Introduction: The Psychological Siege

On September 3, 1939, France declared war on Germany. The expectation among the French public and military leadership was immediate, apocalyptic violence. Planners anticipated massive Luftwaffe air raids on Paris within hours; civilians carried gas masks; children were evacuated to the countryside. The nation braced itself for the shock of 1914 repeated with the technology of 1939.

Instead, nothing happened. For eight months, from September 1939 to May 1940, the Western Front settled into an eerie, surreal silence. There were no major offensives, no aerial armadas, and virtually no movement. The French journalist Roland Dorgelès famously coined this period La Drôle de Guerre—untranslatable directly, but meaning something between “The Phoney War,” “The Funny War,” and “The Strange War.”

Historians often treat this interlude as a mere prologue—a pause button pressed before the Panzer divisions pressed play. However, this article argues that the Phoney War was a decisive operational phase in its own right. It was a period of active decomposition. While the French army used the time to accumulate material strength (building more tanks and planes), it simultaneously suffered a catastrophic collapse in psychological cohesion. The eight months of inactivity acted as a solvent, dissolving the discipline of the army and the unity of the home front. It was a time when the French soldier, idle and anxious, was subjected to a dual assault: the external psychological warfare of the Nazis and the internal political fragmentation of the Third Republic.

The Mobilization of Resignation

To understand the morale crisis, one must begin with the mobilization itself. In September 1939, France mobilized nearly five million men. This massive extraction of labor emptied the fields during the harvest and stripped factories of skilled workers. Unlike August 1914, there were no cheering crowds, no flowers in the rifle barrels, and no Union Sacrée (Sacred Union) of political parties. The mood was one of grim resignation—il faut en finir (“we must finish with it”).

This resignation was fragile. It depended on the belief that the war would be active and necessary. When the activity failed to materialize, the sense of necessity eroded. The French High Command, led by General Gamelin, adopted a strategy of inaction. Terrified of repeating the high casualties of WWI offensives, Gamelin ordered his troops to remain strictly defensive behind the Maginot Line and the frontier.

This decision created a sociological crisis within the army. Five million men, many of them reservists with families and businesses, were packed into barracks and dugouts with no enemy to fight. The army became a “waiting machine.” Without the adrenaline of combat to focus the mind, the soldiers’ attention turned inward—to the squalid conditions of their billets, the lack of leave, and the economic hardship their families were suffering back home. The mobilization had disrupted the social fabric, but the war offered no justification for the disruption.

The Rot of Inaction: Alcohol, Le Cafard, and Discipline

The primary enemy of the French Army during the winter of 1939–1940 was not the Wehrmacht, but boredom. French military culture, unlike the British or German, had traditionally relied on élan and the emotional intensity of the attack to maintain discipline. In a static, non-combat environment, the officers—many of whom were reservists themselves—struggled to maintain authority.

To combat the crushing monotony, the army turned to alcohol. The daily wine ration (pinard) was a staple of French military life, but during the Phoney War, consumption spiraled out of control. Estimates suggest that by early 1940, alcoholism was endemic in many units, particularly among the older reservist classes stationed in the Maginot Line. Drunkenness dulled the edge of readiness and fueled insubordination.

Alongside alcohol came le cafard—a distinct form of melancholic depression associated with colonial troops but now widespread on the frontier. It was a sense of aimlessness and futility. Soldiers spent their days playing cards, writing letters, and listening to the radio. Crucially, they did not train.

The High Command, fearing that rigorous training would exhaust the men or lower morale further, allowed training schedules to lapse. Live-fire exercises were rare due to a desire to conserve ammunition. Consequently, the reservists who would face the elite Panzer divisions in May had spent the previous eight months digging latrines and peeling potatoes, not practicing anti-tank maneuvers. The “citizen-soldier” army was losing its martial sharp edge with every passing week of inactivity.

The Propaganda Front: “We Will Not Shoot First”

While the French guns were silent, the German loudspeakers were not. The Phoney War saw the first modern, total psychological warfare campaign directed against an enemy army in the field. Joseph Goebbels and the Wehrmacht propaganda companies engaged in a sophisticated “peace offensive.”

Along the Rhine frontier, German troops erected large signs reading: “Don’t shoot, we won’t shoot either!” They broadcast French music and speeches across the river. The message was seductive and consistent: “This is a British war. You are dying for the City of London. Germany has no quarrel with France.”

This narrative was surgically designed to exploit the Anglophobia latent in French society. German propaganda highlighted the small size of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF)—only 10 divisions compared to France’s 80+. They asked, “Where are the Tommies?” implying that the British were prepared to fight “to the last Frenchman.”

The French response was inept. The Ministry of Information, initially led by the playwright Jean Giraudoux, treated propaganda as a literary exercise. It produced high-minded, intellectual defenses of civilization that meant little to the average poilu (infantryman). The rigid censorship imposed by the military—which often forbade soldiers from mentioning the weather or their location in letters—further alienated the troops. They felt cut off from their families and patronized by a government that refused to tell them the truth, while the German radio provided news, music, and seductive reassurances.

The Political Fracture: The “Fifth Column” and the Communist Crackdown

The internal cohesion of the army was severely damaged by the political convulsions in Paris. The shock of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939—the non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union—threw the French Left into chaos.

The French Communist Party (PCF), the largest and most disciplined political organization in the working class, was declared illegal by the Daladier government in September 1939. Communist deputies were arrested, and the party press was shuttered. The PCF, following orders from Moscow, pivoted from anti-fascism to labeling the conflict an “imperialist war.”

This had a devastating impact on the morale of the industrial working class, who made up a significant portion of the conscript army. Soldiers who looked to the PCF for leadership were now told that their own government was a fascist dictatorship and the war was a capitalist scam. Sabotage in armament factories (though historically exaggerated by Vichy later) did occur, specifically in the aviation industry (e.g., the Farman works).

This political suppression created a climate of paranoia. The government and the Right saw “defeatists” and “saboteurs” everywhere. The concept of the “Fifth Column”—internal traitors working for the enemy—became a national obsession. This paranoia eroded the trust between officers (often conservative/royalist) and their men (often socialist/communist). The army was not a unified instrument of national will; it was a reflection of a fractured society, holding its breath.

“Why Die for Danzig?”: The Crisis of War Aims

The fundamental corrosion of morale stemmed from a lack of clear war aims. On May 4, 1939, the neo-socialist Marcel Déat published an article titled “Why Die for Danzig?” (Mourir pour Dantzig?). The phrase became the defining slogan of the pacifist right and the hesitant left.

After Poland fell in October 1939, the question became even more acute. France had gone to war to save Poland. Poland no longer existed. So why were they still mobilized? The Daladier government failed to articulate a compelling vision of the post-war world. They offered vague platitudes about “liberty,” but to a French peasant worrying about his unharvested crops, this was insufficient.

The only burst of public enthusiasm during the Phoney War occurred not against Germany, but against the Soviet Union. When the USSR invaded Finland in November 1939 (the Winter War), French public opinion rallied to the brave Finns. The Right urged an expedition to fight the Soviets. This strategic insanity—proposing to open a second war against a major power while facing Germany—revealed the ideological confusion of the French elite. They were more comfortable fighting Bolsheviks than Nazis. When the plan to help Finland collapsed, the government of Édouard Daladier fell, replaced by Paul Reynaud in March 1940. This ministerial instability further signaled to the troops that the leadership was adrift.

The Saar Offensive: The Proof of Impotence

The one military action undertaken by the French Army during this period served only to confirm the soldiers’ cynicism. In September 1939, fulfilling a treaty obligation to Poland to relieve pressure on the Eastern Front, Gamelin ordered a limited offensive into the Saarland.

French troops advanced a few kilometers into German territory, encountering light resistance. They occupied a few evacuated villages. However, as soon as Poland surrendered, Gamelin ordered a retreat back behind the Maginot Line.

To the soldiers involved, this operation was a farce. They had marched forward, taken ground, and then marched back without a major battle. It reinforced the belief that the High Command had no intention of fighting a real war. It taught the troops that the safest place was behind the concrete, and that offensive action was a political gesture rather than a military necessity. It destroyed the offensive spirit (l’esprit offensif) that is essential for counter-attacks.

The Material Paradox: Stronger Arms, Weaker Hands

There is a historical paradox central to the Phoney War: materially, France became stronger; morally, it became weaker.

Economically, the eight-month pause was utilized effectively. Tank production surged. By May 1940, the French army had more and better tanks (the Somua S35 and Char B1 bis) than the Wehrmacht. The shortages of artillery shells that had plagued the army in 1914 were resolved.

However, war is not merely an accounting of inventory. As Jean-Louis Crémieux-Brilhac noted in his definitive study Les Français de l’an 40, the curves of material rearmament and moral disarmament crossed in the spring of 1940. The army had the tools, but it had lost the will. The static nature of the Phoney War had allowed the “Maginot Mentality” to metastasize from a strategic doctrine into a personal philosophy for every soldier: wait, hide, and hope they don’t come.

Conclusion: The Defeat Before the Battle

The Drôle de Guerre was a strategic masterstroke by Adolf Hitler. While his generals urged an immediate attack in late 1939, Hitler delayed (partly due to weather and logistics). He intuited that time was not on the side of the democracies. He understood that a totalitarian state could maintain mobilization indefinitely through terror and propaganda, but a democratic republic—especially one as fractured as France—would rot if left in a state of suspended animation.

When the Wehrmacht finally struck on May 10, 1940, they did not hit a solid wall. They hit a brittle shell. The French army shattered so quickly not because they lacked the weapons to fight, but because the psychological connective tissue of the army had dissolved during the long, wet, alcoholic winter of 1939. The soldiers were exhausted by boredom, confused by propaganda, and alienated by their own leadership. They had spent eight months asking “Why are we here?” When the Panzers arrived, they had no answer.

Historiographical Note

1. The “Decadence” vs. “Constraints” Debate
Early historiography (e.g., by Alistair Horne) focused heavily on the moral decay and “lack of fiber” in the French army, often utilizing anecdotes of drunkenness and insubordination. Modern historians like Julian Jackson and Talbot Imlayframe this differently. They argue that the morale problems were rational responses to a confused strategic situation (“The Constraints of Strategy”). Soldiers weren’t inherently cowardly; they were responding to a leadership that refused to lead.

2. The Re-evaluation of Rearmament
Robert Frankenstein (the historian, not the scientist) and Martin Alexander have revised the economic history of this period. They demonstrated that the Phoney War was a period of intense industrial success. This “Materialist RevisionismRevisionism Full Description:Revisionism was framed as the greatest threat to the revolution—the idea that the Communist Party could rot from within and restore capitalism, similar to what the Chinese leadership believed had happened in the Soviet Union. Accusations of revisionism were often vague and applied to any policy that prioritized economic stability, material incentives, or expertise over ideological fervor. Critical Perspective:The concept served as a convenient tool for political purging. It allowed the leadership to frame a factional power struggle as an existential battle for the soul of socialism. By labeling pragmatic leaders as “capitalist roaders,” the state could legitimize the dismantling of the government apparatus and the persecution of veteran revolutionaries. ” highlights that the defeat was not due to a lack of guns (the old “butter over guns” myth) but the failure to integrate those new weapons into a motivated doctrine.

3. The Sociological Approach
Jean-Louis Crémieux-Brilhac’s Les Français de l’an 40 (1990) remains the gold standardGold Standard Full Description:The Gold Standard was the prevailing international financial architecture prior to the crisis. It required nations to hold gold reserves equivalent to the currency in circulation. While intended to provide stability and trust in trade, it acted as a “golden fetter” during the downturn. Critical Perspective:By tying the hands of policymakers, the Gold Standard turned a recession into a depression. It forced governments to implement austerity measures—cutting spending and raising interest rates—to protect their gold reserves, rather than helping the unemployed. It prioritized the assets of the wealthy creditors over the livelihoods of the working class, transmitting economic shockwaves globally as nations simultaneously contracted their money supplies.. He utilized mass-observation style reports (postal censorship records, prefect reports) to construct a psychological map of the nation. He argues convincingly that the nation was not “defeatist” initially, but became so due to the specific conditions of the Phoney War.

4. The Existentialist View
Jean-Paul Sartre, who served as a meteorologist during the Phoney War, wrote extensively about the experience in his War Diaries. For Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, the Phoney War was an existential crisis—a suspension of time where the individual was stripped of agency, waiting for an apocalypse that refused to arrive. This literary perspective has influenced how cultural historians view the period as one of surreal absurdity.

---

Further Reading

• Crémieux-Brilhac, Jean-Louis. The French of 1940 (Les Français de l’an 40).
  • (Ideally read in French, but summarized in English sources). The definitive sociological history of the French people and army during the Phoney War.
• Sartre, Jean-Paul. War Diaries: Notebooks from a Phoney War, 1939-40 (Verso, 1984).
  • A primary source that offers a philosophical and personal insight into the boredom and intellectual stagnation of the mobilized soldier.
• Imlay, Talbot. Facing the Second World War: Strategy, Politics, and Economics in Britain and France 1938-1940 (Oxford University Press, 2003).
  • A comparative study that contrasts how Britain used the Phoney War (to build the RAF and mobilize the Empire) vs. how France used it (which exacerbated domestic divisions).
• Alexander, Martin S. The Republic in Danger: General Maurice Gamelin and the Politics of French Defence, 1933–1940 (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
  • A sympathetic biography of Gamelin that explains the logic behind the “waiting strategy,” arguing Gamelin was trying to fight a “long war” of attrition, for which the Phoney War was a necessary phase.
• Gunsburg, Jeffery A. Divided and Conquered (Greenwood Press, 1979).
  • Analyzes the military consequences of the delay, specifically how it allowed Germany to refine the Manstein Plan while the Allies remained static.