MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4399659319 · doi:10.1162/jinh_r_02016

<i>Defeat and Division: France at War, 1939–1942</i> by Douglas Porch

2024· article· en· W4399659319 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Interdisciplinary History · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHistorical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics
Établissements canadiensUniversité Laval
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPorchDivision (mathematics)HistoryAncient historyArchaeologyMathematicsArithmetic

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the first volume of an anticipated two-volume study on France in Cambridge University Press’ series on “Armies of the Second World War,” Porch offers an impressively researched, trenchantly argued, and immensely readable study that takes the story up to the end of 1942. Porch is certainly an excellent choice; as a prominent and prolific historian of modern French political and military history, he has in his scholarship ranged across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as well as across France and its empire.The first of the book’s two parts seeks to explain the débâcle, adopting a resolutely counter-revisionist position. The current consensus in the specialist scholarship is that France’s defeat was not the result of deep-seated weaknesses in the Third Republic’s structure and functioning (a position dismissed perhaps a little too readily as the “decadence” thesis, which supposedly substitutes moral judgment for analysis). Rather, defeat was the outcome of short-term military mistakes, especially the decisions to send the best of the Anglo-French armies into Belgium in 1940 and to leave the Ardennes sector relatively unfortified.In rejecting this revisionism, Porch makes two related arguments. One is the truism that wars are waged by societies and not solely by armies (46). The second point involves a careful examination of the French military’s capabilities and performance in 1940, which Porch uses to highlight its many shortcomings, such as outmoded and insufficient equipment, shoddy training of troops, archaic logistics systems, and indifferent leadership, among others. One of the more telling problems was in communications. Unlike the Germans, the French failed to modernize their field communications; the ratio of German to French radio operators in 1940 stood at 12:1 (149). Chaotic breakdowns on the battlefield were the result.For Porch, this striking inferiority, among others, testified to the Third Republic’s inability to prepare properly for the war with Germany, which the Republic’s army, and much of its political class, deemed all but inevitable after 1919. The problem was far less the strategic mistakes made in May 1940 than it was the generalized failure to adapt in response to the surprise German breakthrough. Porch’s assessment is damning: “That the French army and ultimately the Third Republic unraveled inexorably in the face of an easily anticipated tactical setback suggests the systemic fragility of France’s entire political/military system” (178).Porch frames the second part of the book as a struggle between the Vichy regime and General Charles de Gaulle’s fledgling Free French movement, much of it waged in France’s African empire. Not surprisingly, he is scathing toward Vichy and the cohort of French generals who quickly rallied behind the new regime. For Porch, Vichy represents less a break with the Third Republic, notwithstanding the regime’s insistence that it did so, than the bitter fruit of France’s divisions and deficiencies before 1940.This position arguably downplays the searing effects of crushing defeat, which numerous French and foreign observers viewed as a verdict on the Third Republic; the dearth of attractive options in 1940 regarding the feasibility and costs of continuing the war; and the somewhat open-ended nature of Vichy’s ambitions for national renewal, a function partly of the regime’s raging factionalism. At the same time, Porch captures a fundamental truth in remarking that Vichy’s future ultimately depended on a German victory (271). He rightly dismisses the idea that, under German tutelage, France could ever be more than an exploited satellite state.If Porch is contemptuous of Vichy, he is generally sympathetic toward de Gaulle and the Free French while also underlining their minority if not marginal status—as well as their dependence on the Allies. In August 1940, the Free French counted 2,721 officers and soldiers; in the summer of 1943, the number of French volunteers (40,000) roughly equalled that of Vichy’s paramilitary units (Groupe mobile de réserve) and milice. As late as July 1943, of the Free French forces of 60,000 or so, two-thirds were colonial conscripts and only 2 percent were French citizens.But however meager its military strength, the Free French had positioned France to be on the side of the victors in what de Gaulle astutely understood, first and foremost, as a political struggle with the Western Allies to ensure that France recovered its great power status following the inevitable Axis defeat. And, for all his infuriating and sometimes absurd pretentions, de Gaulle waged this struggle with remarkable success. For this reason alone, the second volume of Porch’s study is eagerly awaited.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,425
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,645

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,286
Écart entre enseignants0,275 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle