cases".

Oh, f#$king please! Good education and pride mean little when dealing with effects of combat fatigue or shell shock... Invasion of Normandy was the biggest technological feat - from seaborne invasion, to building makeshift ports on the beaches, to fighting through some of the harshest terrain, to keeping multi-national force supplied by the means of building a freaking pipeline that ran along mere miles behind advancing troops!

Take a history of greatest struggle and put a spoon of sh1t into it - then put it as some great revaluation by making blanket statements about the "weak links"... Oh, "many black men were not allowed to fight in the combat units and were given demeaning jobs"... No sh1t, Sherlock! WWII Army required more than half of its personnel to be in support positions, with less than half being the trigger pullers. Also, words like "Weak Link" are used only when finding a cause for failure - last time I checked, Allies did not fail and motivation of its troops were hardly the cause for hard going... "Some refused orders of their higher ups..." Like that never happens!

Perfect example of unearthing some new information and instead of offering it as Sources, trying to re-write general history by making blanket statements. Piss poor.

phoilme
02-09-2007, 05:36 PM
you disected that article pretty professionally StukaJr. I was a bit perplexed on why all the unassociated information the writer used to support the theme.

jeffe
02-09-2007, 10:53 PM
The past is interesting. However, the present and future are much more important! This is old news.

sp2c
02-10-2007, 06:25 AM
I'm interested in seeing the movie though, is it (or will it be) out on dvd ... and with english subtitles?

roland
02-10-2007, 07:24 AM
Liberation of Paris: The hidden truth
Months before D-Day, American and British commanders decided that only French troops who were 100 per cent white could take part in the operation to free Paris.


VERY surprising: the allies did NOT planned to free Paris but instead planned to avoid the town.

Only after the Parisians revolted did De Gaulle sent Leclerc to help them and avoid a bloody repression of the revolt by the Nazis and also not let the Communists take the control of the capital.
But the US high command initially opposed the move, Leclerc had initialy to disobey US orders (that wasn't done lightly, and happened only two time, the second time was to refuse the evacuation of Strasbourg during the German Ardennes offensive)
Only after very hight tensions at the highest level did the US high command graciously accepted and was fair enough to let a US division help Leclerc.

[Now I'm going to read the rest of the article hoping all is not as wrong as the first sentence]

hughdotoh
02-10-2007, 12:03 PM
VERY surprising: the allies did NOT planned to free Paris but instead planned to avoid the town.

Only after the Parisians revolted did De Gaulle sent Leclerc to help them and avoid a bloody repression of the revolt by the Nazis and also not let the Communists take the control of the capital.
But the US high command initially opposed the move, Leclerc had initialy to disobey US orders (that wasn't done lightly, and happened only two time, the second time was to refuse the evacuation of Strasbourg during the German Ardennes offensive)
Only after very hight tensions at the highest level did the US high command graciously accepted and was fair enough to let a US division help Leclerc.

[Now I'm going to read the rest of the article hoping all is not as wrong as the first sentence]

I also thought that Eisenhower didn't like the idea of going for Paris, until de Gaulle and Leclerc skewed things their way. Next thing the revisionists will tell us, Eisenhower wanted to nuke Paris because he foresaw france leaving NATO.

Indiana Jones
02-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Number 76% of psychiatric casualties is interesting, but there is not source to how this number was accumulated... Percentages are also not very accurate when describing casualties - what is it fraction of? 76% of the entire Army? [...] 76% of all casualties were infantry and 76% of all casualties were psychological...
From what I understand as a non-native speaker, Professor Wieviorka establishes that a fraction of roughly 33% of the casualty total was of psychiatric nature. Among those psychiatric casualties, the Infantry incurred 76%.

Perfect example of unearthing some new information and instead of offering it as Sources, trying to re-write general history by making blanket statements. Piss poor.
Did you actually read the book ? Many of the tendencies outlined in the volume (lack of esprit de corps, generally rather poor infantry performance etc.) were indeed highly problematical and significantly undermined the Allied effort- they cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Cpt. Spaulding
02-11-2007, 04:35 AM
interesting read

Doublethinker
02-11-2007, 05:00 AM
I always liked articles which have the word "truth" in their names.

Usually, that's just some indoctrinated bullsh`t ;)

Rakki
02-11-2007, 06:35 AM
How many of the infantry on the Western Front were "green" though?

You are looking at green units pitted against veteran German units.

M1A2U2
02-11-2007, 11:41 PM
Documents were recently declassified that showed that American troops arrived in Paris before the French and slept under the Arc de Triumph.

mas-36
02-11-2007, 11:47 PM
Documents were recently declassified that showed that American troops arrived in Paris before the French and slept under the Arc de Triumph.

Well, a little late-night comic relief never hurt. But no, this never happened.

StukaJr
02-12-2007, 01:37 PM
From what I understand as a non-native speaker, Professor Wieviorka establishes that a fraction of roughly 33% of the casualty total was of psychiatric nature. Among those psychiatric casualties, the Infantry incurred 76%.


"the infantry took 76 per cent of all battle losses in Normandy and 76 per cent of the psychiatric cases".

76% of battle losses and 76% of psychiatric cases... Look like both numbers are 76 to me...


Did you actually read the book ? Many of the tendencies outlined in the volume (lack of esprit de corps, generally rather poor infantry performance etc.) were indeed highly problematical and significantly undermined the Allied effort- they cannot be dismissed out of hand.

I'm not commenting on the book - I'm commenting on the review article... The article is the short overview and I tend to have problems with its generalization and the gist of the book. Article draws stunning conclusions - uneducated somehow contributes to shell shock, US Army apparently refused to have Black Combat units and the list goes on.

I'm not dismissing, I'm just saying it's not necessarily new information... I also guess it's necessary to put the events into the perspective - how many fighting units displayed poor performance or refused to fight as opposed to the units with stellar performance and got the job done? The review tends to paint an overall picture of poor performance and low morale - so I guess I have general problem with the review article. How many of these problems were due to majority of infantry units being "green" and not due to lack of training or education? The rest of the mentioned problems - were they really that spread through the entire Armed Forces, that one could generalize all of Allies as performing poorly and not following orders? No. Then don't generalize.

I'd give this book a try, but not from reading this particular review.

foxtrot023
02-12-2007, 01:49 PM
"the infantry took 76 per cent of all battle losses in Normandy and 76 per cent of the psychiatric cases".

76% of battle losses and 76% of psychiatric cases... Look like both numbers are 76 to me...


I'd give this book a try, but not from reading this particular review.

jeez folks, he probable meant that 76% of battle casualties were trigger pullers and the rest were pogues.

One point though, due to how the US army fought the war, mainly 89 divs fully equipped and with replacements available from the Repple depple it meant that a worn out division could receive replacement troops and be brought up to strength in very little time. It also meant that many units were on the line for the whole Normandy operation. A case study would be per example the 29th division that fought from Omaha to St. Lo, or the 1st inf. Div (that used to joke that there was only one division in the US army, the big red one). By the end of those campaign, basically all the guys that had landed on the 6-7th of June had become casualties, add to that the bocage, and you had a lot of traumatic experiences in there.

PS. The first liberators of Paris were Spaniards

Atlantic Friend
02-12-2007, 02:01 PM
PS. The first liberators of Paris were Spaniards

True ! The 2nd French Armored Division had a lot of Spaniards among its soldiers. Under French uniform, true, but of Spanish nationality.

koko
02-13-2007, 01:43 PM
The revelation, drawn from US and UK military archives, coincides with the success of the Franco-Algerian film, Les Indigènes which tells the almost forgotten story of the north African troops who fought in Italy and southern and eastern France in 1943-44.


You mean raping everything alive from Sicily till Rome? They were even worst than russians. I have even heard that some of the U.S. troops wanted to shoot their North African comrades even more than enemy germans.

AROUETLJ
02-13-2007, 01:45 PM
You mean raping everything from Sicily till Rome? They were even worst than russians. I have even heard that some of the U.S. troops wanted to shoot their North African comrades even more than enemy germans.


One of the most inaccurate films ever to be made. The proportion of casualties among European French troops, both officers and squaddies, was higher than that of the indigènes.

Atlantic Friend
02-13-2007, 02:04 PM
You mean raping everything alive from Sicily till Rome? They were even worst than russians. I have even heard that some of the U.S. troops wanted to shoot their North African comrades even more than enemy germans.

Care to elaborate and document ? It's always nice to back up innuendo with facts.

koko
02-13-2007, 02:28 PM
Care to elaborate and document ? It's always nice to back up innuendo with facts.

Just one episode.


Monte Cassino fell to the Allies on May 18, 1944. After a four month struggle and the abbey bombed into ruins by the US Air Force, Polish troops of the 12th Lancers, 3rd Carpathian Division, raised their regimental flag over the ruins of the 6th century Benedictine Monastery situated high in the Apennines of central Italy. The next night thousands of French Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian and Senegalese troops, attached to the French Expeditionary Corps, swarmed over the slopes of the hills surrounding Monte Cassino and in the villages of Ciociaria and Esperia, which is in the region of Lazio, raped every woman and girl that came within their sight. Over 2,000 women, ranging in age from 11 years to 86 years suffered at the hands of these gang-raping soldiers as village after village was entered. Menfolk who tried to protect their wives and daughters were murdered without mercy, around 800 of them died. Two sisters aged 15 and 18 were raped by dozens of soldiers each. One died from the abuse, the other was still in a mental hospital in 1997, 53 years after the event. Most of the dwellings in the villages were destroyed and everything of value was stolen. Later in the war, these same troops raped around 500 women in the Black Forrest town of Freudenstadt, on April 17, 1945, after its capture. In Stuttgart, colonial French troops, mostly African, but under the command of General Eisenhower, rounded up around 2,000 women and herded them into the underground subways to be raped. In one week more women were raped in Stuttgart than in the whole of France during the four year German occupation. http://members.iinet.com.au/~gduncan/massacres_axis.html#Italy (http://members.iinet.com.au/%7Egduncan/massacres_axis.html#Italy)

In fact, after the french colonial troops flanked Monte-Cassino at the Garigliano general Juin (chief of french Expeditionnary Force) authorized officially ''50 hours of rape of europeans women'' to his moroccan,algerians,tunisians and senegalese soldiers...

People have not yet forgotten what then happened in some towns of the Frosinate region. All the women who did not have time to take shelter in the mountains were, as they say, `moroccanated' there is no consideration for the age of the women; every woman, from ten to seventy, was raped. (A brief parenthesis on the colonial problem is worthwhile. About that same time, General Juin commander of the French armed forces in Italy, was received by the Pope. The Pope complained to him about the immunity granted to the soldiers responsible for the brutalities. The general informed him that North African soldiers could not be punished since the war code of the French army granted to these troops, in enemy territory, the right to rape and plunder.)"

Apparently the Morrocan propensity to rape was generally accepted as fact. General George F. Patton, Jr., *War as I Knew It*, wrote (p. 71): "One funny thing happened in connection with the Moroccan troops,. A Sicilian came to me and said he had a complaint to make about the conduct of the Moroccans, or Goums, as they are called. He said he well knew that all Goums were thieves, also that they were murderers, and sometimes indulged in rape--these things he could understand and make allowances for, but when they came to his home, killed his rabbits, and then skinned them in the parlor, it was going too far."

It is very hard to get history of rape from secondary sources. Three factors make it difficult: 1) the production of atrocity stories for propaganda purposes; 2) the shame felt by the victims and their families who seek to keep the facts secret; and 3) the unwillingness of historians to look at the subject. As the quotation from Patton illustrates, rape is considered a trivial and rather funny sidelight in the history of war.

mas-36
02-13-2007, 09:06 PM
One of the most inaccurate films ever to be made. The proportion of casualties among European French troops, both officers and squaddies, was higher than that of the indigènes.

I believe you are correct. From what I've read over the years, plus what I've been hearing lately, this film is full of inaccuracies and has even been denounced by several veterans associations as being completely and unfairly biased for the sake of making a general if minor point.

I will still view it to see for myself, though I don't think it's been released in the US.

As for civilian casualties by arab/african troops, another interesting read is "Army At Dawn" by Rick Atkinson, in which it is described how US soldiers used locals in North Africa as target practice. There were crimes and violations commited by all sides. If they were all to be tried, trials for WW 2 crimes would still be taking place.

Atlantic Friend
02-14-2007, 05:08 AM
Just one episode.

http://members.iinet.com.au/~gduncan/massacres_axis.html#Italy (http://members.iinet.com.au/%7Egduncan/massacres_axis.html#Italy)

Duncan is also remarkably short on historical sources here.

[QUOTE]In fact, after the french colonial troops flanked Monte-Cassino at the Garigliano general Juin (chief of french Expeditionnary Force) authorized officially ''50 hours of rape of europeans women'' to his moroccan,algerians,tunisians and senegalese soldiers...

Source ?


People have not yet forgotten what then happened in some towns of the Frosinate region. All the women who did not have time to take shelter in the mountains were, as they say, `moroccanated' there is no consideration for the age of the women; every woman, from ten to seventy, was raped. (A brief parenthesis on the colonial problem is worthwhile. About that same time, General Juin commander of the French armed forces in Italy, was received by the Pope. The Pope complained to him about the immunity granted to the soldiers responsible for the brutalities. The general informed him that North African soldiers could not be punished since the war code of the French army granted to these troops, in enemy territory, the right to rape and plunder.)"

Source ?

Laworkerbee
02-15-2007, 07:37 PM
you disected that article pretty professionally StukaJr. I was a bit perplexed on why all the unassociated information the writer used to support the theme.

X2 well done