Talk:Military history of France during World War II/Archive 1

structure
Instead of the generic overview currently on this page, I'd like to propose the following structure.


 * Background
 * France enters the war
 * The Phony War
 * The Norwegian Campaign
 * The Battle of France
 * France occupied
 * Vichy France
 * Free French
 * Liberation of France
 * Aftermath

Oberiko 23:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It could also use some substantial editing for accuracy and NPOV. France was not actually as badly off in May 1940 as this article would lead you to believe. (Might be interesting, as well, to have a "Memory" or "Blame" heading under "Aftermath", since these two ideas seem to have a great impact on how the history of France in WWII is recorded.) --Deepsix 04:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lacking in NPOV and historical accuracy. The representation that Vichy officials "aided" in persecution of Jews distorts the reality that Vichy enacted anti-Jewish legislation, expropriated Jewish property and rounded up Jews of their own accord. Mascarasnake 02:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracy: French Army was not outnumbered. Richard Overly: "[France's] defeat in six weeks - a product not of numerical inferiority, but of poor organisation and fighting skills" in Why the Allies Won, 1995, Pimlico The allies had considerable amounts of tanks and aircraft, but the German combination and concentration proved decisive. (see blitzkrieg)


 * the French themselves were outnumbered, that happens when 40 mio. French stand against 60 mio. Germans. Additionally the French had been hit far worse than Germany by a decline in birthrate during WWI,with the comparative lack of 20-25 year olds meaning France could field even less forces than expected by the size of it's people. However the reason for the desaster were others, such as splitting up the tank force into small units being attached to infantry divisions while the Germans massed their tanks into Panzerdivisons.213.191.70.226 10:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strangely, the Germans had a lower fully trained manpower base than the French: they hadn't been able to train conscripts between 1918 and 1935. Many writers have made a caricature of the tank issue. In fact even the French had six armoured divisions (and hastily tried to form another three after the invasion). The independent tank battalions were combined into Groupements and allocated at army level: apart from the "mechanised" infantry divions no infantry units had an organic tank component.--MWAK 10:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the article, but as of this date, not much has been written on the aftermath. Right now the article's sole focus is military history. 74.9.137.146 (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Bombers
German suicide bombers were used against French tanks

I have never heard of that anywhere, beside of a german squadron training for ramming attacks against B17s in 1944. Also the Luftwaffe would have run out of planes well before the allies would have run out of tanks. Unless a source is given I'm going to take it out soon. 213.191.70.226 10:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding date of surrender of France in June 1940
Please see Talk:Armistice with France (Second Compiègne). --Mathew5000 19:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

humiliated?
you have no right to use a judgement term (feeling) like "humiliation" to call a defeat. were the Polish "humiliated"? were the Belgian "humiliated"? were the Norwegian "humiliated"? the Finnish? the American at Pearl Harbor... not even the German? No, so why are you trying to humiliate the French with your arrogant POV?! (i have my idea of course). My grand father made war in the French navy, he fought in a carrier (the "Arromanches" or "Colbert" maybe, i'll ask my father) from 1939 until the end. he fought for 6 years and was not "humiliated". he wasn't alone. the french troops were sent in first lines by the british in the "overlord ops" and the Nouvelle Armée Française fought in Italy and Germany. A few Free French pilots were sent in the East Front in support to the Russian. Other french fought in the "Provence" operation. This article lacks facts like de Gaulle's colony travel, he visited all colonies asking the army to not follow Vichy France and to join the Free France against the Axis. he was greeted with cannons in some colonies and with hurrays in others (i'll check archive videos to list the colonies who joined him). there's no mention about the isolated French Indochina troops attacked by the Japanese. And i haven't seen facts about the LVF, the STO etc. Shame On You 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Geez all-right please calm down. You are right, in a sense. A lot of people have brought this up and I've finally figured out that they are right. But please do understand that in 1940, the French did feel humiliated, mainly because they were so certain that they would defeat the Germans. The French thought that if they could not defeat the Germans, no one else could. This only exacerbated their ill sentiments...but anyway I see your main point. I can see how you think the word might suggest certain POVs, but it was meant to be historically accurate, not pejorative.UberCryxic 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "The French thought that if they could not defeat the Germans, no one else could" where the hell did you heard that? i never had. considering i am french i should have heard about it. this is arrogant cliché and lies, sounds like propaganda. what the french government saw was that many european nations were overwhelmed by the Nazi, the French fought with the UK in Norway, they were defeated, they helped Belgium but King Leopold surrendered (like did Marshall Petain) which led some Belgians troops to move in France with the UK and fight in France were they were defeated. the german troops were industrialized (the Nazi army was from many points the strongest army in the world by that time fighting everywhere in the same time -US analysts have since recognized the nazi warfare was most efficient than the US, famous exemple is the Kubelwagen topping the Jeep- hence many captured material was used and tuned by the the US and the Russian, the V2 giving space rockets) and highly motivated (you can call this endoctrined) while the French were not ready for war (like the Russians hence the separate peace treaty), Nazi were well trained, they were a professional army, in the other side the French had no professional army (unlike the UK or the US) this is really important. You seems to not realize the french communists were pacifists by that time (exploiting the Verdun and Marne useless massacre with humans wasted, really wasted by officers just to get one hill meter that will be lost the day after) and the most important was the US did not accepted to move to join its European allies. do you know how many times Churchill asked Roosevelt? he ended supplicating him but he never moved. some US did not wanted to be involved in a foreign war, it was a period of autarcy. they only moved when they were directly attacked. without Pearl Harbour the US would have not joined. the french government surrendered because politicians thought it was the end. they thought the UK would soon fall. the nazis won all campaigns by that time, the situation was desperate from the french politicians point of view. i didn't invented this, this is stated in an american archive documentary. i'll check it and try to youtube it so you can see with your own eyes and learn the real situation which is not what most unaware people think. "in 1940, the French did feel humiliated", do you know the true origins of WWII and motivation for the german to support hitler? it was the exploited humiliation sentiment felt by German veterans by the treaty of Versailles and occupation of their territory partially by the French occupation army. some generals felt betrayed by the german surrending and thought they could pursue WWI. in his early speeches, hitler was repeating about "the stab in the back" german officers received in WWI by politicians. don't forget hitler was an officer in the german army during WWI (as defeated he experienced humiliation himself). Catholics and non-nazi veteran officers felt touched by this as they felt the same. Skillfully hitler used this traumatizing narcissic wound to convince people. I've heard this from August von Kageneck Wehrmacht panzer lieutenant and writer (Lieutenant de panzers, Examen de conscience) interview (i have audio material if you understand French). what led Roosevelt to join WWII while Churchill was supplicating him for years to help the UK and the French? It was the humiliation of Pearl Harbour. What led Bush to invade Afghanistan and Irak? September 11th humiliation. I think it is not acceptable or descent for the people who experienced that to speak about humiliation feeling. this is unrespectful and highly suggestive. This article is not about human feelings but historical facts. Feelings are not objective (they are part of complex psychology) and then have not to be mentionned here.

I think we are agreed on the part about how this does not deserve to be mentioned here. That's why I'm not reverting. The point is that people like Petain or Gamelin did feel very humiliated at what had just happened. As I said, the French were supremely confident that they would win against Germany. Many French commanders believed they had the best army in the world; once they were defeated, many believed that no one else could defeat the Germans, hence some of the collaborationist tendencies. Now, obviously these feelings were not uniform, but they were important and indicative. Many around the world had also counted on France to stop Germany (like it had done in World War I), so there was some sense of disappointment in the French military and political leadership on that note. That's just how they felt. I'm not making a judgment on whether they should or should not have felt that way; I'm just telling you what happened.UberCryxic 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken, so let me clarify: the French military and political leadership felt humiliated.UberCryxic 23:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * and just how do you know what these people tought or did not tought? some were desperate and surrendered others were revolted and refused to surrender flying to UK or to French Algeria with Algiers becoming the Fighting France's capital. what is humiliating and irritating for us is the arrogant claim that France was humiliated because they were defeated. humiliation is universally part of defeat and proudness is part of victory. you don't mention the winners were proud to win? so there's no reason to mention the defeated felt humiliated. Shame On You 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see....I think it's called their writings. Their statements, reports...all of them suggest that. Petain surrendered France and was willing to establish a collaborationist regime precisely because he thought Germany would ultimately win the war (again, the idea was that if France could not stop them, no one could).UberCryxic 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * their writings? you mean propaganda! you do not even cite any source, articles witout reference have no value. Petain and Laval used propaganda, you cannot use this Vichy propaganda as the French general opinion. Petain was an old man he was called "grand father" by the French and he is today one of the most hatred French in history. with de Gaulle voted few years ago as the most important French (like Churchill in the UK). Facts are far most complicated than just "the French thought they were the most beautiful in the world". Archives: audio, video, photo at National Audiovisual Institute & European Navigator Shame On You 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also just to clarify: the word did not signify anything about the later Free French. It was only talking about May and June in 1940. Although it must be said: even in May and June 1940, the French fought fairly well.UberCryxic 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * using a such term is just shocking. neutral articles doesn't mention feelings nor opinion, just general data. feelings are interpreted and used by propagandists. Shame On You 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, agreed.UberCryxic 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with you now. Previously I felt like this case was special enough to deserve this designation, but now I no longer feel that way.UberCryxic 23:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Vichy France fighters
As often, France was divided in two positions (French Communist Party was created in 1920). The Legion of French Volunteers (French article, Deutsch version) was an anticommunist small unit consisting of Vichy French volunteers. the french article claims they were right-wing militants who chose to fight in the eastern front rather than becoming forced workers sent in germany to help the industry. i was taught the same at school. Shame On You 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French)

know what you're talking about
Divide & Conquer (Pt.2, Pt.3 & Pt.4): US military 40s documentary about the Axis (DE/IT) and Allied (UK/FR/BE) operations from Denmark to France. Tactics analysis and social background. Highly educative material a must see to learn what did really happened!
 * Prologue:
 * 1936: Spanish civil war: communists vs fascists (SP vs SP/DE/IT)
 * Sept.1st~27th, 1939: Poland campaign (DE vs PL)
 * Sept.3rd, 1939: UK/FR declared war to DE
 * Sept. 1939: non-agression pact between DE & RU


 * Documentary part 1 out of 4:
 * Denmark campaign (DE vs neutral DK)
 * Norway campaign (DE vs NO/UK/FR/PL)


 * Documentary part 2 out of 4:
 * Sept.1939~April 1940: Phony War -psychological war:French spirit/German spirit- (DE vs FR)
 * May 1940: German invasion of neutral countries (NL/LU/BE)
 * Netherlands campaign (DE vs neutral NL)


 * Documentary part 3 out of 4:
 * Netherlands bombing by the German
 * Belgium campaign (DE vs BE/FR)
 * France campaign: Battle of Ardennes (DE vs FR)


 * Documentary part 4 out of 4:
 * France campaign: May 13 1940 Namur Ruse (DE vs FR)
 * France campaign: May 14/15 1940 Breakthrough of Sedan (DE vs FR)
 * France campaign: May 20 1940 British counterattack of Arras (DE vs UK)
 * France campaign: May 28 Belgian allied army defeated in North east France (DE vs BE)
 * France campaign: British defeated at Dunkerque, North France (DE vs UK)
 * allied retreat toward England (UK/FR/BE), RAF support, UK civilian rescue boats
 * France campaign: (DE vs FR)
 * 3/5 of the French army remains (-20 divisions), no French reserve army available
 * the French send their children in the South of the country to protect them
 * poorly equipped remaining French set barricades in Paris to resist the invasion as long as possible
 * France campaign: June 5 German offensive break the north-west resistance front (DE vs FR)
 * Overwhelmed French resistants standing in the north east withdraw to the Marne and the Seine rivers areas
 * France campaign: June 9 German main offensive and overall attack from north east to west and south (DE vs FR)
 * outnumbered, outpowered the remaining French are pushed to the south and west, north east front army is surrounded, official talks of an armistice begin
 * France campaign: June 14: Maginot Line attacks (DE vs FR)
 * two successful attacks on the Maginot line, French are defeated
 * France campaign: June 14: Italian cross the border (IT vs FR)
 * Italian cowardice is named "stab in the back" by Roosevelt
 * France campaign: France faces two choices: retreat in French Algeria and pursue the fight with the african colonies or to surrender. the New York Times titles: "Reynaud resigns, Petain is now premier; new cabinet considers fate of France; German troops gaining on all fronts." Old French government refuse to fight until the end.
 * June 16: Reynaud refused to surrender and live the government, he is replaced by old Petain adviced by Laval to surrender and collaborate with the German. France is cut in two North is under German rule, South is ruled by a collaborationnist government accepted by hitler.
 * ~2,000,000 French prisoners of war are sent to Germany as forced workers to support the Nazy armament industry
 * Protesters against occupation are executed
 * June remaining French troops pushed to the south not yet occupied bu the German retreat to Africa and head to the colonies
 * June General de Gaulle who led some counterattacks in May, refuse to surrender
 * he gathers a loyal Free French (aka Fighting French) army made of remaining French troops exiled in North Africa, loyal French navy, French Foreign Legion, French Algeria muslim Harkis, and other French colonies troops

The documentary is long (+56 minutes) so it was cut in four parts. You need to watch all parts to get the full understanding of course.
 * DOWNLOAD (Hi-Fi 368x480):
 * download MPEG2 version Pt.1/4 383MB
 * download MPEG2 version Pt.2/4 347MB
 * download MPEG2 version Pt.3/4 404MB
 * download MPEG2 version Pt.4/4 356MB


 * STREAM (Hi-Fi temp):
 * stream MPEG4 version Pt.1/4 14"31
 * stream MPEG4 version Pt.2/4 13"09
 * stream MPEG4 version Pt.3/4 15"19
 * stream MPEG4 version Pt.4/4 13"29

This is public domain material that can be used in wiki! Shame On You 19:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for this! Nice find, although I should note that I'm already very familiar with the campaign. Nevertheless, I will watch some of these.UberCryxic 00:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs a rewrite
"Heroics of the 2nd Division" the title of this section is not NPOV and the whole second paragraph is suspect. The city was once again open, and the allies didn't want to liberate (rescue?) the city because they didn't want to feed or garrison it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Koh Chang
never heard of this before just found it now at random, it is part of the article though. it involved the Vichy French army in Thailand it was then part of the French Indochina colony, the Vichy army fought versus the Thai army and the Vichy guys won. Shame On You 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Vichy France vs Thailand (French-Thai War) 1940-1941

French-Japanese Battle
alright just checked the European Mediatheque, actually Japan attacked French Indochina on March 9, 1945. so correct chronology is Shame On You 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Vichy France vs Japan 1945 (im' not sure if it was "Vichy" France then) look this is the English version
 * according to this 60th celebration article on the French Defense Ministry it was a large scale invasion of French Indochina by Japanese forces. it is called "coup de force" (like the algerian war was called in france "the events" instead of war). seems like it is not "Vichy France".

"following the backing of its troops on the French Indochinese territory, the Japanese planned a secret attack over the French colonial garrison and civil administration. The Japanese army launched its overall attack in the night between the 9th and 10th of march 1945 in Indochina. The isolated French were defeated with 242 officers and 2,400 soldiers killed. Japanese occupation of Indochina started then. There was no french administration in the colony anymore, the Japanese supported independist movements and jailed the French colonial civilian population in the six largest cities of the colony." this is a translation. additional material are welcome in order to create the section "French conflicts in Asia" sectio. Shame On You 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * description of events (in english) Shame On You 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * in the very same time of the japanese pearl harbour style attack over the French colony, the US Air Force's B-29 bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 japanese... more are aware of this US war crime, much more are ignorant about the japanese crimes the same day (including in france). Shame On You 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shame On You 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Shame On You 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * japanese crime of war pictures (French Foreign Legion site)
 * japanese leader of the attack was "T. Shigeoru." i don't know yet his name.
 * the French Foreign Legion site mentions the FFF General Juin in australia was reported by australian ally intelligence three days before the attack and warned de gaulle at paris who answered don't report to the garrison and: "let the blood flows", indochina was ruled by vichy french admiral Decoux. this move is not surprising from de gaulle. Shame On You 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

separated article for Vichy French and Free French
actually there were many battles in both cases, hence separated articles is relevant and a better way to manage all the campaigns and battles of the two forces. Shame On You 00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Free French:
 * THE CAMPAIGN OF TUNISIA
 * RELEASE OF CORSICA
 * THE CAMPAIGN OF ITALY
 * THE CONQUEST OF THE ISLAND OF ELBA
 * THE UNLOADING IN NORMANDY
 * THE UNLOADING IN PROVENCE
 * some units also fought in Abyssinia, in Egypt, in Lybia. a few pilot were sent in the eastern front and fought the germans with the soviets allies.
 * source for the preceding list is administrative and official as the Gers prefecture http://www.gers.pref.gouv.fr/acvg/documents/4244ang.htm
 * source for eastern front is from a documentary i've watched, i'll try to get more info about this.


 * Vichy French
 * Thai-French war (1940-41)
 * Japanese-French battle of indochina (1945)
 * French SS and other voluntaries fighting agaist the communists in the eastern front
 * many battles in the colonies againt the british, americans and free french

Shame On You 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture
This picture could be interesting for this article.Randroide 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * this one is the official vichy france flag. there was no President of France during the vichy France era. next president came 2 years after the war in 1947. Shame On You 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

extra chapter (1945): french vs japanese in french indochina :)
this story is mostly unknown in france. i was lucky to find this:
 * a popular myth is french indochina was gave back to france thanks to the british (the british myth as ever - another is in suez 1956 the british were alone...) here is an archive form 1945 showing the french colonial forces training in french algeria in view to free the french indochina from the japanese invaders!! more infos are needed in order to draw the true story of the 1945 events. archive video Shame On You 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a post war event, there was no French opposed landing in Indochina, rather Leclerc transferred his command relatively peacefully some time in October 1945. He certainly faced no Japanese opposition.
 * For the second event, whoever said Suez was a British only operation? Not that it is relevant here.--Caranorn 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * about the french versus the japanese shame on you is right. the french made war in south east asia to free their French Indochina colony occupied by the japanese who have defeated the isolated vichy french garrison in 1940 and 1945. about general Leclerc he was onboard the USS Missouri in september 1945 and signed the peace treaty with japan. WWII ended in september 1945 however the french fought the japanese from april until then. colonial troops of french african colonies where trained in french algeria as soon as march 1945. the french colonial corps led by general Leclerc attacked the japanese in french indochina. here is a collection of newsreels archives from 1945, it's all about the overlooked french-japanese conflict of 1945, please have a look at it. it features General Sabatier back from indochina reports the situation there and tells the french are fighting the outnumbering and outpowering japanese forces for weeks. he said they are fighting since 4 months. it calls the french for a liberation effort in the whole empire. actually this fine article lacks the French Indochina episode of 1945. i hope you'll find infos in english. oddly france made war non stop from 1939 to 1962. sounds weird but it is true. also one of these newsreels says some french troops of Leclerc in indochina in 1945 previously fought in the China campaign. what campaign is it? Cliché Online 02:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * alright i have updated the link, i have used a video host so now it works perfectly. i have added 2 more videos. the national audiovisual institute site contains all newsreels since the late 1930s so   if you want to know which campaign fought the french you just have to have a search and be patient because there are a lot of videos. Cliché Online 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I find that the first elements of the Expeditionary Corps were ordered to Indochina on August 16 1945, after the Japanese forces had already transferred powers to the victorious Viet Minh. Prior to that there was some fighting between Japanese units and formerly Vichy French ones, when the later refused to come under the command of the Japanese Army, these are the forces that transferred (withdrew) to China. As a note, you are indeed correct that Leclerc first headed to Japan for the surrender ceremonies before he headed to Indochina, which in itself shows that the Expeditionary Corps did not land in Japanese occupied Indochina. I will take a look at the links you provided, though I think it is far more likely that they are either propaganda material, or concern fighting against the Viet Minh.--Caranorn 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, checked those videos (most of them). First of all their dates are unverified and certainly unverifiable by me. Most concern the formation of the Expeditionary Force under Leclerc, as I already explained this did not arrive in Indochina before at the earliest late August. Some mention the formerly Vichy French forces withdrawn to China after March 1945, it should be noted that those forces were small and withdrawing, not reconquering the territory. Other videos again claim to show fighting against the Japanese, yet all they show is Japanese POW's labouring for the French Expeditionary Corps, oh and of course Vietnamese civilians seemingly detained by said French forces., that material clearly shows events of the early phase of Leclerc's arrival (he didn't stay long), that is to say a period between the Viet Minh's declaration of Vietnamese Independence and the Civil War. In short, none of these videos show any material concerning a French reconquest of Indochina against Japanese occupiers.--Caranorn 12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * haven't you heard about General Sabatier telling there are french troops fighting since 3 months? ([ http://5.upload.dailymotion.com/video/x1z4ea_le-general-sabatier-a-lambes here]). about being propaganda or not, these are newsreels and newsreels are propaganda in every country at war until today. i found this chronology about Leclerc's expo in a paris museum's site. its speaks mostly about resistance organizations not army operations. On june 7 1945 it says Leclerc organizes the Expeditionary Corps to war with Japan in indochina. dates of Expeditionary forces preparing for japan in Madagascar and Lambes as seen in he newsreels can be determined using google. i'll do it when i'll get time for it. actually leclerc was in indochina prior tot tokyo according to this chronology. in august Leclerc went with his corps in Heladiva (Sri Lanka) to meet british Mountbatten and ask him support. it was between one-two weeks before the japanese surrender he signed. i'll try to find more about this. thank you anyway for your time. Cliché Online 15:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s.: just found this in the defense archives, seems like Sabatier speaks about the Japanese coup of March 1945 actually. look for the "L'heure du Sursum Corda" paragraph. i'm gonna read it, it is detailed report of the japanese invasion of 1945. hope it helps. Cliché Online 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually that chronology confirms what I said. The expeditionary Corps did not leave for Indochina before August 16, Leclerc himself leaves Paris on August 18, arriving on Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka) on August 22, from August 29 to September 6 Leclerc heads to Japan (there is no reason to believe he went to Indochina in the meantime considering how only small French missions are mentioned there in the meantime). The first mention of possible (it could also be a former Vichy unit, would have to check that) units from the Expeditionary Corps is the 5th RIC (Régiment d'Infanterie Coloniale) at Saigon on September 13 with Gracey's 20th Indian Infantry Division.
 * For the Post Scriptum, that's what I was referring to for March 1945, some French units performing a fighting withdrawal to China.
 * Note I'd have no objection to a new section covering the establishment of the Expeditionary Corps, but there clearly was no large military action by Allied Forces (so not just French) to recover Indochina from Japan in 1945. Though maybe that could be a section on all French operations in Asia and the Pacific from 1940 to 1945 as it would otherwise be a very small section.--Caranorn 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You know people, Vichy was also France
I am just wondering why Vichy France battles(aganist Allies and Japanese/Thai) seem to be left out from article?--Staberinde 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mers-el-Kebir, Dakar, and the Syrian campaign are all at least briefly mentioned in the article. W. B. Wilson 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be brief though. This reads more like an article on the Free French Forces then "France".  I think the first thing to do would be to determine what the scope of the article is:


 * Any predominantly French organization in World War II
 * French Third Republic
 * Vichy France
 * Free French Forces
 * French resistance
 * Provisional Government of the French Republic
 * Any geographical area which was part of France
 * France proper (including occupied German and Italian occupied France)
 * French colonies (French North Africa, French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa, Syria & Lebenon, French Indochina, Madagascar, French Somaliland etc.)


 * Thus, France is probably the most complicated national history, as there is a great deal which can be validly called "French". While I was considering originally recommending that this article be broken up into sections based on the major organizations, there were a considerable number of French-vs-French conflicts, so a chronological one would probably be best.  I'd recommend the following structure.


 * Background (X - August, 1939)
 * The French Third Republic at war (September, 1939 - 22 June 1940)
 * France fragmented (July 1940 - October 1942)
 * Growth of the Free French (November 1942 (Operation Torch) - May 1944)
 * Liberation of France (June 6 1944 (Battle of Normandy) - 7 May 1945 (VE Day))
 * Aftermath


 * Thoughts? Oberiko 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it could use some work. IIRC, a large part of the 1944-45 part of the article came about because of one of the lengthy debates on France's role in the war, with one comment being that this article failed to point out French military successes and contributions to the Allied war effort.


 * Other comments. In part, it will be hard to not make the article sound like a history of the Free French, because they were more militarily active than their Vichy counterparts, at least in the sense of having the initiative in the French internecine conflict. I also find it odd that the background part of the article mentions social unrest as a formative ground for fascism in Germany and Italy, but doesn't touch on the deep political and economic divisions in France of the 1930's, that is to say, the detrimental social fallout of the First World War wasn't limited to the defeated powers.  Finally, there is probably too much written in this article about the 2nd Division; the division was one of several and it has its own article with much of the same text.


 * The structure you propose looks okay; I wonder about the period of occupation and the resistance activities, but it is probably better to have that as simply "See Also"-style links because both topics are sure to start editing wars that will last a long time. W. B. Wilson 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The background I'm not sure about, are the internal political events (which didn't erupt into armed conflict) really military history? I can see where they should be briefly mentioned to help explain France's political relations and alliances with other nations, but beyond that, I think we should restrict more in-depth analysis to the article on the French Third Republic itself.  We'll probably also need a sub-section in the background on France's wartime preparations and capabilities just prior to the start of the European War.


 * I was thinking that notable resistance / occupation activities should be able to fit within the given sections. I agree that we'd probably still need to keep them in the "See also" for ease of the reader. Oberiko 07:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Altering Caption of "Weeping Frenchman" Picture
The caption says "A Frenchman weeps as German soldiers march into the French capital, Paris, on June 14, 1940, after the Allied armies had been driven back across France", however: 1) It doesn't make sense as it's extremely doubtful there was a civilian crowd to greet German soldiers in Paris. 2) The same picture on Commons tells a different and more believable story, supported by a movie (very end) showing the same scene in context.

"French people staring and waving at the French Army remaining troops leaving metropolitan France at Toulon harbour, 1940, to reach the French colonies in Africa where will be organized as Free French Forces fighting on the Allied side, while France is taken over by the Nazis and the Petain regime collaborating with them. Screenhot taken from the 1943 United States Army propaganda film Divide and Conquer (Why We Fight #3) directed by Frank Capra and partially based on, news archives, animations, restaged scenes and captured propaganda material from both sides. As a propaganda film from "unknown" source, it is unsure if the scene was really shot on location or if it was later restaged in studios."

In light of this, I'm editing the text of the picture accordingly and captions where used. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The original image was taken by George Merat, and was taken the day the nazis marched into Paris. The same man also appears in a Fox movietone newsreel, taken the same day from almost the same position, as Merat and the Fox cameraman were standing side-by-side. So, yes, it really is a picture of a weeping Frenchman in Paris. The largest question for the last few decades has been "who is he?" People have tried to find his identity since the end of the war, and failed. Many suppose he did not survive the war, nor did any of his relatives, as no one has come forth to identify him. Xaa (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt the identity of that man in the picture has been a subject of research, it still doesn't make sense that a crowd was anywhere in Paris to watch the German army, and that picture is certainly not a still photography, as the movie shows the *exact* same scene from the exact same angle. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone considered asking one of the editors of the French version of Wikipedia? Perhaps they might shed some light on this image/film.  216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe George Merat was the movie photographer. Or maybe he made a copy photo from the movie frame. The famous still photo and the movie frame were certainly taken from positions not more than 2 inches apart, not enough room for a still photographer to stand next to the movie photographer, based on comparisons of the intersection of the Frenchman and background objects. The movie shows the French battle flags being carried past and some people applauding while the famous Frenchman cried. No one gave a Nazi salute, as those applauding in the movie might have done if they liked the Nazis. It is not credible that this was the entry of the Nazis into Paris in 1940, and it is more likely the French observing the departure of French battle flags to North Africa from Marseille or Toulon. Did the troops/flags depart in 1940 or 1941? As a propaganda film, this might have been made on Hollywood backlots at Universal Studios in 1943. The French Wikipedia should have readers who could identify the location and the occasion and perhaps the people, if it was France in Paris, Toulon or Merseilles in 1940 or 1941. Edison (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * this is time to end up this comedy fed up by liers like Xaa . Here is the footage. sorry but this video can hurt francophobic a**es. Cliché Online (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing
This article should discuss more about the war in Africa, Middle East, and French Indochina. 68.120.227.206 (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Were more killed fighting for the Axis than against them ? What happened to those evacuated at Dunkirk ? Did they join De Gaulle or go back to Petain ?--Streona (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

220,000 Frenchmen died fighting on the allied size, whereas 40,000 died fighting for the axis or Vichy.

As for those evacuated at Dunkirk, most of them went back to France, but not to Petain. Remember : Petain became the main french leader one or two weeks after Dunkirk. Most of the French troops evacuated went back to France to join a battle that was not yet finished.

Weeping Frenchman
This is so stereotypically anti-French... You wouldn't find a pic like that on any article about another country being defeated. But the French are pussies, obviously, so let's add a random pic like that, it's totally relevant. I'm deleting it. loulan (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * no you uneducated anti-french monkey pussies, the truth is that pic is from the propaganda newsreel by frank capra called divide and conquer (circa 1942-1943). this weeping guy pic is hosted in the us military archive with an erroneous caption, saying the guy cries because the german enters paris (the anti-french cliché), but this is false. the guy actually cries because the free french navy is leaving toulon (see divide and conquer). now the very same pic is used in call of duty 3's intro but keeping the us military archive caption concern. now since this pic has earned some historical significance i suggest to keep it but to add other pictures of the fighting french as well. unfortunately unlike the us military, the french military keeps a copyright over wwii pics. there are some PD pics here and there, these pics should be used. voilà. hope it helps and don't forget Suez. Cliché Online (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

nothing about french indochina
why? Cliché Online (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Army of Africa
oh i've made edits to show the Army of Africa. this was a different force from the French Forces of de Gaulle, and from Vichy of course since it was ifgthing the germans. you missed events like the creation of "Commandement civil et militaire d'Alger (1942-1943)" which was a political "free french" entity sans de gaulle, this military government was headed by giraud. the article makes him a sidekick of degaulle but the reality is a bit more complex than that. also the lybia based nazis aircarfts bombed cities of french algeria from 1942 to 1943 (this was a bonus of operation Anton). now about the us supply. the first delivery of us tanks happened on april 17 1943. the giving of the assembling chain by the us authorities was on april 29 1943. the official ceremonial of the giving of the first us supply convoy to the french authorities was at algiers on may 8 1943. there is also the Comité français de la Libération nationale (1943-1944) that was the new political entity replacing giraud's commandement civil et militaire d'alger and de gaulle's government in exile. this entity called Comité français de la Libération nationale (1943-1944) was created on june 7 1943 and was co-headed by de gaulle and... giraud. i told you that guy has some importance! then this entity challenging vichy's official rule was replaced by the Gouvernement provisoire de la République française (1944-1946) head by de gaule (sans giraud) aka GPRF and was the entity that preceded the return of the french republic in 1946. voilà. sorry for my poor english (i really need to take a nap). Cliché Online (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

why is the corsica landing part of the italian campaign?!
instead of liberation of france? you might have missed corsica is fully part of france since a bit of time. actually before napoleon 1st's birth. Cliché Online (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

just in case
i suppose you guys are already aware of the french national audiovisual online archives hosted by the INA which include footages of WW2 you won't see in US or UK reels. just in case have a look at it here (you can switch to an english version inthere but i doubt it will be of any help). also if you don't believe me about the algiers bombing by the nazis following torch watch this! (epic bgm, vichy propaganda, cute kubelwagens and sdkz included). there are 2 pictures in the us library of congress (online arhcives) about the bombing of a french convent in algiers in 1943. this vid is also worth watching it. post scriptum: i found footages of giraud's army of africa in the tunisia campaign but i can't get the hold on it. (vid about "New French Army" in the campaign of italy) Cliché Online (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * that's it i've found footages of giraud and his army of africa (brits & french at the battle of bizerte, french tunisia versus afrikakorps). - this is not the footage i was looking for though. Cliché Online (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * found it (this is at the very end of the video). actually it was not in tunisia as i thought but in tripoli, lybia, voice over says that's where leclerc's free french forces met giraud's army of africa for the first time. video is from january 1943. Cliché Online (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

giraud is not vichy french
who told you that bull? he was fighting in the battle of france when he was captured and he escaped from the nazis. the he joined the us after torch and ld the army of africa -which is not free french nor vichy french-. i've found a new PD pic of him while he was POW of the nazis. i'm gonna upload it. Cliché Online (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FFL sum up
there is this video that sums up their fight from 1941 (lebanon-syria) to bir-hakem (1942), to Fezzan, Tripoli, Madagascar (1943), as well as airforce groups Lorraine", "Bretagne" and "Ile de France", also Corps Francs commandos (?) and navy doing escort in English Channel and North Sea. enjoy. Cliché Online (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * they said the Japanese wanted to use Madagascar as their base.... Cliché Online (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

lacking campaigns
the FAFL flag lists the following battles: Angleterre (1940-43), Kufra, Abyssinie, Lybie, Fezzan, Orel, Ielnia, Smolensk, France 1944. Cliché Online (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

article is a mess
why is there 3/4 of the article detailing the battle of france and little to none is said about the rest of the war? there are 2,3 words about the war in africa and basta... however thge french fought in middle east, africa, russia, italy, corsica etc. it should be more detailed, also the vichy and free french campaigns should be separated. Cliché Online (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bonjour Cliché, Since you know so much about the subject, I nominate you to single-handedly fill in the missing details & rewrite the article. Vous avez du pain sur la planche. Bon courage ! --Frania W. (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ah thank you. bonjour, yep i think this article should be completely redone. i'm counting on you to correct my frenglish mistakes. Cliché Online (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the forgotten Norwegian Campaign, and the many "petits trucs" that get rid of some well-entrenched anti-French POVs. For instance, I have always wondered why the French are regarded as "cowards" because they got overrun in 1940, while the Poles, Danes, Dutch & Belgians, who were overrun in the same fashion, are not.
 * I may not be in total agreement with you on Giraud: I seem to remember that at the beginning he was not toooooo... whatever. Must get back to my sources. Will go over the article once you are done. --Frania W. (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Famous words wrongly attributed to de Gaulle
The author of this famous sentence wrongly attributed to de Gaulle was the British Minister of Information Duff Cooper who declared in a speech on 28 May 1940 published the following day in the Times: The sentence inspired its French rendering: --Frania W. (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Even if the Allies lost this battle, we should not have lost the war."
 * La France a perdu une bataille! Mais la France n'a pas perdu la guerre!, which was then used in a poster signed C. de Gaulle, addressed A TOUS LES FRANÇAIS, and placarded on the walls of London at the end of July 1940.

uneasing article
i had the first feedbacks on this artile and its featured pictures, german and english editors feel unease about it because it wipe out the anti-french propaganda. good! thats engaging. Cliché Online (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This talk page is to discuss improvements or changes to the article, not our personal impressions of how changes are seen by others. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So why don't you use it for this purpose you all talk?! Cliché Online (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have contributed my share to French military history on Wikipedia. I have given you direct and accurate guidance for behavior on Wikipedia, so  use the article talk pages for their intended purpose and stop sparring. W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

british "occupation of french north africa"
thats the pov of the imperial museum. that's unusual must have some sense. "DESCRIPTION: HMS DUKE OF YORK, HMS NELSON, HMS RENOWN, HMS FORMIDABLE and HMS ARGONAUT in line ahead, ships of the Force H during the occupation of French North Africa." then torch was not a liberation operation (remove the vichy administration) but an occupation of an ennemy country, that's an interesting perspective. i know there were requisition of civiliuan buildings (such as university) in french algeria's capital to host the british garrison, and some french settlers saw this as an invasion. does anyone know more about this? Cliché Online (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean Operation Torch the British-American invasion of French North Africa. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yes the british propaganda said the purpose was occupation not liberation. Cliché Online (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

lacks French ops in India & China
during WWII france had colonies in china (Shanghai French Concession) and india (incl. Puducherry). i don't have time to develop this right now. Cliché Online (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

French military killed in the war
I have replaced the statements During the course of the war, Vichy France forces lost 2,653 soldiers and Free France lost 20,000. with a broader statement that gives a better idea of the total killed in the French military during the war. W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)