As stated by you, its half truths and inaccuracy at best.:rolleyes:

Germany had many volunteers from other countries. There were Norwegians, Finnish, Dutch, Belgium, Spanish, Swedish, French, Danish SS units. Germany actively recruited for them. They did sign up.

You will note that in the chow line picture no combat equipment is in view. These are conscripts, not volunteers. They did not sign up.

To state that Vichy were traitors is a simpletons’ viewpoint. Petain tried to save as much of France as he could in the best way he felt was available. Yes, they cooperated in some ways with the Nazi's, but not in many other ways. Vichy France did not sign up to serve the Nazis.

They did not give up Jews for the most part until after the Germans occupied their section of France. They kept their fleet, all of their African army and tried to sit out the conflict. Hardly inspiring, but better than Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Norway all did.

The so-called Free French always opposed the Nazi's, as did the French Resistance.

It is the trait of a poor history student to apply 20/20 hindsight to events long after they occur. France was alone and made the best of a very bad situation. Many French soldiers fought until the end of the Fall of France, many French civilians risked everything to fight the Nazi's. As did many other people from all over Europe. You dishonor those people from all over Europe.

You forget that appeasement and isolation was the predominate view of Americans for 2 years after the war started. Major politicians spoke of leaving Europe to the Nazi's. Lindberg (the greatest American Hero at the time) was a leading spokesman, spouting anti-Semitic views and accusing the Jews of causing the war. These views were widely held throughout America. America, even under Lend/Lease demanded cash from Britain for war supplies, no credit (and Britain was the far larger recipient of Lead/Lease supplies). American companies, like IBM and Ford reaped great profits from ther German branches during the war and never cut them off or tried to limit the use of their products by the Nazis. America turned away Jews trying to escape the death camps by the boatloads. Hardly, something to be proud of.

But your "whitewashed" version of history and the childlike fascination with German weapons are what constitute your infantile worldview and bring comfort to your insecurity. So be it. Who am I to take your crutch away?

Cowardly behavior and profit driven greed existed on all sides. Americans too.

Courage and self sacrifice existed on all sides. French (and the rest of Europe) too.

I bet this woman has no idea that if she sold that STG-44 to a collector she could buy a house, and food for a year...all in cash.

man yer a real POODLE CLOWN!

now during war(pick any) and numerous other team sports you PICK SIDES! yer either on one side or the other. if you play both sides you are a double secret agent with (2) super secret decoder rings and you are classified as a DOUBLE AGENT! and then yer SHOT when finally found out.

lets see her. ...........petain is sentenced to DEATH for being a ******* TRAITOR(correct me if he was busted for jaywalking) and then thru the grace of god and his captors, his sentence is commuted to life.


you dont get the death sentance or the life sentence for just giving the silly pyscho nazis a lil head here and there. ya get those kinds of punishment for sleeping with them and being a TRAITOR TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY! and there were 10's of thousands of FRENCH TRAITORS!

now lets see how many u.s. citizens or military during wwII were TRAITORS??????


hmmm quite the question and the number doesnt even hint of the 10's of THOUSAND POS FRENCH who turned against their own country.

the french have been getting "F's" for playing military for a long time now and history channel/military channel and every history book on the librarys shelf proves that fact!

now just because of yer "i love the french and worship the ground they ran from" attitude,


we will no longer:

1) order FRENCH FRYS
2) order FRENCH CROISSANTS
3) order FRENCH TOAST
4) order ESCARGOT
5) order FRENCH WINE
6) order a FRENCH RENAULT
7) order a FRENCH PEUGEOT
8) order a FRENCH CITROEN
9) order a FRENCH POODLE
10) order any FRENCH PERFUME

now you have gone and dunned it! we will single handedly drive your new found country into ze poor house!

you vill have to EAT CAKE! and yer mutha smells of EDELBERRIES! and yer father was a HAMSTER!

p.s. MONTE WAS/IS/and ALWAYS WILL BE A MORON in the annals of military history

MY KUNG FU IS STRONGER THEN URINE KUNG FU CUZ HISTORY CANT BE CHANGED AND HISTORY WASNT RITTENED BY LIL OL ME! nor you.

it must SUCK TO BE YOU, and get history shoved up yer keester time after time.


wwII combat WAS EXTENDED because of MONTY and WAS EXTENDED because of VICHY frenchies.


now monsieur poodle boy.......................


explain WHY the very uber modern/ultra swank/highly fashionable/ FRENCH FLEET WAS SUNK?

pick one:

1) they liked the silly nazis

2) they hated the silly nazis

3) they had nothing better to do that day but open seacocks and set demo charges

4) rommel was sick of the dez and wanted to be an admiral

5) the allies might capture the fleet

6) the dumbass french admiral couldnt figure out if he was free french or VICHY

7) the french admiral slept with a poodle and had morning sickness

8) monty was on the edge of the harbor ready to capture the fleet

9) they were out of fleet bunker fuel cuz petain hadnt paid his credit card bill

10) they were out of french frys


cant wait............... for ANOTHER INSTALLMENT OF ZE FRENCHY HISTORY 101 ACCORDING TO MON-SEWER POODLEBOYESQ

LOL i love your posts Charles. :)

"childlike fascination for german veapons" WTF?????????

hmmm.........................


i guess i am childlike and i guess i do have a childlike fascination for BEANING THE LIVING HELL out of "X" at 1000 yards. mit der vaterlands sturmgewehr's. call it a personality disorder. beats the hell out of wrenching on a expresso machine.

oh vell...........at least im not in the history books for SCUTTLING an ENTIRE FLEET of NEW NAVAL SHIPS! nor AM I A TRAITOR TO MY COUNTRY!

Charles

It is rather ironic that the blind allegiance and faith in the infallability of your own country (and equally blind hatred for another) that you appear to exhibit is exactly what nurtured and sustained the Third Reich.

Ian

imacarthur.................

ya know i dont write the history books.

FACT: napoleon lost to the russians

FACT: ze frenchies surrendered in WWI

FACT: ze frenchies surrendered in WWII

FACT: monte WAS AN IDIOT and got a lot of men (canadian/brits/u.s. etc) killed because of his pompous self centered ego. his own country put him out to pasture after the war.

FACT: operation market garden DID lengthen the war, due to monte landing his airborne smack dab on top of mutiple panzer divisions.

FACT: monte thought he would slice right thru his objectives on d-day and ended up getting the brits and canadians into a nasty lil battle that ended up being a stalmate until the final breakout by the u.s. forces.

FACT: without the help of the u.s. monte would not/nor could not beat rommel

FACT: monte continued to bumble his way thru sicily and italy.

FACT: had doenitz had more submarines at the start of the war, england would have been starved into surrender.

FACT: had goering continued on with airwar over england the RAF was days away from being non existant

FACT: ze frenchies by the 10's of thousands turned against their own country and cojoined weenies with the nazis.

FACT: the french sank their own fleet of more than 30 ships all by themselves.

FACT: ze frenchies had their asses handed to them in indochina


now lets see here..................i guess im reading propaganda, and NONE OF THIS HAPPENED??????

the frogs won WW1

monte was famous for going slowly but did not waste men
and he did beat the fox by himself by the time we got there
the fox spanked the US army good at the kassirene pass
then left the desert war with monte holding then advancing
to capture the whole African corp along with the US army
post D-day monte was the anvil US army the hammer
one could not work without the other
operation market garden was a gamble we almost won
yes the op failed to break out but did capture alot of ground

You FORGOT Joe Kennedy as Ambasador to England was a great friend of Neville "appeasement" Chamberlin. They both shared the same view that Hitler should be APPEASED...

That paticular political position and his back stabbing nature with FDR ruined any political ambitions he may have had for himself.

http://judicial-inc.biz/hitlerParis.jpg
Yep, those French fought great. Giving up gay Paris without a single shot fired in it's defense.

Nor do you read them.

But did much better than the Germans did.

Bald faced lie from you.

Since you are lumping all French together, another bald faced lie.

BS, no evidence for such across the board, in fact Monte was extremely careful with his men. Another lie by you.

An operation that was enthusiastically approved all they way up to Marshall. So why is it all Monte's fault. Another lie by you.

[QUOTE=charleskieffner;4894658]FACT: monte thought he would slice right thru his objectives on d-day and ended up getting the brits and canadians into a nasty lil battle that ended up being a stalmate until the final breakout by the u.s. forces.

Monte had beaten Rommel more than once, long before tha Americans got their ass kicked in N. Africa (at first).

Italy was a complete bumble for the Americans too. Not until the Poles captured Monti Cassino did we crack the Axis defensive line. Americans could not do it. Silcily was another complete bumble by Monte, Patton and the Allied high Command. They all allowed the Germans to withdraw their forces without much in the way of loses.

Not starved nitwit, maybe run out of POL and other raw materials, but not starved.

Not true, when Hitler made the decision to attack cities instead of the RAF bases, Hitler lost the Battle of Britian. The RAF was perfectly capable of defeating the Luftwaffe over Britian if there bases and facilities were not attacked. Any study of that battle clearly shows that to be true. So another lie or just plain ignorance.

As I pointed out that was true for all occupied countries except Poland and Vichy France. You ignorance is astounding.

To prevent the Germans from capturing them. At great risk to themselves they destroyed their own ships to prevent any use by the Germans. This was the end of the Vichy Frence govenment. http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=210
So you like to only tell partial truths to bolster your prideful ignorance, who would have thought?

As did the Americans


No, you are watching entertainment dressed as actual history and repeating the same crap that you learned in gradeschool. Try to grow up.

You know, very well if you have studied the Fall of France, that there were no forces available in that area to mount a effective defense of Paris at that time. Paris was not the only major European capital that was declared an open city to prevent mass civilian casualties.

I would fight and die in my city here if we were invaded by any foreign force, alone if i had to, and i don't even like it here.

And there were forces available locally. The city has police forces doesn't it? And veterans from WWI? What's the term for them? Ah, yes....irregulars. Where were the French Fedayeen, if you will?

It is inexcusable to give up your capital or city, town, or home without a fight.

Do you know what another term for "declared an open city" is?

Surrender.

The germans, even at the bitter end and with old men and young boys inflicted 300,00 Russian casualties and knocked out some 1,800 armored vehicles in the Battle for Berlin.

I wonder how WWII would have turned out if the Russians had declared Stalingrad an "open city?"

The french "effort" was utterly pathetic. They deserve the black eye they've so rightfully earned for thier cowardice in not even defending their own capital.

Respectfully, that is an easy statement to make.

Place yourself in historical context. Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Holland have just collapsed in a matter of days. Many of their capitals bombed and thousands killed. Communication between front and rear areas is poor to non-existent.

French police are not armed at that time.

Many WWI vets were injured, and most from that generation were dead already.

Most other able bodied men have been called up and sent to Belgium. Add in children and the decision by the French Leadership to declare Paris an open city makes more sense.

And there was an active résistance effort from the very beginning.

It is easy to say never surrender when you have never been in such a situation, but even America has had several times when it did just that.

Many of these troops were slaughtered (and many were foreign, ironically the French SS troops were more fanatical than the German SS in the Battle of Berlin), needlessly as there was no chance for victory and the continued fighting only made the civilians suffer more during and after the battle. Most deaths were needlessly wasted. What good did it do?

France certainly made mistakes, no doubt. But the British made the same mistakes in France and they could not hold against the Germans either. Only a 21 mile body of water saved the British from the same result as in France.

And let's not forget who sacrificed an entire army corps in defense of the Dunkirk perimeter, allowing the British to escape to fight another day. In his memoirs, German General Keitel noted that it was the "gallant stand made by the French" that allowed the (Dunkirk) evacuation to become a success. Also the French Navy contributed nearly as much as the British Navy efforts in this battle.

And as always, singling out the French, (who suffered the most from WWI and was told in the 1920's that her allies would not be able to help in another German war) for doing what at least 6 other Western Countries did in shorter time frames, than France, is hardly rational or accurate.

Perhaps if France had made a Stalingradian effort at Paris, WWII would have turned out much differently, with far fewer casualties.

We will never know though, because they didn't even try...

We do know that the situation both logistically and militarily was completely different. Apples to oranges.

They did try, read the battle history.

At that point in time Paris had little to none available military forces positioned to defend the city. They also did not have anywhere near the logistical ability that Russia had by Stalingrad. Not in men, equipment or reserves.

The best French troops (along with the British) were trapped up in the Belgium region and could play no part in the defense of France. Both the French and British got it wrong. Both showed what they were capable of in repelling the Germans until the British were evacuated at Dunkirk. But neither had the ability to protect Paris.

Imagine the US putting the majority of its best troops, ships and equipment up in the Aleutian Islands and then trying to defend Midway or the Philippines.

Again, the supposed cowardness of France in this battle is not deserved by any examination of the actual facts. It seems that this opinion is based on some emotional position, not on any military facts or evidence.

yes france should have fought to the last man
but the brit should not have run away
as the germans were nearly out of heavy ammo and other supplys
but they didnot know that

The US has national guard and reserve forces- and armed citizen militias- that would defend every square inch of populated US soil, regardless of where our standing army was. They might not defend it particularly well, but they would sure as hell give it their best effort. You would simply not see US cities falling unfought for.

If the French failed to muster reserves/guard/police forces and arm them to defend Paris, that is their own fault, and just underlines their incompetence.

In WWI France defended Paris with the "taxi cabs of the Marne." An act that was credited with saving the city. In WWII, they didn't even try.

Declaring it an "Open city" was an act of sheer cowardice IMO, and the opinion of tens of millions of others, i reckon.

Of course Stalingrad was a completely different situation in some regards, but the number one thing that was different was the Russians willingness to fight- to the last man, even without rifles or ammunition in many cases, no matter what.

The Germans would have had to pry Stalingrad from the grip of the last dead Russian defender. That they were not able to forever altered the course of WWII, and cemented the Russians reputation as dogged and fearless defenders of their homeland, just as the fall of Paris cemented the French reputation as cowards.

History is not fair, but it is what it is.

[QUOTE=RPKESQ;4895216]Nor do you read them.



But did much better than the Germans did.



Bald faced lie from you.



Since you are lumping all French together, another bald faced lie.



BS, no evidence for such across the board, in fact Monte was extremely careful with his men. Another lie by you.



An operation that was enthusiastically approved all they way up to Marshall. So why is it all Monte's fault. Another lie by you.


hahahahahahahaha ya caught the "ze frenchys surrendered in ww1" hahahahahaha thought that would piss ya off.


as for indochina/the nam...............we did not loose the war. we withdrew support financially and manpower. south vietnams gubbermint/miltary lost the war.

ze frenchies walked away from the nam in shatters. tattered/torn and tattered/shattered sha -noo-bee sha-noo-beee!

France did not have a National Guard and creating one in 20 days is beyond even the US's ability. Armed citizen militias are not a Western European cultural position, neither were armed police at that time. So what you are trying to say is if France had these things they should have used them (which is just like saying if France had tactical nukes they should have used them).

None of your suggestions existed in any of the countries over-run by the Germans in Western Europe. So why even discuss with 20/20 hindsight what they should have done with what they did not have at the time?

And France's supposed incompetence was exactly shared by Norway, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, Holland, and England. Why not blame them all? Why single out France?

Again apples to oranges. Because in WWI the troops were near or in Paris and the front was very close by. In WWII the French troops were essentially in three groups, the best in Belgium, the next best in the Maginot Line (which did work exactly as planned) and the third tier units in the South defending agaisnt the Italians which they stopped cold. The middle of the great central plains of France were virtually devoid of troops and little stood between the Germans and Paris.

With ll due respect, your opinion seems based on emotion, not factual evidence.



Like the French did around the Dunkirk perimeter.

OK, let's see the larger picture. When Germany attacked Russia, over 3 million Russians were captured and numerous cities abandoned by the Russians. That was true up until about December 1942. Only then did the Russians begin to fight back as "dogged and fearless defenders of their homeland". Until then, they ran like rats and surrendered in huge masses.

France di not havethe same luxury of hundreds of miles to fall back on, or the manpower reserves, or a 21 mile moat to protect them like the English.

Many French troops gave their all to protect France, they fought bravely and died before giving up. Many contiuned to fight as the Resistance and Free French. And many in Vichy France did not cooperate with the Nazis.

History is not fair, but putting a standard on France that you won't apply to all is unfair. Make a comparison that stands up to factual situations and the realities of the time.

When Germany attacked Russia, over 3 million Russians were captured and numerous cities abandoned by the Russians. That was true up until about December 1942. Only then did the Russians begin to fight back as "dogged and fearless defenders of their homeland". Until then, they ran like rats and surrendered in huge masses.

You know why don't you?

Yes, I do.

Very Good Carry On

That they didn't form reserves with the obvious cloud of major war hanging over their heads for months is inexcusable. They had the entire period of the "Phony War" to make these preparations.

That they didn't form them after WWI, or really given their entire long history of war and fighting off attacks on their own soil shows a generational leadership stupidity that seems incomprehensible to my mind.

Perhaps if France hadn't poured vast sums of cash into the Maginot line, "a testament to the stupidity of man," they'd have been able to defend their capital.

And honestly, huge quantities of rifles and grenades (augmented with molotov's) could be handed out to the population by the government in under a week....if only someone thought of it.

With the population of a whole city as laborers extensive prepared urban defenses could be effected in a matter of days. With the background you say you have you certainly don't need me to tell you that.

Had the Parisians fought for their fortified city after having been haphazardly armed by the Gov't they could have inflicted very heavy casualties on the Nazis. If the French people had dug in and fought at all their major cities with hastily trained and equipped fedayeen type forces WWII would have developed completely differently.

It is not fair to say that there were no examples of these types of forces...the US made great use of these sorts of "minute men" forces since the dawn of their country, as did the Swiss.

France had months to take precautions and prepare itself for the huge war that they knew was about to come. By your own admission, they were woefully deficient in preparing any kind of an armed reserve/home security force. They didn't even arm their police...

For the most part, yes, it was. And look what happened to them.

England had a Home Guard though. And while poorly equipped they would have fought with whatever they had, as would the British people. Come now, you know the Churchill speech.

If you mean it was just attacked at the Germans leisure after they drove around it, sure, it worked exactly as planned.

Too bad the French didn't build the maginot line ringing their major cities and ports instead, eh?

Everyone stopped the Italians cold in WWII.

Huge parts of the Soviet Union were virtually devoid of troops at all times....you don't have to defend open space in a manuever battle, you can also defend in fortified areas. Forests, mountain ranges......cities.

And also, the fact that France had no reserve force in case of exactly the sort of failures that occured is another example of extreme idiocy.

Yeah, me and countless tens of millions of informed people have it all wrong. The French really fought brilliantly. Giving the Nazis all they could handle.

The truth is, the Poles put up a far more impressive defense of their homeland than France did.

Well it's nice to know that the French will at least fight hard when completely surrounded by Nazis with their back to sea....

And who's trying to say the Russians fought well in the beginning of the war? It's widely accepted fact that they were totally disorganized and fought extremely poorly in the opening phases of the war. I don't see anyone denying that.

What france didn't have was the will to fight to the bitter end, like the British and the Russians had. Many feel they were broken and tired from the horrors inflicted on them by the Germans in WWI. Whatever the cause, they fought very poorly, and executed outmoded tactics combined with very poor strategic vision. Not forming a reserve to defend key ports and cities when MAJOR war is imminent? Some of the troops may have fought well, but the leadership was horrendous, as was their war plan.

Idiocy.

I don't see anyone trying to defend any of the other countries that fought poorly and showed a lack of fighting spirit and national courage. Only France.

And i really don't know why you think i'm being emotional. It doesn't really affect me at all that the French fought so poorly. You're the one that lives there, i suggest it's you that's affected by your loyalties to your adopted country.

If you want to study how not to fight a war, France's part in WWII is a damn good place to start.

Hard to fault the French for declaring Paris open, even though they are judged harshly for it.

The defense of France had largely collapsed, the impenetrable defenses had done almost nothing, and the Germans had reached the English Channel in what, 10 days? This essentially cut off the best of the French forces.

Even if weapons and men had been available to throw together a proper defense of the city, I would imagine the hopelessness of defending Paris was clear, and the advantages for delaying the fall weren't really there. Sitting on the Seine it does have strategic value, but it is not exactly Thermopylae.

Given the options of dying a symbolic death defending a clearly doomed Paris or bugging out and becoming a partisan, I'll take the latter.

Live to fight another day.

To the contrary, it's not hard to fault them at all.

Right off the top, not fighting for your capital is disgraceful.

Had the french made a final desparation effort even post invasion to arm the people and launched city wide efforts accross france to fortify the capitals and ports they could have tied up the nazis for a long time, possibly even a year or more, and inflicted huge quantities of casualties on Wermacht forces.

Imagine how much easier things are for the British in the Atlantic if the French dig in and fight to the last man for their ports and cities. It would delay the Battle of Britian and allow the British time to build up their airforces and defenses before the critical battle even started.

Even if the French ultimately lost, they could have made the Germans earn the victory, and paved the way for a much quicker eventual invasion into the European continent by the Brits and ANZAC/Canadian forces against a heavily bled Wermacht.

Barbarossa might not have even been possible at that point. The repercussions on the overall war effort would be endless and immense.

But the French simply gave up instead.

Didn't the Brits burn down DC in 1814 without much (if any) of a fight?

Did the US surrender after DC was burned, or did US forces decimate the British force shortly thereafter at the Battle of New Orleans with a reserve force of Kentucky Volunteers?

Or did the US just "declare New Orleans an open city" to "save" it?

Greater Paris had a population of around 7million at the time, with about 1/3 of the men serving in the military IIRC. That is a lot of women and children.

So what you are saying is abandoning the capitol to fight another day is OK. Thanks for clearing that up ;)

New Orleans is a dump. Defending and trying to get the British to destroy and burn as much as possible could have just been wishful thinking for urban renewal.;)

Women and Children are good fighters too. It's an ugly truth- but it is a truth.

And that is a hell of a lot of trigger pullers and trench diggers, even if they had no more than shovels, sporting arms, grenades, obsolete military rifles, and molotov cocktails.

Except they didn't fight another day. They surrendered.

I cannot disagree there. :D

But seriously....why do people remember Bastogne? Or Thermopalye? Or the Alamo? Or Stalingrad? Why are these battles used as historical examples of extreme bravery and courage?

Becuase the defending forces -massively outnumbered, cut off and surrounded- fought, to the death if neccesary, against all odds.

They carved their names into history and into the hides of their enemy. The 101st Airborne. The Spartans. The Texans. The Russians.

All are now legendary forces or peoples because of what they did when given the choice between fighting, no matter the odds, or surrendering to save themselves.

Had the French fought like that after their army collapsed, their reputation would be completely different today, wouldn't it?

But they didn't.

Its interesting to see how people's own perspective and experience, to say little of their 'aggressive' spirit places different values on the same event.

However they are trumped by the context in which those events took place.

The fall of France had as much to do with WW1 as with the actual actions in the opening months of WW2.

One thing that we, or for the most part we, cannot begin to comprehend is the devastation that WW1 caused to the entire populations of Europe, but in particular to the UK and France (as well as the Germans)...

Once the Armistice had been signed there was a period of total shock at the human cost of this 'War to end all Wars'. This resulted in a number of years of military 'denial' if you will that a war on this scale could/should/ would ever be fought again.

Imagine, if you will, the male population of entire neighbourhoods being wiped out, of villages in both the UK and France begin reduced by 75% by 1918. This has major effects which are beyond our emotional comprehension in terms of being mentally and emotionally prepared for another war. Then there is the resulting manpower reduction as fewer men meant fewer children etc etc.

So when Sniper talks about forming militias, the Home Guard and so forth in the abstract he is correct, but in the then current reality there was no will, no materiel and no manpower to create these.. the Army was the one key instrument that was there to do this and the thought process was to devote the entire effort to this rather than dilute the limited and finite resources over a wider scope.
Snipe please read up about the Home guard.. it is a frightening read and its creation was a desperate measure, of a terrified leadership more concerned with giving hope to the locals than the creation of an effective force....

And the mention of the Swiss is both irrelevant and very pertient. The Swiss at the time had a minuscule standing Army, fractions of the size (in % terms) than the French and the UK. That was its choice...and it bolstered this by the creation of a conscript Army, a reserve Army that when called up was far larger than the standing Armies. So a viable model for the type of war that the Swiss were preparing to fight is there.. and its the war the French ended up fighting, but in the 1930s there was NO perception that this was the type of war that was going to be fought (by either the French or the British) and so neither were prepared for it.

Is this incompetence? If yes then all of the European nations are in the same category.. including the Germans...and to a great degree the US.

If this is arrogance then all are guilty.

Preparing to fight the war just won rather than the one we will fight is a very current issue...if we look at the UK in the Falklands.. how prepared were we for that? Or the US in Vietnam.. or even the UK/US in Afganistan currently....

So whilst we all have our views framed by our own perspectives and feelings it behoves us all to acknowledge, even if only in passing, that our view of reality, especially of events such as WW1 is not necessarily that which was current at the time.. or even one that is shared....so Snipe.. your tens of millions who think XYZ are balanced out by the tens of millions who feel that what happened was a rational and reasonable approach 'at the time'...

The fall of Paris may not be the Alamo...but a truth of the Alamo is that it is regarded as much for its 'senseless waste' as for its 'ccourage'.

the relevant quote is

""we never won a battle nor did we need to
all that was needed was to fight ONE DAY LONGER"" Gen Gap

so the USA could have sent troops for 20-30 years
and the end results would have been the same
just cost more blood and treasure over a longer time
knowing a no win situation is a skill
one that many seam to lack esp on the rightwing

This is an interesting debate, so i'll keep it going...

I specifically mentioned the theory that many hold, that the French will to fight had been broken by WWI, and that they just didn't have the stomach to dig in and do it all over again.

It doesn't make it right or any less cowardly to just surrender your whole country largely intact and en masse though.

And again, as was mentioned, Paris in 1940 had a population of 7 million people. Paris had no shortage in able human bodies.

The Soviets bled just as badly in WWI....and when Barbarossa rolled around, even despite horrendous losses in men, materiel, and territory....they did not surrender their nation.

Mass surrender is simply not in the Russian national character. If the Russians had surrendered as France did, WWII would have been unwinnable without the eventual use of massed nuclear weapons against Germany in 1946 by the USAAF.

When the British stood alone, surrounded, hopelessly outmatched on the ground by the Wermacht, thier air force on the brink, did they surrender? Or did they fight on, no matter the odds?

We know the answer to that question, and the famous quote uttered by Sir Winston Churchill in reference to the RAF....

"Never in the history of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qtbh45EzrTw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qtbh45EzrTw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The will to continue the fight is a matter of leadership and national character. If you have it no army can defeat you.

The manpower was there, you just have to include women and teenagers in the equation. The materiel was there, you just have to include sporting arms, improvised arms, and obsolete military arms in the equation.

What was lacking was will and leadership. Without the will to fight, no army- no matter how large, can protect you. With the will to fight to the end, no matter the odds or circumstances, no army can defeat you.

If you fall fighting to the last man against insurmountable odds your name will grow to legendary status, you will become a rallying cry for all your countrymen and allies, and your name will reverberate throughout posterity as what is best in men.

The Afghan (and Vietnamese) people are a testament to the latter half of this equation, just as the French are a testament to the former part of this equation.

Hope is exactly what the home guard was about. And it was also about creating will. And a spirit of defiance. Much like Churchill's famous speech. It was a message to the Nazis.

What that message said is that no matter the odds, we will fight you to the last man if needs be. We will fight you from Canada, from our colonial territories. We will never surrender.

Audio of Churchill's speech here:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MkTw3_PmKtc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MkTw3_PmKtc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

To me, this is the greatest and most inspirational speech since the invent of audio recording. It set the tone for the British effort of WWII, and it told the Soviets that if they too continued to fight, they would not be alone. It told the Americans that any investment made in the British would not be wasted, but would be money well spent.

This speech should have been delivered from Paris under siege, by a Frenchman. Had it been, the man who delivered it would now be an iconic historical figure, and people would point to him and say his name whenever free men needed inspiration.

Instead people mention the name of France with a snicker, and hold them as an example of cowardice and how not to defend your nation.

Yes, this is a total failure in planning. And it was a need that the US recognized in 1936, with the advent of the National Guard.

And again, given France's specific national history, the usefulness of such a force should have been plainly evident, and i'm sure to many that it was. But as usual, France's leadership failed them.

Had they hastily formed such a force even as Nazi forces descended on Norway, my how things could have been so much different. A Nation's greatest responsibility is to defend it's own people and it's own lands.

This is something that France and the low countries failed at utterly.

Some of us more than others.

You are quite correct. The issue, then, becomes how fast a nation realizes it's deficiencies and corrects them. How fast their leadership takes charge and rights the militaristic wrong. How much the leadership fights and claws to keep irreplaceable capabilities from being lost to begin with.

Anyone that thinks that complete national capitulation without so much as a half-hearted defense of their own capital is "reasonable and rational" had better not ever get into a fox hole with me.

Because i will kill you myself.

One could consider many inspirational rallying cry battles senseless wastes if viewed simply from a body count perspective, but the truth is that inspiring an entire nation or alliance to fight is worth any one tactical defeat.

"It is the indomitable spirit of man that ensures victory, not the arms he uses."
~Gen. George S. Patton

Unfortunately for the French, they had a severe deficiency of the former.

Numbers and mathematical equations do not win battles, the hearts of the men and women that fight them do.

Many on this BBS are appalled when I mention the cowardice that Americans have shown repeatedly in their history. History is often ugly.

Mass surrenders, abandonment of allies, running like rats. Americans have done this more than once. But who tars the entire group with a charge of cowardice?

England ran in France, She ran in Rangoon, she ran in North Africa. Six other Western European countries lasted shorter than France did. Russia gave up land and POWs for time (a luxury no one else had), England hide behind the Channel (another luxury no one else had). But because of a few hard fought later battles, all their early cowardice is apparently forgiven.

And no matter the reasons for the Fall of France and no matter the number of French who died, or French who risked all for the Allies, fought bravely, and in the end won; you and other Americans want to paint the French as cowards collectively. And you don't think this is based on emotion?

If the US had ever run or surrendered on a national scale i'd call my country cowardly myself.

But comparing a tactical retreat to a mass capitulation of the entire body of your people and the whole of your soil is not a valid comparison.

"the poodle bites............the poodle chews". francois zappa

"feelings(emotions)?" "we dont have NO STINKING FEELINGS-EMOTIONS"!

as i stated ...........had it NOT been for the industrial/manpower backing of the united states during wwI/wwII, france and england would be spechen sie deutschen. and poodles would be called "das curly/girly hunds".

So, because of a few leaders in the highest offices, the entire nation is judged?:eek:

No matter how many fought on in any way they could, and no matter what they accomplished?

France was cursed with some very poor leaders, the French as a whole have always been willing to fight. Yeah, I see the double standard applied here.

Charlie boy, go back to masturbating about German weapons and leave the adults to talk.

Did the people overthrow that cowadly and capitulating gov't? Or at the least simply ignore their order to surrender and fight on? Did the French military? Did a military leader step up with his own plan to arm the citizenry in his sector and fight on even after the nation had surrendered? Did the people refuse to surrender and turn the streets of every french city into killing zones of their own accord?

Did the French fleet immediately put to sea and broadcast their intentions to fight on regardless of the cowardice of their national leadership?

The answer for the overwhelming majority of them, is no.

Where was the great French fleet when it was needed at Dunkirk? Why weren't their battlecruisers and battleships blasting the advancing Germans with their big guns? Perhaps with the whole of the French fleet and the RN Dunkirk could have been held, and that foothold not lost. But the French fleet never put to sea. It's leadership sat idle and paralyzed, just as the national civilian leadership did.

I have great respect for the Free French resistance and Free French Forces, but the rest were cowardly collaborators and surrender monkeys, and deserve nothing but mockery and scorn- for they have stained their entire national honor, perhaps for centuries. They saved themselves so that others might perish in their place.

And it is because of their lack of a willingness to refuse to surrender and fight on, regardless of the odds, that the Nazis were able to subjugate as many peoples as they did, as quickly as they did. Had the French citizenry in the big cities and ports fought with the sheer will and determination of the defenders of Stalingrad, there would have very possibly been no Barbarossa at all.

I expect nothing more of the French than i would expect of my own neighbors were we in their shoes ourselves. There is no double standard.

Several tried.

Yes, many units did from the UK, Vichy and North Africa, both resistance and military.

Yes, we call them the Resisitance and the Free French military supported them.

No, nor did they in Poland, Denmark, England, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Austria, Chekoslovakia, Malta, the Channal Islands, Hawaii, or in America during the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 or the Civil War. This did not happen in Russia or China. In fact, I cannot think of a country where this has happened.

They did anounce they would not let their ships fall into German hands and would not engage in combat with the Allies. Without air superiority, fleets were totally vunerable to aircraft, so no fighting on was possible except to commit suicide.

No, as you can see, the answers were mostly yes.

In the Mediterraian, where they were supposed to be in accord with the defense arrangements with Britian.

Because they were not in range. The elements of the Northern French Naval Forces did do this and helped save the British army with greater cost to themselves than the British Navy at Dunkirk.

They were five thousand miles away for the most part as per argreement with Britian. How were they supposed to help again? And after the fall of Northern France the Vichy government controlled them.

The defenders of Stalingrade were the military. the civilians were kept as slave labor at gunpoint in most cases as they could not retreat if they wanted to. After the initial German bombing attacks, the vast majority of civilians were evacuated across the river. Only a few civilians stayed on.

I taught, fought and studied unconventual warefare for 30 years. I respect your personal beliefs and courage. But I do not see any evidence then or now that your neighbors would stand up to a professional military for more than a few minutes. It is always a tiny minority that allow a guerilla war to exists, with the required majority to do nothing more than live in the same area. You know that and that is why we will never win in Afghanistan.

Expecting the majority of your neighbors to fight to the death is not supported by history or human nature.