Correct - Stalingrade was a military action and not only were the civilians forced at gunpoint so were the soldiers (alot of conscripts and criminals). They would send men into battle unarmed and told them to "go get a gun".

The Russians had a real reason to fight to the last man. They knew what the Germans would do to them. They treated the French FAR differently than the Russians.

Didnt the Germans show the French how to bath and use toilet paper?? :)

I really beg to differ. The Germans persecuted the French Jews and minorities just as they persecuted any others, and they turned the French women into their whores and mistresses.

This is an utterly insufferable state of affairs.

I'll respond to RPK when time permits. I'll have to check a lot of sites to make sure my recollections are correct before i go posting a rebuttal.

In America, each and every one of us is in the Militia in a time of invasion, so there is no distinction between military and civilian IMO. And who were the Russian military if not the Russian Citizenry? They evacutated those civilians so they could dress them up in uniforms and send them right back in. And in many places Russian Partisans- civilians- did fight ferociously against the Nazis. I really have no problem with the military forcing everyone to fight at gunpoint in a scenario of national survival. If someone is not even willing to fight in that kind of scenario, they are not worth the food and water they will consume.

My suggestion that everyone fight in every city is not new at all, it is millenia old and dates back to the time when cities had walls around them.

I said FAR DIFFERENTLY and that can’t be disputed. I do not say they showed the French love. I agree the Germans did persecute the French just as you stated but they massacred the Russian!! There was also a very real reason why the Germans fought the Russians so hard – they knew what was going to happen to them. Again - FAR DIFFERENTLY!

What is the difference in how a French Jew was treated compared to how a Russian slav was treated?

Was there any real difference? I don't think so.

And preventing your populace's women from being turned into slaves and whores for foriegn invaders is reason enough to fight until the least man.

Let me show you what the difference was - it seems VERY clear!If you need a caculator let me know. :)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1253041798.jpg

I suspect a big part of why so many russian civvies died is because so many russian civvies either fought, or got caught in city sieges and encirclements.

Of course i see your point, but the fact of the matter remains that the subjugation the french faced was also horribly humiliating, and for over a quarter million of them, fatal.

OK I will take that - were cool. Now lets all gang up on RPKESQ - LOL!

beats the hell outta SLEEPING WITH TRAITOR POODLES! or the nazis for that fact.

seems to me from HISTORICAL PHOTOS(documented) that QUITE A FEW OF ZE FRENCHIES TURNED AGAINST THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN along with QUITE A FEW OF THEIR BEEE-ATCHEZ. and if i historically recall (while im masturbating) that upon the liberation of paris by the united states army(yes we allowed ze free french to be the first in), quite a few of the turncoat traitor POS frenchies were SUMMARILY EXECUTED,IMPRISONED, or in the case of the BEE-ATTCHEZ had their heads shaved and stripped of their clothes.


what a fine way to treat your fellow countrymen if they didnt collaborate with the nazis.

how many u.s./allied traitors were executed during WWII? hmmmmmmmmmmm


what a question of national pride to ponder here.


during war, it is common knowledge to join one side or the other. and if you live in a country that is your homeland, you join that side.


so once again the statement............"ze frenchies only sleep with whomever is buttering their croissants!" or packing their fudge! LOL!

Some elements fought, and some well, but most did not, they simply gave up their arms without a fight. The real culprit here is the leadership (military and civilian), who instead of ordering units to try and link up and fortify the cities simply ordered them to surrender. Who instead of ordering the people to resist the enemy and assist the military, ordered them to give up.

Perhaps not in every city, no, but they sure as heck fortified and fought in some of them. The French made no attempt to even try.

Reynauld was an idiot of incomprehensible proportions, and Petain was a complete traitor to his people.

Again, complete leadership failure. Darlan should have ordered the French navy to England and informed the RN Admiralty of their intention to join RN forces in opposition to the Germans. But he didn't. Their entire fleet sat in port where it was destroyed in detail by the British.

On Darlan Churchill quipped: "(He had) but to sail in any one of his ships to any port outside France to become the master of all French interests beyond German control." Darlan could have become "the chief of the French Resistance with a mighty weapon in his hand." Churchill believed the Admiral could have been the "Liberator of France".

Darlan did nothing of the kind, and the British were forced to sink the French navy themselves to keep it out of Nazi hands.

Even after the French fleet was surrounded at Algiers in July they resisted all offers to allow them to join the Allies, or to sail to a nuetral port, and they were therefore destroyed by the RN.

This was perhaps the most disgraceful chapter of France's participation in WWII.

Meanwhile, contrast that with Churchill's actions and comments:

"The day after attacking the French, Churchill went to the House of Commons to explain why he ordered the attack on the former ally. Churchill declared, "However painful, the action we have already taken should be, in itself, sufficient to dispose once and for all of the lies and Fifth Column activities that we have the slightest intention of entering into negations. We shall prosecute the war with the utmost vigour by all the means that are open to us."

For the first time since taking over as Prime Minister, Churchill received a unanimous standing ovation. Churchill had a message for the British, for Hitler, and for the world. The message was heard loud and clear.

England would not make peace with Hitler and the country was in this war for the long haul."

If only the French themselves had shown such commitment, had fought on as a unified force from their territories or the UK, but no.

They chose surrender, they chose dishonor.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/churchillsinkingfrenchfleet.php

True enough.

The defenders of Stalingrad were conscripted and often unarmed civilians. Simply slapping a uniform on a fellow and calling him a soldier does not make him one.

The Iraqi Fedayeen- a civilian militia force, operating loosely in conjunction with the remnants of the Iraqi army in Baghdad, came VERY close to cutting off an entire US Heavy Bde combat team and then simply overrunning it when they ran out of ammo.

The US forces BARELY held at Moe/Larry/Curly. Had even one of them fallen, the entire bde might have been lost...this against opposition infinitely more powerful than themselves, with very little coordination, very poor planning, and almost no tactical communications.

At New Orleans a US citizen volunteer Regiment from Kentucky decimated an entire British invasion army despite being heavily outnumbered and outgunned.

It can be done. It has been done.

Well if it ever comes to that i suppose i'll have to motivate them.

Now you're talking. You could issue your very own Order # 270 . . . Order No. 270.

"The first article directed that any commanders or commissars "tearing away their insignia and deserting or surrendering" should be considered malicious deserters. The order required superiors to shoot these deserters on the spot. Their family members were subjected to arrest.

The second article demanded that encircled soldiers used every possibility to fight, and to demand that their commanders organize fighting; according to the order, anyone attempting to surrender instead of fighting must be killed and their family members deprived of any state welfare and assistance."

Ian

yes BUT the french who did willingly join the nazi's
were not the liberals
they were the extreme rightwing
the french NEO-CONNED joined the nazis
same was true thru out europe
the rightwing anti-RED types
joined the germans to fight the USSR

"This is for you new people. I only have one rule. Everyone fights, no one quits. You don't do your job, i'll shoot you. Do you get me?"

~Lt. Rasczak, Starship Troopers.

The indomitable fighting spirit....

A noble one and it has delivered great victories and some less glorious episodes..

When one looks however beyond that and to the background that generates this then the picutre is murkier.

The notion that the 'French', or perhaps its political and military leadership were incompetent/ cowards etc is an easy one to make with hindsight.
We have seen that on a 'civilian' level WW1 had broken many parts of society and Snipe's postulating about militias etc is theoretical at best and appears to ignore the notion, in the late 1930s that women and children were NOT to be considered combatants in any form whatsoever (so the mind set of using them was simply not present).

We must also consider that the military leadership had all been in WW1 and had seen the effects first hand. Certainly my grandfather, having fought in WW1, was not exactly keen as mustard (yes he was gassed at Verdun) to get stuck back into fighting, due to his age, his now growing family and chose to keep his head down and fight in an irregular fashion...I don't know how many RAF/USAAF/ Free French/ Polish/ Czech airmen, shot down over Occupied Europe were returned to the UK due to his actions all the while supposedly carrying out his real job. Certainly enough for him to be formally recognised after the events. All I do know is that the 'fighting spirit' was there in a different manner to what a US perspective may deem acceptable.

So...'paralysed' is very correct...the 'Its all happening again' is a devastation that its is almost impossible to understand...and sorry Snipe if that means to you its cowardice.. losing millions of people.. something the US has never experienced is not something that one forgets easily.

Yes the Russians fought to the last.. but the savagery displayed by Stalin to his own people ...it is often argued he killed more Russians than the Germans, does not exactly but a great light on that. The price that they paid in manpower loses and devastation served Stalin as much as it did Hitler politically.

And finally we'll get to the issue that few here discuss....Hitler was, to a not insignificant percentage of the European population, not a villain, but an inspirational leader. Certainly in 1939 his actions were not condemed across the Board....in the UK, in France and other nations the 'National Socialists' were supported and viewed as a 'good thing'.. sweeping away the decadent 'liberals'... restoring the old order etc etc... so...creating a militia.. one that may or may not be on your side? Not exactly a great idea.

Oh and Snipe, the Home Guard...yup it was primarily armed with pitch forks, shot guns and WW1 vintage bolt actions. I know its difficult to understand but there were NO GUNS with which to arm them beyond this...The Brtish Army lost so much materiel in France that it was unable, until the UK armaments industry regeared and US imports flowed to supply its UK based elements and Home Guard with current generation weapons as all was supplied to North Africa and the Army there....

I think that the difference in perspective is such that we'll never be able to see each others' view entirely....

That would be the movie, not the book.

Captain Renault was a brave Frenchy fighting with the Free French in Brazzaville after being a prefect captain of police in Morocco.

No one ever speaks ill of a man or woman who fought to their last breath for what they believed was right.

Legendary Russian female warriors of WWII:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...px-Raskova.jpg
Marina Raskova, Combat pilot, regimental commander, Killed in combat, Hero of the Soviet Union, buried in Red Square.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ia_Litvyak.JPG
Lydia Litvyak, Fighter pilot, double ace, Killed in combat, Hero of the Soviet Union

http://01varvara.files.wordpress.com...ht-witches.jpg
Yekaterina Budanova, Combat pilot, double ace, Killed in combat, Order of the Red Star, Hero of Russia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...vlichenko1.jpg
Lyudmila Pavlichenko , Sniper, 309 confirmed kills, Hero of the Soviet Union

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...huk_Uralsk.jpg
Manshuk Mametova, machine gunner of the 3rd Guards Shock Army. Killed in combat, Hero of the Soviet Union.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emyanskaya.JPG
Zoya Anatolyevna Kosmodemyanskaya, Partisan, Combat veteran, captured, tortured and hanged by Nazi forces, Hero of the Soviet Union.

---

Lots of women fought, and fought well in WWII. Some of their names will live forever in Russia.

Lots of women fought and died in the French Resistance and are heroes in France to this day (look them up).

So why reading your first statement, are you ignoring it when speaking about the French? Some French leaders, OK. Some of the French soldiers, OK. Some of the French military leaders, OK.

The French people as a whole, not a fair judgment at all.

Is that so? Perhaps then its the leadership that placed people in this position that are to held accountable..like the Alamo or Custer's Last Stand?
Or does one perspective say glorious, brave..futile and ultimately stupid.

They did indeed.. however I recall that WW2 was 1939 to 1945, not raising and training women to fight in the 1930s; say 1930 to 1939.....
So whilst you make a very valid point its not relevant to the one I was making....
Certainly if one looks at the contribution that women made during the war there is no doubt that they took both an active military role as well as a vastly increased role in society and industry, but in the period before the war the vast majority of these roles were inconceivable.

My 2 cents and then unsubscribe.

The casualties on the Eastern front were the higherst for a number of reasons:

1. The fighting was the fiercest. All the largest battles happened in the east.

2. The environment was the worst. Casualties are not just caused by bullets, but by cold, disease, etc. You could argue that the conditions in the South Pacific/Burma/Malaya were worse, but the "Russian Front "had a reputation that was feared.

3. Neither side gave any quarter. To be a Russian captured by the Germans meant eventual execution. Usually sooner rather than later. There is usually no record of Russians arriving at labor camps like Dachau, because they were liquidated immediately. And the Germans liked to keep records.

Likewise, if you were a German captured by the Soviets you were looking at labor until you dropped dead.

As far as the military techniques, you could say that through the course of the war, the Soviet and German military ideologies did a 180 turn.

1. At the opening of Barbarossa the German Command was comprised of experienced and professional generals and Werhmacht tactics were comprised of fast fluid fighting strategies that gave the generals a fair amount of decision making power.

2. The Soviet generals were political appointees or 2nd tier types, because Stalin had purged the professional men. They were order to stand fast and never give and inch.

This of course, led to large encirclements and mass surrenders. By 1943, things had been reversed:.

1. A lot of the professional German generals were gone. Tired of the politics and top down orders, they were replaced with politically compromised "yes men". If attacked, there would be no retreat and no surrender.

2. Meanwhile, to his credit, Stalin had sprung alot of the veteran Generals from the Gulag and let the cream rise to the top. Zhukov had fairly free reign to do what he wanted...and what he wanted to do was win. In fact, he never lost. Tactics were fluid and mass encirclements of "fight to the last" German positions, like at Stalingrad became the norm.

RE: Soviets forcing Russians to fight at gun-point. In fact Stalin did issue such an order, but it is not clear that this happened very often. After the first few months of the conflict, the Russians knew quite well what the Germans were doing to their countrymen behind the lines and were generally willing to fight.

RE: French surrender: I doubt digging in an fortifying the cities would have worked. Tactics had changed since 1918, and the French, while on paper technically superior to the Wehrmacht, were in no way prepared for the tactics used against them. Within a short time this results in demoralization. In effect, their tactics, not the soldiery were defeated.

In all likelihood "digging in" would have resulted in a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war, with Paris besieged, and ultimately surrendered....and a lot more deaths.

The statement i responded to was that it was incomprehensible to the french(or ostensibly anyone else) that women should fight as combatants in the time frame we are discussing here.

Clearly, that is not the case.