The French military betrayal of May-June 1940
After 60 years of secrecy, the archives of the Battle of France were finally opened to researchers in the year 2000.
They totally challenge the famous “Blitzkrieg” theory that: “The German victory was actually due to three main factors:
End of quote (K.H. Frieser 1940 French defeat, German victory under the eye of foreign historians page 86)
In other words, a story that no one understood but that, for lack of anything better, the public had only to accept as it was.
However, there have never been any coincidences or incomprehensible errors, even less a series of “miracles” according to another consecrated expression, having enabled the German columns to defeat four Allied armies in twenty days, but a very long series of betrayals.
Another observation: The omerta since imposed by the French state was also imposed by all those directly concerned. Indeed, how can we imagine that Germany, which was the main beneficiary, England, which was the main victim, but also Belgium, Holland, then all the occupied European countries, Russia, or the United States wouldn’t have understood the obvious?
Information now within everyone’s reach, since the works dealing with this betrayal and the “family conspiracy” (in the plural) that accompanied it are available for sale.
To make it easier for you, also watch our films on our YouTube channel.
We develop the main information there.
French revisionist historians who have been able to work effectively on the archives of the Battle of France, since their official opening in the early 2000s, have been able to establish with certainty that:
Contrary to the planned provisions and the clear orders given by General Gamelin:
On May 13, from 5 a.m., when the Germans under the fire of French artillery could not cross the Meuse because they were unable to build the pontoon bridges essential for the passage of Panzers, tanks and French infantry elements that which can be designated under the term “special cagoulard sections” attacked from the back the artillery blockhouses and the various points of resistance on which the whole French device was articulated.
Around 3 p.m., the Bellevue blockhouse, the most important of the line, was destroyed by these French elements.
It was only from this moment that the first German infantrymen were able to cross the river on inflatable boats, without being mowed down by the fire from these blockhouses.
At the same time, while the Panzer Divisions and all their crossing equipment were clumping together in compact masses on the right bank of the Meuse, ideal targets for the artillery, the French General Huntziger ordered the withdrawal of these guns, this from his own initiative and without any strategic or tactical reason.
Shameless lie, demonstrated by the production of archives and testimonies.
These orders were given by the generals who were members of the conspiracy, again against those of the high command.
The main witnesses, in their “Recollections” books, lied using writing stratagems ranging from the outright omission of essential data, to the crudest lies.
They are Generals Weygand and Georges. (speaking through the book of his chief of staff General Roton)
Among these high-ranking soldiers, other false witnesses such as Beaufre, Ruby, or Minart, as well as certain senior secret service officials used the same stratagems.
The goal was to propagate a completely false version of the Battle of France, so as to exonerate the real culprits and accuse the men who, on the contrary, had tried to counter it.
The main accused was to be Generalissimo Gamelin, while everything shows that the real culprit was General Georges.
The means employed by all these false witnesses, was to adopt without restriction, and especially without the slightest concrete element of proof, the version given by General Georges and the officers holding the Vichy regime, by trying to make believe that Gamelin did not had done nothing but count the flies in his HQ at Vincennes, totally uninterested in the battle.
This legend of the “aboulia” of the general-in-chief allowing to pass over in silence the orders he gave, and were not executed.
This state lie organized by Vichy was, in full knowledge of the facts, propagated after the Liberation by the most eminent French historians, and endorsed by the republican governments of the Fourth and Fifth Republics allowing the official version to prosper, since a number indefinite archive always remains beyond the reach of historians and that the most important of them, namely the Journal de Marche du Cabinet Gamelin – that is to say the precise day-to-day account of all events of the battle kept by the generalissimo’s staff – as well as his notebooks and personal diaries were stolen from his home before their filing in the archives by officers mandated by the Ministry of Defense only a few minutes after his death in the Val de Grâce hospital, April 18, 1958. This while Madame Gamelin was absent, and did not even know that her husband had just died (none of these documents reappeared at the time of the opening). official opening of the archives in 2000).
That is to say a few thousand absolutely essential pages as to the preparation and the unfolding of the battle, on which Generals Gamelin and Doumenc relied when writing their “testimonies for History” in order to accredit their statements, when they denounced the betrayals they suffered during the battle, as well as their actions to counter them, and the plans implemented.
To know everything about the intervention of the Ministry of Defense in 1956
If we add to this recognized theft, the “unfortunate” destruction and the disappearance, “incomprehensible” of course, of tons of archives after the war while they were under the responsibility of the Service historique des Armées, we understand better under which authority the “official” historians have totally discarded for nearly eighty years, the three books of Souvenirs written by General Gamelin, the Souvenirs de captivité of President Daladier, as well as a large number of official archives and reports.
Ditto for the two major works of General Doumenc: History of the 9th Army, and Dunkirk and the Battle of France, but also his Secret Papers, analyzed and published by the historian François Delpla in 1991.
Indeed, all these works, perfectly known to everyone and totally contradicting the “miraculous” thesis, were systematically either ignored or cited by these historians most often to divert them from their true meaning, namely a formal denunciation of the betrayals committed. work.
We will note here that it is undoubtedly unprecedented in history that the highest authorities, both military and academic, take the liberty of disregarding the testimony of the generalissimo in charge of leading a battle and of the main soldiers concerned.
The same lack of consideration for those of many Allied generals and political leaders, such as General van Overstraeten, military adviser to the King of Belgium or Minister Van Zuylen. And even that of General Winterbotham, head of the British Intelligence Services, concerning Enigma.
Ditto for the work of Anglo-Saxon historians denouncing the real war aims of certain American and British interest groups.
I am thinking in particular of those who, in the 1960s, looked into the real role of the German Democratic generals who, since Hitler’s accession to power, informed the Allied Intelligence Services of the smallest, most secret decisions taken by the Führer. .
So to the works of Mrs. Pierre Accoce and Pierre Quet concerning the Roessler network, entitled: The war was won in Switzerland and published by Perrin in 1965; as well as: It was called A 54 written by Mrs C. Amort and I.M. Jedlicka, published by Robert Laffont in 1966, which both describe precisely the way in which the Allies were informed of all the details of the Manstein Plan at the same time from March 10, 1940. And as for the date of the attack: from April 31!
This information, qualified by the Allied SRs as coming from extremely reliable sources, was concealed in all the so-called “historical” works to make way for the official thesis of the “blindness” of the Allied leaders, and other preposterous theories based on surprise effect”.
I am also thinking of all the testimonies from the period and works by historians concerning the state of the finances of the Reich and the pitiful reality of the German army.
And it will be understood that starting from these totally false bases, it was not very difficult to impose an “incomprehensible” thesis on the Peoples dumbfounded by so much incapacity on the Allied side, and so many brilliant initiatives on the German side!
Finally, knowing that these multiple betrayals, just like the real context and the issues mentioned above, are still actively hidden by ALL the States concerned, here is the ultimate proof of a will imposed on the Peoples beyond the borders to preserve the secret about this “strange defeat”.
Le Forum des historiens en colère - Tous droits réservés