为什么法国能在二战的胜利者中获得平等的地位？

joeri1505
One big factor in that is the fact that France was a traditional superpower.
France had been one of the most powerful countries in the world for litteral ages.
Basically all the people at the negotiations litteraly grew up with the concept of France being a superpower cemented in their minds.
Also, dont forget that the invasion of France wasn't just a French defeat.
The British army was in France too and they only managed to escape at Dunkirk, thanks to the rearguard of the French.
And then there was that small incident where the Brits sank a large part of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
If diplomatic relations were to be normalised, it would be crucial to treat France according to its own perceived status.
Besides Europe itsself, the French colonial empire was also rather large.
Returning all these teritories to French rule would almost automatically return France to a position of authority.


其中的一个重要因素是，法国是一个传统的超级大国。
法国一直是世界上最强大的国家之一。
基本上，所有参与谈判的人都是伴随着法国是超级大国的概念长大的。
此外，不要忘了入侵法国不仅仅是法国的失败。
英国军队也在法国，多亏了法国人的殿后，他们才能在敦刻尔克逃跑。
接着发生了一个小事故，英国人在摩尔-凯比尔击沉了法国的大部分舰队。
如果外交关系要正常化，根据法国自身感知的地位来对待法国将是至关重要的。
除了欧洲本体，法兰西殖民帝国也相当庞大。
让所有这些国家回到法国的统治之下几乎会自动让法国回到权威地位。

MaterialCarrot
They also had a post war role to play as Germany's Western neighbor and a part of the Western alliance against the USSR that became NATO (for a while).


他们还在战后作为德国的西方邻国，并作为西方联盟对抗苏联的一部分（有一段时间）。

UCDent
France was expected to be the European continental stalwart against a Soviet move against the west after WW2 taking pressure off of Britain before Germany and Italy could be reformed, rebuilt, and included.


法国被期望成为欧洲大陆的中坚力量，以对抗苏联在二战后对西方的行动，在德国和意大利被改革、重建和纳入之前减轻英国的压力。

LoganGyre
I would also add that they were also very much supporting other countries with supplies and intel to help slow the Germans advance. I definitely agree that the sinking of the french Navy was a major political issue they were trying to resolve but I feel like the US put a ton of push into propping up france to prevent Russia from consuming all of europe after the war as well.


我还想补充的是，他们也非常支持其他国家的物资和情报，以帮助减缓德国人的进攻。我绝对同意，法国海军的沉没是他们试图解决的一个重大政治问题，但我觉得美国在支持法国方面投入了大量的力量，以防止俄国在战后吞噬整个欧洲。

elcabeza79
I definitely agree that the sinking of the french Navy was a major political issue they were trying to resolve
Really? They collaborated with the fascist enemy, but were still offered the chance to turn over the ships peacefully with the promise they wouldn't be used against them, and they still chose chose to engage the British in battle instead.
This is an issue the French needed resolved after the Allies liberated them from the fascists? Really?


你是认真的吗？他们当时与法西斯敌人合作，但仍有机会在保证不对他们使用的情况下和平地交出船只，而他们仍然选择了与英国人交战。
结果这是法国人在盟军将他们从法西斯手中解放出来后需要解决的一个问题？认真的吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

LoganGyre
So the way it was Explained in my class was that the french gov had officially surrendered and part of the agreement was to not hand over the ships to the allies. So knowing he couldn't legally attack the Brits, but not wanting to violate the orders, the commander chose to allow for the ships to be destroyed on purpose.
As far as to why this upsets the french? They bore the brunt of the the physical damage for much of the war and were bitter about having more losses lumped on them by their allies. Adding insult to injury the allies managed to insult the french multiple times by accident. Its been awhile since Ive read about it so im leaving out some details for sure.


我在课堂上得到的解释是，法国政府已经正式投降，协议的一部分是不把船只交给盟国。因此，指挥官知道他不能合法地攻击英国人，但又不想违反命令，就选择了故意让这些船被摧毁。
至于为什么这让法国人不高兴？在战争的大部分时间里，他们首当其冲地遭受了物质上的损失，并且对他们的盟友把更多的损失加在他们身上感到很痛苦。更加雪上加霜的是，盟国还设法多次意外地侮辱了法国人。我已经有一段时间没有重新阅读相关书籍了，所以肯定会遗漏一些细节。

quijote3000
They didn't "chose to engage the british". The british attacked.
And the promise was made before the british attack that their ships wouldn't be taken by the germans. When the Germans finally decided to get all the french ships that were left, the french navy actually sank them before giving them to the germans


他们并没有"选择与英国人交战"。是英国人发起的进攻。
而在英军进攻前，他们已经承诺过自己的船只不会被德国人抢走。当德国人最终决定接管所有剩下的法国船只时，法国海军实际上在把它们交给德国人之前就把船搞沉了。

LightningDustt
Not to mention the French efforts to aid the allied cause didn't stop with the capitulation of mainland France. The Free French and the French resistance were a thorn in Hitler's side all the way through the war


更不用说法国援助盟军的努力并没有因为法国本土的投降而停止。自由法国和法国抵抗组织在整个战争期间都是希特勒的眼中钉。

capt_blackadder11
The French army was better equipped , had superior aircraft and was actually more mechanized than the Wehrmacht.


法国军队装备更好，拥有优越的飞机，实际上比德国国防军更机械化。

Whitetiger2819
As much as I like to fight the common misconception about the ‘inferior french army’, it needs to be said that the french Air Force was absolutely ill prepared to fight the wermarcht. As Antoine Saint-Exupéry wrote, the pilots were ready to fight, but the supplies, planes and orders did nothing to help them do their jobs. That and the Luftwaffe outnumbered the french and British artifice in terms of modern aircraft by a comfortable margin. So much that by the fall of France, the pilots were scapegoated for having left the brave infantry to fend of the Germans alone...


尽管我喜欢与"劣质的法军"这种普遍的误解作斗争，但需要说的是，法国空军绝对没有做好与德国人作战的准备。正如安托万-圣-埃克苏佩里所写的那样：飞行员们已经做好了战斗准备，但物资、飞机和命令却无助于他们完成任务。这一点，以及德国空军在现代飞机方面的数量比法国和英国都要多得多。以至于到了法国沦陷的时候，飞行员们被当作替罪羊，因为他们把勇敢的步兵留给了德国人，让他们独自抵御德国人的进攻......

Sholoto
Better Tanks has well


还有更好的坦克

AndrewTyeFighter
One on one a French tank might be better, but the vast majority lacked radios and couldn't communicate or coordinate like their German counterparts.


法国坦克可能更好，但绝大多数坦克缺乏无线电，不能像德国坦克那样通信或协调。

flapjack3285
They also had smaller crews so they were overworked, especially the tank commanders. The Char B1 which was a beast was also slow. It doesn't matter how thick your armor is or how power your gun is if you can't catch the enemy or you can't refuel because they were able to run roughshod behind your lines and captured all your fuel.


他们的坦克乘员人数也较少，所以他们都工作过度，特别是坦克指挥官。野兽一样的的Char B1速度也很慢。如果你不能抓住战机或不能加油，你的装甲有多厚或你的火炮有多大威力都不重要，因为他们能够在你的防线后面横冲直撞，夺取你所有的燃料。

tomdidiot
The Char B1 is a great example of a tank that looks good on paper on the metrics people like to use (good armour, good gun, slower, but vaguely acceptable speed), but struggle because of soft, much less sexy factors (crew ergonomics, high fuel consumption and its resulting low operational range, cost)


Char B1是一个很好的例子，说明在人们喜欢使用的指标上（良好的装甲、良好的火炮、较慢但勉强可接受的速度），这种坦克在纸面上看起来很好，但却会由于软性的、不那么性感的因素（乘员的人体工程学、高油耗及其导致的低作战范围、损失）而陷入困境。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

southerner_too
Quite right, the French fought their tanks in penny packets, no match for the massed German tank formations, their blazing hulks littered the battlefield. It's true that the large French tanks caused real trouble for the Germans, but they were dealt with when the Germans brought up the new 88 anti aircraft guns and were fired at the tanks.


很对，法国人只有很少的人能驾驶坦克战斗，比不上德国人大规模的坦克编队，他们燃烧着的车体在战场上到处散落。法国的大型坦克确实给德国人带来了真正的麻烦，但当德国人调来新的88式防空炮并向坦克开火时，他们毫无招架之力。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

frenchchierblanc
The French army was on the verge to be better equipped than the germans. Germans managed to have a very modern spearhead army, small but heavy mechanised (the rest of the army dragging behind). French army was on the defensive on a long front.
The germans attacked just before the french army was modernised. A bulk of new tanks, planes, rifles were arriving and were planned for Summer 1940.


法国军队的装备马上就要比德国人的更好了。但德国人设法拥有了一支非常现代化的先锋部队，规模小但机械化程度高（其他部队则比较落后）。法国军队在一条长长的战线上处于守势。
德国人在法军现代化之前就发动了进攻。大批新的坦克、飞机、步枪陆续完工，并按计划在1940年夏季投入了使用。

joeri1505
All true So?
People continue to forget that the british army was in France when the Germans invaded.
The French defeat was a shared defeat.


这些都是真的，所以呢？
人们继续选择遗忘，当德国人入侵法国时，英国军队当时也在法国。
法国的失败是一次英法共同的失败。

nuttyjawa
Joeri you seem to have some very anti British - or at least, look at the British thing going on.
The BEF was in Belgium when the Germans invaded
And no one forgets that the British were defeated just as much as the French in those early dark years.


Joeri你似乎很反感英国人--或者至少有一点反感，看看英国人当时都在干什么事情吧。
德军入侵时，英国远征军在比利时。
而且没有人忘记，在那些早期的黑暗时期，英国人和法国人一样被打败了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

joeri1505
I'm sorry it sounds that way, its not my intention.
I have nothing against the British and I'm certainly not trying to downplay their part in the war.
The question was why France was granted equal status after the war.
I think that it's relation with Britain played a big part in that, so thats why i reffer to situations where both France and GB were involved.
Britain's victories and achievements in the war are well known so i dont feel the need to focus on those.
France often gets portrayed as weak or unreliable.
And there are certainly some examples of the French acting less than optimal.
But there are also plenty of examples of the French acting valiantly.
AND the mishappenings between the French and the Brits were still a source of tension in europe, after the war.
So there was a clear incentive to move past these issues as soon as possible.


我很抱歉听起来是这样的，这不是我的本意。
我并不反感英国人，我当然不是要贬低他们在战争中的作用。
标题是为什么法国在战后被授予平等地位。
我认为，法国与英国的关系在其中起到了很大的作用，所以我提到了法国和英国都参与的情况。
英国在战争中的胜利和成就是众所周知的，所以我觉得没有必要关注这些。
法国经常被描绘成软弱或不可靠的国家。
当然也有一些法国人表现得不太理想的例子。
但也有很多法国人英勇行动的例子。
而且，在战后，法国人和英国人之间的不愉快会成为欧洲紧张局势的一个来源。
因此，这里有一个明显的动机来尽快解决这些问题。

Stralau
Short answer would be that the French wanted it and it was in the interests of the UK and the US.
It gave the western allies one more anti communist vote at the table and restoring French national pride also ensured no opportunity for a communist takeover in France, which was a possibility, or at least a concern at one stage.
The UK and US were fundamentally keen on keeping something like the status quo ante bellum, and hemming in the USSR: restoring France to great power status was a good way of achieving that, at least to some extent.


简短的回答是，法国人希望如此，而且这也符合英国和美国的利益。
这让西方盟国在谈判桌上多了一张反共的选票，恢复法国的民族自豪感也确保了法国没有机会被共产党接管，而这在当时是一种可能性，至少在某个阶段是一种担忧。
英国和美国从根本上热衷于保持类似于战前的状态，并对苏联进行围堵：恢复法国的大国地位是实现这一目标的好办法，至少在某种程度上是如此。

bangdazap
I'd add to this that France had a huge colonial empire and if there had been a communist revolution in France they might have gained independence, further upsetting the post-war world order.


我想补充一点的是，法国有一个巨大的殖民帝国，如果法国发生了一场共产主义革命，他们可能会获得独立，这将进一步扰乱了战后的世界秩序。

anarchysquid
The USSR was OK with France on the Security Council too. They may have been a capitalist democracy, but they had substantially different interests than Britain and the USA, so they could be a counterbalance to the Anglo-American alliance


苏联对法国出现在安理会上没什么意见。他们可能是一个资本主义民主国家，但他们的利益与英国和美国有本质上的不同，所以他们可能是对英美联盟的制衡。

dorshiffe_2
In 1945, the french communism party score 26% and socialism party 23% so the country was very close to go Communism. The US made everything to help the right wing (even if right wing were more pro-german during the war), they let De gaulle entering in Paris as the liberator to help him.


1945年，法国共产党的得票是26%，社会主义党的得票是23%，所以这个国家非常接近于走向共产主义。美国竭力帮助右翼（即使右翼在战争期间更亲德），他们让戴高乐以解放者的姿态进入巴黎，以帮助他成为法国领导人。

Dawidko1200
Interesting to see you say that. The version I've seen in Russian history books is that it was because of USSR's insistence that France was recognised, as the French, and de Gaulle in particular, were much less inclined towards hostility with USSR. As can be seen by de Gaulle's decision to withdraw from NATO in the 60s.
I know that both Churchill and Roosevelt had a rather unfavourable opinion of de Gaulle, while Stalin did not. During de Gaulle's visit to USSR in the 60s he spent 20 minutes at Stalin's grave.


看到你这么说很有意思。我在俄罗斯历史书中看到的版本是，正是因为苏联的坚持，法国才被承认，因为法国人，特别是戴高乐，倾向于不愿意与苏联为敌。从戴高乐在60年代决定退出北约就可以看出。
我知道，丘吉尔和罗斯福都对戴高乐有相当不利的看法，而斯大林则没有。在60年代戴高乐访问苏联期间，他在斯大林的坟墓前呆了20分钟。

MaverickDago
Part of it was that the UK, while part of Europe, wasn't on the continent. Having an ally that was located on the mainland was vital. France had a history of being a powerhouse, had large oversea possessions, and if they broke towards the East, it would have screwed Europe.


部分原因是，英国虽然是欧洲的一部分，但不在欧洲大陆上。拥有一个位于大陆的盟友是至关重要的。法国在历史上曾是一个强国，拥有大量的海外资产，如果他们向东方靠拢，就会使欧洲陷入困境。

Blueopus2
History - France had been a superpower for centuries prior to the war
Geography - they were neighbors of Germany and Italy and were the only strong, clearly allied power there.
Contributions after capitulation - the French resistance and the free French were major thorns in hitlers side throughout the war
Contributions before capitulation - the French army folded in just two months but did a lot of fighting in that time and suffered more casualties fighting Germany than the US did


历史--法国在战争前的几个世纪里一直是一个超级大国
地理--他们是德国和意大利的邻国，是那里唯一强大的、明确的盟国。
屈服后的贡献--法国抵抗运动和自由法国在整个战争期间都是希特勒的眼中钉肉中刺
投降前的贡献--法国军队在短短两个月内就折戟沉沙，但在这段时间内做了大量的战斗，与德国作战时的伤亡人数超过了美国。

charly06
All of this is correct but the most important reason is Churchill did everything in order for france to get that seat: Uk was a colonial power and was already thinking of post war era. having two anticolonial superpowers made him wary of uk's ability to have a say in world politics. Having a fellow colonial power at the UN security council would balance a bit this new shift in world relation


所有这些都是正确的，但最重要的原因是丘吉尔所做的一切都是为了让法国获得那个席位。英国是一个殖民国家，而且已经在考虑战后的问题。有两个反殖民主义的超级大国，使他对英国在世界政治中的发言权的能力感到担忧。在联合国安理会中拥有一个同为殖民国家的国家，将在一定程度上平衡世界关系的这种新变化。

Jack_ofall_Trades85
Two anticolonial powers on the security council? I think you're forgetting China.


安理会的两个反殖民主义大国？我认为你忘记了中国。

Intranetusa
This is not to diminish the role of the French resistance (and de Gaulle's own contribution in that regard), but its role in defeating Germany seems hardly at the same level as those from the other allies overall (perhaps excluding China).
France may or may not have contributed more, but I think the contributions of China during WW2 is often underestimated. The Republic of China's armies (and to a lesser extent the communist guerillas) tied down 80% of the Japanese imperial army (over 1 million Japanese troops)...fighting in a grueling stalemate war of attrition. China was basically the Soviet unx in the far eastern front - the USA and UK were worried that if China fell, Japan would roll over the rest of the Pacific without much resistance because the fall of China would free up the vast majority of the Japanese army troops for invasions elsewhere.
Edit:
An important event was when Japan signed the Japanese-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941 because most of Japan's armies was bogged down in a stalemate in China. Imagine if the successful conquest of China in the 1930s freed up the majority of Japanese armies, which would have allowed the Japanese to not have to sign this agreement and invade the Soviet unx from the east.
Furthermore, Japan had been fighting in China since the early 1930s with the majority of its army. Imagine if China surrendered in the 1930s...which would free up 80% of the Japanese army in the 1930s to take over the rest of eastern Asia. If that happened, then Japan wouldn't have or wouldn't have the same levels of the fuel and resource shortages they had since there are significant sources of natural resources (petroleum, rubber, etc) in mainland East Asia and in SE Asia they could've taken over. For example, today Indonesia, Malaysia, and China are significant producers of oil today. Japan did manage to capture the Dutch East Indies, but this happened pretty late (around 1942) and happened after the USA had already entered the war. The USA oil embargo against Japan was also significantly due to Japanese atrocities in China...which was heavily due to their army's frustration of not making much progress and getting stalemated in China. If China rolled over and surrendered quickly, the Japanese might not even have attacked Pearl Harbor or at least not prematurely attack it as early as they did because they wouldn't have been so dependent on American oil resources or the Americans might not have embargoed them at all.
That could altered the USA entering the war at the time it did since the US entry was mainly triggered by the Pearl Harbor attack - and could've changed the events of both the European and Pacific war.


法国可能做出了更多贡献，也可能没有做出更多贡献，但我认为中国在二战期间的贡献往往被低估了。中华民国的军队（以及在较小程度上的共产主义游击队）束缚了80%的日本帝国的军队（超过100万的日本军队......使其陷入一场艰苦僵持的消耗战中。中国基本上是远东前线的苏联--美国和英国担心，如果中国沦陷，日本将在没有太多抵抗的情况下翻过太平洋其他地区，因为中国的沦陷会让日本军队的绝大部分部队腾出手来入侵其他地方。
编辑：
一个重要事件是日本在1941年签署了《日苏中立条约》，因为日本的大部分军队在中国陷入了僵局。想象一下，如果在20世纪30年代成功地征服了中国，解放了大部分日本军队，这将使日本人不必签署这一协议，并从东部入侵苏联。
此外，日本自1930年代初就以其大部分军队在中国作战。想象一下，如果中国在1930年代就投降了......这将使日本军队在1930年代腾出80%的兵力来接管亚洲东部的其他地区。如果这种情况发生了，那么日本就不会有或不会有同样水平的燃料和资源的短缺，因为在东亚大陆和东南亚有重要的自然资源（石油、橡胶等）来源，供他们接管。例如，今天的印度尼西亚、马来西亚和中国是重要的石油生产国。日本确实设法占领了荷属东印度群岛，但这发生得很晚（1942年左右），而且是在美国已经参战之后。美国对日本的石油禁运在很大程度上也是由于日本在中国的暴行......而这又在很大程度上是由于他们的军队对在中国没有取得多少进展和陷入僵局感到沮丧。如果中国迅速投降，日本人甚至可能不会袭击珍珠港，或者至少不会像他们那样过早地袭击珍珠港，因为他们不会如此依赖美国的石油资源，或者美国人可能根本就不会禁运他们。
这可能会改变美国在那个时候的参战，因为美国参战主要是由珍珠港袭击引发的--而且可能改变整个欧洲和太平洋战争。

CezaryC
I was just about to reply with the very same thing.
China had the second-highest number of military deaths for an Allied country, just behind the Soviets.


我正准备用同样的话来回答。
中国是盟国中军队死亡人数第二多的国家，仅次于苏联。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

coleman57
Americans never hear this (I certainly never did, until today), and I suspect people in many if not most other countries don't, either. When I was young during the Cold War, Americans didn't talk much about the Soviets' sacrifice (unless they were communists or sympathisers)--it only started being discussed widely after 1991.
I was aware from my parents that there was widespread sympathy for China before and during the war, but after 1949 the issue became complicated by the explicit split of China, and since both sides of that split were seen as brutal dictatorships there wasn't much appetite for casting Chiang as a hero (except by hardline anti-communists).


美国人从来没有听说过这些（我当然也没有，直到今天），我怀疑许多甚至大多数其他国家的人也没有。在我年轻的时候，在冷战时期，美国人不怎么谈论苏联人的牺牲（除非他们是共产主义者或同情者）--直到1991年后才开始广泛讨论。
我从父母那里知道，在战争之前和战争期间，人们普遍同情中国，但在1949年之后，由于中国的明确分裂，这个问题变得复杂起来，而且由于分裂的双方都被视为残酷的独裁政权，所以没有多少人愿意把蒋介石当作英雄（除了强硬的反共分子）。

Mindless-Story931
Yeah, what the shit. Japan suffered more than 3 million casualties in China. China was orders of magnitude more instrumental in victory than France.


是啊，什么鬼。日本在中国伤亡了300多万人。中国在胜利方面的贡献比法国要重要几个数量级。

half3clipse
Becasue the only way France wasn't going to be one of the largest players in Europe and in the world would be to carve it up into much smaller nations. They had a colonial empire on par with the UK, and were far more powerful as a continental power.
Deciding seats based purely on the immediate post war situation would have been a fantastically foolish decision: There was no scenario in which France wouldn't be able to rapidly recover, rearm and return to it's status a great power. If France did not have a seat at the table, they would have just ignored anything to do with the UN or the Security Council and done whatever they wished regardless.
France wasn't some scrappy little nation trying to play with the big kids. They had a massive industrial base and population on par with or exceeding the other European powers. Snubbing a major nation like that could easily have resulted in France taking a more independent stance in the cold war or aiming to form it's own power bloc.


因为法国要想不成为欧洲和世界上最大的国家之一，唯一的办法就是把它分割成许多更小的国家。他们有一个与英国相当的殖民帝国，而且作为一个大陆强国，他们要强大得多。
纯粹根据战后的现状来决定席位，将是一个极其愚蠢的决定：在任何情况下，你都不能假设法国不会迅速恢复、重新武装并恢复其大国地位。如果法国在谈判桌上没有席位，他们就会无视与联合国或安理会有关的任何事情，不管不顾地做他们想做的事。
法国并不是一些试图与大孩子玩耍的小国家。他们有庞大的工业基础和人口，与其他欧洲大国相当或超过它们。冷落这样一个大国，很容易导致法国在冷战中采取更独立的立场，或旨在形成自己的权力集团。