Thank You France!

[Fort]

I wasn't referring to their eventual capitulation, Tate, but your UNDERLINED "Changed Sides", which the states of the southern confederacy did in 1861, to refresh your apparently stale memory.

I see someone in need of a history lesson....

 

[laurent closier]

• Fabien Barthez, whose many gaffs as a goalkeeper make me look good enough to be a professional!

JT

LOL ! :laugh:

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I am not even sure that this is true. Ho, sure enough, we had a large bunch of people collaborating. But not that much in comparison with other countries. Belgium and Holland were culturally closer to Germany, with German-speaking populations in them, and they provided a lot of collaborators. Other countries like Yugoslavia had a reason for siding with the Germans (Croats vs. Serbs).

What I believe is that the French were completely disorientated in 1940 : thier army was completely routed, the country was occupied (hadn't happened since 1814 !) and their ally had seemingly turned against them (Mers El Kebir ... horrible detail : when the French commander ordered to power up the ships, the French sailors cheered : they thought they were starting again the fight against Germans). So a lot of them just followed what the government said, only realizing much later what it meant.

Again the situation was widely different from place to place. Alsace Loraine was annexed to Germany, but a lot of Alsacian, forced into the Whermacht, fled or pretended to be sick in order to avoid duty. In Corsica, the administration refused to deport any Jew. A few Jewish people were asked not to leave the vincinity of their houses and that was it. In Algeria, the Police was actively working on rooting out Gestapo spy rings, to the level of kidnapping some Gestapo spies and sometimes torturing them during interrogation (ho, the irony :bite. On the opposite, Paris or Lyon were not places to be : lost of Gestapo and German offices and troops, lots of collaborationist organisations ...

And by contrast, Canada refused to admit Jewish refugees into the country before the Second World War. We also set up concentration camps based on race, and interned thousands of Asians because their skin was the wrong colour. So did the United States.

Not everything was black and white. Speaking of which, of course, was the matter of official segregation in the U.S., both society and military. None of which compares to the deliberate slaughter going on in Europe, but race relations in North America were far from perfect.

Those "collaborationists" in France were not so much keen on exterminating Jews - some of them - as motivated by a number of things. Everyone had their own individual drive. Some of it was a legitimate fear of communism. Americans like McCarthy would sympathize. Some was individual greed. Some was fatalism, or simple resignation. It's easy to criticize without having to live through it.

 

[Tater]

I wasn't referring to their eventual capitulation, Tate, but your UNDERLINED "Changed Sides", which the states of the southern confederacy did in 1861, to refresh your apparently stale memory.

They didn't change sides...they created a side. Big difference...but you go right ahead with your revisionist view of history...it's a hoot.

 

[Tater]

I see someone in need of a history lesson....

No problem...send me your skype address and the time you want to get together and I will give you all you can handle. :laugh:

 

[Michael Dorosh]

They didn't change sides...they created a side. Big difference...but you go right ahead with your revisionist view of history...it's a hoot.

And what was Vichy France if not a new state created from the workings of an existing political framework? The difference wasn't that "big". I would argue it wasn't a difference at all. Vichy France had a new monetary system based on the old one, as did the CSA, a new government, as did the CSA, and a new political outlook. Functionally, it ran the territories as the old government did, as did the President of the CSA.

Functionally, perhaps you can tell us what the difference is that is so "big" without resorting to abstracts.

 

[Tater]

And what was Vichy France if not a new state created from the workings of an existing political framework?

There was France fighting the Germans...then there was France supporting the Germans. They were on one side then the other.

Prior to the Civil War there was no Confederacy...it wasn't fighting for or against any side. Then the Confederacy was created and was at war with the rest of the Union...it only ever had one side as a nation. Now, if you want to take it to a state level there might be a point...but then it is apples to oranges trying to compare say, South Carolina to France...which was clearly not the point Chas was going for...if it was he did a pi$$ poor job of communicating it.

BTW, Chas, if your point was to some how embarrass me with your poorly conceived notion regarding the "South"...my family didn't live here during the Civil War...we were Unionists.

Functionally, perhaps you can tell us what the difference is that is so "big" without resorting to abstracts.

See above...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

There was France fighting the Germans...then there was France supporting the Germans. They were on one side then the other.

There was Virginia not fighting the Union...then there was Virginia fighting the Union. They were not on a "side" and then they were.

Same diff if you ask me, just in reverse. A blind sea turtle could see it.

 

[dlazov]

My wife was raised in Mississippi and dem der is fiten words, the South (according to her and her kin) ceded from the Union based on States Rights vs. Government Rights to enforce National laws and regulations that they felt the State should decide upon.

I stay out of these conversations with her because they get very heated really quick with some of the southerns.

I think we Americans can thank France for the Louisiana purchase and the assistance they gave to us when we fought the British.

I do think it's ironic that Britain has been one of our closest Allies ever since 1812. But France seems to be not so accommodating especially after we helped with the two European messes last century.

Meaning no disrespect to Frenchmen, but it seems that France's government really has not liked the US government in the last 64 years (after WW2). Some of the French people seem to be okay with some of our people but in general it's seems like both sides governments dislike each other which is kind of silly.

 

[Tater]

There was Virginia not fighting the Union...then there was Virginia fighting the Union. They were not on a "side" and then they were.

Virginia is not a nation...France is a nation...

Also, France changed sides after surrendering...the Confederacy capitulated and simply ceased to exist.

The Southern states weren't fighting for the Union against a foreign enemy and then changed sides to fight along side that foreign enemy.

IOW, you are comparing a civil war to a war against a foreign power. :nuts:

There is nothing politically similar about the two situations...but hey, if you and Chas fancy defending the scum of Vichy France...be my guest.

Same diff if you ask me, just in reverse.

No one did...

A blind sea turtle could see it.

An odd source to be getting your view of history from...but hey, if it works for you...:nuts:

 

[Whizbang1963]

There was France fighting the Germans...then there was France supporting the Germans. They were on one side then the other.

Tate it was not "one country" If you view it as you stated it above then France as a country existed as two separate countries under two separate governements.

Vichy France, pro-German, not occupied by the Germans until late in the war, fought as a German Ally in North Africa.

Then you have:

Occupied France, Free Government and limited military operating in exile in the UK planning how to best fight the Germans and supporting those in country who still were, armed resistance fighters still in country figthing the Germans.

Two separate governments, a country divided by occupied and non-occupied status.

The legitimate government of France did not change sides, they were Allies from the beginning. It can be said confidently that the Vichy Government did not change sides from the Axis to the Allies in as much as the Vichy puppet government was dissolved by the Germans when they decided to occupy Vichy held areas to prevent them from turning to the allied cause.

The only two countries I can think of that "changed-sides" in both wars were Russia and Italy. Both started as Axis powers and in 41 for Russia and 43 for 44 for Italy reversed sides and began to fight for / with the Allies.

 

[Tater]

Tate it was not "one country" If you view it as you stated it above then France as a country existed as two separate countries under two separate governements.

Vichy France, pro-German, not occupied by the Germans until late in the war, fought as a German Ally in North Africa.

Then you have:

Occupied France, Free Government and limited military operating in exile in the UK planning how to best fight the Germans and supporting those in country who still were, armed resistance fighters still in country figthing the Germans.

There was one nation...France...then there were the French that escaped from France.

Two separate governments, a country divided by occupied and non-occupied status.

A great rationalization for making the French feel better about having changed sides...

The only two countries I can think of that "changed-sides" in both wars were Russia and Italy. Both started as Axis powers and in 41 for Russia and 43 for 44 for Italy reversed sides and began to fight for / with the Allies.

I suggest thinking harder...

 

[Whizbang1963]

There was one nation...France...then there were the French that escaped from France.

I suggest thinking harder...

Interesting how you define Nation Tate. Is it the physical landmass that defines the nation or country or is the ruling political power that defines the nation or perhaps it is the people?

I think many of us are defining France as a nation based on the government, occupied vs non-occupied. I'm not sure how you are defining it, as the entire country did not go from Allied, to Axis, to Allied again. The French Government in exile was always Allied and was always claimed to represent the people of France.

So changing sides as you define it is just not reasonable based on the facts of history.

 

[Calimero]

There was one nation...France...then there were the French that escaped from France.
A great rationalization for making the French feel better about having changed sides...

Ok. Then : Did Norway change sides ? Belgium ? Holland ? Yugoslavia ? Slovakia ?

 

[Tater]

Ok. Then : Did Norway change sides ? Belgium ? Holland ? Yugoslavia ? Slovakia ?

Not that I am aware off...you have something different?

 

[Will Fleming]

French peeps were really nice to me and my friend. I don't care what elected officials say on both sides of the Atlantic to get elected. It is just more lies to excite a few people and get some votes.

Now if our dollar was worth something against the Euro, the trip would have been better (cheaper). Glad to see it is getting better now tho.

 

[Roadtogundagai]

What?!?! Canada wasn't even a real separate country from GB in 1939...it was a wholly owned subsidiary...Canada was going to do whatever GB told them to do...period. Canada hasn't been a truly independent nation in it's whole history...it was owned by the Brits and now it is owned by the US. :nuts:

That is a rather simplistic view, and ducks the fact that a DOW by the UK was NOT binding on many of the self governing dominions in 1939 (as it was in 1914). The Australian and New Zealand governments quickly came to the rational conclusion that a Europe dominated by Nazi Germany, leaving a shattered/conquered UK & France in its wake, would not be in their national interests, so declared war on Germany. It was far from automatic.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Virginia is not a nation...

If you could go back in time to 1861, you would have a hard time getting people to think the same way. The concept of "state's rights" were a huge issue. You're familiar with a little thing called the Civil War, I am sure. It was important enough to go to war over. Many Virginians felt that their duty was to their state, first, and no matter what they called it - state, nation, whatever - Virginia was their country, their home, that for which they fought.

Basically, a lot of people are getting wound round the axle in this thread over words that in the end mean the same things, and insisting they are somehow different - without offering any kinds of proofs.

Go back and watch Gettysburg. I don't generally advocate motion pictures as history, but there were some very nicely stated speeches in what was essentially a "talky" film in which the concept of "state" as "nation" was espoused. Then read some of the better books on the subject and tell me if the movie didn't manage to capture it pretty well after all.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

That is a rather simplistic view, and ducks the fact that a DOW by the UK was NOT binding on many of the self governing dominions in 1939 (as it was in 1914). The Australian and New Zealand governments quickly came to the rational conclusion that a Europe dominated by Nazi Germany, leaving a shattered/conquered UK & France in its wake, would not be in their national interests, so declared war on Germany. It was far from automatic.

Either Aus or NZ declared war on Germany before Britain, as I recall. Canada declared war on Germany on September 10, a week after Britain. The Statute of Westminster is the important document in this case. It came about in the 1920s, largely, I am led to understand, as a result of battle performance in the First World War, though if that is an old myth it is hard to say. Certainly stepping up to the plate in world affairs did not hurt matters.

 

[Roadtogundagai]

If you could go back in time to 1861, you would have a hard time getting people to think the same way. The concept of "state's rights" were a huge issue. You're familiar with a little thing called the Civil War, I am sure. It was important enough to go to war over. Many Virginians felt that their duty was to their state, first, and no matter what they called it - state, nation, whatever - Virginia was their country, their home, that for which they fought.

Basically, a lot of people are getting wound round the axle in this thread over words that in the end mean the same things, and insisting they are somehow different - without offering any kinds of proofs.

Go back and watch Gettysburg. I don't generally advocate motion pictures as history, but there were some very nicely stated speeches in what was essentially a "talky" film in which the concept of "state" as "nation" was espoused. Then read some of the better books on the subject and tell me if the movie didn't manage to capture it pretty well after all.

R.E.Lee was offered command of the Union armies in 1861, but declined and joined the Confederacy instead. A very tough decision that he explained by saying "I could not draw my sword against my home" - his home being Virginia.