How influential was the French Resistance movement to the success of D-Day?
History Internal Assessment 2022
Word Count: 2188
Identification and Evaluation of Two Sources:
This investigation will explore the question: How influential was the French Resistance movement to the success of D-Day? The French Resistance was a military group that fought against Nazi German occupation and the collaborationist Vichy government during World War II. These small groups of men and women provided military intelligence to the Allies and sabotaged Nazi German activities. Henri Michel’s “Maquis et Maquis” from the Revue d’Histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale and Antony Beevor’s “D-Day: The Battle of Normandy” are sources of great value to this investigation as Michel’s article offers a closer look at the role and influence of the Resistance throughout WWII, while Beevor is a 20th century historian who works objectively to understand the factors that went into making D-Day a success which includes a discussion of the Resistance.
Source I: “ Maquis et maquis” by Henri Michel
This source for the Revue d’Histoire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale was written by Henri Michel and published in January 1963 by the “Presses Universitaires de France”. Michel (1907-1986) was a French Historian who studied the Second World War and created an academic press of the same name. His writing is based on his own personal experiences and the few testimonials found after the war. He was also a member of the Maquis, a form of clandestine interior Resistance who participated in the resistance movement during the German occupation of France. The Maquis would hide in the forests or mountains to escape the SS and Gestapo1. This source provides a clear study of the role of the Maquis and the Resistance opposing German occupation. This article helps us understand how the Resistance worked with the Free French Forces located in London.
As Michel was actively part of the Resistance during WWII, he is able to offer unique, personalized experience. Additionally, he takes into account different perspectives from numerous historians or interviews of former Resistance members which makes his viewpoints more inclusive. One should note that he wrote this article in 1964, 19 years after the end of WWII. Therefore, this gives Michel hindsight, allowing him to better understand the impact of certain events which led to the liberation of France in 1944. Therefore, offering a detailed analysis of the role of the Resistance.
This source is of great interest because it allows us to understand the methods used by the Resistance to communicate with the French Free Forces (FFF), French Interior Forces (FFI) and Allies during the German occupation of France.
Source II: “D-Day: The Battle of Normandy” by Anthony Beevor
This book was written by Antony Beevor, famous British historian and visiting professor at Birkbeck University of London and the University of Kent. His book offers an objective view on D-Day as he takes into account the views, positions and experiences of both the French civilians and the numerous Allied soldiers (British, Canadian, American). The purpose of this book is to provide a deeper analysis on the planning and execution of the invasion of Normandy by the Allies. Beevor wrote his book 65 years after D-Day which gives him hindsight and makes his statements more objective.
However, my research focuses on a small group of people who risked their lives to help liberate themselves from German occupation. Beevor has written a book about the battle of Normandy, D-Day, as a whole. Thus, as the Resistance isn’t the focus of the book, we are only able to find little information about the role and influence of the Resistance on D-Day. Moreover, as we are looking at how influential the French Resistance movement was to the success of D-Day, we know that the Resistance movement was a discreet movement with few historic documents. Beevor might’ve been limited in his sources when trying to understand the structure and organisation of the movement.
Section B: Investigation
Despite great pressure on the French government and strict control over the French people, there were those who resisted German occupation and the Vichy Government. An organization called the French Resistance wanted to stop the progress of German troops through France after its defeat on the 22nd of June 1940. They would contribute to the sabotage of German communication lines and provide the Allies with intelligence reports. They would work both independently and in relation with the FFF in London. These actions continued until the Allies began a full-fledged invasion of France in the summer of 1944: D-Day. This investigation will analyze the influence the Resistance had on D-Day. The Resistance contributed to a large extent to the invasion’s success as this contribution was essential for any success against the Nazis.
After the defeat of France against Nazi Germany in 1940, France was divided in two with the “German Occupied Zone” in the north and the “Free Zone” in the south. Almost immediately, the French people started working alone, or in small groups, by helping out Allied soldiers or prisoniers escape from Nazi soldiers2. The Resistance movement became increasingly important within France, therefore, began helping the Allies prepare for the invasion in Normandy: Operation Overlord. The Allies realised the potential for an attack in Northern France as the German army was too dispersed to correctly defend all of its territory. Operation Overlord wanted the British, American and Canadian forces landing on five separate
2 (“French Resistance”, n.d.) https://www.dkfindout.com/uk/history/world-war-ii/french-resistance/
beachheads in Normandy3 with the goal of driving back German troops from the Western Front. The Resistance and the Allies, located in London, would communicate through coded messages on the radio. During the war, the Resistance published clandestine newspapers, assisted the escape of Jews and ambushed German patrols4. According to Beevor in “D-Day: The Battle of Normandy”, the main contribution which the Resistance offered to the success of Overlord involved intelligence and sabotage actions. In doing so, the Resistance contributed to the isolation of Normandy in terms of communication from the rest of France, especially Paris, where the headquarters were located which was a key aspect of Operation Overlord. It would allow Allied troops to invade Normandy without the Nazi headquaters knowing too soon about it. The Resistance, throughout the war, took no part in fighting or hit and run actions against German troops. The reason for this is that the German army had total control over armements and looked carefully over the transport of arms within France. Consequently, the Resistance could not supply itself with arms, at least not enough to get involved in guerilla action. In fact, by the spring of 1944, the Resistance counted for approximately 350,000 members with only 10,000 members having enough ammunition for a single day of combat5. This meant that their best option to remain useful was to convey intelligence information or sabotage German actions.
Sabotaging railroads was one of the areas where they were most efficient. The Nazis knew an invasion was coming, they just didn’t know where and when. It is through Charles de Gaulle, leader of the FFF, that the US learnt about the interior Resistance. Dwight D. Eisenhower (Supreme Allied Commander of the invasion) believed that the Resistance could help slow down the German troops' progression that were sent, as support, to Normandy so the Allied army, when invading, would have fewer men to fight. The Resistance, in relation to the Allies demands, came up with a variety of different plans, such as Plan “Vert”, “Violet” and “Tortue” that would help limit the progression of German troops in Normandy. For example, Plan “Vert” aimed at derailing trains destined to the 12 SS panzer division in a tunnel to disable Germans to move on with their mission. Apart from the fact that the Resistance didn't want the Germans to use railroads efficiently, this would result in forcing the German army to use roads which were much slower6. Thus, Plan Tortue (Tortoise) tried to slow down German troops by using broken glass or tacks. German troops would consequently have to stop which would cause road traffic7.This would slow down German troops and isolate Normandy from the rest of Occupied France8. This is why Eisenhower relied on the Resistance to recreate these tactics for D-Day.
Within France’s occupied borders, Eisenhower’s aim was to collect information through the resistance networks about German division movements such as where they were stationed or their future location. Resistors started sending maps or letters through radio communication but, as Germany started decoding their codes, mailing the information across the channel became the safest option. During the planning of D-Day, the Allied forces demanded plans involving maps of German positions, transfer of goods for certain divisions and reinforcements9. This information not only helped the Allies decide on the best possible location and time for D-Day but also allowed the Resistance to understand when to sabotage German divisions. Alone, the Resistance had little impact on the invasion. However, D-Day was more effective because the Allies had that vital knowledge provided by the Resistance which was key for the operations’ success
However, some historians believe that the Resistance played a minor role in the success of D-Day. Henri Michel argues that for the British, the resistance in Europe was an auxiliary element, of only tactical and limited interest10. In fact, in 1943, the UK, Canada and the USA met to discuss the plans for the forthcoming invasions of Italy and France through the Quebec Conference11. During this highly secret military conference , the Allies did not mention the Resistance at any time in its plan12. Michel argues this might be because the Resistance was an illegal organisation, successful if less people knew about it. He also explains that they were not trusted by the British as an organized group which would imply that they shouldn't be given too much responsibility on a mission that could determine the outcome of the war13.
Another reason some may argue the Resistance was not so influential is because 90% of French people supported the Vichy government or were simply too afraid to fight against it14. This statistic shows that it was more common for French people to accept defeat, become collaborationist or seemingly try to coexist with the German soldiers rather than fighting back. Moreover, Ian Ousby argues in Occupation: The Ordeal of France, 1940–1944 that “The French, understandably, reacted [after liberation] to their ordeal by retreating into a myth,”15. The French felt ashamed of having surrendered after only 3 weeks of fighting and to have actively collaborated with the enemy. The French exaggerated the accomplishments of the Resistance as a way of proving to the world that they took part and never gave up in the fighting against the Germans. This myth has made it difficult for historians to assess the true size and impact of the Resistance in the planning for D-Day.
To sum up, the Resistance movement didn’t lead the charge in D-Day’s success. Yet, the Resistance still existed and did help the Allies in the planning for the invasion of Normandy.
All things considered, the French Resistance movement was highly influential to the success of D-Day. The organization itself wasn’t able to overthrow Germany but it did help the Allies, in many ways, make Operation Overlord a success, as without its presence the plan might've been more complex and Allied victory might’ve consumed much longer time and meant greater losses to the US, Britain and Dominion of Canada.
Section C: Reflection
This investigation has allowed me to investigate alternative perspectives regarding the influence of the Resistance movement in the success of D-Day. I decided to look at this problem as, having spent most of my secondary school education in a French system, I have always been taught that the success of France in WWII was mainly because of resistance activities. I wanted to analyse to what extent this claim was true, considering different perspectives, to come up with the most unbiased one. This research showed me that the French education system highly idealised the past of the Resistance and its influence during D-Day.
Indeed, after the war, French society tended to embellish the myth of the Resistance as a way to show to the war their implication in the war as most of the people were not proud to have merely accepted defeat and German occupation. Actually, only 10% of the French population were against the Vichy government during the first year of occupation16. Analysing quantitative data, allows us to conclude that the Resistance myth is only partially true and that most of its actions were exaggerated.
Furthermore, the Resistance movement might have been overlooked by people after the war because of Hemingway’s perception of resistance in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" (1940)
Footnotes:
1 Sumpf, Alexander. “Les Maquisards.” L'Histoire par l'Image, February 2014, https://histoire-image.org/fr/etudes/maquisards.3 Keegan, John. “Normandy Invasion.” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Normandy-Invasion. 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Resistance.” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/resistance-European-history. 5 Beevor, Anthony. “Sealing off the Invasion Area.” D-Day: The Battle for Normandy, Penguin Books, 2009, p. 45. 6 Beevor, Anthony. “Sealing off the Invasion Area.” D-Day: The Battle for Normandy, Penguin Books, 2009, p. 46. 7 Beevor, Anthony. “Sealing off the Invasion Area.” D-Day: The Battle for Normandy, Penguin Books, 2009, p. 46.8 Beevor, Anthony. “Sealing off the Invasion Area.” D-Day: The Battle for Normandy, Penguin Books, 2009, p. 46. 9 “French Resistance.” DK Findout, Dorling Kindersley Limited, https://www.dkfindout.com/uk/history/world-war-ii/french-resistance/. 10 Michel, Henri. “Maquis et Maquis.” Revue d'Histoire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, vol. 13, no. 49, 1963, p. 5. 11 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Quebec Conference.” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Quebec-Conference. 12 Michel, Henri. “Maquis et Maquis.” Revue d'Histoire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, vol. 13, no. 49, 1963, p. 6. 13 Michel, Henri. “Maquis et Maquis.” Revue d'Histoire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, vol. 13, no. 49, 1963, p. 7. 14 Wilkinson, Stephan. “The French Resistance: How Resistant?” HistoryNet, March 2011, https://www.historynet.com/french-resistance-resistant.htm.15 Wilkinson, Stephan. “The French Resistance: How Resistant?” HistoryNet, March 2011, https://www.historynet.com/french-resistance-resistant.htm. 16 Wilkinson, Stephan. “The French Resistance: How Resistant?” HistoryNet, March 2011, https://www.historynet.com/french-resistance-resistant.htm. giving the French resistance an image of partisans blowing bridges and railways to stop the Nazis17. This was the case in a few circumstances but the insider movement was mainly used for intelligence actions and providing the Allies with crucial information on the movements of German troops in Normandy in preparation for D-Day. To sum up, the romanticizing of the Resistance in the years following WWII led to a strongly biased national education system but my research allowed me to truly understand the impact of the movement on the success of D-Day. 17 Wilkinson, Stephan. “The French Resistance: How Resistant?” HISTORYNET, 2011, https://www.historynet.com/french-resistance-resistant.htm.
