Hey! The Internet is on Computers these days!

[Major Tom]

I have to appologize for the lack of e-mail replys for my PBEM opponents. I have A WACK of excuses. Wanna hear them? Final Exams, Final Papers, My computer crashing and getting formatted, My computer power supply dying on me, My Microprocessor Cip fan dying on me, my internet only working at 9600 bps. All this is only temporary. By Monday all will be done and over and I can get back to kicking your butts, except for the one's kicking mine, like Berli, SS, Knaust...

[Ash]

to continue....A tank ran over my house, Stukas dive bombed my cable company, a machinegun nest has built up around my computer, retreating french forces looted my computer...

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ash:

to continue....A tank ran over my house, Stukas dive bombed my cable company, a machinegun nest has built up around my computer, retreating french forces looted my computer...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the hell is up with everyone slamming on the French? The French under ground was alive and kicking the whole war.

I don't here anyone dogging out the Italians,

they sucked more than anybody the whole war.

More than the Austrians.

------------------

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[This message has been edited by DEF BUNGIS (edited 04-11-2000).]

[Coolguy101]

I like the topic heading.

Been watching the simpsons lately huh??

Booyaa

FFFFFOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!

Can you tell that I am bored

I bet you cant?

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

PEACE OUT FROM J-DOG IN DA HOUSE YO!!!

Coolguy101

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS:

What the hell is up with everyone slamming on the French? The French under ground was alive and kicking the whole war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only in the movies, Def. The Maquis were a lot less effective than post-War French propaganda would have you believe; ever notice how every 75 year old baker, waiter, or striking trucker in France is a hero of the resistance? And they didn't mount any serious counter-force ops(as opposed to intelligence ops) until late '43, IIRC. And HumInt was not that valuable to the war effort compared to SigInt -- not by a wide margin.

'Allo, 'allo,

Ethan

------------------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Only in the movies, Def. The Maquis were a lot less effective than post-War French propaganda would have you believe; ever notice how every 75 year old baker, waiter, or striking trucker in France is a hero of the resistance? And they didn't mount any serious counter-force ops(as opposed to intelligence ops) until late '43, IIRC. And HumInt was not that valuable to the war effort compared to SigInt -- not by a wide margin.

'Allo, 'allo,

Ethan

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...

But........

What about all those books I read..?

------------------

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[Guest BillWood]

The French, after the Defeat, fought the Allies every chance they got and cooperated with the Germans every chance they got.

They killed Amaericans in North Africa, fought the British in Syria, Lebanon and Madagascar, forced the British to bomb their navy, coloborated with the Japanese in Indochina, supported anti British pro Nazi forces in the Middle East, helped the Nazis collect Jews. I am speaking of the Vichy of course, but they were the government of France and had the willing cooperation of the governed.

And the truth is, their was not much anti German resistance until 1943. And even then, the Vichy were willing to collaborate with the Germans to defeat the DeGaulists in and outside of France.

Damn near a nation of collaborists.

[s bakker]

LOL,

this is absurd. Calling a whole nation fundamental cowards and traitors just because they got overrun early in the war?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The French, after the Defeat, fought the Allies every chance they got and cooperated with the Germans every chance they got.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now here is well backed statement. Just imagine the USSR (for example ) overran your nation wouldn't you have a little grudge against them ?

Wouldn't you think that the French didn't excactly hailed their old enemy when they thundered down their village squares ?

(Being a little sarcastic here ... ).

I don't think EVERYBODY was that willing to cooperate with a age old enemy that much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

They killed Amaericans in North Africa, fought the British in Syria, Lebanon and Madagascar, forced the British to bomb their navy, coloborated with the Japanese in Indochina, supported anti British pro Nazi forces in the Middle East, helped the Nazis collect Jews. I am speaking of the Vichy of course, but they were the government of France and had the willing cooperation of the governed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Vichy walked a thin thread indeed, a strange political situation. But they considered themselves to be a 'free' nation, so it's not so suprising that the local forces showed token resistance when invaded in Lybia, Syria, Lebanon and Madagascar.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And the truth is, their was not much anti German resistance until 1943. And even then, the Vichy were willing to collaborate with the Germans to defeat the DeGaulists in and outside of France.

Damn near a nation of collaborists.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh what a gem. Well there are always people who 'colaborate' with a oppressor. I doubt it only the french did it. Numerous SS

units were formed from volunteers from conquered countries.

Like the Brits say; 'If you can't beat them join them'. I am not trying to justify it though

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Only in the movies, Def. The Maquis were a lot less effective than post-War French propaganda would have you believe; ever notice how every 75 year old baker, waiter, or striking trucker in France is a hero of the resistance? And they didn't mount any serious counter-force ops(as opposed to intelligence ops) until late '43, IIRC. And HumInt was not that valuable to the war effort compared to SigInt -- not by a wide margin.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I notice that the french always get critized on their resistance, why not on the dutch, belgian, polish ect ect resistance? And they all did a decent job considering the circumstances as i recall.

And remeber, it easy to think 'you certainly would join a resistance force if your country became ocuppied' but it wasn't that easy!

End of rant

Grtz S Bakker

PS: i am Dutch by the way

[This message has been edited by s bakker (edited 04-12-2000).]

[s bakker]

Whoops double post

[This message has been edited by s bakker (edited 04-12-2000).]

[Simon Fox]

Just to set you on the right track...

They put up a heck of a lot more than token resistance in Syria much to the disgust of the Australians who moved in there expecting to be met with 'wine and flowers'. Mind you the Aussies respected their opponents fighting capabilities much more than their erstwhile allies the Free French (aka Gaullists) for whom they had nothing but contempt.

By the way if you wish to use the term 'Commonwealth' to describe the combined forces of Britain, Canada, Australia, NZ, India etc that's OK. If you insist on the inaccurate and annoying collective term 'British' for anything other than the British Army be prepared for a roasting

[von Lucke]

Ah, le Francais! Sure, they fought the Allies after the fall of Paris --- they blamed the Brits for running out on them, and then for sinking what was left of their navy in Dakkar! IIRC the French AF even bombed targets in Gibralter right after the surrender --- I think this is a good indicator on what shape Anglo-French goodwill must have been in even before things fell apart.

On the other hand, Free French troops under commanders like Juin and LeClerc accounted quite well for themselves in Italy and France. But, as seems all too usual with the French, personalities (ie; DeGaulle)seem to outweigh abilities...

[Darwin]

Ah the French, pepe le peu a fine example

Give us a break eh. These guys eat snails fer christsake.

[Guest -panzershreck-]

poor french...

they were just unlucky

cause rambo wasnt on their side.

[This message has been edited by -panzershreck- (edited 04-12-2000).]

[Magnus]

Well, what to say ? I must say I am really DISGUSTED when I hear you guys talking. I definitely refuse to argue on such inconsiderate and violent smashing.

As a french, I do not consider us as a particularly great country, but, oh god!, such blind smashing...

Please, Steve, close this tread before a flame war begin...

Magnus, a french fellow who would have WITHOUT ANY DOUBT flew in face of the enemy in 1940, then would have cooperated all the way with nazis before finally joining the resistance on 5th June 1944, thus becoming a national hero.

Thanks for your attention, and really thanks to the few one here who did not fall into such free flaming ( DEF, bakker ).

[This message has been edited by Magnus (edited 04-12-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Magnus (edited 04-12-2000).]

[Schrullenhaft]

Interesting how just a single flippant phrase can open up such a can of worms.

I'm no history major, so most of what I say is mostly unsubstantiated opinion (but to be honest, it seems most historians - at least the well known ones - become "opinionated" when it comes down to their final analysis of historical events).

I think many of us would have to put ourselves in place of the French at the time of their surrender. At this time Hitler was a well known anti-Semite, but the butchery of the Jews (in full scale) was yet to come. To the French he was their despised conquorer. Now there was a quick collaboration on the part of the remaining military forces of the Vichy govt., but as pointed out earlier the Anglo-French relations weren't always exactly great. And when the British torpedoed the French fleet at Toulon (to prevent the use of some significant naval vessels by the Germans) it "pissed off" the French very much. And again, as pointed out earlier, most of the actions of the Vichy French military were defensive - as they were the target of Allied offensive operations. I'd be hard pressed to give an accurate representation of the "military mind", but I think there is some universal attributes that are common to military leaders - and a certain professional stubborness/pride (not a negative connotation here) is one of them.

I don't want to sound like an apologist for the Vichy govt., but many people here are oversimplifying the choices that govt. faced. By the way, the British govt. had PRO-NAZI sympathizers right before the war (this was a minority mind you, but they were there). In fact America had an organized NAZI party operating in the open also.

As for the French Resistance, it is probably the best known one of the war (in popular media at least - most Americans would probably only recognize the French resistance as the "ONLY" one of the war). This is most likely due to their size and being in the intended path of the "Second Front".

As for being a resistance fighter/guerrilla it is a harder choice than many here may think. I'm sure most of the occupied countries of WWII despised their conquorers, but actively resisting them is very hard. Organizing a resistance cell, getting intelligence and weapons all without being caught is a hefty undertaking. Now add to that fact that you may have to deal with retributions (a thread here several days ago mentioned a specific French village that the SS Das Reich division wiped out - just for the death of a highly respected officer). Other considerations are getting support from others (and not being turned in) and attacking worthwhile targets. A lot of these countries had resistance efforts going, but had no idea how long it would take before it was all over.

I think a number of us on this board pride ourselves too much on the idea that we would have "stood up to tyranny" in any form. I tell you that it much harder than most of us guess.

One more point in my RANT - I think some of us should be a little more careful in our flippant comments concerning others. Though history requires us to be judgemental of past events and decisions, we need to be a little more guarded in making over-generalizations of other nationalities.

OK.. sorry, rant over.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by s bakker:

I notice that the french always get critized on their resistance, why not on the dutch, belgian, polish ect ect resistance? And they all did a decent job considering the circumstances as i recall.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Def was talking specifically about France, and not those other countries, so why should I mention them? Over all, resistance movements in Western Europe were largely ineffective, i.e., they caused little inconvenience to the enemy -- in the East, things were very different. This doesn't mean that members of the [insert Country Here] Resistance weren't brave or even down-right heroic.

The fact that significant Maquisard activity didn't begin until late '43 is simply that: a fact. It is also undeniable that Maquisards of all stripes (i.e., Communists and non-Communists) played up their own exploits after the war for political reasons. It's also true (as it was in many other occupied-countries) that Communist and non-Communist resistance groups spent a lot of time fighting each other rather than the Nazis; sometimes one group would cooperate with the Nazis in order to betray the other. As in so many things to do with the war, it simply can't be viewed in black and white.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And remeber, it easy to think 'you certainly would join a resistance force if your country became ocuppied' but it wasn't that easy!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Many of my family were in an armed resistance movement, and I know what sort of sacrifices it requires.

Ethan

------------------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[DEF BUNGIS]

Naw.....that was a good rant Schrullenhaft, but let me argue......

It seems that the most recognized resistance of the war was probably the Polish and Russian partisan. This caused more disruption

for the german logistics (and sometimes combat forces) than any French resistance ever.

If any of you familiar with ASL, you know the partisan scenarios that took place in Poland were organized and somewhat trained combatants. Not saying ASL is 100% accurate, but it has been highlighted in numerous books and documentaries also.

So yes, it probably is harder to organize a resistance force than most of us probably imagine, but, if you have people who beleive strongly in thier ideals, with some leadership, the rest will fall together.

------------------

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[Neutral Party]

Good points by Schrullenhaft

Well it's easy to trash the French isn't it

But when you look at the record of most nations in WWII it is always possible to paint a less than rosy picture.

Let's see - who had a good war ?

The Norwegians - not really, the nation got off relatively lightly and had an active resistance but they also had Quisling.

The Dutch or Belgians or Danes - not really. Resistance was pretty ineffectual - but the Dutch helped hide their Jewish fellow citizens.

The Poles - nope. Very brave resistance, Warsaw uprising, Polish exile armies - but also rampant anti-semitism even after the war was over.

The British - not really they were just as shafted by the Germans as the French were but had one thing the French didn't - the English Channel. If it wasn't for the English Channel the UK would have been overrun had Hitler wished to do so. There would also have been no shortage of collaborationists who would have formed a government similar to Vichy. Over time as the oppresive nature of Nazi rule became manifest I'm sure resistance would have become stronger, similar to what occurred in France.

The Russians - no way. Very brave defense of the motherland, masters of the operational art - but gross military incompetence at the start, institutional reign of terror - Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler.

The North Americans (US/Canada) - pretty good but not threatened by invasion.

On the question of "resistance", it's all very well talking about how "I" would never surrender and would join the resistance and other assorted bull**** but for people with families (especially children) the most important motivation, at least initially, would be survival.

Weighing up the circumstances and making the decision to actively resist requires a lot of soul-searching. On a personal level you have to think about what would happen to your family if you were killed - including whether they would be the victims of reprisals. Where should your primary loyalties lie ?

You have to decide whether to participate in acts of terrorism and murder both against the occupying power and also against your collaborationist fellow citizens.

You have to think about what would you do if you participated in some act of resistance and the occupying power said "Right if you don't give up and turn yourself in we'll take every man, woman and child in this village and execute them".

Then you've got to ask yourself why you are doing all this resisting, what are your aims, how can these aims come to pass.

It is not fair to take a "snapshot" at one historical point and say "This is the French". Twenty five years earlier the French fought very bravely against the Germans.

I think a lot of the anti-French sentiment displayed here is unjustified and essentially racist.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Joe

[Black Sabot]

C'mon guys, lay off the French.

After all they gave us the Kiss, the Tickler, and best of all...Brigette Bardot!

And we all know what we got from watching her on the screen

[Major Tom]

Now, it is really weird that a thread started by me with NO reference to the French suddenly changes topic after 1 post. Freaky. I can recieve e-mails, but, can't send anything out... and I am still stuck on VGA colour!!!

Anyway, to join the rants...

Just about everyone here has decided to generalize, an all or nothing attitude toward resistence. Societies don't work that way. In reality, a small percentage of French collaborated with the Germans, and a small percentage of French took active means to resist occupation, but, the vast majority remained neutral. You can't blame them. Why start trouble for you and your family? There was a mass rush of solidarity toward the French Resistence AFTER the Allies liberated an area. Since there were no records of membership anyone (except a collaborator) could claim to be a part of the resistence, when in reality they took no active part against or for the Germans.

The same thing usually happens in situations where the direct livelyhood of the average person is not affected. In Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Norway and France, until later in the war the average population was no worse off than when they were not occupied by the Germans (other than material shortages). Poland, the Balkans, Italy, Russia, etc. did not have the same neutrality as they weren't allowed to have the option. The Germans were more brutal toward the general population in the East and South than they were in the West, so, more participation in resistence.

Even the American revolution was very similar. The popular consensus was 90% of the Population of the American Colonies sided with independence and only 10% were loyalists. In reality, until the end, 10% were loyalists, and about 10% were for the revolution. About 80% of the population didn't care either way. So, you can't blame the French, or other Allied nations for the lack of popular uprising. There just was not the reason for every person to risk their lives.

Dealing with the French armies, Free French and Vichy French. Well, the Free French in Africa were actually really good quality. They fought EXTREMELY hard in Syria, both Vichy and the Free French 1st Division. The 2nd Brigade at Bir Hackim held off Rommel's main Panzer attack with no AFV's and few AT guns during the Battle for Gaza. The Vichy French in Algeria fought pretty well, even though they were outclassed numerically and quality. They did really well in Tunis, Italy and France.

The reason for Vichy collaboration, was, an attempt to salvage a doomed situation. France was finished in 1940. They got off pretty easy with the Armistice. They were lucky that Hitler wanted an Armistice instead of Unconditional Surrender (just to rub it in their face from 1919). They didn't have much to fight with anyway. Their army in North Africa was poorly equipped, their air force was virtually destroyed, leaving just their navy as a bargaining chip. Sure, they collaborated with the Germans to exterminate the Jews, but, anti-sematism isn't just a German trait. All of the Allied nations would have done the same as the French if they were occupied. Only a few, the Italians, Bulgarians, and Denmark had PULBIC policy to save the Jews from deathcamps. Notice none of them were Allied nations (Denmark was neutral).

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Neutral Party:

The Dutch or Belgians or Danes - not really. Resistance was pretty ineffectual - but the Dutch helped hide their Jewish fellow citizens.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anne Frank was hidden by sympathetic Gentile neighbors, as were many other Jews in every occupied and Axis country in Europe, but I believe you're thinking of the Danes. They smuggled approx. 90% of their Jewish population across the Skaggerak (sp?) to Sweden. The Danish King protested the imposition of the Nueremberg Laws by wearing a yellow Star of David in public, and many Gentile Danes followed his lead.

The Dutch, though not as enthusiastic in rounding up their Jewish population as the French, were very punctilious in turning over their census records to the Nazis, thereby identifying who was Jewish and who was not. IIRC, the Dutch Jewish community was as much at fault as their fellow citizens in that they turned over their membership records as well. I'd have to check Davidowicz's "The War Against the Jews" to get corroboration on that however, and my copy is not readily available.

Ethan

------------------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Simon Fox]

Well I for one made no generalisations about the French. I referred to a specific example where someone said they put up a token defence (wrong!) ie Syria and I did not relate my own opinion but rather that of those who fought in that campaign (well-documented).

As for the statement <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They fought

EXTREMELY hard in Syria, both Vichy and the Free French 1st Division.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The former is quite correct but as for the latter (FF 1st) you are completely wrong: their performance was bloody pathetic. The Aussies despised them and respected the Vichy forces (who they were fighting), you can draw your own conclusions from that surely.

I am not deriding the overall FF performance just in that campaign.

[s bakker]

Ethan;

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I never said that. Please do not put words in my mouth.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, i apologize.

Grtz S Bakker

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Okay.

I think ANYONE who offered resistance in any way shape or form during WWII should be greatly appreciated. Although I myself am partial to the Polish, I greatly respect any force which resisted the Germans. In fact, Dutch resistance were the ones who found out that FM Model himself was in the Arnhem area and offered their assistance to "Market-Garden". They also warned the Brits that indeed, there WERE ACTIVE Panzers in the area. However, Monty thought them to be untrustworthy or something like that and look what happened. The Amis had Dutch Resistance liasons during "M-G"...why the Brits refused I have no idea.

------------------

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[Joel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

The former is quite correct but as for the latter (FF 1st) you are completely wrong: their performance was bloody pathetic. The Aussies despised them and respected the Vichy forces (who they were fighting), you can draw your own conclusions from that surely.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simon,

While I do not discuss the opinion you relay, I must question the reasons for this opinion.

In the Lebanon-Syria campaign, the Australian 7th division was in charge of the attack along the coast into Lebanon toward Beyrut, while the Free French 1st division (Brigade-sized) was to advance to Damas with an Indian Brigade. The operation started on June, 7th, 1941.

The bulk of Vichy resistance quickly turned south of Damas to face the greater threat (the Allied advance was faster in this area) and thus the Franco-Indian force was faced with numerous armored counter-attacks against its front and flanks.

After 2 weeks of hard fighting and with the reinforcement of an Australian battalion (that fought very well and whose CO was captured), Damas was at last taken on June 22nd. This opened the way to the north of Lebanon and Syria for the newly-formed 6th British division, which ended the campaign.

Meanwhile the 7th Australian division, with the help of the British Fleet heavy guns, had progressed along the coast well inside Lebanon, but was stalled far from its objective Beirut. On July 9th this division, whose 21st Brigade had been replaced by 23rd Brigade, was still blocked 15kms south of Beirut.

So it seems that the Free French "bloody pathetic" performance in this campaign was matched and beaten by others, who had interest to cover their tracks...

While General Legentilhomme (the 1st FF commander) can be critisized for taking too much risks in the advance to Damas, the FF did effectively fight EXTREMELY hard in this campaign, some units taking as much as 25% casualties in one day and continuing combat until the end of the campaign.

BTW, I would be interested in reading an Australian account of this campaign, any reference?

Joel