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.
Youâ€™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 thatâ€™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 donâ€™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.
â€œThese peopleâ€, â€œthose Frenchâ€. Yet again, these absolute terms are poor wording on your part, as is the â€œus vs. themâ€ 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, youâ€™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 theyâ€™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 canâ€™t only look at the leadership, because as Iâ€™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 Iâ€™ve said thereâ€™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 â€œvery minor aspectâ€ 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.