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.