NationStates Jolt Archive

Bottom Line

The french people should have never surrendered!!!!! They should have fought until every last one of them were either dead or free. Surrender in your own homeland is a downright travesty and embarrassment!! Especially surrender to a group of evil lunatics like the nazis.
who does not understand this!!!!

They should be ashamed!!!! No excuses

I would gladly die fighting rather than give my children's future to the nazi's.
Every man of fighting age should fight to the end, it is impossible to defeat people so feircely protecting their homes and families. Who cares about buildings, monuments, and museums when you know your children will be indoctrinated by some evil maniac. This is one subject that I cannot see both sides of though I am usually willing to give a little.

I along with every american born since the declaration of independance, live by the creed of "Give me liberty or give me death!!!" It is hard to understand the (for lack of a better word (Wussiness) of the french at that time.

Blessed Assurance
Why just American? What about Russian? Soviet soldiers threw themselves under tanks "for the motherland"
Otherwise I agree.

Blessed Assurance
Why just American? What about Russian? Soviet soldiers threw themselves under tanks "for the motherland"
Otherwise I agree.
I agree, the russians fought valiantly. I was just using America as my reference because I am an American. If the french would have fought like the russians did, the world wouldn't pigeonhole them as first class cowards like they do now.

ah, I see. Well yes, that is also true.

I agree, the russians fought valiantly. I was just using America as my reference because I am an American. If the french would have fought like the russians did, the world wouldn't pigeonhole them as first class cowards like they do now.

Err, what about in WW1? Do you even know how many Frenchmen lost their lives?

In WW1 there were: 6,160,800 french casualties (which means nearly 75% ended up dead or wounded) and 323,018 american casualites (roughly 7%).

So it's very easy to point fingers, but I seriously doubt that if the USA had had the same experience as the French, they would have fought the same way (or at all, for that matter).

French men died IN THE MILLIONS during WW1. It was easily the most futile and horrific of any war. They weren't cowards, they had seen the incredible cost of war.

What, and you don't suggest the British or the Russians had? Sure France suffered losses, but not nearly as bad as the USSR in WWII. France may have suffered more losses than the British in WWI but the number is still in the millions..

Err, what about in WW1? Do you even know how many Frenchmen lost their lives?

In WW1 there were: 6,160,800 french casualties (which means nearly 75% ended up dead or wounded) and 323,018 american casualites (roughly 7%).

So it's very easy to point fingers, but I seriously doubt that if the USA had had the same experience as the French, they would have fought the same way (or at all, for that matter).

French men died IN THE MILLIONS during WW1. It was easily the most futile and horrific of any war. They weren't cowards, they had seen the incredible cost of war.

What they saw, was the incredible cost of stupidity in war. the cost of Chateau Generals unable to comprehend the reality of the Trenches, or the need for significant changes to doctrine.

The cost of tactical paralysis and rampant incompetence.

The British, Americans, and especially the Germans learned this lesson, France did not...until after they surrendered to the Nazis and were rescued by Britain, Russia, and the U.S.

Pershing refused to let the french waste his men for a reason. He toured the Trenches and looked at the situation as it was rather than the ideal situations being viewed third-hand by the French general staff of the time.

"the True cost of War" is losing. Losing a war is the only thing worse than waging a war. The French at the time seemed unable to grasp how much worse. Cities can be rebuilt, crops re-sown, but if hte enemy has your people under his heel...well... ISTR that Franklin said, "Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up tilling the land of those who did not."

'Soft' Slavery is still Slavery.

-snip-
The ignorance!
You know, to stand and fight and die in a lost war does nothing. Look at Germany in 1945. The war was long lost, yet fanatics thought just like you, they died, their families died, their cities were lost, and no one remembers them as heroes.
You have never seen war. War never bothered the US. How you can possibly make statements such as this is incomprehensible to me.
The war was lost, and they knew it. Just like Germany knew in 1918. I'm not happy with what happened in Versailles, but I wouldn't have wanted Germany to fight on and be completely destroyed. French soldiers fought well, if not for a long time, and when the war was lost, they sought peace. What is wrong with that?
As for those complaining that they didn't try to hold Paris: There were hardly any units there that could fight. In the chaos most units were split up and had lost most of their equipment. They had the choice of either sitting in the houses and get bombed to dust (as happened in Warsaw) or leave the city and try further back, regrouped and hopefully rearmed. There was no need to have their city destroyed. They couldn't have held it anyways.

"Liberty or Death!" As long as you're not in any danger, hey?

The ignorance!
You know, to stand and fight and die in a lost war does nothing. Look at Germany in 1945. The war was long lost, yet fanatics thought just like you, they died, their families died, their cities were lost, and no one remembers them as heroes.
You have never seen war. War never bothered the US. How you can possibly make statements such as this is incomprehensible to me.
The war was lost, and they knew it. Just like Germany knew in 1918. I'm not happy with what happened in Versailles, but I wouldn't have wanted Germany to fight on and be completely destroyed. French soldiers fought well, if not for a long time, and when the war was lost, they sought peace. What is wrong with that?
As for those complaining that they didn't try to hold Paris: There were hardly any units there that could fight. In the chaos most units were split up and had lost most of their equipment. They had the choice of either sitting in the houses and get bombed to dust (as happened in Warsaw) or leave the city and try further back, regrouped and hopefully rearmed. There was no need to have their city destroyed. They couldn't have held it anyways.

"Liberty or Death!" As long as you're not in any danger, hey?


The Alamo? The only reason Germans arn't considered heros is because of what they standed for. You suggest that the French fought heroically but the truth is that they didn't! They tried to perserve themselves, and that's a fine thing to do but it certainly isn't heroic.

Maybe the French did the best thing they could do, by not fighting they saved a hell of a lot of lives. But the rest of the Allies fought and died saving the French and they have the right to call the French whatever they want to.

Say someone pulls a gun out on you in a dark alley. The smart thing to do is to bend over and let him have his way with you. The French are smart.

The British faced a similiar situation with Germany bombing the hell out of their cities, but they said, "Fuck it, I'll die before I let you touch my asshole." Smart? No. But they kept their dignity.

I'm not sure how we suddenly ended up on an anal rape metaphor, but regardless I have a few points to make (and no, I did not read all 18 pages):

1. The US mainland was technically invaded by Pancho Villa in 1911. He took a small contingent into Arizona and killed 20 or so people. Doesn't seem like a big deal, but at the time the US had the sixteenth largest military in the world, right behind Romania.

2. Quantitative troop numbers have always been a crappy measure of US military strength. There are a few countries with a large vigilante tradition and heavily armed populace that would likely offer resistance to any invading force beyond a nation's official army. The number of these countries is thinning, but the US still remains in the company of Yemen and Colombia as such.

3. The Great Depression wasn't the reason the US had a weak military in 1940. FDR would've loved to build a military rather than dams and parks; unfortunately, his nation had banned war the previous decade (Kellogg-Briand 1928) in one of the stupidest international agreements to ever be signed.

I'm not sure how we suddenly ended up on an anal rape metaphor, but regardless I have a few points to make (and no, I did not read all 18 pages):

1. The US mainland was technically invaded by Pancho Villa in 1911. He took a small contingent into Arizona and killed 20 or so people. Doesn't seem like a big deal, but at the time the US had the sixteenth largest military in the world, right behind Romania.

2. Quantitative troop numbers have always been a crappy measure of US military strength. There are a few countries with a large vigilante tradition and heavily armed populace that would likely offer resistance to any invading force beyond a nation's official army. The number of these countries is thinning, but the US still remains in the company of Yemen and Colombia as such.

3. The Great Depression wasn't the reason the US had a weak military in 1940. FDR would've loved to build a military rather than dams and parks; unfortunately, his nation had banned war the previous decade (Kellogg-Briand 1928) in one of the stupidest international agreements to ever be signed.

1. Actually it was 1916, and the response was a rather large intervention into Mexico for several months commanded by Pershing (a young Patton was there too). The US still had its rather small peace time military at the time but it did mobilize the National Guard, which was useful a few months later when it entered the Great War.

2. Saying the US wouldn't have lasted any longer than anyone else if it was connected to Europe is kind of hard to quantify don't you think? (replying to this entire arguement, not just your point here) After all, all of history would have been changed with such a major geographic alteration of the world. The bottom line is that the principal defense of the US has always been the Navy, and post World War II the Air Force. The Army has always been third place.

3. Actually several classes of warships, plus some capital ships (the Yorktown for example) were New Deal projects. A more important limitation for the Navy was the Washington Naval Treaty, although the US actually wasn't at its capacity even prior to World War 2 (because Congress didnt want to spend the money). Traditional American concerns about a large standing Army (and the suppression of the Bonus Marchers by MacArthur using that very same army) had more to do with it. As well as the traditional belief that the Navy would protect us, and failing that, the rather large oceans on both sides would do so. Generally Roosevelt didn't pay a lot of attention to the Army, and was content to let the Army run itself, even during World War II

I agree, GB. Thanks for correcting the 1916.

1. The Alamo?
2.The only reason Germans arn't considered heros is because of what they stood for.
3. You suggest that the French fought heroically but the truth is that they didn't!
4. But the rest of the Allies fought and died saving the French and they have the right to call the French whatever they want to.
5. The British faced a similiar situation with Germany bombing the hell out of their cities, but they said, "Fuck it, I'll die before I let you touch my asshole." Smart? No. But they kept their dignity.
1. I don't know much about the Alamo, I'll read it up. I suspect though that either the war really was lost, in which case their sacrifice was pointless, or that it wasn't and their fight changed everything. France had no such chance.
And comparing something like Alamo to something like WW1 or WW2 is certainly innaccurate.
2. The only reason they aren't seen as heroes is because they lost. Had Germany won the war, they'd be heroes.
3. The French soldier was just the same as the American soldier, except that the latter had planes to do most of the work for him.
4. They didn't fight to save the French though. They fought for their own interests. They didn't want anything to do with DeGaulle, who actually did fight to save the French.
5. Interesting metaphor, bringing up something like rape in order to make it seem really bad.
a) In reality, it wasn't just their dignity or their life they could be concerned about, it was millions of civilians, who had nothing to do with the war and were in danger of losing everything. To make them suffer for something as abstract as "national dignity" is not the way to go, although it may seem to you when you sit at home and read a book.
b) At the time no one knew how bad the Nazis really were. That must also be taken into consideration. France and Germany had been fighting for hundreds of years, and every now and then one side lost. They didn't think this time would be any different. I still don't think it was.
c) Britain held on because they were in no danger of losing. Had the invasion actually happened, do you think the British would've fought to the last man? Churchill may have yelled something along those lines, but the truth is that no one wants to die if their sacrifice makes no difference.

The ignorance!
You know, to stand and fight and die in a lost war does nothing. Look at Germany in 1945. The war was long lost, yet fanatics thought just like you, they died, their families died, their cities were lost, and no one remembers them as heroes.


Some people might. Maybe their comrades that got a chance to surrender to the western allies (their treatment after said surrender is a different matter). Maybe the civilians that got an oppertunity to escape the beatings, rape and murder of the the Red Army. Remember "no one" is big phrase...

What they saw, was the incredible cost of stupidity in war. the cost of Chateau Generals unable to comprehend the reality of the Trenches, or the need for significant changes to doctrine.

The cost of tactical paralysis and rampant incompetence.

The British, Americans, and especially the Germans learned this lesson, France did not...until after they surrendered to the Nazis and were rescued by Britain, Russia, and the U.S.

Pershing refused to let the french waste his men for a reason. He toured the Trenches and looked at the situation as it was rather than the ideal situations being viewed third-hand by the French general staff of the time.

"the True cost of War" is losing. Losing a war is the only thing worse than waging a war. The French at the time seemed unable to grasp how much worse. Cities can be rebuilt, crops re-sown, but if hte enemy has your people under his heel...well... ISTR that Franklin said, "Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up tilling the land of those who did not."

'Soft' Slavery is still Slavery.


Of all European and American officers only 5 understood what was required to beat and entrenched enemy
Ellis and Fuller, in the battle of Cambrai they took 14 km with 400 tank and lost 1000 in a battle that would normally have cost 40000 lives and three months. What did the British conserative cavalry officers learn from it? nothing! the Matilda, which is so praised by many British is in fact the proof of the British failure to understand modern tankcombat: a slow well protected but underarmed vehicle. When they noticed they couldnt beat the more modern german tanks they had a problem because the designer had never thought of installing a heavier weapon (the German panzer III started with a 37mm and ended its carreer with a 75mm on the N model)
Colonel D'estienne (promoted to General de l'artillerie d'assaut who first worked with St Chammonds (failures) then Schneidders(better but still not good enough) and eventually the FT17 (saw service all over the world, cheap light and yet powerful enough). From their experience the French construsted some fine tanks such as the Somua S35, unfortunatly conservative cavalryofficers saw the tank as a necessary evil, a vehicle that should support the infantry in an attack, nothing more.
Bruchmuller and von Hutier who came up with the stormtroop tactic which was infact the infantry equivalent of the armoured spearhead, Germany' A7V was a failure thus the infantry was entrusted with this task. Other German officer like Guderian learnt from it and came up with fine tactical plans.

The two nations who were first to embrace armoured tactics were the Germans and the Russians, strangely enough the two nations were a (sort of) revolution had taken place and revolutionary idea's were accepted for trial (Spanish civil war)
Stalin purged his officercorps and placed Kliment 'biggest bag of shit in the whole army' Voroshilov and Marshall 'his mustach is bigger than his brain' Budenny and their friends at the top of the STAVKA.
So only Germans used armoured maneuvre warfare in 1940. All others learnt from what they saw(USSR or Britain, France) or just used what they could(USA) come up with.
In fact the USA always used Atrittion warfare as a means of beating their enemy until they faced the comunists, then they realized their current tactics wouldnt work and they started taking lessons from the German commanders of WW2 (and that was in the early seventies)

Blitzkrieg sounds better, is quicker to type and, TBH the germans kinda coined the phrase.

Nope, it was a Western term. Nazis never used that word.

France surrendered once they lost the war. There is nearly no point to keep on fighting when there is no chance of winning, and the leadership of France at that point decided not to risk losing ALL of France to Germany.

Given the situation, it was the right decision to make. South is a nominally-German ally, Spain. North and East is Germany itself. England, which was France's main ally, was across the Channel, abandoned France without warning, and withdrew its troops before France surrendered.



So why wasn’t there any French resistance comparable to that experienced by the Germans after their defeat of the French Army at Sedan and capture of Napoleon III during the Franco-Prussian war 1870? A resistance that confounded the Germans due to the annihilation of French conventional forces. Questions have to be asked over the degree of collaboration that occurred, as the French resistance were pretty ineffective in comparison to the Balkan or Italian partisans.

You seem to forget the contribution that US Eighth Airforce and the RAF made to the eastern front.

Had it not been for Allied strategic bombing the Russians would have been in deep doo-doo. (As they were when it was withdrawn in the run up to D-day).

Also, exactly how many men and how much material do you think the Germans wanted to station permanently under the reach of heavy bombers with fighter escorts.

Allied air power was probably the single biggest key to winning WWII.

Nope, allied bombing was pretty ineffective. Refer to the official statistics. German production actually rose during the height of allied bombing. Near the end it may have had some effect, but it was meant to be "terror bombing". If the allies had lost, their war leaders and commanding staff would have been the ones swinging from the docks.

actually according to historians the Germans were forced to allocate half of their artillery production, nearly 2 million troops and most of their fighters to home defense duties by 1943 (and until the end of the war). That is a Second Front.

Damage done varied considerably, but the actual bombing crippled oil production in late 1944 when the 8th Air Force completed supporting the Normandy campaign and by the end of 1944 oil production was all but shattered and the Reich was operating of its remaining reserves for the remainder of the war. Although lots of tanks, planes and other weapons of war were produced, they lacked the fuel to be moved and huge quantities were captured along with the factories at wars end.

Probably the most vital thing about the American bombing is that it forced the Luftwaffe to fight. This kept it too busy to help out on the Eastern, Italian or Western Fronts, and allowed American fighters to engage and kill the German Luftwaffe fighter pilots. British bombing didn't have this same effect but it did keep a large number of twin engined Luftwaffe planes busy at night that otherwise would have been useful shooting up Soviet tanks in the East.

Bombing was critical to winning the war for those reasons.

So why wasn’t there any French resistance comparable to that experienced by the Germans after their defeat of the French Army at Sedan and capture of Napoleon III during the Franco-Prussian war 1870? A resistance that confounded the Germans due to the annihilation of French conventional forces. Questions have to be asked over the degree of collaboration that occurred, as the French resistance were pretty ineffective in comparison to the Balkan or Italian partisans.

resistance in West Europe did more intelligence gathering rather than fighting. But there were groups that fought the Germans, like the Maquis(sp?) or the 'Red orchestra'. Difference is that in both examples that you give, partisan groups were largely made up out of former military personel. Tito had an estimated 250.000(twohundred fifty thousand!) men under his command, many of them former soldiers who fled into the mountains after the Yugoslavian defeat.
And from the point where the Italians saw Mussolini more for a nincompoob than a leader, partisans rose up, once the Italians capitulated thousands of Italians soldiers had to chose between imprisonment, collaboration with Germany or partisan activity. The fact that the Germans pressed Italian equipment into service aided these partisans in obtaining the right equipment.
The USSR is a similar case where early in the war upto 70000 paratroopers got dropped behind German lines and fought as partisans, they recruited the first partisans from the local population and so on.

France stood no chance, falling faster then Poland. Only the resistance were useful, which led to the success of D-day.

France crippled Germany before the war by occupying the Ruhr valley, and they didnt get the message after the Germans left the leage and occupied the Rhine. Adolf would have one if he invaded England immediatly after the defeat of France but didnt because he was an idiot.

actually according to historians the Germans were forced to allocate half of their artillery production, nearly 2 million troops and most of their fighters to home defense duties by 1943 (and until the end of the war). That is a Second Front.

Damage done varied considerably, but the actual bombing crippled oil production in late 1944 when the 8th Air Force completed supporting the Normandy campaign and by the end of 1944 oil production was all but shattered and the Reich was operating of its remaining reserves for the remainder of the war. Although lots of tanks, planes and other weapons of war were produced, they lacked the fuel to be moved and huge quantities were captured along with the factories at wars end.

Probably the most vital thing about the American bombing is that it forced the Luftwaffe to fight. This kept it too busy to help out on the Eastern, Italian or Western Fronts, and allowed American fighters to engage and kill the German Luftwaffe fighter pilots. British bombing didn't have this same effect but it did keep a large number of twin engined Luftwaffe planes busy at night that otherwise would have been useful shooting up Soviet tanks in the East.

Bombing was critical to winning the war for those reasons.

Which historians are you referring to?

Half of artillery production? Not sure what figure that's from.

I'll agree a majority of fighters were for home defence.

I'll think you'll find 2 million troops were old men, boys and women fighting the fires and reconstructing the damage, not front-line combat troops.

As I said, it had its affect late in the war, but strategic bombing had been going on since late 1942. For the numbers killed, and the damge caused, not very affective. Again I'm referring to the Post-Bombing Strategic survery carried out by the Allies. Strategic bombinb was very ineffective for precision, more like terror, which it was initially designed for.

Refer to Japan. Even though the Japanese airforce ceased to exist as a fighting force long before the atomic bombs were dropped, look at the fire bombing, pure terror bombing but its very nature, population not industrial centres were chosen.

Bombing accuracy was not that great, the numbers that made it to final bombing centres were much smaller than people imagined. Either technicial or human failure played large roles in making the "mass" bombing raids less effective than we have been taught in history.

Thus, I query your argument that it was such an effective weapon in winning the war.

resistance in West Europe did more intelligence gathering rather than fighting. But there were groups that fought the Germans, like the Maquis(sp?) or the 'Red orchestra'. Difference is that in both examples that you give, partisan groups were largely made up out of former military personel. Tito had an estimated 250.000(twohundred fifty thousand!) men under his command, many of them former soldiers who fled into the mountains after the Yugoslavian defeat.
And from the point where the Italians saw Mussolini more for a nincompoob than a leader, partisans rose up, once the Italians capitulated thousands of Italians soldiers had to chose between imprisonment, collaboration with Germany or partisan activity. The fact that the Germans pressed Italian equipment into service aided these partisans in obtaining the right equipment.
The USSR is a similar case where early in the war upto 70000 paratroopers got dropped behind German lines and fought as partisans, they recruited the first partisans from the local population and so on.

I agree with all your points.

But I still believe that there is a tendency to glorify the French resistance, especially the Marquis, even though their achievements were not as grand as people make out. All one has to do is look to the estimated figures of French resistance numbers pre then post June 1944 to question la glorie of their efforts.

Even though the Yugoslavian, Russian and Italians had more men to resist with, why didn't the French do the same from the beginning? They had plenty of ex-servicemen, why not join the struggle from the start if the liberation of France was your only goal?

There was nothing wrong with the army in itself: just its organisation and leaders. Petain and Weygand still believed it would be like WW1 when German tanks were practicly in Paris. Also the big advantage of the Germans was the German type of war: the Blitzkrieg. France kept its tanks divided over different infantry and motorised divisions: so they got knocked out one by one instead of making an armored fist against the panzer of the germans. The French surrender was completely understandable: its army was destroyed within months: GB had almost no army: ergo war would finish soon.

Which historians are you referring to?

Half of artillery production? Not sure what figure that's from.

I'll agree a majority of fighters were for home defence.

I'll think you'll find 2 million troops were old men, boys and women fighting the fires and reconstructing the damage, not front-line combat troops.

As I said, it had its affect late in the war, but strategic bombing had been going on since late 1942. For the numbers killed, and the damge caused, not very affective. Again I'm referring to the Post-Bombing Strategic survery carried out by the Allies. Strategic bombinb was very ineffective for precision, more like terror, which it was initially designed for.

Refer to Japan. Even though the Japanese airforce ceased to exist as a fighting force long before the atomic bombs were dropped, look at the fire bombing, pure terror bombing but its very nature, population not industrial centres were chosen.

Bombing accuracy was not that great, the numbers that made it to final bombing centres were much smaller than people imagined. Either technicial or human failure played large roles in making the "mass" bombing raids less effective than we have been taught in history.

Thus, I query your argument that it was such an effective weapon in winning the war.

among the books to check are:

Decision of Schweinfurt (Thomas Coffey)
Target Hitlers Oil: Allied Attacks on German oil supplies (Ronald Cooke)
Forged in Fire: Strategy and Decisions in the Air War over Europe (Dewitt Copp)
Mighty Endevour (Charles MacDonald)
Hardest Victory: RAF Bomber Command in the Second World War (Denis Richards)
Why the Allies Won (R.J. Overy)
Dirty Little Secrets of World War II (James Dunnigan)

all are excellent, although MacDonald is probably the best on the subject and good details on German production problems caused by the bombing in Why the Allies Won and on German production priorities by Dunnigan

the bombing of the Japanese cities was due to the organization structure of the Japanese industrial economy. Lots of small shops widely distributed that provided vital parts to the larger combines. Mass bombing was the only way to get them. The Japanese Air Forces (Navy and Army) were indeed a shattered force by 1944, because they bled to death in the Southwest Pacific in 1942 - 44 and were permanently shattered in the raids by Halsey after the Marianas Turkey Shoot in 1944 as well.

However production of aircraft remained very high (the Japanese still had between 10,000 - 12,000 at the end of the war, and thats after being heavily bombed for about a year). However, several competitive fighter aircraft that would have given the US problems if they had been available in serious numbers were severaly delayed because of US bombing that wrecked their supply chain, particularly for their larger and more demanding engines. The Jack is the best example.

Its hard to say that strategic bombing didn't work against the Japanese, as after all, the two atomic raids forced a surrender according to the consensus of most historians. Bombing, along with the blockade (US submarine warfare efforts) destroyed the Japanese industrial economy and hastened the end of the war.

The French bowed to the Germans, bent backwards to head to their every demand, and aided in the German war effort. No bid deal (most of Europe did), but dont think you going to steal my heart becuase a couple of allied aided farmers shot up some Germans and radioed over the channel some colum locations. Were they brave, my god yes, much braver than I probably would have been, but the fact is that the French war effort after occupation was focused totally into the German war effort. They wanted to preverve their country at what they thought might be the cost of a horrific European, maybe even world genocide and the bloodiest war every seen. Thank god for the British, Russian, and Americans (a lot of other brave nations) that didnt crumble when Germany kicked in the door.

I agree with all your points.

But I still believe that there is a tendency to glorify the French resistance, especially the Marquis, even though their achievements were not as grand as people make out. All one has to do is look to the estimated figures of French resistance numbers pre then post June 1944 to question la glorie of their efforts.

Even though the Yugoslavian, Russian and Italians had more men to resist with, why didn't the French do the same from the beginning? They had plenty of ex-servicemen, why not join the struggle from the start if the liberation of France was your only goal?

about 2 million Frenchmen were retained as POWs after the 1940 armistice for most of the war. In addition, the Communists had orders to keep quiet and did so until the German invasion of the Soviet Union.. The main problem though was morale. French morale collapsed for the most part in 1940 and until Torch (November 1942) most French people didn't think the Allies would win so continued resistance seemed futile. Torch triggered the occupation of Vichy France by the Germans, bringing about an end to even the hope the France would be able to sit out the rest of the war, and that got a lot of people moving as well. The increased credibility the Free French government got after that helped significantly as well.

The Free French fought very well during the war. Although De Gaulle was certainly a pain in the ass a lot of the time (from the British and American perspective) he did unite the French when Liberation came and France has a lot to thank him for. The French 1st Army fought in Europe from Operation Anvil - Dragoon (August 44) until the end and drove into Bavaria and Austria at wars end. Their performance against the German counteroffensive in January 1945 was very creditable (Operation Nordwind) and they provided most of the troops that kept the Germans locked up in their fortresses at Lorient, St. Nazaire and elsewhere while the principal Allied offensive drove into the heart of Germany.

the bombing of the Japanese cities was due to the organization structure of the Japanese industrial economy. Lots of small shops widely distributed that provided vital parts to the larger combines. Mass bombing was the only way to get them.
Yeah, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japanese and German cities sure worked. We're back to Tamerlan's barbarian tactics of mass killings: civilians and their belongings are considered military (or strategic) goods, and must be destroyed.

Kill that baby, his mother might have conceiled a grenade in his diapers.

Simple example of revisionism. Trying to make France seem like they faught well... look, they sucked. They got owned in what was it, 6 weeks? Look, its just sad, you can't put a smiley face on the fact that they got their butts handed to them on a silver platter by the Nazis.

This is like those people who try and say Lincoln was a bad President, or that FDR was. I hate revisionism. France got owned. Lincoln saved this country from utter and complete destruction. FDR rescued France from the Nazis, and defeated the 2 most evil countries on the face of earth in 4 years. (Although we should have destroyed communism right then and there too)

Simple example of revisionism. Trying to make France seem like they faught well... look, they sucked. They got owned in what was it, 6 weeks? Look, its just sad, you can't put a smiley face on the fact that they got their butts handed to them on a silver platter by the Nazis.

This is like those people who try and say Lincoln was a bad President, or that FDR was. I hate revisionism. France got owned. Lincoln saved this country from utter and complete destruction. FDR rescued France from the Nazis, and defeated the 2 most evil countries on the face of earth in 4 years. (Although we should have destroyed communism right then and there too)
oh, the irony :)

Yeah, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japanese and German cities sure worked. We're back to Tamerlan's barbarian tactics of mass killings: civilians and their belongings are considered military (or strategic) goods, and must be destroyed.

Kill that baby, his mother might have conceiled a grenade in his diapers.

Nobody said it was a good thing. The point is that the military leaders at that time saw no other way to win a war that was started by those very same Germans and Japanese. The bombing had a devastating effect on the Japanese and German economy, and did much to end the war sooner. In addition, millions of Germans and Japanese saw first hand that they were losing the war, making it easier to bring peace afterwards. Millions also were made into refugees during the war, straining the economies of Japan and Germany.

All of this, ugly as it was, saved more lives in the long run, particularly the lives of Americans, British, Australians, New Zealanders and the other Allies and the lives of those enslaved by those very same Japanese and Germans. It made Japan and Germany less economically effective which in turn hurt their military which in turn made victory come sooner.

However, nobody has waged war like that since. Mercifully it looks like the age of carpet bombing cities is gone. Modern bombing uses far more discriminate tactics. Occasionally a large number (up to a few dozen) are killed by a bomb hitting the wrong target (or as in the 1st Gulf War, a command center is targeted and it is learned later on it was an air raid shelter).

But fleets of bombers no longer fly over and literally drop enough bombs to destroy every single structure within a square mile or more area. At least not against cities and towns.

Even during the bad old days of the Cold War most of the nuclear weapons were aimed at the other sides nuclear weapons. Only if that didn't work were the cities going to be intentionally targeted.

Progress has been made. War remains an evil, but at least some of the evils are no longer deliberate policy.

Simple example of revisionism. Trying to make France seem like they faught well... look, they sucked. They got owned in what was it, 6 weeks? Look, its just sad, you can't put a smiley face on the fact that they got their butts handed to them on a silver platter by the Nazis.

This is like those people who try and say Lincoln was a bad President, or that FDR was. I hate revisionism. France got owned. Lincoln saved this country from utter and complete destruction. FDR rescued France from the Nazis, and defeated the 2 most evil countries on the face of earth in 4 years. (Although we should have destroyed communism right then and there too)

Revisionism is part and parcel of historical analysis. It always has been. New facts come to light, or opinions on how those facts should be looked at change, or information previously taken for granted is looked at again in the light of new information.

Now in this case the point has been made that the French fought valiantly in 1940, and that their leadership failed them. The French didn't roll over and surrender without a fight, they just didn't fight effectively.

OK the other guy kind of screwed up his post in defence of France in 1940 and so as a history graduate, I will try and do a better job by answering one or two points made by others.

Um, given that the Germans had attacked Belgium in the first WW and then attacked France, why exactly didn't the French fortify that border?

France did consider building equivalent fortresses across the Belgian frontier but, until 1936, Belgium was an ally of France's and France felt it would send a bad message to their allies, to be seen to be abandoning them witha wall of forts. In 1936 however, the Belgan government declared itself a neutral power and stated that it didn't want any war between France and Germany fought on its soil. At this point, French resources were poured into building a fortress across Belgium but, with many in the French government maintaining links in Belgium and the Belgians themselves not ruling out the prospect of re-aligning itself with the Allies (as it did when it was invaded), the French could not build a line across the Belgian frontier to protect itself at the prospect of the highly trained and motivated Belgians, with perhaps some Dutch, being miffed. Alongside this was the fact that the Maginot line took some 10 years to complete. In 1936, when Belgium declared itself neutral, there was never any hope of succesfully pouring adequate fortresses into the area and having it done by 1940, had they know that was when they would be needed. French military resources were, and I would say wisely, concentrated on tank building and on increasing the size of the Air Force, which proved more important in the long run.

I mean, Hitler obviously knew of the existence of the Maginot line, given that it would be a bit hard to conceal. He also probably knew how far it extended. Combined with the fact that the Belgians had too small of a population to defend their country it seems quite obvious how any semi-intelligent commander would attack France. Apparently the French high command didn't think this one through.

True, which is why the British and French troops were concentrated in the Flanders area, with the plan being that in the event of a German invasion of Belgium, their troops would race to the river Meuse in Belgium, link up with any Dutch and Belgian troops and fight the Germans there while reserves were called up. And this happened. What the French did not forsee was a simultaneous assault through the Ardennes upon Sedan which Petain described as "Impenetrable". This assault meant that the Germans could outflank and cut off the allies in Belgium. Petain cannot be blamed fully for this error, as Hitler and even the German commander who thought of the idea of going through the Ardennes, had doubts as to whether it could be done. But it was. And so the French and British realised, too late, that they were being outflanked and fled, from positions in Belgium which they could and had defended relatively well, back into France to avoid encirclement. At this stage, French morale was at its lowest while the British lost faith in the French army's ability to defend France and thus the Germans were able to shrink the size of the pocket that lay in northern France which contained the British Expeditionary Force and the best of the French Army, leading to Dunkirk.

Also, since the French and British were essentially the direct cause for the econoimc situation that allowed Hitler to rise to power as easily as he did, I have little sympathy for them.

This quote has a lot of things wrong with it, besides being incorrect so I shall not respond to it.


In 1939, France's army was one of the most powerful armies in the world. After WW1 however, they built a huge fortification system called the "Maginot Line"...
Then Germany attacked Poland, Britain and France declared war on them, and the war began. In Winter 1939-40 there was nothing going on along the border, other than a small French offensive that was stopped because the French strategy focussed on defence and the Maginot line...
That plan included an attack through Holland and Belgium, so the Maginot Line...
Generally, allied command still assumed though that the main German offensive went against the Maginot Line, and so much of the French army was left there...
During all this time however, many troops were still along the Maginot Line...

The Maginot Line is one of the biggest inanimate scapegoats in history. The French did not think that the Maginot Line was all that was needed. As I have stated, the French expected an assault through Belgium and so most of their best troops were placed there. The main mistake in troop placing was not that they were placed too far to the South in the Maginot line, rather that they were placed too far to the North in Belgium, leaving weaker units to defend the areas around Sedan and the Ardennes while the main units ran forward to secure positions inside Belgium

In short, Paris was taken as the French troops didn’t want to see the city destroyed by war, the French government retreated to the South, and the war was essentially lost.

I am sorry but that is not true. Paris was lost, because the vast majority of French troops were either stuck in a pocket at the Channel, or were being kept from retreating by German attacks into the Maginot Line, designed for the very purpose.

All in all, France did well. The circumstances were bad, their Generals were usually far removed from the fighting and their communication equipment was inadequate.

French equipment was as good as the Germans in many respects, and in fact much of the French equipment was superior, including tanks (French BIs were used in the Soviet campaign for example) but the Germans used the equipment much better than the French.
The French command structure was far removed but no more than Germany's in that Hitler was in Berlin with the majority of his senior staff at the time of the invasion. The difference was that German generals were greater empowered to use their own initiative than the French. It was a lesson the Germans were to forget come Stalingrad and one that Stalin would learn.
The circumstances were the circumstances. Can't complain about that, but yes on the whole the French nation did not do a lot that was inexplicable.

OK the other guy kind of screwed up his post in defence of France in 1940 and so as a history graduate, I will try and do a better job by answering one or two points made by others.
Agreed. Start a new one.
Although screwed up is a harsh word to use.

HELLO?! NAPOLEON?!

The British forces under Napoleon would've totally crushed the Colonial rebellion in the U.S. And after that, he'd have conquered Canada and Mexico, too.

Napoleon was bad ass. And so are the French Legion.

Napoleon was bad ass.
I dare say that while Napoleon was a pretty good General, it was mainly that his troops were so highly motivated. They were fighting for the Republic (which they saw as somehow different from the monarchies on the other side, although it wasn't different anymore), they were a true people's army, they were trained well and so on.
You can't give all credit to him and forget what a great tool he had to work with.

I dare say that while Napoleon was a pretty good General, it was mainly that his troops were so highly motivated. They were fighting for the Republic (which they saw as somehow different from the monarchies on the other side, although it wasn't different anymore), they were a true people's army, they were trained well and so on.
You can't give all credit to him and forget what a great tool he had to work with.
He advanced through the ranks incredibly quickly, going from infantry to general in under a decade. I think you need to give the man more credit.

Among the top military strategists in history, Hannibal, Sun-Tzu, and General Patton, Napoleon definitely ranks up there. People who believe in Nostradamus's prophecies consider Napoleon the first anti-Christ (with Hitler being the second). I really think Napoleon deserves more credit.

I dare say that while Napoleon was a pretty good General, it was mainly that his troops were so highly motivated.

The opposite of France's situation in WWII.

The opposite of France's situation in WWII.
Non, the fighting willpower of the French was unmatched, hell, a few battalions held up the Nazi advance in some sectors for a good day along some of the crossings. Hitler's attack into France was a very close shoe string thing, and if they had some leaders, instead of the incompetent asshats who ran the army (pardon) they would have stood a damn good chance of turning WWII into WWI, which the British/French would have won easily (Germany was close to economic collapse throughout this time period)

France's self-defense was marginal at best in WWII. And how about those Vichy's? France went German very quickly. Were it not for the Resistance there could be little self-respect left in France regarding their conduct during the war.

-snip-
Yes, there were a few people who were genuine collaborateurs in Vichy, but Petain for example wasn't a fan of the Germans. They had to deal with that they got, which was a lost war, no way of fighting back and very harsh German demands. And it didn't exactly look like their supposed allies were going to be much of a help, if I may point to Mers-El-Kebir again.
All that apart from the fact that these few people were not representative of the French people.

My perception is not that the French were cowards, but rather that they didn't fight hard enough for their homeland - a most compelling reason to fight superbly. There are many reasons for this, but lack of leadership stands out the most in my mind.

Simple example of revisionism. Trying to make France seem like they faught well... look, they sucked. They got owned in what was it, 6 weeks? Look, its just sad, you can't put a smiley face on the fact that they got their butts handed to them on a silver platter by the Nazis.

This is like those people who try and say Lincoln was a bad President, or that FDR was. I hate revisionism. France got owned. Lincoln saved this country from utter and complete destruction. FDR rescued France from the Nazis, and defeated the 2 most evil countries on the face of earth in 4 years. (Although we should have destroyed communism right then and there too)

Three cheers for the History Channel!

among the books to check are:

Decision of Schweinfurt (Thomas Coffey)
Target Hitlers Oil: Allied Attacks on German oil supplies (Ronald Cooke)
Forged in Fire: Strategy and Decisions in the Air War over Europe (Dewitt Copp)
Mighty Endevour (Charles MacDonald)
Hardest Victory: RAF Bomber Command in the Second World War (Denis Richards)
Why the Allies Won (R.J. Overy)
Dirty Little Secrets of World War II (James Dunnigan)

all are excellent, although MacDonald is probably the best on the subject and good details on German production problems caused by the bombing in Why the Allies Won and on German production priorities by Dunnigan

the bombing of the Japanese cities was due to the organization structure of the Japanese industrial economy. Lots of small shops widely distributed that provided vital parts to the larger combines. Mass bombing was the only way to get them. The Japanese Air Forces (Navy and Army) were indeed a shattered force by 1944, because they bled to death in the Southwest Pacific in 1942 - 44 and were permanently shattered in the raids by Halsey after the Marianas Turkey Shoot in 1944 as well.

However production of aircraft remained very high (the Japanese still had between 10,000 - 12,000 at the end of the war, and thats after being heavily bombed for about a year). However, several competitive fighter aircraft that would have given the US problems if they had been available in serious numbers were severaly delayed because of US bombing that wrecked their supply chain, particularly for their larger and more demanding engines. The Jack is the best example.

Its hard to say that strategic bombing didn't work against the Japanese, as after all, the two atomic raids forced a surrender according to the consensus of most historians. Bombing, along with the blockade (US submarine warfare efforts) destroyed the Japanese industrial economy and hastened the end of the war.


Although some of the books you've listed are very good, especially R.J Overy, I'm still unsure of how effective strategic bombing.

For example I would read Max Hastings account, Bomber Command, or you could look at the Errol Morris film of Fog of War with Robert S. McNamara and his personal views on strategic bombing.

But, in referring to Japan, the blockade of Japan was probably more effective than the strategic bombing due to the continued fire bombing of Japan cities from 1944 onwards. Like Germany, for the amount of ordinance expended and the damage caused I'm unsure how efficient it was.

Industrial centres were not chosen, but civilian targets, with incendiary ordinance as it was known this would have the greatest effect
In destroying large swathes of the cities targeted. Like Dresden, such tactics were used because they were efficient for the greatest killing, not industrial capacity.

The Atomic raids ended the war because of what they represented. A weapon of unbridled power. A super weapon that was tactically deployed. Yes, the previous raids had weakened Japan, but what about the declaration of war by the Soviet Union against the Japanese? Didn't that have an affect that finally the war was lost?

I'm still unsure.

[GREGORY (singing voice by Howard McGillin):]
God has smiled upon you this day
The fate of a nation in your hands
And blessed be the children who fight with all our bravery
'Til only the righteous stand

You see the distant flames
They bellow in the night
You fight in all our names for what we know is right
And when you all get shot
And cannot carry on
Though you die, La Resistance lives on

[ALL:]
You may get stabbed in the head
With a dagger or a sword
You may be burned to death
Or skinned alive, or worse
But when they torture you
You will not feel the need to run
For, though you die, La Resistance lives on

[PARENTS:]
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!

[SHEILA BROFLOVSKI:]
Because the country's gone awry
Tomorrow night, these freaks will fry!

[SOLDIERS:]
Tomorrow night
Our lives will change
Tomorrow night
We'll be entertained
An execution
What a sight!
Tomorrow night

[SATAN:]
Up there there is so much room
Where babies burp and flowers bloom
Tomorrow night up there is doomed
And so I will be going soon!

[TERRANCE AND PHILLIP:]
Shut your fucking face, uncle fucka
You're a boner-biting bastard, uncle fucka

[TERRANCE:]
Looks like we may be out of luck!

[PHILLIP:]
Tomorrow night, we're pretty fucked!

[CARTMAN, KYLE, STAN:]
Why did our mothers start this war?
What-the-fuck are they fighting for?
When did this song become a marathon?

[SATAN:]
I want to be up there!

[SHEILA BROFLOVSKI:]
When Canada is dead and gone
They'll be no more Celine Dion!

[GREGORY AND KIDS:]
They may cut your dick in half
And serve it to a pig
And though it hurts, you'll laugh
And dance a dickless jig
But that's the way it goes
And though we're shat upon
Though we die, La Resistance lives oooooonnnnn!

[SATAN:]
I want to be up there!

[PARENTS:]
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!

QuentinTarantino, what is the relevance of this post?

about 2 million Frenchmen were retained as POWs after the 1940 armistice for most of the war. In addition, the Communists had orders to keep quiet and did so until the German invasion of the Soviet Union.. The main problem though was morale. French morale collapsed for the most part in 1940 and until Torch (November 1942) most French people didn't think the Allies would win so continued resistance seemed futile. Torch triggered the occupation of Vichy France by the Germans, bringing about an end to even the hope the France would be able to sit out the rest of the war, and that got a lot of people moving as well. The increased credibility the Free French government got after that helped significantly as well.

The Free French fought very well during the war. Although De Gaulle was certainly a pain in the ass a lot of the time (from the British and American perspective) he did unite the French when Liberation came and France has a lot to thank him for. The French 1st Army fought in Europe from Operation Anvil - Dragoon (August 44) until the end and drove into Bavaria and Austria at wars end. Their performance against the German counteroffensive in January 1945 was very creditable (Operation Nordwind) and they provided most of the troops that kept the Germans locked up in their fortresses at Lorient, St. Nazaire and elsewhere while the principal Allied offensive drove into the heart of Germany.

2 million men as POW's still leaves many more to take up the fight. Not all resistance fighters are military trained, more ideologically or nationally motivated, eg N.Ireland, Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Would the American patriots have survived for long if they believed they couldn't beat the British after many morale sapping defeats during 1776-1783? Many weren't military trained, farmers and yeoman.

I'm not saying the whole of France and her troops cannot fight, I'm British, we've learnt the hard way, just the attempts of some to see the resistance as some glorious thing, ignoring the mass collaboration, is a bit dubious.

QuentinTarantino, what is the relevance of this post?

La Resistance lives on!

Dare i ask how that applies to this discussion at all?

Dare i ask how that applies to this discussion at all?

I'll figure it out later

...ignoring the mass collaboration....
What mass collaboration are you talking about?

What mass collaboration are you talking about?

The Vichy Government, the allowance of deportation of political undesirables and Jews from French territory, the use of native police forces to keep order, the lack of any significant numbers of French resistance until post June 1944.....little things like that...

The Vichy Government, the allowance of deportation of political undesirables and Jews from French territory, the use of native police forces to keep order, the lack of any significant numbers of French resistance until post June 1944.....little things like that...

And I keep mentioning the fact that there was absolutely NO French Resistance until the British Special Operations Executive organized one.

Otherwise, the French would not only have collaborated (as most did), but they would have had no resistance, either.

-snip-
Well we previously established a number of things on this thread:
Vichy was not all collaborateurs
The French army had no power left
The Police served primarily the purpose of keepong public order, just like the Iraqi Police is now
Before 1944 there was no actual hope of success, instead people joined the Free French if they could

It must be easy for you people at home to say: "they should've died for their country!" None of you has any idea what it was like then (neither do I), national dignity is an abstract concept, for which many people (in all nations) will not give their life, and especially will not risk the safety of their friends and family.
Had France continued to fight a lost war, thousands if not millions more could've been killed. The Nazis had already demonstrated what they were ready to do in Warsaw. The Brits were retreating, and didn't look like they could help. Instead they actually attacked and destroyed the French Fleet.
Not French leaders, nor French soldiers could or should have made themselves responsible for needless suffering to such an extent.

We'll talk again when Togo attacks and takes over the US, and people will collaborate just the same, as they always have and always will.

Well we previously established a number of things on this thread:
Vichy was not all collaborateurs
The French army had no power left
The Police served primarily the purpose of keepong public order, just like the Iraqi Police is now
Before 1944 there was no actual hope of success, instead people joined the Free French if they could

It must be easy for you people at home to say: "they should've died for their country!" None of you has any idea what it was like then (neither do I), national dignity is an abstract concept, for which many people (in all nations) will not give their life, and especially will not risk the safety of their friends and family.
Had France continued to fight a lost war, thousands if not millions more could've been killed. The Nazis had already demonstrated what they were ready to do in Warsaw. The Brits were retreating, and didn't look like they could help. Instead they actually attacked and destroyed the French Fleet.
Not French leaders, nor French soldiers could or should have made themselves responsible for needless suffering to such an extent.

We'll talk again when Togo attacks and takes over the US, and people will collaborate just the same, as they always have and always will.

Hold on, how was Vichy France not collaborating with the German government?

A resistance movement does not need conventional forces to continue the fight.

French police officers were keeping order for a Fascist government that instituted forced labour for German industry and illegal mass extraction of French citizens for either liquidation or imprisonment. Whatever America is, it’s not that distasteful in Iraq.

If there was no hope before 1944, why have there been instances of continued guerrilla action when the conventional forces of France were annihilated post 1870? To say you can't resist when there is no hope is not the point, (and resistance groups have fought when there has been no hope). To resist is an act of defiance that defines your stance. If that was the case why fight at all in today's world when America has a monopoly on conventional forces? You've already said it yourself, look at the resistance the Poles put up; surely you've answered your own question. Just because an oppressor is brutal doesn't mean people should or could not fight, look at the Palestinian situation.

And why did the Brits attack the French fleets? Because the Vichy government was going to give this fleet to the Nazis on the dream that they wouldn't use it offensively.

I'm not saying I can understand what the French went through, that’s pretty crass but I would hope that I would do something to facilitate the liberty of my country in a similar situation.

As an example, with "no hope" there was plenty of Polish resistance - not that most of them didn't end up shot against a wall - but they resisted where the French most CERTAINLY did not.

...

And why did the Brits attack the French fleets? Because the Vichy government was going to give this fleet to the Nazis on the dream that they wouldn't use it offensively.

...
Erm... did Darlan order his fleet to be under the command of Germany? The Toulon ships were not transferred to the Germans, and in 1942 they were scuttled when the French command was confronted with such a possibility.

It was possible, of course... and Churchill decided not to run the risk of it.

Erm... did Darlan order his fleet to be under the command of Germany? The Toulon ships were not transferred to the Germans, and in 1942 they were scuttled when the French command was confronted with such a possibility.

It was possible, of course... and Churchill decided not to run the risk of it.

Now, let's ask a Russian.

Up until the counterattack to lift the siege of Stalingrad, things looked desperate for the Red Army. And for the people living in the various cities that were surrounded by Germans and subjected to constant bombardment and street combat, people fought to survive - in conditions that would have cause the typical Frenchman to surrender rather than face those conditions.

Huge sections of these major cities were completely destroyed, and many civilians were killed outright or died of starvation, cold, and disease.

But they fought. If they had not fought, and if they had not held on, and if they had not sacrificed, the later counterattacks would never have occurred or been successful.

Even the Poles put up more of a civilian resistance than the French - and most of them died doing so.

Erm... did Darlan order his fleet to be under the command of Germany? The Toulon ships were not transferred to the Germans, and in 1942 they were scuttled when the French command was confronted with such a possibility.

It was possible, of course... and Churchill decided not to run the risk of it.

If you're saying that those ships were either not going to be seized or used offensively if they were given over I am very surprised you believe that.

...

But they fought. If they had not fought, and if they had not held on, and if they had not sacrificed, the later counterattacks would never have occurred or been successful.

...
Quite so. The story of the fortress of Brest is a best example of that. In 1941, numerous mistakes of political leadership and military commanders left our army with only one option - a fight to death. And our soldiers exercised this option...

Otherwise the USSR would have been overrun in several months.

Hold on, how was Vichy France not collaborating with the German government?
It was doing the best for France that it could do in that situation. They had the choice, either keep sovereignty over some of their land or lose it all.
Too many people are mixing up occupied France (in the North) with Vichy France (in the South)


French police officers were keeping order for a Fascist government that instituted forced labour for German industry and illegal mass extraction of French citizens for either liquidation or imprisonment. Whatever America is, it’s not that distasteful in Iraq.
Point is that the Police is not there for political reasons, but for public order and safety.


1. If there was no hope before 1944, why have there been instances of continued guerrilla action when the conventional forces of France were annihilated post 1870?
2. You've already said it yourself, look at the resistance the Poles put up; surely you've answered your own question.
1. Quotes please. The only paramilitaries I know were the Communes, who fought more for domestic reasons than for anything else (although they did want to fight on)
2. And what did it get them? In 1939, their city was pulverised and they lost anyways, and in 1944 their city was pulverised again, albeit only because the Soviets couldn't be bothered.


I'm not saying I can understand what the French went through, that’s pretty crass but I would hope that I would do something to facilitate the liberty of my country in a similar situation.
As harsh as that may seem right now, but I don't think you would. Only the most fanatical people (ie the Hitler Youth was an example) would continue a fight that was lost as clearly as France in 1940 was. And they would all get killed.
If there is no hope of success, even dying a hero is no good, because no one will remeber you as one.

Quite so. The story of the fortress of Brest is a best example of that. In 1941, numerous mistakes of political leadership and military commanders left our army with only one option - a fight to death. And our soldiers exercised this option...

Otherwise the USSR would have been overrun in several months.

I was always simultaneously shocked and impressed by the Russians in WW II.

When you consider that they lost more killed in one day in the Battle of Kharkov than the British and US lost in the first three months at Normandy...

All politics aside, I find it hard to say that any nation made a greater sacrifice than the Russians.

If you're saying that those ships were either not going to be seized or used offensively if they were given over I am very surprised you believe that.
What about the ships of Toulon? They were not seized in 1940, and they were not used at all, either by French or by Germans. In 1942, when the Germans decided to capture the Toulon fleet, the sailors scuttled its ships.

As harsh as that may seem right now, but I don't think you would. Only the most fanatical people (ie the Hitler Youth was an example) would continue a fight that was lost as clearly as France in 1940 was. And they would all get killed.
If there is no hope of success, even dying a hero is no good, because no one will remeber you as one.

The Russians fought on without hope of success. But in the end, they did succeed.

There are several battles won by Russian units that were won solely because the Germans ran out of ammunition and were forced to retreat.

Millions died. Not just soldiers, but civilians as well. And cities were destroyed. But in the end, the Germans were defeated.

I believe that the major reason Germany was defeated was its exhaustion from fighting the Soviet Union.

I was always simultaneously shocked and impressed by the Russians in WW II.

So do we... you know, the War (we call it so, not World War II, not even the Great Patriotic War - that's officialese) hurt every family that I know. My grandmother's brother fought at Vyazma in 1941 - he was only 18, and he knew only how to handle a rifle, the Army having no time to train the conscripts well then. He is still 'Missing in action'.

When you consider that they lost more killed in one day in the Battle of Kharkov than the British and US lost in the first three months at Normandy...
The Battle of Kharkov was terribly planned. AFAIK it was the last time when Stalin overrode the opinions of his Marshals and pushed his vision forth.

All politics aside, I find it hard to say that any nation made a greater sacrifice than the Russians.
Thank you.

I believe that the major reason Germany was defeated was its exhaustion from fighting the Soviet Union.
I don't doubt that at all. If you ask me, WWII was essentially Germany vs Russia, and that's it. Everything else were just minor theatres.
The point was that Russia could never hope to be treated in any way as well as France could expect. The whole racial ideology comes into it as well.
If a Russian soldier gave himself up, the best thing he could hope for was to be shot straight away. He had no choice but to fight. The same goes for the whole nation. If the USSR ended the fight, it would've been eradicated, it's people murdered and it's land used as giant farms for millions of slaves.
France however could hope for a more humane treatment.

And despite all Soviet courage, in the first months of Barbarossa the Soviets didn't really do anything different from the French. They just happened to have a few more thousand kilometres to their capital, and the Franch didn't.

All politics aside, I find it hard to say that any nation made a greater sacrifice than the Russians.

Bah to the Russians. They made the same sacrifice that they did when Napoleon came a knocking. They retreated and let General Winter destroy their enemies. Russia was under equipped fromt the get go and should have just burned and retreated in the first place. Russia was way to big for a German army to hold and all they had to have done is waited for the right momment and flanked the German's. Highest Death count does not equate greatest sacrafice, it means poorest planning!

As far as France goes there were a great number of French Heroes int he French underground but as far as the people were concerned they gave up quite quickly. I odn't blame them when you had the Nazis executing an entire block for every German soldier killed. I do blame them for spitting on their liberators and saying Yankee go home. That is where I believe their reputation of being cowards truly came from.

It was doing the best for France that it could do in that situation. They had the choice, either keep sovereignty over some of their land or lose it all.
Too many people are mixing up occupied France (in the North) with Vichy France (in the South)

So you kept sovereignity at what cost? To do the bidding of a morally dubious power?

[/QUOTE]Point is that the Police is not there for political reasons, but for public order and safety.[/QUOTE]

Thats no different than saying I was "ordered to do it", that doesn't stand in a court of law or as a moral argument.

[/QUOTE]1. Quotes please. The only paramilitaries I know were the Communes, who fought more for domestic reasons than for anything else (although they did want to fight on)
2. And what did it get them? In 1939, their city was pulverised and they lost anyways, and in 1944 their city was pulverised again, albeit only because the Soviets couldn't be bothered.[/QUOTE]

Here's some info for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs

It got them the honour of dying with honour (this leads into your next point)

[/QUOTE]As harsh as that may seem right now, but I don't think you would. Only the most fanatical people (ie the Hitler Youth was an example) would continue a fight that was lost as clearly as France in 1940 was. And they would all get killed.
If there is no hope of success, even dying a hero is no good, because no one will remeber you as one.[/QUOTE]

So are you saying that Nelson is not remembered after Trafalgur? Or Adolphus Gustvas is not remembered after Luetz ? Victories after expected defeats, but heroes deaths for the commanders. Just becuase you will not be remembered does not mean you should not try.

So, Leonstein, should we surrender to al-Qaeda, since they're going to kill us all anyway?

Bah to the Russians. They made the same sacrifice that they did when Napoleon came a knocking. They retreated and let General Winter destroy their enemies. Russia was under equipped fromt the get go and should have just burned and retreated in the first place. Russia was way to big for a German army to hold and all they had to have done is waited for the right momment and flanked the German's. Highest Death count does not equate greatest sacrafice, it means poorest planning!

...
What about the Battle of Smolensk? It was a German victory - but a Pyrrhic at that. The Blitzkrieg was disrupted in August, not in December.

BTW, my grandmothers told me that the winter of 1941-1942 was nothing to write home about.

What about the Battle of Smolensk? It was a German victory - but a Pyrrhic at that. The Blitzkrieg was disrupted in August, not in December.

BTW, my grandmothers told me that the winter of 1941-1942 was nothing to write home about.

If Leonstein had been in charge of the USSR during WW II, you would be speaking German right now (that is, if you had been permitted to live as a slave).

If Leonstein had been in charge of the USSR during WW II, you would be speaking German right now (that is, if you had been permitted to live as a slave).
Actually, any place I would ever be in charge of would have to speak German.
:D

1. It got them the honour of dying with honour (this leads into your next point)
2. So are you saying that Nelson is not remembered after Trafalgur? Or Adolphus Gustvas is not remembered after Luetz ? Victories after expected defeats, but heroes deaths for the commanders. Just becuase you will not be remembered does not mean you should not try.

1. "The francs-tireurs were often vilified by the German armies and popular press as murderers and highwaymen and seemed to the Germans to have an unerring sense of the most vulnerable parts of the German armies in France. However, the francs-tireurs caused fewer than 1000 German deaths and ultimately played only a minor part of the Franco-Prussian War. Despite this, an ambush by francs-tireurs often resulted in violent German reprisals against the nearest village or town. Whole regiments or divisions often took part in "pacifying actions" in areas with significant franc-tireur activity and bred a lasting emnity and hatred between the occupying German soldiers and French civilians."
Great. But at least they have their honour, what with not being able to stop the Germans as well as causing hundreds of deaths of the people they were supposed to defend.

2. Those battles weren't lost though. The leaders got killed, that's all.
I'm not saying you shouldn't fight. If there is any hope left, fight. But if there really is none left, then there is no rational reason to bother, and about a billions reasons not to.
It's fanaticism that drives people to keep at it then. And I'm glad the French weren't that fanatic, because there wouldn't have been a France left to liberate.

1. "The francs-tireurs were often vilified by the German armies and popular press as murderers and highwaymen and seemed to the Germans to have an unerring sense of the most vulnerable parts of the German armies in France. However, the francs-tireurs caused fewer than 1000 German deaths and ultimately played only a minor part of the Franco-Prussian War. Despite this, an ambush by francs-tireurs often resulted in violent German reprisals against the nearest village or town. Whole regiments or divisions often took part in "pacifying actions" in areas with significant franc-tireur activity and bred a lasting emnity and hatred between the occupying German soldiers and French civilians."
Great. But at least they have their honour, what with not being able to stop the Germans as well as causing hundreds of deaths of the people they were supposed to defend.

2. Those battles weren't lost though. The leaders got killed, that's all.
I'm not saying you shouldn't fight. If there is any hope left, fight. But if there really is none left, then there is no rational reason to bother, and about a billions reasons not to.
It's fanaticism that drives people to keep at it then. And I'm glad the French weren't that fanatic, because there wouldn't have been a France left to liberate.

1) Well the WWII resistance didn't stop the Germans, my original point, conventional forces did. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the French resistance did actually do something, which you're now alluding to that they didn't do much. If the majority didn't fight because they didn't want German reprisals that's fine, but there was no passive resistance, no protest. Just acceptance. That I feel is not honourable. You have many reprisals against resistance fighters, their supporters and arbitary civilian oppression against many contemporary terrorist/insurgent/guerilla forces, but people still resist.

2) But the French-Algerian commanders were fanatic enough to launch a clandistine operation to murder De Gaulle for his failure to keep Algeria French.
So within a generation Frenchmen were willing to murder their own leader but weren't willing, to a large extent, to resist a foreign and sometimes brutal armed force.

And would you say thats it was rational for the Palestinian resistance/terrorism, depending on your view, to go against Israel knowing what power it can impose. They may not be as brutal, like the Nazis, but they are numerous accounts of their heavy-handed reprisials. Yet still they fought.

1. So within a generation Frenchmen were willing to murder their own leader but weren't willing, to a large extent, to resist a foreign and sometimes brutal armed force.

2. And would you say thats it was rational for the Palestinian resistance, to go against Israel knowing what power it can impose.
1. Seems like it, yes. Although there is a massive difference in there. The civilian (and some military) leaders of France in 1940 didn't fare too well either with their populace.

2. No, it's not rational.

No, it's not rational.

But if they achieve something at the end of it, (eg an actual physical creation of a Palestinian state), would that make their irrational struggle, rational? Some could argue that the infatida has exhausted the Israelis in the sense that they cannot wipe out the attackers, their attacks were still getting through and thus this push towards some form of political settlement.

Thus struggle for struggle sake may have some benefits that are unforseen at the time.

HELLO?! NAPOLEON?!

The British forces under Napoleon would've totally crushed the Colonial rebellion in the U.S. And after that, he'd have conquered Canada and Mexico, too.

Napolean was FRENCH or rather Coriscan. He wasn't British! Jeez... Someone doesn't know they're history.

-snip-
If the Resistance is successful, then it wasn't a lost fight without hope.
But France in 1940 was different. There was the entire German army. The French were beaten, half their nation already occupied. There was no winning that.
Some decided that the war was lost, just like it had been in 1871, or like it had been for the Germans in 1796 (?) or 1918.
Others (like de Gaulle) didn't and formed the Free French. They wanted to fight on in the colonies and so on, not endanger French civilians with guerilla tactics.

If the Resistance is successful, then it wasn't a lost fight without hope.
But France in 1940 was different. There was the entire German army. The French were beaten, half their nation already occupied. There was no winning that.
Some decided that the war was lost, just like it had been in 1871, or like it had been for the Germans in 1796 (?) or 1918.
Others (like de Gaulle) didn't and formed the Free French. They wanted to fight on in the colonies and so on, not endanger French civilians with guerilla tactics.

But the Occupied territories have been occupied by Israelis IDF since 1967. The Palestinians have no way of conventionally beating them, yet they fought, with questionable means I might add, in 1987 infatida and the more recent 1999(?). I'm still not convinced that, to a large extent, the French didn't merely accept the status quo and collaborated. But in 1871 the French resisted. Why not post-1940? What changed so dramatically in their conscious thinking?

What changed so dramatically in their conscious thinking?

Losing 1 to many wars :D

<snip>

Why not post-1940? What changed so dramatically in their conscious thinking?

Yes. I think that the explanation must lie in the realm of "cultural values". Any sociologists or psychologists have theories?

It was doing the best for France that it could do in that situation. They had the choice, either keep sovereignty over some of their land or lose it all.


As a french, let me disagree with that staement

VIchy is a shame in our history. The truth is that some politicians, with an extremist agenda, prefered to collaborate with the nazis than continue the fight. They were a mix of extreme-rights, pacifists, and took a world war one hero (and butcher) to lead them.

The other politicians, cowered and voted full power to them, except 80 of them, and those like De gaulle who fled to UK to continue the fact.

As for the population, exhausted and betrayed by their leaders, they tried to survive as best as they could.

Only a small minority in fact engaged in collaboration or resistance.

I do believe that France could , and should, have done differnetly, if the leaders have choosen instead not to collaborate but to resist and fly to UK. Germany would have had much more trouble if the french Police did not collaborate, and a large number of troops would have been stuck in france.

But the Occupied territories have been occupied by Israelis IDF since 1967. The Palestinians have no way of conventionally beating them, yet they fought, with questionable means I might add, in 1987 infatida and the more recent 1999(?). I'm still not convinced that, to a large extent, the French didn't merely accept the status quo and collaborated. But in 1871 the French resisted. Why not post-1940? What changed so dramatically in their conscious thinking?

The main part in 1940s consciousness was the remembrance of WW1.

That war was the most tragic France ever fought, with millions of death, whole cities destroyed, and quarter of France occupied by the germans. People thought (falsely) that surrender was a way to prevent the death toll that time.

Also note that for some people communism (blocheviks) was a greater threat that the nazis, so it was good policy to ally with german to fight back USSR and french communists

But the Occupied territories have been occupied by Israelis IDF since 1967. The Palestinians have no way of conventionally beating them, yet they fought, with questionable means I might add, in 1987 infatida and the more recent 1999(?). I'm still not convinced that, to a large extent, the French didn't merely accept the status quo and collaborated. But in 1871 the French resisted. Why not post-1940? What changed so dramatically in their conscious thinking?
A LOT of French people felt betrayed by their government and by their military, in 1940. When your government fails you, what can you do? A few weeks into the war, it was already too late for citizens to form popular mititias; weapons were already confiscated and half of France was highly militarized by the Nazis. Cutting France in two was an efficient way of controlling it. One half of the country is taken hostage, the other half tries not to make things worse.

There's still a lot of heated debates on the subjet (the 1940 situation, oxymoron "France libre", the Armistice). If you want your evening to end up with a bar brawl, discuss the Armistice with French people, drinking a lot of alcohol.

The French population reacted in various ways to the 1940 situation.

(One sad thing is that they wouldn't be able to cross a border and organize resistance in neighboring countries: Germany and Italy were enemies, Switzerland was ultra-neutral -- although hundreds of Jews crossed the Alps to get to that safe haven -- , Spain was officially neutral, but collaborated actively with the Nazis.)

So here were the options available to "ordinary" French citizen.

1) Collaborate with the Nazis. This often meant becoming part of a "urban surveillance squad", giving names, creating local propaganda, confiscating appartments & furnitures, and so on. Collaborators could expect a better life under the Nazi yoke... but some of them would have "unexpected accidents". At the end of the war, lots of collaborators were judged in court for their crimes.

2) Stay away from the action. Even though it is often difficult not to take sides, most people managed to continue living and working. Anyway, it's important to feed people and make sure the garbage is taken out, isn't it?

3) Do some civilian resistance. This includes various activities: helping Jews getting out of the country, hiding people in the basement, gathering information. Most resistance acts weren't military, though: they were about helping Jews and other people not getting arrested or killed.

4) Be part of the armed resistance. Getting into the mountains, blowing up railways and gathering tactical information may seem heroic. The French poet René Char was leader of a well-known Resistance group, active in the Vercors region (I think). At first, they were sabotaging stuff, attacking convoys and stealing weapons... but then, the Nazis started rounding up dozens of innocent peasants & executing them. For each of the group's actions. It was disheartening. Blowing up railways for the sake of it, may feel good... but it becomes dramatic if civilians are killed in retaliation & you get no long-term "military" effects. You become part of the problem, and not part of the solution. Anyway, the resistance was way too weak, fragmented & under-equiped, when compared with the occupation forces.


You can watch the movie "Monsieur Batignole", which tells the true story of a French "ordinary guy" turned collaborator turned resistant. It's a nice movie.

But the Occupied territories have been occupied by Israelis IDF since 1967. The Palestinians have no way of conventionally beating them, yet they fought, with questionable means I might add, in 1987 infatida and the more recent 1999(?). I'm still not convinced that, to a large extent, the French didn't merely accept the status quo and collaborated. But in 1871 the French resisted. Why not post-1940? What changed so dramatically in their conscious thinking?

Also be careful when making such comparisons

Israelis are not the 1940 germans ! They do not kill tens of hostages for each israeli soldier killed. They do not destroy and burn whole villages, with all their inhabitants, they do not deport hundreds of thousand sof people to another country to be killed or send to forced labour...

It's easier (not easy mind you) to resist a occupant which is a democratic country, with the support of the UN, many other countris, and opponents in your ennemy itself, than something like nazi germany

Well, I would just conclude that the point of this post was really to get people to think about what happened, to learn about what happened and then hopefully correcting their position on the topic.
Yes, France lost. Yes, France then surrendered.
So did Germany, so did the British in the War of Independence (just one example).
But the French are being singled out as "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys".
Hopefully I might now hear that kind of allegation a little less often.

Well, I would just conclude that the point of this post was really to get people to think about what happened, to learn about what happened and then hopefully correcting their position on the topic.

Not going to happen

Yes, France lost. Yes, France then surrendered.

Followed by the surrender in French Indochina!

So did Germany, so did the British in the War of Independence (just one example).

Sorry dude, but the British didn't surrender. There was no surrender terms. It was a Peace Treaty that ended the Revolutionary War.

But the French are being singled out as "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys".
Hopefully I might now hear that kind of allegation a little less often.

But the French are the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys :D

...

Sorry dude, but the British didn't surrender. There was no surrender terms. It was a Peace Treaty that ended the Revolutionary War.

...
Cornwallis surrendered his army at Yorktown in 1781, and that's what Leonstein had in mind, I suppose.

Um, given that the Germans had attacked Belgium in the first WW and then attacked France, why exactly didn't the French fortify that border? I mean, Hitler obviously knew of the existence of the Maginot line, given that it would be a bit hard to conceal. He also probably knew how far it extended. Combined with the fact that the Belgians had too small of a population to defend their country it seems quite obvious how any semi-intelligent commander would attack France. Apparently the French high command didn't think this one through. Also, since the French and British were essentially the direct cause for the econoimc situation that allowed Hitler to rise to power as easily as he did, I have little sympathy for them.

The reason the French didn't entend the Maginot Line to Belgium is simple. Politics. The Belgians were offended that the French didn't think they were capable of defending themselves and raised a big noise about it all. In hindsight the French should have extended the Line all the way to the Atlantic, but hindsight is 20/20. So really if you want to blame anyone for France's loss I guess you should blame Belgium.lol.

Cornwallis surrendered his army at Yorktown in 1781, and that's what Leonstein had in mind, I suppose.

That is true! Cornwallis did surrender but the British Government didn't. They signed a Peace Treaty and left.

That is true! Cornwallis did surrender but the British Government didn't. They signed a Peace Treaty and left.
Just like the French in '54 Vietnam, I'd like to say. The surrender at Dien Bien Phu was followed by the Geneva Accords; the French government did not surrender.

Finally a post with minimal France bashing, it's a relief to see that there is a presense here of those that do not conform to the established French stereotype.

Finally a post with minimal France bashing, it's a relief to see that there is a presense here of those that do not conform to the established French stereotype.

That's because I already pointed out that France has lost most of its wars.

Just curious, what is with the obsession over France? It's a lovely place to visit, has much culture and great food.

I just don't get it. I mean when people bring up who and who was not in play in WWII, France seems to always come up! I mean, hell, they did their best they took a side and they fought right along with us to the best of their ability.

You want to go after some folks who are deserving of this type of discussion, why don't you take on Sweden? Who claimed to be neutral all the while being Nazi sympathizers. Or how about the Swiss? Who also claimed to be neutral all the while helping the Germans/Nazi's steal Jewish wealth. Get off France's back. They really don't deserve it.

Just curious, what is with the obsession over France? It's a lovely place to visit, has much culture and great food.

I just don't get it. I mean when people bring up who and who was not in play in WWII, France seems to always come up! I mean, hell, they did their best they took a side and they fought right along with us to the best of their ability.

You want to go after some folks who are deserving of this type of discussion, why don't you take on Sweden? Who claimed to be neutral all the while being Nazi sympathizers. Or how about the Swiss? Who also claimed to be neutral all the while helping the Germans/Nazi's steal Jewish wealth. Get off France's back. They really don't deserve it.

Well, in defense of Sweden, they did take in all of the Danish Jews and their Red Cross work helped a lot of Allied POWs

Well, in defense of Sweden, they did take in all of the Danish Jews and their Red Cross work helped a lot of Allied POWs

Red Cross is Swiss.

Just curious, what is with the obsession over France? It's a lovely place to visit, has much culture and great food.

I just don't get it. I mean when people bring up who and who was not in play in WWII, France seems to always come up! I mean, hell, they did their best they took a side and they fought right along with us to the best of their ability.

You want to go after some folks who are deserving of this type of discussion, why don't you take on Sweden? Who claimed to be neutral all the while being Nazi sympathizers. Or how about the Swiss? Who also claimed to be neutral all the while helping the Germans/Nazi's steal Jewish wealth. Get off France's back. They really don't deserve it.


Well, the Swiss win every war, don't they?

France comes up a lot because for most of their existence, they are as much a blowhard nation as the US, except that when it comes to actually winning, they fall flat on their face fairly consistently after Napoleon.

It's one thing to be like the US, and talk big, and be arrogant. At least most of the time, we win, help win, or are a major factor in winning. The French have a permanent obsession with losing.

Well, the Swiss win every war, don't they?

France comes up a lot because for most of their existence, they are as much a blowhard nation as the US, except that when it comes to actually winning, they fall flat on their face fairly consistently after Napoleon.

It's one thing to be like the US, and talk big, and be arrogant. At least most of the time, we win, help win, or are a major factor in winning. The French have a permanent obsession with losing.

Well, at least they try. ;)

Well, at least they try. ;)
Nowadays, they still like to talk as though they have a worldwide capability to project military power, but in essence, they can't handle anything bigger than Ivory Coast.

As for nations like Sweden, yes, it wasn't pretty in WW II. But I don't recall Sweden talking through its hat like France habitually does - at any time in the 20th or 21st Century.

Nowadays, they still like to talk as though they have a worldwide capability to project military power, but in essence, they can't handle anything bigger than Ivory Coast.

As for nations like Sweden, yes, it wasn't pretty in WW II. But I don't recall Sweden talking through its hat like France habitually does - at any time in the 20th or 21st Century.

Ok, can't per se argue with that, however I guess France talks tough cause they know if they wanted to they too could blow up the world. They have enough nukes to. Then again, so do a few other countries. I mean we always brag how we could blow up the world 6 times over cause we have the most, but ya know, it only takes enough to blow it up once.

Red Cross is Swiss.

Allied POWs were visited by the International Red Cross, headquartered in Geneva Switzerland, and the personnel from the Red Cross were Swiss and Swedish.

Also be careful when making such comparisons

Israelis are not the 1940 germans ! They do not kill tens of hostages for each israeli soldier killed. They do not destroy and burn whole villages, with all their inhabitants, they do not deport hundreds of thousand sof people to another country to be killed or send to forced labour...

It's easier (not easy mind you) to resist a occupant which is a democratic country, with the support of the UN, many other countris, and opponents in your ennemy itself, than something like nazi germany

I wasn't making that kind of comparison, merely the fact that a significant majority of Palestinians have continued to resist Israeli IDF forces.

I agree completely that it’s easier to resist Israel than Nazi forces, but better examples is perhaps any independence movement post-1945 when the colonial powers used heavy handed methods to maintain the previous status quo. These people fought for their independence even though reprisals could be quite severe, eg the Battle of Algiers, the British against the Mau-Mau or Greek nationalists, the French then Americans against the Vietnamese, the Portuguese against the Indonesians etc. I'm not comparing these actions to Nazi ones, but to those involved and affected I wonder if there was much difference. Yet they still resisted. Again, going back to a previous point, the Polish resistance still went for it in 1944, got smashed, but they tried, on their own to gain their independence.

Ok, can't per se argue with that, however I guess France talks tough cause they know if they wanted to they too could blow up the world. They have enough nukes to. Then again, so do a few other countries. I mean we always brag how we could blow up the world 6 times over cause we have the most, but ya know, it only takes enough to blow it up once.

It's one thing to talk tough. It's another entirely to back up that talk with actions. France gets a lot of dissing from Americans, because when France talks, that's all it is. They're the 90 pound weakling trying to intimidate someone with boasting-when they don't have anything to boast about.
In America, it's pretty well understood that you don't walk into a Biker bar and pick a fight, then run away after the first punch.
France does this fairly consistently in hte post-1945 era.

(I guess Americans are still pissed that France was right about Iraq posing no threat)

It's one thing to talk tough. It's another entirely to back up that talk with actions. France gets a lot of dissing from Americans, because when France talks, that's all it is. They're the 90 pound weakling trying to intimidate someone with boasting-when they don't have anything to boast about.
In America, it's pretty well understood that you don't walk into a Biker bar and pick a fight, then run away after the first punch.
France does this fairly consistently in hte post-1945 era.

France projects its political will more effectively than America. Until the Cote d'Ivor debacle most Francophonic countries have aquiested to Paris on almost everything while very few countries in the English speaking world would aquiese to either Britain or the US, case in hand Zimbabwe. The major flaw I suppose in French foreng policy is that they percieve democracy as a hinderance to political expeediency. What most of the anti-French posters don't recognise that you don't have to deply lots of soldiers or aircraft carriers to demonstrate your influence into a region. After all there are all the sponserd coups and rebel movements. Cote d'Ivor does stand quite well in comparison to Iraq and Zimbabwe as foreng policy projects. Also to be honest the average African dictator is far more terrified of seeing Legion d'Estrange, 1er Reg Parachte Colonial, the Gurhkas or Royal Mariens than the 101st or the US Marine Corps.

How that allows for making up these stories about French surrender, especially by Americans, is beyond me.

Well, in certain circumstances they have a point.

Take the western front in ww2 in 1940 and 1944 for example. In the Ardennes in 1940 if a french unit was bypassed by the armour then it would give up and surrender to the following infantry formations.
However an American formation surrounded in the Ardennes offensive in '44 would fight on and not give in until they ran out of ammo or supplies.

For the most part the stories and rumours are wildly untrue but as always there are two sides to the proverbial coin.

Well, in certain circumstances they have a point.

Take the western front in ww2 in 1940 and 1944 for example. In the Ardennes in 1940 if a french unit was bypassed by the armour then it would give up and surrender to the following infantry formations.
However an American formation surrounded in the Ardennes offensive in '44 would fight on and not give in until they ran out of ammo or supplies.

For the most part the stories and rumours are wildly untrue but as always there are two sides to the proverbial coin.

Some did, like the guys in Bastogne. Others surrendered. The Germans captured thousands of Americans in the Ardennes. Does that mean those surrendering Americans were cowards? Hell no, they just realized that they had no chance. Surrender, or even defeat are no signs of cowardice.

If defeat is cowardice, Germany is the King of cowardice, they lost two world wars. The men at the Alamo, Thermopilae, and every last stand fought in battles are also cowards, if defeat is cowardice.

If the Americans call the French cowards because they surrendered, they must be calling every US POW a coward too.

A coward is one that allows fear to overcome him, and abandon is duty and comrads. The French didnt did this.. they were routed, yes, but you call them cowards because of that? pahh!