French D-Day losses

[Comrade]

Nonsense. Sweeping generalisation. First of all, Denmark was under German civil administration. Their king even stayed on during the war. France was under military admin. Also, the Danes were considered Germanic, and so were treated far better than the French- that treatment extended to the Danish jews. That better treatment was also extended to jews in Romania, Italy, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Hungary, at least until they came under official German occupation towards the end of the war.

But not Vichy France, which is a thing from which all French became universally despised for.

They could have certainly carried on the fight and made it very costly to Germany in the long run. Some hundreds of thousands of troops could have possible made it out to Britain and Africa, and along with every French colonies as allies the entire French fleet is at disposal. That alone is worth a year off the war and I'd even say perhaps a few millions lives, a 1943 D-Day, a unified Germany under the Allies, etc....

But France and the government under support from the people as a majority threw in with Nazi Germany and proceeded to restructure themselves as a Fascist regime well before the signing of the armistice. And thus Vichy France was born. And the entire French government under Petain who ran the entire military against Germany just shuffled over to carry on as collaborators with Germany in Southern France.

They were happy to gamble on Germany’s victory, after all, if Germany had won they'd have their Vichy empire. If the Allies win they execute a few culprites and carry on like it was their fault.

No other country in WWII ever had the gall to undermine their own allies just to hedge their bets with Hitler. It's not just a matter of principle, you have to actually have sympathy with Nazi ideology.... and for France, they did.

One mere example from the massive scale of appeasement the unoccupied French chose to :

"The French photographic company Photomaton, without any prompting, offered to produced identity photographs for Jews in Germany's concentration camps."

When Germany ran short on labour, Vichy France force marched some 750,000 of it’s own into Germany’s to work in war production and labour camps.

But really nasty part of this story is when the French under their own leaders and using French policy ronded up some 80,000 Jews and shipped them to the death campls... all without being prompted.

The French were and remiain more anti-semitic than even Germans.

And any Jew of 200,000+ refugees who tried to leave Vichy France, only a few were allowed... The rest tried to cross into Spain and the Vichy patrol spend a good deal of effort to ensure any Jew leaving for safer places, from day one, they were shot dead.

And without any prompting, the media began to encourage expressions and acts to dehumanize them, and under the same leadership of former France the French Police began to round them up and ship them to Germany for extemination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Philippe_P%E9tain#World_War_Iin willing

Just as was the case everywhere else there were collaborators and resistors, even in Denmark.

But a sovereign Vichy France knowing full well that in exchange for Jews they might get some brownie points from Hitler, well that's far worse than anything else.

That’s the main reason why Americans and the British and obviously any Jew left alive all universally loathe the French people is how they exchange our lives for their own future role alongside Germany.

And just becuase the Nazi's lost and few top officials were executed it doesn't change a thing.

Well, that is prob. because if you are American all you tend to study is the US involvement in WWII, ditto for the Russians and Brits. WWII- 1941-1945 or was it 1940-1945 or was it 1939-1945.

Well we all know that the French had to borrow a few Sherman tanks from Patton to actually ‘liberate’ Paris right ahead of Patton. I mean there were far more Polish troops involved in Normandy than Free French. Which says something about the Polish that the French can’t even try to mimic. The Warsaw Uprising is exactly the kind of thing the French refuse to do. Instead, they make Paris an “open city”…. Pshaaa.

I can guarantee the Russians never had a fair shot at history with Stalin in charge of the media.

But the Brits are probably just as well versed as Americans are.

And we have access to a vast media source to provide a framework of factual and moral issues that no other country can compete with.

So I’d say Americans are very well versed on the details, far more than most other nations as a whole.

 

[Hobbit]

So I’d say Americans are very well versed on the details, far more than most other nations as a whole.

Considering the U.S. and Russia were the only countries on both fronts (and the U.S. was the primary (or sometimes sole) driving force in both the Western Europe and Pacific theaters), I'd say so. Don't get me wrong, the Russians and British were equally important, the U.S. just got around more.

While we're on the subject, let's take a look at war contributions.

Britain - Suffered heavy military and civilian losses and watched their country burn as the desperately tried to hold out against the Nazis, using their naval power and the English channel, as well as the Spitfire air superiority fighter, to hold out.

Russia - Outlasted Germany in two of the longest and most grueling siege battles in the history of the world. After the tide turned, they simply overwhelmed the Germans. Their nationalism was a credit to their country and their superior numbers ensured an East Europe victory as well as a swift victory in the Asian mainland.

The United States - Though technically neutral, the U.S. kept the U.K. well supplied with arms and equipment, allowing them to hold out far longer than they would have. After Pearl Harbor, the U.S. fleet steamrolled the fanatical Japanese Empire and was the driving force that turned back the Nazis in Western Europe, meeting the Russians in Berlin.

Switzerland - Neutral, though they handled many of the Germans' financial needs.

France - A John Kerry country. They sided with whoever was the favorite at the time.

 

[Comrade]

Considering the U.S. and Russia were the only countries on both fronts (and the U.S. was the primary (or sometimes sole) driving force in both the Western Europe and Pacific theaters), I'd say so. Don't get me wrong, the Russians and British were equally important, the U.S. just got around more.

While we're on the subject, let's take a look at war contributions.

Britain - Suffered heavy military and civilian losses and watched their country burn as the desperately tried to hold out against the Nazis, using their naval power and the English channel, as well as the Spitfire air superiority fighter, to hold out.

Russia - Outlasted Germany in two of the longest and most grueling siege battles in the history of the world. After the tide turned, they simply overwhelmed the Germans. Their nationalism was a credit to their country and their superior numbers ensured an East Europe victory as well as a swift victory in the Asian mainland.

The United States - Though technically neutral, the U.S. kept the U.K. well supplied with arms and equipment, allowing them to hold out far longer than they would have. After Pearl Harbor, the U.S. fleet steamrolled the fanatical Japanese Empire and was the driving force that turned back the Nazis in Western Europe, meeting the Russians in Berlin.

Switzerland - Neutral, though they handled many of the Germans' financial needs.

France - A John Kerry country. They sided with whoever was the favorite at the time.

A fine summary if I can say so myself. Allow me to add more:


Sweden - Blond versions of the Swiss.

Poland - Probably the most valient people who met so many tragic endings.

Mounted horsemen mowed down by tanks, no help from France or Britain, attacked from both fronts, left to die in the Warsaw uprising as the Russian sat back and gloated, and all they got was a communist regime and a slew of Polish jokes.

Brazil - Who hell are these guys coming to get a piece in 1945? Go home wankers. What? You mean you didn't bring you're own boat?

Argentina - Lay out the welcome mat, the Nazis are coming to hide among us!

Italy - What the hell were we thinking? Please get rid of these Nazi's for us!

 

[Avatar4321]

interesting thread so far.

Im amazed that people are still trying to claim there was no connection between Saddam and Al Queda after it is common knowledge that Saddam offered Bin Laden refuge before he went to Aghanistan.

The casualities inflicted on France and Russia were indeed sad, especially considering most were avoidable. If France actually tried to defend itself they wouldnt have lost so many during the liberation. Not only that but maybe Britain and France could have pushed the Germans back without American help. As for the Russians, whats sad about that is alot of their casualities were caused by their own troops...or am i thinking of WW1. i can never remember.

 

[Avatar4321]

As for 1966- yep it gets on my tits too. It must be pretty easy for the host nation to win the world cup, as it happens more often than not. So, yeah, 1966, load of rubbish

Holy crap! You're a woman??!?

 

[MrMarbles]

interesting thread so far.

Im amazed that people are still trying to claim there was no connection between Saddam and Al Queda after it is common knowledge that Saddam offered Bin Laden refuge before he went to Aghanistan.

The casualities inflicted on France and Russia were indeed sad, especially considering most were avoidable. If France actually tried to defend itself they wouldnt have lost so many during the liberation. Not only that but maybe Britain and France could have pushed the Germans back without American help. As for the Russians, whats sad about that is alot of their casualities were caused by their own troops...or am i thinking of WW1. i can never remember.

France tried, tried hard but couldn't. They were fighting a fresh and equip army. The Allies were able to do what they did because of Germany's failing in Russia. Two fronts bad. Russia suffered massive amounst of casualties in both wars.

 

[Annie]

France tried, tried hard but couldn't. They were fighting a fresh and equip army. The Allies were able to do what they did because of Germany's failing in Russia. Two fronts bad. Russia suffered massive amounst of casualties in both wars.

France lied to their major ally, Britain. They had neither the forces, equipment, or command to withstand the Germans. They knew it and held their cards. Lying scum, that would have perhaps brought down Britain if Hitler hadn't been taken by surprise, allowing for the Dunkirk Escape.

Russia at this point had whit to do with French outcome, being an ally, not enemy of Hitler.

http://www.ifrance.com/letunnel/Maginot/history.html

 

[padisha emperor]

Hi everybody;..First of all, excuse my imperfect english, but I'm French, so please be indulgent. Thanks

I read a lot of things here, some were right, but a lot were wrong.

First to English Boy : I don't think that France is jealous of UK, or that France wants "multipolarity" because French losed some battles against the British....
You speak of Azincourt, 1415, where the best european knights were anihilated...but France won the 100 years war, in 1453 withe the victory of Castillon. So the trauma, the shock of the Azincoutr's defeat did'nt exist no more at this time, after the victory.
And after you speak of Trafalgar, Egypt - Aboukir - ... >> 2 victories at sea...we know that english fleet was best, really, than the french one...so, no complex here too...But for ground battles, France losed at Waterloo, in 1815, but won in Fontenoy - 1745 - , Reaucoux - 1746 - , and Lawfeld - 1747 - , and also Yorktown - 1781 - .

But since the napoleonic wars, France and UK did no more war one against the other, and except the Fachoda crisis, there are no problem.
France is not jealous of UK...

Now, come back to the main subject : France in WWII...

first of all : you spoke of the Maginot Line...it was not a so stupid idea...yes, and even the Germans built a line like it, the Sigfried Line, on the Germany-France border...THe conception of the Maginot Line's blockhaus was good...it was the implantation who was really bad.
Another thing : maybe could the Maginot Line helped to protect France on may 1940...if the Germans attacked in front of it, so, on the french border. But like said somebody here, they went through Netherlands and Belgium.....Like in 1914, yes. But it was a trap : France didn't believe that the german could go on through the Ardennes' forest, and in front of the Maginto line, so they prepare themselves to be attack by the germans on the Blegian border. What the german did. But it was a trap, to keep the french army here, while the german panzerdivisionen attack through the Ardennes. Surprise...the French army and British expeditionnary force were in a bad situations....a mighty army on fronyt of them, and a mighty army on their back...And afetr, the germans took the Maginot line , but on the "bad" side, so the frnehc could not defend it. But of course, it was not clever to think that this Line Would protect France against all the ennemies.

Second thing : some said also that France lied about the military potential...not really : France had in 1939 the best ground army of the world, even Hilter couldn't believe when he wom against France, and the Wehmacht's HQ didn't want in 1940 to attack France...they thought that it was too early, they would like attack in 1942. Unlucky, they successed in 1940.
And France had not so bad material and equipment : the tank B 1-bis was better than the german Pzkfw III. The french fighter Dewoitine 520 was good, some think it was like the famous Spitfire.
Germans had 2600 tanks, 3600 fight planes, France had 2300 tanks, 1400 planes, and add to it 1800 british planes, and on this 1800, 400 were in France.
So the French had about the same quantity of tanks like the germans, and they had the best quality often... But it was the way to use these equipement who was bad. Only de Gaulle understood the german Blitzkrieg, and his tank squad defeated some german units. But the HQ thoungts like in 1916. THey didn't understand the german tactics.
But the potential was not a lie. it was good. the tactics were awful.

Third things, about the no-fights : it's a lie : French defended their country against the german attack. But problems of logistic, some units had not ammos...problem of sabotage : some ammos were trapped by the communists - who come to the Resistance only after Barbarossa operation. Before it, they were with the Commmunist Party fo Moscou, who didn't want war with his "german ally".. (communists would did the same during the Indochina war) (fortunatly, afetr barbarossa the communists would become great resistants)... No problem of courage and panache, but with a rifle, what could you do agaisnt three Panzers ? But the Rivers where defended, like the Meuse... from the attack to the armistice,the french soldiers will fight the germans, but a big defeat do forget courageous fights....
And when you speak of Dunkirk : During the evacuation of British and French, who defended the perimeter ? the French...during severals days the French soldiers defended it, to the evacuation... and these soldiers had not benn evacuate after their heroic fight....
We can speak also of Bir Hakeim, in June 1942, or of the Italy Campain, or also of the 11/27/1942, when the french fleet based in Toulon scuttled itself so the german wold not take it...even the NY Times title "Gloire à Toulon" - glory at Toulon -
So, you see, France fought during the war... THe french free forces - FFL - fought in North Africa, in Italy, in France, Germany..the French forces of the interior - FFI, the Resistance, fought the Germans from 1940 to 1945.
You speak of paris, who didn't want to be a Warsaw... But who would wqant to be a Warsaw afetr the repression of this courageous insurrection ? You know, Von Choltitzt, the German governor of Paris, had orders : change Paris in a desert. Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, The Louvre : trapped with explosives. But the 08/19/1944, the people of paris began the insurrection, helped the 24 or 25, I don't remeber, by Leclerc and his 2nd armoured division. So paris was declare open city in 1940, but in 1944, paris was not far from the annihilation, like Warsaw.

To speak of the french casulaties : 580,000 deads : 192,000 regular soldiers, 26,000 dead in deportation because they helped the Resistance, 30,000 persons shot by a shooting squad, and 20,000 dead for the FFI. THe other deas : civilans.
(I get other numbers : 250,000 military, 360,000 civilians.

Of course, USSR, China or Poland lost more more and more.....

 

[MrMarbles]

France lied to their major ally, Britain. They had neither the forces, equipment, or command to withstand the Germans. They knew it and held their cards. Lying scum, that would have perhaps brought down Britain if Hitler hadn't been taken by surprise, allowing for the Dunkirk Escape.

Russia at this point had whit to do with French outcome, being an ally, not enemy of Hitler.

http://www.ifrance.com/letunnel/Maginot/history.html

You should read Blitzkrieg by Len Deighton. It will help with your misconceptions. Oh, and anyother book on the subject will help lots too.