This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). France Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / European / French / World War I / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force European military history task force French military history task force World War I task force World War II task force

Most of the section headed "Cooperation with the Allies" appears to belong on the page for Operation Torch, rather than here. After the first paragraph the information is not about Giraud. I do not know enough about the subject to incorporate the data into the Operation Torch page myself. Molinari 20:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the original text to Talk:Operation Torch, and trimmed it down by several sentences. It still seems to go into too much extraneous detail, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a strange comment here about Admiral Darlan stating that he "maintained Nazi-inspired racist laws and deported people to Vichy concentration camps." This is odd because such a fact about Darlan isn't mentioned on his own wikipedia entry. Darlan wasn't generally pro-German, had in some respects stood up to Hitler as head of the Vichy Government and is generally held to have protected French Jews and workers from being shipped to German - foreign jews would have fared less well as a general rule. Certainly Darlan was no eliminationist as this article suggests and such a charge should at least be sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdrance (talk • contribs) 09:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did Giraud go from refusing to cooperate with the Germans to making contact with the Allies and getting on a British sub? There's a story there. Also, there should be some clarification of how either he was, or wasn't, an acceptable leader to the Allies. He seems to have been treated as a UK/US plant in the Darlan puppet government, but still wasn't acceptable to the Free French or particularly friendly to them. We should have more information on this, and not just vague comments like "enraged De Gaulle". Sounds like maybe they had personal ambition or principled differences that go way back, and that he certainly considered himself independent of De Gaulle or even perhaps more legitimate, but ultimately lost the political battle. --Dhartung | Talk 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length & detail are good overall, and I love that there's a picture. But I think the intro needs some work. It does properly summarize the most important aspects of the subject, along with its significance. But I feel like it implies that he was captured during WWI and didn't escape until WWII. Expand a bit in the intro on other elements of his life. And there must be references! LordAmeth 00:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this:

"Perhaps Giraud's only crime was being out of touch with the horrors occuring in Germany. While focusing on his job in the military and spending most of his time as a prisoner of war, the horrors occuring in Germany with limited support from the Vichy government were not clear to him."

Beside being unsourced, it is highly unlikely and a more than questionable defense of Giraud. According to Robert Paxton, already in July 1942, evadees from Auschwitz have provided proofs of the Holocaust [1]. Furthermore, in December 1942, the governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States, the UK, the USSR, Yugoslavia and the French National Committee issued a declaration in which they condemned "in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination" and made a "solemn resolution to ensure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution" [2]. As co-leader of the French National Committee, I assume Giraud had heard of that statement that his own interim government signed. Tazmaniacs 18:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems quite biased in favor of Giraud. It doesn't even mention Darlan's assassin's-Fernand Bonnier de La Chapelle-rushed execution. Giraud also favored racial discrimination laws and had himself ordered the imprisonment of resistants, btu not much is mentioned in the article.

Alternatively refer to section on Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Des Fourie (talk • contribs) 10:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct that "Darlan was the de facto head of the Vichy government, the Allies recognized him as head of French forces in Africa". He had no government status, he was commander in chief of the French armed forces.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 7 of section #Cooperation with the Allies currently ^[perma] reads:

Pro-Allied elements in Algeria had agreed to support the Allied landings, and in fact seized Algiers on the night of 7–8 November; the city was then occupied by Allied troops. However, resistance continued at Oran and Casablanca. Giraud flew to Algiers on 9 November, but his attempt to assume command of French forces was rebuffed; his broadcast directing French troops to cease resistance and join the Allies was ignored.^[1] Instead, it appeared that Admiral François Darlan, who happened to be in Algiers, had real authority, and Giraud quickly realized this. Despite the fact that Darlan was the de facto head of the Vichy government, the Allies recognized him as head of French forces in Africa, and on 10 November, after agreeing to a deal, Darlan ordered the French forces to cease fire and join the Allies.

but this is somewhat misleading. Giraud was offered supreme command of North Africa by Eisenhower in Gibraltar, but Giraud refused, bickering for a higher position (Eisenhower's own: supreme command of all Allied Forces) which Eisenhower wasn't about to resign and give to him instead. By the next day, Giraud had relented, but by then it was too late, because events were moving too quickly. Darlan happened to be in Algiers, and was *given* authority by the Allies while Giraud dithered, in a last-minute deal brokered by Gen. Robert Murphy. Murphy's orders from Roosevelt were to prevent North African troops from firing on Allied troops during the landings, which were already starting. Murphy's mission was about to fail, until he proposed a deal with Darlan: be named to the position previously offered to Giraud, in exchange for allowing free passage to the Allies during the landings, and throughout their march through N. Africa to Tunisia to fight Rommel. Darlan agreed, and was named to the post. See Operation Torch#The Darlan Deal, Satloff (2017),^[2] and Groom (2006).^[3] Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1933 doesn't make sense since he already was in Morocco in 1926 for the capture of Abd-del-Krim. I suspect 1933 here is just a typo for 1923.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to our French article "in January 1920, Giraud was sent to the French protectorate in Morocco under the orders of Marshal Lyautey, who personally claimed him at his side. As Lieutenant-Colonel, he participated in the Rif War and received the surrender ofAbd el-Krim, on May 27, 1926. He was a professor at the War School from 1927 to 1929. When the government created, on March 1, 1930, the military region of the Algerian-Moroccan borders, it entrusted the command to Colonel Giraud with the mission of pacifying them. He was appointed brigadier general in December 1930." DuncanHill (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered that there are other notable henri giraud people: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Giraud. 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namangwari (talk • contribs)

Good to know going forward, but not needed at en-wiki, which doesn't have articles on any of the namesakes of the general. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading "Military career: Army of Africa leader", the following claims are made: "In the US, he praised the achievements of Nazi Germany. The Cremieux decree was only restored by General de Gaulle. De Gaulle consolidated his political position at Giraud's expense because he was more up to date with the political situation. Giraud went to the U.S. in July on a useless trip while de Gaulle gained strength. Giraud made a fool of himself in Detroit with a speech praising Nazi achievements in Germany" (emphases added).
There are a few problems here. First, the repetition: the first sentence is repeated in the last. Second, terms like "useless" and "made a fool of himself" are inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Third, the source provided for this claim is a book which few readers will own, and likely, few would even have access to. In such situations, editors who rely upon books for controversial claims, the relevant excerpt from the book should be provided in the footnotes. Finally, it seems implausible to me that the man whose country had been invaded by Nazi Germany, who had (twice!) been captured and imprisoned by them, and whose family members were being hunted and held prisoner by Germans, would be praising their achievements. Of course I may be wrong, but to quote Carl Sagan -- "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Bricology (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove it. I found no source confirming this. I did find a NYT article from that day, reporting on Giraud’s visit to Canada and Detroit, and they certainly would have mentioned it if he had said any such thing: https://www.nytimes.com/1943/07/16/archives/giraud-is-greeted-warmly-in-canada-government-officials-and-the.html. Thanks for spotting this. Mathglot (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Militant of July 24 also reports on it, but I wouldn’t trust their reports, which may have been the origin of this. Mathglot (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article really should have a small mention of his antisemitism-- it becomes relevant to his role in North Africa with regards to allowing Jewish soldiers back into the units. What's there at the moment is vague. I'm a little miffed at the quality of a lot of these articles, this is a highly significant figure in a very popular topic area. Joko2468 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like a views section at the end-- perhaps also including scholars' analysis of his views on Vichy. Joko2468 (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten his tenure in Africa and on the CFLN to add more detail and clear up some confusion. Some information on why the Americans preferred him as a unifying candidate over de Gaulle would be valuable to add towards the beginning of Cooperation with the Allies. The article could do with a once-over using better sources rather than memoirs (like the ones I've used) but I usually deal in full rewrites so I'll leave that to other editors.

• Cointet (2005: p.139) explicitly says that Darlan became commander-in-chief of the armed forces in Africa (all three branches) as well as the high commissioner position, i.e. the position of French Civil and Military High Command. When Darlan was assassinated, Giraud (previously commander-in-chief of the land and air forces) assumed the military and civil command that was now vacant. I understand this is confusing because Giraud was initially supposed to assume the military command as a result of the negotiations but he was outmanoeuvred by Darlan. Before that (during the negotiations) Giraud had accepted a much lesser role as head of a volunteer force while the legitimate authorities under Darlan were to remain neutral-- it's only with the efforts of his supporters that he goes back and secures the military command position before he then loses it again. He was a useless politician.
• The existing paragraph and Giraud's praising of the Nazis's accomplishments is cited to a book written by one of de Gaulle's friends. This claim isn't present in my sources and I haven't included it.
• Giraudism isn't even mentioned which is a bit strange, as vague as it was compared to Gaullism. I've covered this in the high commissioner section as I think that's when it becomes relevant/ notable-- but then it also feeds into the American rationale for supporting him so someone may wish to amend that when that material is eventually added. His views on Vichy are well-encapsulated by a letter sent to Petain during his imprisonment that bears mentioning.
• There is a persistent myth (convenient to and repeated by both de Gaulle and Giraud) that a 14 May telegram from the National Council of the Resistance (CRN) convinced Giraud to invite de Gaulle to Algiers. In reality the CRN had not yet been established and historians have debunked this claim (Cointet, 2005: p.367).
• Another potential myth is that de Gaulle intervened to provide Giraud with a state funeral-- according to Cointet (2005: p.505) the only source for this is de Gaulle's family.

Joko2468 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article could definitely do with work if someone's looking for a nice project. Joko2468 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article contained more inaccuracies and unsourced/ poorly sourced statements than I realised and I've more or less completely rewritten it. I feel obligated to clarify that the very impressive research using the Journal officiel de la République française was done by a previous editor— there's no scientific biography of Giraud to date so this was really crucial. The wording of what's there is very careful so as not to misrepresent the sources, if someone decides to copy-edit the article please ensure that the precise meaning is retained. Some notes:

• I should add from the previous rewrite that though I created the Bedeau camp article, it is explicitly mentioned by Cointet (2005) in this context and this isn't me shoehorning in an article I wrote.
• As I understand from the brevet article, in the French Army it merely meant that the officer had graduated from the War College and was not used to signify a temporary promotion.
• It isn't clear whether he remained at the 9th Army Corps for the entirety of his staff internship but he was definitely initially there as a trainee.
• The École supérieure de guerre is almost always referred to in French sources as "l’École de guerre", I've translated this in my writing as the "War College" but I don't know if I've seen it as a widely accepted English translation. From what I understand, the École de guerre is the modern successor of the ESG (though it was founded in the 19th century?), which is probably why French sources (including period sources) refer to the ESG as such. They use this acronym interchangeably with École de guerre and I'm confident that I'm not mistaking the institutions. Giraud's grandson is a prime example.
• The account of Giraud during WWI written by his grandson appears to be well researched, though I've been very careful in corroborating anything that potrays him favourably. Unfortunately I don't have a paginated copy so I can only apologise to editors looking to corroborate or verify it. I don't have anything else on the precise details of his 1918 exploits but this could be considered to corroborate it. There's a good amount that portrays him positively that I just haven't been able to corroborate and thus haven't included.
• Cointet (2005: p.51) has him as a lieutenant colonel in 1923 but the Journal officiel cited in the Ranks section at the end of the article evidences that this happened in 1924. Similarly, Cointet describes Giraud as being in command of the 14th Tirailleurs in 1923 though a detailed history of the commanders by Eric de Fleurian (a colonel in the 1st Tirailleurs 1995-1997 according to his own research) has him as taking command on 5 January 1925. This issue of the Official Bulletin of the French Protectorate of Morocco (p.1718) partially corroborates de Fleurian's research and disproves Cointet's account (Lieutenant Colonel Defrere was in command as of 1924) but I haven't been able to find Giraud's appointment in the relevant issues which can be found here. I've searched the issues from 23/12/1924 to 22/02/1925 but I would expect his appointment to be present in one of the other 28 issues between 18/11/1924 and 28/07/1925. I've had to leave this as a gap in the narrative.
• Cointet (2005) seems to mention Giraud as having stopped the Riffian advance on 2 August but, in his history of the war, De Gabiola has this happening in July. I think he was probably wounded on 2 August but it's unclear.
• George Ward Price was a strong supporter of Giraud (and an enthusiast of fascism), I've only cited his book because nowhere else is the date of Giraud's admission to the CSG mentioned. I couldn't find Giraud's quote cited to him in my source and it doesn't track with Cointet's account of how Giraud arrived in Algiers late. It's also most likely a biased account with the aim of smearing Gaullists (seemingly to justify Giraud's internment of twelve Gaullists at the time it was written, who were accused of plotting his assassination).
• I've gone into considerable detail on Giraud's 1942 escape but then it is perhaps the most famous thing about him and unless a separate article is created then there's nowhere else to recount it.
• The image that was previously at Cooperation with the Allies (covering 1942) was from 1943, either May or June, and I've consequently removed it.
• Other sources say that Giraud was picked up by the submarine on 6 November. This may well be true but, from Cointent (2005), he left the shore in a fishing boat at 11pm on 5 November. I've therefore said "the night of 5 November".
• Paxton (1966) mentions Giraud receiving a message from Roosevelt in July 1942, where he agreed to assist an Allied landing. Funk (1971) is sceptical of this being from Roosevelt and Cointet (2005), though she identifies the American contact, doesn't mention that it is a message from Roosevelt and mentions little of it. Without an authoritative source on that, I haven't considered it notable enough.
• According to Cointet, Giraud was delayed on 8 November 1942 because there were no planes at Gibraltar. She dismisses this and suggests that he's being intentionally delayed so not as to complicate ceasefire negotations. This is perhaps a controversial statement that I haven't been able to corroborate so I left it out.

Joko2468 (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a MilHist B class assessment, the military ranks section is unfinished and many of them are mentioned intext. I wouldn't want to remove this research, so I'm just going to copy-paste the table here in case the research is ever completed.

Cadet	Sub-lieutenant
1899	1 October 1900[1]
Lieutenant	Captain	Battalion chief	Lieutenant colonel	Colonel
1 October 1902[2]	23 December 1912 (brevet)[3]	24 May 1917 (brevet)[4][5]	25 June 1924[6]
Brigadier general	Division general	Corps general	Army general
22 December 1930[7]

Joko2468 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]