Congratulations to Mr. Prewitt. It should be noted, however, that France’s highest order of merit is called the Legion of Honour (Légion d’honneur), not the Legion of Armour, and also that France doesn’t actually have knighthoods in the same sense as Britain does. “Chevalier” (knight) is indeed one of the Legion of Honour’s five levels, and the name is a holdover from the days when France still had an aristocracy, but the French nobility system went out the window with the French Revolution. I once saw a series of amusing cartoons depicting what life in France would be like today if the Bourbon monarchy hadn’t fallen, and one of them showed an irate air traveler standing at the ticket counter of “Royal Air France” and telling the ticket agent “But I’m a baron and I have a confirmed reservation!” The agent replies, “I’m sorry, sir, but the Duke of So-and-so has precedence over you, so we gave him your seat.” In fairness, the same sort of thing actually happens in real-life republican France. A few years ago, there was scandal involving one of the major D-Day anniversaries (I think it was the 50th one), when the French government contacted various hotels in Normany and appropriated some of their existing reservations so that various French officials could have rooms for the event. Some of those rooms, however, had been reserved by foreign veterans of the D-Day invasion. When the story broke on the front page of French newspapers (under such headlines as “Our Liberators Insulted!”), public opinion was outraged and the French government beat a hasty retreat. The prevailing editorial opinion over this affair was: Do this to our own citizens if you want, but don’t do this to the heroes who ended the occupation of France.
Is there too much contempt for the French from A&A players?
-
you guys really go at it!
sweet!putting my personal feelings about the french aside(don’t particularly care for them in general) have to agree with red harvest
their leaders let them down when they needed them most
but as bugs bunny says paybacks are a bitch! -
@Imperious:
France had a large number of antiquated tanks left over from WW1. Most nations got rid of these sake France.
I don’t think that is correct. They had a number of interwar designs that resembled some of the WWI designs–such as the overhull tracks of the Char B1’s.
France had a fairly high number of modern tanks with thick enough armor that they were very difficult for the Germans to defeat. But they were poorly employed because French leadership failed to correctly identify the aims of the German offensive. These had WWI style turret arrangements, mostly lacked radios, and many had severe mechanical problems from inferior suspension/transmission/engines. Many of them lacked high enough kinetic energy main guns to knock out the German Panzer III and IV’s of 1940…of course the Germans had this same problem.
Quite a few armies still had the really small tanks, and Germany still had mostly Panzer I and II’s that were too light to engage the French tanks…although they still raised havoc against infantry and light forces.
Germany established air superiority inside France and soon turned that into air supremacy.
-
another problem some of the french tanks had was the commander was gunner also
the germans divided the labor making them more efficient -
@Imperious:
Well like Liddell Hart advocated for the British like development of mobile warfare
So did de Gaulle. Like Liddell-Hart and J.F.C. Fuller in Britain, and Guderian in Germany, de Gaulle (a colonel at the time he was writing about the subject before the war) was a strong advocate of mobile armoured warfare. He was largely ignored in his own country, as Liddell-Hart and Fuller were largely ignored in theirs. Guderian was to some extent also ignored in Germany, but unfortunately for France and Britain he did get and hold the attention of the man who really counted: Hitler.
-
The French tanks were generally better than the German tanks, except for one thing. German tanks had radios so command and control was immensely better on the German side.
-
@Imperious:
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.
Because Yugoslavia and the occupied USSR was treated far, far worse by the Nazis than occupied France was. Naturally you’d expect there to be more resistance against crueler treatment.
And again, your wording is poor. “The French”, again implying that all or most of the French collaborated with the Germans, which they did not. Many were simply trying to get through an increasingly harsher occupation.
Yes, the Resistance was small, even at its peak in 1944. But as I’ve clearly pointed out (and which you’ve conveniently decided to ignore), they were of great use to the Allies, especially leading up to and during D-Day. If you’re going to pretend that the Resistance was just a minor, auxiliary plaything, then I honestly can’t help you there.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.
You’re exactly right there, because the US and UK are not the same as France, geographically and politically. The US has an entire ocean to protect them, and the British Isles have a channel. And neither the US or UK were plagued by incompetent and confusing leadership, both in government and military, although that’s not to say the British were less guilty of appeasement or betraying the Poles.
It is also funny that Vichy forces fought against those allies too. But as it looked like the allies are winning …they just turncoated.
You accuse the French of collaborating with the Germans and fighting the Allies, but when the Vichy forces in the colonies joined the Free French you accuse them of being mere turncoats. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t it seems.
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.
“These peopleâ€, “those Frenchâ€. Yet again, these absolute terms are poor wording on your part, as is the “us vs. them†mentality. Again ignoring that French politics during that time was extremely complex, which was in no small part due to their own mistakes.
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.
Yes, congratulations, you’ve proved that the German government decided to uselessly resist for a week more and throw more young men to die in a war they lost more than a year ago. Considering that the cause was lost in France in more ways than one, and that France and its populace was simply not prepared to fight another war, of course they’re going to fall more easily.
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”
No, we can’t only look at the leadership, because as I’ve proven quite clearly, there was Frenchman that continued to fight with the Allies. A number that was small at first in 1940 but grew considerably during the war.
Their is not proof that “every Frenchman” would love to fight with de Gaulle or serve coffee.
No, but as I’ve said there’s proof that many French people were trying to as peaceful a life you could get in an increasingly brutal occupation.
Right but you have not once accepted the fact that the much greater weight of actions ARE collaborations with Germany
Do you have any numbers, per chance, of the number of people that were actively supporting the Nazis and the Vichy regime?
and a very minor aspect was actually fighting the Germans.
Odd, because that “very minor aspect†became a useful tool for the Allies inside France, and the Free French had continued to grow over the years.
You can’t keep brushing that under the rug of national shame.
No, nor do I intend to. I just completely disagree with your juvenile notion that a great majority of the French populace engaged in active collaboration with the Nazis. You might accuse me of trying to ignore the dark stains of French history at that time, but I can just as easily accuse you of trying to ignore the many instances where French people either continued to fight with the Allies, or simply did not actively collaborate or resist.
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.
That probably has something to do with the fact that the Free French government was a government in exile, whereas the Soviet Union was not. Nothing particularly hilarious about that.
-
I think you need to understand, that NOT FIGHTING is COLLABORATING.
Any frenchman who just “went about his business” during World War II, was a collaborator, and a coward.
So the contempt people have for the french, especially at AA.org is earned. Bottom Line.
-
The French tanks were generally better than the German tanks, except for one thing. German tanks had radios so command and control was immensely better on the German side.
I take the opposite view of the equipment: French tanks were generally worse, except for one thing–they were better armoured. They were typically slower, had poor suspensions and inherent mechanical difficulties. They had single man turrets (WWI style) that overworked the TC and resulted in lower firing rates. (The radio problem has already been mentioned several times as well.) Their main armament had similar penetrating power to the German guns in most cases, but the Germans had better sighting/gunnery. Some of the designs were gargantuan…with high profiles and low speed, not desirable traits in tank battles.
The thick armour could have been decisive, if they could get to the point of action. But with their mechanical problems, strategic blunders/dallying, and Germany having air superiority in France, the French tanks faired more poorly than they should have. The armour wasn’t saving them from air attack.
Another aspect that is strange is that French artillery was considered to be very good (by the Germans) yet it doesn’t seem to have been used to slow the advance. One would expect artillery to make a real mess of river crossings and the like. I’m not sure how much of this was general confusion by the French command, air superiority by the Luftwaffe, or radio comm problems.
-
Red,
I would strongly reccomend you read “Panzer Commander” the memoir of German Col. Hans von Luck. He commanded a recon battalion under Rommel during the French campagin and give alot of insight into issues with the French command and how the French fought, espically the use of the artillery. -
Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 07, 2012, 11:00:14 am
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.Because Yugoslavia and the occupied USSR was treated far, far worse by the Nazis than occupied France was. Naturally you’d expect there to be more resistance against crueler treatment.
Again this is because the population had no reservations against fighting against her occupiers. If France did what Yugoslavia did, they would have got the same treatment.
And again, your wording is poor. “The French”, again implying that all or most of the French collaborated with the Germans, which they did not. Many were simply trying to get through an increasingly harsher occupation.
The French had many greater acts of collaboration with the NAZI’s than fighting them. Again you missed the point.
Yes, the Resistance was small, even at its peak in 1944. But as I’ve clearly pointed out (and which you’ve conveniently decided to ignore),
Ignore? How convenient to ignore days before the allies invade or after they invade. Acts of courage hours before the Allies reestablish power? Hilarious!
they were of great use to the Allies, especially leading up to and during D-Day. If you’re going to pretend that the Resistance was just a minor, auxiliary plaything, then I honestly can’t help you there.
Compared to the systematic acts of collaboration, these acts pale in comparison.
Quote
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.You�re exactly right there, because the US and UK are not the same as France, geographically and politically. The US has an entire ocean to protect them, and the British Isles have a channel. And neither the US or UK were plagued by incompetent and confusing leadership, both in government and military, although that�s not to say the British were less guilty of appeasement or betraying the Poles.
And how did Yugoslavia use such excuses of physical separation? They didn’t. They fought all the way. Other nations occupied did not just form collaboration government and pretend they are ‘neutral’. You can’t sit there and make excuses for the French because they don’t have people fighting for them behind their backs.
Quote
It is also funny that Vichy forces fought against those allies too. But as it looked like the allies are winning …they just turncoated.You accuse the French of collaborating with the Germans and fighting the Allies, but when the Vichy forces in the colonies joined the Free French you accuse them of being mere turncoats. Damned if you do, damned if you don�t it seems.
Just shows how flip floppy they are when faced with pressure. They just blow the direction of the wind like a paper bag and unlike other occupied nations prefer to sweep banality of collaboration under a rug of shame.
Quote
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.�These people�, �those French�. Yet again, these absolute terms are poor wording on your part, as is the �us vs. them� mentality. Again ignoring that French politics during that time was extremely complex, which was in no small part due to their own mistakes.
“complex” must be another term to wash away the guilt of shame for collaboration. Again don’t make excuses for them.
Quote
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.Yes, congratulations, you�ve proved that the German government decided to uselessly resist for a week more and throw more young men to die in a war they lost more than a year ago. Considering that the cause was lost in France in more ways than one, and that France and its populace was simply not prepared to fight another war, of course they�re going to fall more easily.
And again ignoring the fact that Germany was almost completely occupied before they surrendered, unlike France which falls with about 20% of their country is occupied.
Quote
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”
No, we can�t only look at the leadership, because as I�ve proven quite clearly, there was Frenchman that continued to fight with the Allies. A number that was small at first in 1940 but grew considerably during the war.Yes some french did decide, while the vast majority went “Vichy”. They became policemen who helped Germans find innocent people and helped lead them to slaughter. So by “fight” you have found a new term which is fight for the Germans.
Quote
Their is not proof that “every Frenchman” would love to fight with de Gaulle or serve coffee.No, but as I�ve said there�s proof that many French people were trying to as peaceful a life you could get in an increasingly brutal occupation.
Right. Not worry their pretty heads about such things about how the French nation is collaborating with the enemy, only to worry if the coffee is the right flavor for the German officers…
Quote
Right but you have not once accepted the fact that the much greater weight of actions ARE collaborations with GermanyDo you have any numbers, per chance, of the number of people that were actively supporting the Nazis and the Vichy regime?
Looking that up
Quote
and a very minor aspect was actually fighting the Germans.Odd, because that �very minor aspect� became a useful tool for the Allies inside France, and the Free French had continued to grow over the years.
That is odd, considering for the 4 years of occupation, most of the french acts of defiance are very few. Funny how “just before the invasion” turns out a few supporters knowing freedom is a few weeks away. How convenient.
Quote
You can’t keep brushing that under the rug of national shame.No, nor do I intend to. I just completely disagree with your juvenile notion that a great majority of the French populace engaged in active collaboration with the Nazis. You might accuse me of trying to ignore the dark stains of French history at that time, but I can just as easily accuse you of trying to ignore the many instances where French people either continued to fight with the Allies, or simply did not actively collaborate or resist.
Still the point is the acts of collaboration vastly outweighed the acts of resistance. Please come to terms with this fact. It does not matter which french did it or who ordered it. The French did it and ordered it. And by French we mean the “official french government known as Vichy”
And that real strawman argument about " hey following orders means the ‘acts’ that make the French people look like collaborators are really to be blamed on political leadership" and attempt to make some strange separation is the same thing heard at Nuremberg when everybody said “i was following orders”. The German people created Hitler, and the French people created Vichy the acts of each are not in dispute and they are not good acts.
Quote
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.That probably has something to do with the fact that the Free French government was a government in exile, whereas the Soviet Union was not. Nothing particularly hilarious about that.
The Free French was not a “government” it was nothing but a loose collection of French soldiers that escaped Dunkirk. The “French Government” was in fact Vichy collaborating with the Germans for 4 years. The Free French was also a number of military units fighting with the allies and totally financed by UK.
Yugoslavia had military units fighting the Germans under Tito, but these took what they needed by killing Germans and sabotaging everything possible that the Germans could benefit from. They did not serve coffee either.
-
The French tanks were generally better than the German tanks, except for one thing. German tanks had radios so command and control was immensely better on the German side.
You’re right. In fact, Bad communication in the French army it’s one of the reason of the French defeat in 1940.
The first reason was the incompetence of their high commands.another problem some of the french tanks had was the commander was gunner also
the germans divided the labor making them more efficient
I agree.putting my personal feelings about the french aside(don’t particularly care for them in general) have to agree with red harvest their leaders let them down when they needed them most
Bingo now you talk!!! Second reason why French lost the war. The french soldiers were abandoned by their superior and some opted for surrendering while the others fought till the end.I think you need to understand, that NOT FIGHTING is COLLABORATING.
Any frenchman who just “went about his business” during World War II, was a collaborator, and a coward.
What about Norway, Danemark, Netherlands? Are they brave or coward? -
I think everyone should stop trying to convince IL of anything other then what he wants to hear.
To get back to the point, I dont think France is held in too much contempt (with few notable exceptions) in terms of A&A, its just that where this game picks up France is about to fall. I dont view this as contempt, its just where France was at the historical date, and once metropolitian France falls there isnt much else for France to do so they do tend to get marganlized and largely ridiculed as a result. Looking at it objectively one can understand players looking down on France as statisticly speaking there isnt much chance (save for a wrathful dice god looking down on you) of France resisting the German invasion and after that France’s military forces can usually be counted on one hand. In a game that is the size and scope of A&A1940 the remaining French forces will never be more then a speed bump to the other players and the “contempt” with which they are held only make good sense. The remaining French force barely register as a threat to an Italian player never mind the Germans and if the allies (the UK in particular) were to place any sort of strategy on these forces it would be a blunder the likes Singapore! So I think the “contempt”, which isnt really a fair way to describe it, in terms of A&A1940 is more or less justified given the circumstance in which France finds itself. Most of the stuff we have been discussing is all pre-war and dosnt apply to the time setting of 1940. An idea to address all this would be to have an A&A game focused soley on Europe and have it start in 1939 with the Germans invading Poland, then all these things could be played out. As A&A1940 stands this sort of thing is all academic.
One could call this “unfair treatment” of the French from a historical standpoint, but from a game desing aspect it is a necessity. France needs to fall in order to drive the rest of the game forward and get to the bigger and some would say more important part of the game, the show down between the Germans and the Soviets. Given the depth of this game and the attention lavished on the eastern front portion of the map(and the huge number of changes made to the set-up and rules to make sealion more and more unfeasible) it is clear to me that this is where the game designer intended the biggest and more important part of the battles to take place. As another indication that the east front is “where its at” (ducks to dodge thrown rotten fruit) is the great length gone to in sebsequent rivisions to reduce the appeal of a Japanese strike on the Soviet union (adding in IPC penalties, changing the status of neutrals, ect) to make it a pure Soviet v German (and maybe a few Italians) fight.
To me A&A1940 kinda works like a well written story with a solid begining, middle, and exciting ending. The fall of France is like the introduction, it shows us who the main charaters are and set’s up the following chapters. The fall of France is actually quite dramatic, as the sudden influx of IPC’s gives the German war machine some serious clout and rightly put the fear of god (or more rightly fear of the Germans) in the allied, espically the UK, player(s). Now with the scene set the story beings with the Axis warmachine ratcheting itself up and positioning itself so it can best skull F the allies and the few active allied players scrambling to check them. This goes on for the first few turns but then ratchets up further when the USA and the Soviet Union get into the fray. Once this happens we have come to the middle, the meat of this story/game if you will. Now the Axis war machine has a real threat to contend with as two new players whos strenght can not only check them but have the ability to counter attack and drive them back have entered the fray. Then as the game moves forward we come to what will be a thrilling ending where either A) the Allies have worked together and wrecked the Axis forces, with Japan blockaded on its home island fotress like a classic Bond villain and the Anglo-Americans joining hands with the Soviets somewhere over a defeated Germany or B) The Germans storm into Moscow and cruch the Soviet Union once and for all after having used mechanized forces based out of central France and western Germany to crush the 7th Anglo-American attepmt to land in Normandy and Japan is poised to have a long drawn out struggle with the Americans(and a few Anzacs) in the Pacific having crushed all resistance on the Asian mainland. That fact that the games overall layout work out like this just speaks to the good design. Another show of good design is the fact that you could replace all the historical countries and weapons with fantasy elements (elves, humans, dwarfs, orcs, gobblins, dragons, ect) and still have just and exciting and thrilling game.
In the end France dose catch a somewhat bad rap but in terms of the A&A game itself this justified as they are rendered next to useless by the first turn of the game. If anything the country I think is treated with too much contempt is the Soviet Union. I can understand where this comes from a historical standpoint but in terms of a game is just seems kinda of silly. This is a game, its ment to be fun and the horrible things that actually happened during the war shouldnt really factor into the playing of the game itself.
-
I think everyone should stop trying to convince IL of anything other then what he wants to hear.
yeah you’re right but he loves to play this game……Yeah I guess, but I feel hashing over and over again why certian players dont like countries is taking away of disucssing the general vibe of the community as a whole. There are some very loud members of the comunity with very strong opinions but spending 5 pages discussing why they inparticualr have the views they do is a waste of time as it is their opinions and they are more then welcomed to them just as I am welcomed to disagree with them. What we should be discussing is Why this feeling exists, or why certian members precieve these feelings to exist, in the first place.
-
I think everyone should stop trying to convince IL of anything other then obvious facts that are found in books that many Francophile’s tend to never acknowledge during the period of 1870-1945.
yeah you’re right but he loves bring up those tricky “facts” that seem to get in the way of a squeaky clean French image……
-
I don’t see that it makes sense to condemn the French population for collaboration in occupied territory. Collaboration is always an issue in occupied lands and trying to draw a broad conclusion based on the relative resistance/collaboration of the citizenry seems unrealistic. Public figures/govt./military officials on the other hand are fair game! I thought MalachiCrunch’s summary of the shift in French views on the matter was a fair one.
I can’t say that failing to resist is collaboration. It is survival, particularly when one has family trapped there. I try to place myself in the position of the person and consider whether or not I would be willing to risk my family (my responsibility) in a given situation. While I’m more than willing to take personal risks, I would be hesitant to endanger them directly under a brutal regime.
The part that I really don’t understand is collaboration by military officials outside of France proper. Seems like underlings could have done the world (and France) a favor by popping a few caps in the top brass immediately following the armistice.
-
Yeah I guess, but I feel hashing over and over again why certian players dont like countries is taking away of disucssing the general vibe of the community as a whole. There are some very loud members of the comunity with very strong opinions but spending 5 pages discussing why they inparticualr have the views they do is a waste of time as it is their opinions and they are more then welcomed to them just as I am welcomed to disagree with them.
But it’s interesting and fun to read - a lot of it, anyway.
What we should be discussing is Why this feeling exists, or why certian members precieve these feelings to exist, in the first place.
Seriously? Isn’t that what UN Spacy tried to do in starting this thread? You expect that people can discuss why certain “feelings” exist without a full blown subjective, prejudicial thread full of preconceived notions and hate? Dream on.
Seriously? Look at the title of the thread again. If you don’t like heated discussions about whether there should be contempt for the French, then don’t read in these types of threads/discussions.
And Spacy - what do you expect? You ask if there is too much contempt for the French from A&A players. That is effectively asking everyone to justify their contempt, which is all IL and some others are trying to do. So don’t ask an open-ended question and then just blast everyone who answers it in a way that you don’t like, because that’s self-contradictory.
:lol: Thanks everyone, for a lot of free entertainment.
-
Public figures/govt./military officials on the other hand are fair game!
The number of actively employed French during 1940-45 in these roles is vastly greater than those who hid in the forest and blew up trains for the resistance and were real French patriots. This population of government workers was all volunteers and actively helped the Germans round up innocent people.
-
Seriously? Isn’t that what UN Spacy tried to do in starting this thread? You expect that people can discuss why certain “feelings” exist without a full blown subjective, prejudicial thread full of preconceived notions and hate? Dream on.
Seriously? Look at the title of the thread again. If you don’t like heated discussions about whether there should be contempt for the French, then don’t read in these types of threads/discussions.
Well that is kind of expected, I never said that I didnt expect this sort of thing to happen. Honestly you dont spend several years on a forum and not expect a thread like this to descend into the usual faffing about, but I think we’ve discussed the subjective individual opinions enough after 5(now 6) pages of it. Evidence has been brought forth several times about French inter-war tank designs being slightly better then the Germans, yet we are still seeing posts that say France was using the same tanks the had in WW1! I think this is a clear indication that we arent getting anywhere with this kind of stuff and its time to move on past the topical part of the issue (the boo-yucky-surrender-moneys! faction vs the Oui-oui-viva-le-Francophiles faction) and to the root of the issue.
And why dose that mean it still cant be fun gamerman? I get its fun to watch the monekys jump around the cage and fling poo everywhere but we need to move on to the other exibits and let the monekys move on to playing chess or something.
-
:-)
Agree the subject has been exhausted.
Have been enjoying your posts, Clyde, as much as anyone’s. -
@Imperious:
Again this is because the population had no reservations against fighting against her occupiers.
Right, so because a large part of the population was not fighting means they collaborated. Again with this “us vs. them” nonsense. Either you’re with us or against us, is that it?
How convenient to ignore days before the allies invade or after they invade.
Except they didn’t “ignore days” before the Allied invasion. As I’ve already pointed out they constantly fed intelligence to the Allies in Britain and smuggled downed pilots out of the country.
Compared to the systematic acts of collaboration, these acts pale in comparison.
Your point being? Still waiting on those numbers of collaboration by the way.
And how did Yugoslavia use such excuses of physical separation? They didn’t. They fought all the way. Other nations occupied did not just form collaboration government and pretend they are ‘neutral’.
Guess you’ve never heard of Quisling. Or the “Independent State of Croatia”. Or Dutch police and civilian authorities collaborating with the Nazis (the Netherlands had one of the highest levels of collaboration with the Nazis during the Holocaust. Guess that means they’re all cowardly, incompetent fighters, hmm?) Or the Denmark “Protectorate Government”.
You’re extremely oversimplifying it. The fact that French historians to this day are extremely divided on Vichy France does not mean that “they” all just sweep it under the carpet. I’m not sure why you still think France is some big monolithic entity with a hive mind where all its inhabitants have the exact same opinions of Vichy.
Again don’t make excuses for them.
Did you even read it at all? I said: which was in no small part due to their own mistakes.
And again ignoring the fact that Germany was almost completely occupied before they surrendered, unlike France which falls with about 20% of their country is occupied.
Well I’m sorry that you feel the French didn’t follow in the footsteps of the Germans and throw young boys and old men after an overwhelming force even when the war was far lost.
Yes some french did decide, while the vast majority went “Vichy”.
Still waiting on those numbers–-
They became policemen who helped Germans find innocent people
–-Oh, right! Nevermind, we have the numbers right here. According to you the vast majority of the French population became policemen. Never before have I heard of such an influx of people, millions at that, actively go out and round up people.
The Free French was not a “government” it was nothing but a loose collection of French soldiers that escaped Dunkirk. The “French Government” was in fact Vichy collaborating with the Germans for 4 years. The Free French was also a number of military units fighting with the allies and totally financed by UK.
Really? Just soldiers from Dunkirk? Then pray tell how it managed to grow to 540,000 by 1944, when 139,997 French soldiers were evacuated from France, a great many who eventually was repatriated?
Suggested Topics
