Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 06, 2012, 09:42:48 pm
They did those things… BUT i can list pages of collaborations that occurred to aid German interests. Nobody is claiming that the French Resistance didn’t exist, but it was very minor compared to the acts of banality the Vichy Government condoned during occupation.
This is getting ridiculous at this point. I’ve clearly listed just a few things the Resistance did to help the Allies, and you turn around and say “oh but also Vichy!” It’s the same baseless argument that if Vichy France was set up, that must mean France as a whole are cowards and not brave right?
No you missed the point again. It means that the “French” for the most part are collaborators with the Germans, and acts of defiance were in the minority. The larger point was that the French just support the easy choice of helping the Germans, unlike occupied Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
Quote
They also fought against the Allies in Dakar, Madagascar, Syria, and Morocco.
Funny you mention Dakar, the Free French were part of the Allied attack on that city. Also, there was considerable confusion as to the allegiance of French colonies. The soldiers there, and elsewhere, had two choices: remain loyal to Vichy because it was the “legitimate” government of France (as you like to insist) or continue the fight against the Germans and join the Free French.
Right and it was very easy for them in that case to remain on whichever side was in control, if that changed they just conveniently switch to the other side and do as the new controllers tell them. MY point is nations like UK and USA would never behave in that manner. They would fight against Germany no matter what.
And again, also funny you mention Syria and Morocco, since French forces also participated on the side of the Allies in all of those instances. In the latter case the Vichy French forces scarcely put up a fight before defecting to the Allies, and this became full force with the rest of the forces in Africa when the Axis occupied Vichy France.
It is also funny that Vichy forces fought against those allies too. But as it looked like the allies are winning …they just turncoated.
And again with this ridiculous reasoning. “Oh but also French soldiers fought against Allies, guys that must mean they’re all bad! All or most of them!” Strawman argument.
But it is true that they did. It just shows that once you get past french pride, either defending the fleet against UK or fighting the allies, or switching against the Germans, these people could be on any side at any time…whatever was easy for them.
Quote
“I’d rather have a German Division in front of me than a French one behind.”
Do you know where this quote comes from? No? Patton certainly held contempt for the French but he wasn’t as birdbrained as others and respected their fighting capacity, both in history and during that time.
Right and bringing up Patton and not clarifying how he really felt about the French and using it as a point to defend them, is quite disengenious.
Quote
It is about who is brave. If you surrender at first chance when the capital falls that indicates a failure of national resolve. Stalin or Churchill would not have surrendered if Moscow or London fell. Germany fought on after Berlin fell. Only Italy and France took the “we surrender if capital falls option”. Japan if invaded would probably not surrender if Tokyo was lost.
First off:
France=/= Britain, France=/=Soviet Union. And yes, Germany did surrender after Berlin fell. They only resisted for a few more days.
A week: Berlin fell April 30/May 1st And looking at the map of controlled Germany in May 45 shows that 90% of the country was occupied. IN the case of France only the capital a a much less area of the country are occupied before they fall.
Secondly:
There was talk of continuing the war from North Africa, talks which was encouraged by de Gaulle but ultimately didn’t pull through. So again, does this mean we’re to condone every single Frenchman for the actions their defeatist government took? Are we just completely putting the Free French aside now as some minor anomaly?
Their was talk about fighting in Brittany too, but the official French leadership knocked that down. We can only look at the leadership which is representing “every single Frenchman” Their is not proof that “every Frenchman” would love to fight with de Gaulle or serve coffee.
Throughout all of this I have cited at least a dozen instances where the French Resistance and Free French fought in the interests of the Allies, and all you return with is “oh but look collaboration that means all Frenchmen are not brave!”. Talking about French politics in World War II is a complex subject, far more complex than your “us vs. them” mentality.
Right but you have not once accepted the fact that the much greater weight of actions ARE collaborations with Germany, and a very minor aspect was actually fighting the Germans. You can’t keep brushing that under the rug of national shame.
Quote
A few things some Free French ( with total financing by England) did:
What’s this supposed to mean? “Oh you can only be considered a real fighting force if you don’t take resources from any other country!” Guess Britain and the Soviet Union are cowards and incapable of fighting then, since they used resources from the United States.
That means if they didn’t get financing, likely it would have been much smaller, so the ‘effort’ was conditional. In the case of Lend Lease this represented a vastly smaller portion of finances. For UK financing the Free French, is was a huge and totally funded action. Not mentioning the disparity is pretty hilarious.