Talk:Free France/Archive 2

Should Free French be listed among the allies in the Allies of World War II article?
I would like everyone interested in the subject to express their opinion on the article talk page .--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC) IMHO, France should be listed, period, with the reference explaining the situation. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article
Shouldn't Free France and Free French Forces have separate articles ? Free France was the generic name given to an actual organization, the Free French Forces being (obviously) its armed forces. The Forces were important, but they do not cover Free France's activity as a whole. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * check the Military history of France during World War II for that matter. the free french were mostly subordinated to the US or british command (they gave the equipment!) but not always.
 * This is not the point : "Free France" was a generic name given to an organization which was not only limited to its armed forces, even though they were of course essential. It also consisted of propaganda units, and something resembling a government-in-exile, even though its status was a bit complicated. Moreover, the legal truth in France (i.e. the legal proclamations made in 1944, which are still into force) specify that Vichy France was null and void, that France never legally surrendered in 1940, and hence that "Free France" was the legal representation of France all along. Yes, I know, that's 50% BS (at least until 1942), but this is still the official truth in France. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, is it? There was essentially a state of civil war in France. Free French forces and Vichy French forces would be at each others' throats when they met. The Free French branch won this civil war, allowing it to take power and claim legitimacy as representants of France. As the Free French had never surrendered, France never did.
 * In this perspective, whether a bunch of traitors and factious happened to be in control of the mainland is largely irrelevant, that doesn't make them more legitimate than the control of, say, submarine Surcouf. Rama (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's also my opinion, though I wouldn't call it a real "civil war" (the French situation never degenerated into a Yugoslav-like, or even a Greek-like, situation). That's why I stress that it's the official truth. One can read here the texte establishing, in june 1944, that France's surrender in 1940 is null and void, that the Vichy government is null and void, etc. One might have his own opinion about this, but it nevertheless remains in force today. Hence, the "legal truth" is that France never surrendered at all, as its surrender was not legal. I personally find this an amusing rewriting of history (very recent history at the time) but I won't go into the trouble of discussing its legality.
 * As for the fact that Free French Forces and Vichy Forces would be at each other's throats : that is true, but ultimately the Free French Forces merged with the French African army, which was de facto and until 1942, the "army of Vichy", so the situation is a bit more complicated.
 * Anyway, I still think that Free French and Free French Forces should have their separate articles. What do you think ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that there's an entire hierarchy of articles that needs to be arranged in a coherent manner. From the top of my head, I'd suggest something along the lines
 * Free France
 * Free French Forces
 * Free French Army (or what was it called?)
 * Free French Naval Forces
 * Free French Air Force
 * Comity for the Liberation and Defence of the Empire
 * Army of the Liberation
 * I think that a template "Timeline of France 1940-1945" pointing to these different articles could remove the need for another, upper-level article pointing to Free France and to Committee for the Liberation and Defence of the Empire -- that probably belongs to History of France anyway.
 * We'll then need to hunt down inexact references to "Free France" in lieu of the Comity. How does that sound to you? I know that you're more of an expert than I am, so don't hesitate to point to mistakes. Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I certainly wouldn't call myself an "expert". Actually, Free France was an umbrella term, describing the organization as a whole. It included : the actual committee led by de Gaulle, its propaganda unit (the radio in London), the Free French Committees formed by French people living abroad (founded in pretty much every foreign country, even Hong Kong), and of course its armed forces, which were the Free French Forces (including Naval Forces and Aird Force). Given its importance, I'd say it deserves its own article, as a primary article pointing to the Free French Forces et al.
 * The committee (Free French "government-in-exile", even though it was not formally recognized as such by the Allies, who just considered it a military and political partner, and flip-flopped as to which was the legitimate French government) went through different names : "Council for the defense of the Empire" (1940-41) and "French National Committee" (1941-43). After Operation Torch, Henri Giraud founded some sort of rival "free" government in Algiers which went by the name of "Civil and military commandment". It was not part of Free France (pretty much pro-Pétain, actually, although anti-German and anti-collaborationist) and claimed authority on the French army in Africa. In 1943, de Gaulle and Giraud's administration merged and formed a new entity, known as the "French Committee of National Liberation".
 * What happened there can be debated : although the anti-Axis French forces kept being referred to as the "Free French Forces", the Free French actually stopped using the word "Free" on an official basis, even though the "Free" veterans kepts regarding themselves as such. This was to avoid any friction with the African troops who had previously regarded them as "rebels". The cross of Lorraine also stopped being used officially, although the Free French units kept using it. The military force resulting from the merging was known as the "French Liberation Army" (or "French Army of Liberation", depending on the translation). It was this force (broadly referred to as "Free French Forces") which took part to the Italian campaign and Operation Overlord; maybe it would deserve its own separate article ? The French Committee of National Liberation became in june 1944, just before D-Day, the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF), which officially took power when France was liberated, and was recognized by the Allies as France's legitimate government, though not before october 1944.
 * So, one can consider that "Free France" stopped existing in 1943 (it officially did) or that the GPRF was actually Free France in a different guise (de facto, that was somewhat the case). It's actually interesting to point that, from a legal point of view, the "resistants" in France only include the pre-merging Free French Forces and the pre-Dday members of the "internal resistance" (networks in occupied France). This means that members of the African army, who took part in the Italian campaign, the liberation, etc, are not considered "resistants", even though they took a lot of risks.
 * De Gaulle also coined the term "Fighting France" ("France combattante") as an umbrella term including the Free French Forces and the French Resistance, though it is seldom used.
 * Hope this could help. I think a good template could include all of these subjects. I'm not quite sure, however, that the "Council for the defence of the Empire" and "French National Committee" deserve their separate article (well, they do actually, but not just for the sake of it). The current French articles are mere stubs, and it should be checked that there is enough material for distinct articles. This is definitely the case for the French Liberation army, though (I just saw that this point has already been raised here). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Free French and Free french Forces could in theory be split into separate articles. In practice however there would be so much overlap between the two that it would be hard to make a useful separation. It would also involve a great deal of work. --- Asteuartw (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there would be a need to separate Free France and Free French Forces. Sure they are different, but there is so much overlap I think it would be much easier for readers to understand the differences and similarities if it was all together in one article. Free French Forces are essentially a part of Free France. So this would create a better flow of information, and everything would be in one place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.10.21 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

senagalese etc.
i've noticed someone tried to say the free french were not french and the free frnch were not white. i suggest the creation of the article Non-French personnel in the Free French that would point out the truth (hopefully). there are a lot of fantasies surroundies the free french, in france and abroad. all i could say is france was back then a world empire, people from these empire were french nationals even though not french citizens (that means they were enough french to fight for france but not enough to vote in france). the senegalese and all non-white were french. also the "colonial force" not only includes the non-white locals but ALSO the european settlers (call them as you like, white, french nationals etc) were part of this force. at last the exception among the french african colonies was french algeria which was french departement since 1848 (like corsica if you like and before metropolitan areas such as Nice or Savoie) and not a colony. voilà, hope it helps.

Abbreviation
I am wondering if Free France was ever referred to as "French London" ??? Has anyone come across an abbreviated usage of this type?? Hmortar (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Black colonial soldiers removed from Paris liberation
Shouldn't this information be in the article? "Papers unearthed by the BBC reveal that British and American commanders ensured that the liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944 was seen as a 'whites only' victory.... black colonial soldiers... were deliberately removed from the unit that led the Allied advance into the French capital."


 * The Free French who liberated Paris were supplied by the Americans and it was the latter who had a policy of racial segregation in their army, not Britain.


 * If you read the linked report you can see that the article's quotes Frederick Morgan as writing; "It is unfortunate that the only French formation that is 100% white is an armoured division in Morocco. Every other French division is only about 40% white. I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division." which is simply replying to a request from de Chevene and supplying an opinion. Nowhere does it state any support of the policy by Morgan. It is de Chevene who wants the 'all white' force, not Morgan.


 * France was de Gaulle's country and as the Free French forces' commander if he wanted there to be no 'blacks' in the liberating army then that was up to him and the Americans who supplied him, and not Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Participation in the D-Day landings
This article mentions that the Free French participated in this.

Julian Jackson's book "Charles De Gaulle" states otherwise. (Page 28) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.240.119 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

1940-43 only
The period of the FFL was, most accurately, from 1940 to 1 August 1943, when the new Armée de la Liberation was formed. The French wikipedia has a separate article for the post-August 1943 fighting force. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one of the many reasons that would make "Free France" a more natural title. walk victor falktalk 03:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:France during World War II
It's important to sort out the mess that are the WWII articles.

All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. No one has actually opposed, only stated it should instead be split. Which is fair enough, but moving it will actually help achieve the split as it easier to split off from the main article into a sub-article (I think everyone is in agreement that "Free France" is the overarching topic, while "Free French Forces" should discuss only a subset). Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Free French Forces → Free France – As two widely overlapping topics fitting in the scope of a single article, the narrow strictly military subject should redirect to the broad historical and political one, and not the other way around. walk victor falktalk 18:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems sensible to me. ---Asteuartw (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Would be Free French Government of which the forces are a part of. "Free France" sounds more like a rally call to free France (like free the world, or free your mind or remember the Maine) and it usually appears as the Free French, so using the form "Free French" would be better. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Free France" (La France Libre, as a noun, not thas as an imperative verb that would be Libérez la France) can be trivially established as the wp:commonname of de Gaulle's free French government. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 04:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's in French, in English, there's no difference between La France Libre and Libérez la France, as both are "Free France". It is a weak oppose. A cursory Google Book Search shows many cases of a call or effort to free France, and many cases of Free France. Free French seems more specific to this topic in Google Books. Both Free French and Free France works for me, so it is only weak opposition. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Free French" would not fulfil wp:criteria #3 on precision. For instance in campaignboxes and infoboxes, distinction is often made between countries and military units. A good example is Battle of Kufra where the combattants are listed as "Free France" and "United Kingdom" and the forces involved as "FFF" and "LRDG". There are many, many other instances where it is necessary to distinguish between the FFF specifically, the exile army in general, the government in London and each particular instance in the series thereof it took form under during the war, de Gaulle's resistance movement as a whole, Free France as a belligerent national entity, and whatnot. Also and furthermore, beyond internal wiki-concerns and even more importantly, it might induce confusion in the reader because "Free French" is often used to refer to any Frenchman fighting Vichy or the Axis, not only those loyal to London. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 09:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Following the opinion of Jean-Jacques Georges, it seems that a split might be better. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. as Free France. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support not necessarily a move, but a split, as these are two different - though evidently overlapping - topics. Note that the French wikipedia has two different pages for Free France and the Free French Forces, which is entirely justified. Free France (Free should be understood as an adjective and not a verb) was an umbrella term for the organization led by de Gaulle during WWII : it includes the governmental body per se (known first as the  Conseil de défense de l'Empire - "Council for the Empire's defence" - then as the Comité national français - "French national commitee") seated in London, but also the wide network of "Free French" commitees which were formed by expatriate French people in various countries, and the colonies which had rallied de Gaulle as soon as 1940 (roughly half of the French African colonies). The Free French Forces per se were, as their name implies, the armed forces of Free France, much like the Polish Armed Forces in the West were the armed forces of the Polish government-in-exile : I don't see why France should be treated differently than Poland. There is indeed one difference, in the fact that "Free France", unlike the Polish government in exile, was not recognized by the Allies as a proper government, at least not until the end of 1944 (it was just some sort of co-belligerent). One of the reasons was that the Allies were unsure of France's political status, of de Gaulle's democratic legitimacy (admittedly, he had none in 1940 since he had never run for elections) and also that the US were, until late 1942, still recognizing the Vichy government. Anyway, I think that the best thing would be to make a difference between Free France as an umbrella organization and the Free French Forces as an army corps. Note also that the French Forces of the Interior were recognized by de Gaulle as official armed forces in the homeland (he coined the term "France combattante" - "Fighting France" - which referred both to the underground resistance and the French Forces abroad), so they should be included in "Free France" since they were, as a whole, part of it - at least on paper. The trickier part would be to determine when Free France came to an end : indeed, when the French national comitee merged, in 1943, with general Giraud's Algiers "government" (Giraud had no links with de Gaulle's organization), it became the French Committee of National Liberation and actually stopped using the adjective "Free" on an official basis (the Free French Forces, merged with the North African troops - previously Vichy troops - just called themselves "French Army" from that moment). "Free French Forces" and "Free France" kept being used as colloquial terms, though, even when the Committee of National Liberation became the Provisional Government of the French Republic just before D-Day. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Preferential support, with my second choice being a split. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 08:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This article can, if all un-sourced and poorly sourced information is removed, and the overall article is more professionally and properly reformulated, be a section in the one article regarding France in World War II, which is also currently being discussed, and the outcome of that matter should influence this request. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Jean-Jacques Georges: there are the Free French Forces (Forces françaises libres, including the Forces navales françaises libres), and there is Free France (France libre, probably "gouvernement provisoire of something"), the former being the armed service of the latter. More than a renaming, a reorganisation might be appropriate. Rama (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Jean-Jacques Georges and Rama. Nothing more to add. Med (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but splitting into 2 separate articles is also acceptable solution.--Staberinde (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

split?
Here's a lost of pages that redirect to this article. When this article is split they should to be gone through to see which should redirect where. Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Some comments I jotted down about the spilt during the discussion, but didn't post to concentrate on the name change and discuss the split later:


 * comment Perhaps I unduly skewed the conversation by bringing up the Battle of Kufra example. I just wanted to make clear to the IP that suggesting Free French, the way it seemed to be going, as a common article was a bad idea and I wanted to quash any unnecessary and convoluted tangents on explaining why it is as unhelpful as moving United States to American. In general, it is rare for infoboxes to list both the combattant country and its forces, e.g. both United States and United States Navy. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * comment While in theory, there is nothing wrong with having an article on both FF and FFF, one should consider whether it should be done now in practice. There two reasons for splitting an article 1) size per wp:spinoff (at 65k, this article is way below the limit) and 2) separate the covered topics per wp:contentfork. However, as wp:overlap #2 says:
 * Emphasis added. Given the measure of overlapping of FF and FFF, a split would not be really a split, but a return to a point in its history when it covered exclusively the FFF, and writing a FF article from scratch. Please see the history and check how this article has evolved since I made my first edit in early May, and keep in mind that I am in no way finished with the job, I just reached a point where it seemed so evident there should be an FF article that I promptly nominated it. <sup style="color:green;">walk  <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * comment Another thing to take into account when considering a theoretical split is the practical state of other articles on wikipedia. Seeing how France during World War II looks like, I have my doubt that yet another article is what will help improve the general poor state of WWII France articles ( see this talk page, this talk page and this talk page). A particularly glaring example is "Military history of France during World War II". And a FFF article would be extremely redundant to Military history of France during World War II#Free France (Sandbox version with only the bits about Free French forces to clearly show how much so.) <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Obsolete
Yes, she was. Laid down in 1914 as a battleship, converted to a carrier in 1927, in a historical period when naval aviation was a technology in its infancy that evolved very rapidly, and furthermore as France's *only* carrier lagging behind developments in other countries. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 15:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What about Saint Martin?
This article does not show the status of Saint-Martin, a French territory in the Caribbean. Neither does the map. (Saint-Martin is a different island than Martinique.)DrZygote214 (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216141743/http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org:80/article.php3?id_article=22&page=2 to http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=22&page=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216141737/http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org:80/article.php3?id_article=22&page=1 to http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=22&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Free France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205130239/http://www.vrid-memorial.com/La-France-Libre-et-les-Francais.html?p_num_onglet=2 to http://www.vrid-memorial.com/La-France-Libre-et-les-Francais.html?p_num_onglet=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927230805/http://www.bbm.org.uk/Fayolle.htm to http://www.bbm.org.uk/Fayolle.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929002925/http://crdp.ac-reims.fr/memoire/enseigner/reims7mai/09reims_berlin.htm to http://crdp.ac-reims.fr/memoire/enseigner/reims7mai/09reims_berlin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413155713/http://www.france-libre.net/temoignages_documents/1_6_1_6_origines_FNFL.htm to http://www.france-libre.net/temoignages_documents/1_6_1_6_origines_FNFL.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001080355/http://www.ldh-toulon.net/spip.php?article285 to http://www.ldh-toulon.net/spip.php?article285

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)