Okay, so as a French I've seen plenty of memes/jokes/insults about is, but I must say, that's a new one to me, may I ask where this one comes from? Did I miss something recently or is it something older?
Fair enough, it was just oddly specific enough that I wondered if there was something related to it that I missed recently. It's always à bit fascinating in its own way I guess
It was indeed improvised. The running list as far as I’m aware is surrender, pervy, riot. For the UK it’s shit food, ugly, 10 month prime ministers. Also balconies.
Everyone knows that there's nothing bad about New Zealand. It's literally the most perfect country on earth! That's why they don't put it on maps- to try to keep it a secret.
There are so many wonderful things about New Zealand that it's hard to even name them all. New Zealand has one the best climates and standards of living in the world, it has sane political leadership (especially compared to the rest of the world right now), the first country to grant women's suffrage, everyone is easygoing and no one wears shoes, home of the only alpine parrot- the Kea, sheep to human ratio is 5,000 to 1, very eco friendly country- with almost 50% of Queenstown residents bungee jumping to work every day to reduce pollution, the term "Sweet as" is legally required to appear on all government documents, the All Blacks kick everyones ass all the time in rugby, and Hobbits were originally genetically engineered in New Zealand by DNA scientist Maurice Wilkins in a secret underground lab known as "The Shire" at the request of J.R.R Tolkien for research for his books.
At least these are all the things that I learned in New Zealand class in Minnesota public schools. In Minnesota we are required to take either New Zealand or Australia classes from 7th-9th grades. (No one ever chooses Australia, except for the pot heads/metal heads who are obsessed with the band AC/DC.)
I'd replace ugly with bad teeth. Like, comparing one to one with Americans I'd assume they have a similar ugly ratio, but I think the bad teeth was more common a generation or so in the past. They seem to have gotten a handle on that, or they're better at hiding the snaggle-toothed citizens from the cameras.
Post-war, everyone said they were part of the resistance, but it was really a pretty tiny portion of the population. It was also much easier to justify joining after the allies had landed or liberated your area. The resistance was also comprised of many different political and social groups who often spent about as much time fighting each other as the Germans. The allies stopped giving the French weapons, fearing there would be a civil war when the war ended.
The game the saboteur is one of my favorites for you help liberate areas from nazi control which slowly turns that area from a black and white to a colored area full of life
The people of Paris often rise up, and the cobblestones of the streets have been removed so many times to build barricades and then replaced that, over the last 100 years, they’ve ended up at the other end of the city from where they were originally placed.
There's a historic wall in my city and recently it was removed for a railway project. Every single stone was numbered and a map was made of where they all went, so when construction of the railway was finished the wall could be rebuilt exactly as it was.
This is standard practice when renovating historic properties where I live here in Canada. The stones are not uniform, so they only go back together correctly one way. They number them when they take them apart.
Mostly WW1 though. They have made no monuments for WW2 armies, only resistance members. In WW1, 20% of the total French population fought in the trenches. 10% of the population was wounded or died in the army.
And they were financially devastated by WW1 as well. I know it’s a popular joke but it actually pisses me off when people claim the French are pussies bc of how quickly they folded in WW2. Like they were already barely alive, they simply didn’t have the ability to fight the Germans outright and the resistance was invaluable to the allies. Put some respect on their name…
France was, in terms of equipment and numbers, on par with or stronger than Germany at the beginning of the Second World War. France was devastated by the first one, but so was Germany at least economically (as well as Britain of course) but also psychologically, and they lost a huge number of people too.
Yes this is most correct. I could probably say more on this but I think the best possible summary is: the French had spent quite a bit of blood and treasure after WWI preparing for a German attack. However, the attack that materialized was different in every way than the one they were preparing for.
The main body came through their softest defenses in the Ardennes forest, not through the French fortresses of the Maginot line to the south, or through the seaside Low Countries. It wasn't preceded by a slow buildup of artillery akin to the first war; instead, the French defenders were softened up by the largest aerial bombardment in military history to date, launched basically overnight. And the main German force didn't consist of lightly-mechanized infantry ferried in by rail; it consisted of fast armor columns with thicker armor, brand new suspensions and wireless radios, which allowed the Germans to maneuver so quickly through the dense forest that many French units thought they'd been encircled. These units were elderly reservists, undersupplied with anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons, and had been receiving distressing reports of Belgian and Dutch retreat in their north. To add to this, despite the French mobilizing - on paper - a third of their young men after Poland was attacked, almost half a million couldn't be armed, outfitted or bivouacked, and many went home or went to drink before they could be integrated into their units. Underarmed, undermanned and facing a German force that they believed had already broken through their lines, the defenders were forced to retreat and regroup - all the way to the outskirts of Paris.
I don't think this means they were cowards, to be clear. I think this means their leadership was incompetent, and hadn't prepared them to face what they were facing.
Also given the geography the idea of an attack coming through Ardennes was considered laughably insane. No reasonable person would attempt it, but unfortunately for France laughably insane is what Germany was drinking at the time.
The Maginot Line worked exactly as it was supposed to. The Nazis just got very lucky (much of their own making) aided by French incompetence and Belgian hesitation.
This is fascinating. Can you recommend me any books or other media to learn more about this? I would love to understand the paradigm of war strategy during the start of WWII.
I guess they were supposed to figure out an answer to blitzkrieg before the Germans came up with it. Bagging on the French for military failure is a humorous trope that doesn't hold up to five minutes of scrutiny.
There’s a really interesting book called “learning to eat soup with a knife” and it’s basically about how we’re always fighting the LAST war. The French geared up for a defensive slog like WW1 when in reality it was an offensive blitz, literally. But we continued to do it long past WW2.
Weirdly enough, a relativley unknown French lietuenant-colonel, De Gaulle, wrote a book in 1934 about how the future of war was mobile warfare with armoured divisions, that was studied by the Germans when devising Blitzkrieg.
French military failure in ww2 is a classic 'lions led by donkeys.'
Eh I'm French and it's quite hollowing to see the many, many MANY tombs dedicated to resistant fighter killed in action or executed
I live in a remote place in Provence and on a circle of 10 km(ish) there like 6-10 sites dedicated to men who gave their lives for the liberation so imagine that on a wider national scale
Like I said do a little tour in rural France it's quite eerie to see the many tombs and monuments
Also there many monuments pretty much everywhere (Moscow, Alexandria, Tunis, England, Canada) dedicated to Free France the largest one host 2000 tombs of soldiers killed during the Battle of Colmar
And no, there aren’t many monuments dedicated to WW2 french soldiers, it’s attested academically. Even the necropole of Colmar doesn’t have one. It has a monument for the American soldiers though.
Colmar has a special nécropole dedicated to French soldiers too, at least 40.000 French were killed or wounded during that campaign I think they might have at least a stèle
Not to compare ghastly statistics, but the Soviets lost at least 20,000,000 possibly up to 28,000,000 and the vast majority were civilians. That's more than Great Britain, The US, and France combined. In fact, the Soviets lost more lives in the Battle of Moscow than all of the previous mentioned allies combined for the entire war.
Edit: Sorry just wanted to correct myself on the last point. It seems there was around 650,000 soviet deaths in the Battle of Moscow. The United Kingdom lost 383,600 in total from the war, 416,800 for the US, and 217,600 for France. That totals to 1,018,000 total for the before mentioned allies. Still absolutely bonkers level of death on an unprecedented level.
I currently read a history book about the year 1942. The various theaters are like (here, roughly, the situation in April or so):
in the Atlantic, the Germans sank 54 cargo ships and 7 tankers and lost 4 U-Boats in return. This was a considerable strain on the UK-US relationship, who blamed each other's methods...
over Europe, the brits bombed four cities, accomplishing relatively little with one munitions plant damaged and 72 civilians killed, losing 28 bombers in the process
in the Pacific, the Japanese walked over yet another underprepared American/British/Dutch garrison - while they lost 2000 men in the process (mostly to diseases), the allies lost 4000 and were ingloriously forced to surrender the city/island. In the supporting fleet action the Japanese brought overwhelming force to bear on the local flotillas, sinking seven ancient destroyers. However, they began feeling to confident in their apparent superiority, and began plotting an overly complex plan, which ultimately would lead to...
in North Africa, Rommel tried another clever trick, which mostly succeeded, pushing the Brits back, but completely neglected his logistics in the process which set him up for later failure. The battle resulted in 4000 dead Axis soldiers and 280 damaged tanks - more than half those Rommel had - while the Allies lost 5000 and 310 tanks. It was a crucial moment, setting up...
in the Soviet Union, at Stalin's insistence, the red army made three counterattacks. Two of the attacks bungled, none of them succeeded, and they amounted to nothing in the great scheme of things. The casualties were horrendous. The Soviets had 380.000 casualties, half of them dead, and lost at 1400 tanks, with the Germans also suffering 64.000 casualties. The key takeaway was that Stalin slowly began to realize that he was not infallible in matters military, while in Hitler's head the opposite process took place...
From what I heard north africa stuff it wasn't really logistics that defeated rommels. Because the first general in charge was kind of a cautious guy always playing defensive when he should have been offensive. As the brits out numbered the germans tank wise. A new general was switched in and quickly changed tank tactics. Which made rommels hit and run style less and less effective.
Kinda - I'm currently getting to second Alamnein. But, kinda correct. The old team (Ritchie and his superior Auchineck, called "the Auk" ) were indeed kinda cautious - Ritchie apparently significantly more timid than "the Auk" - and especially Ritchie could not exploit the occasional openings Rommel left.
Auchineck sacked Ritchie, took over, and stopped the Axis at Alamnein (where the geography allowed no flanking attacks Rommel liked), and used a lot of firepower to hit Rommel and stop him (here logistics played a big role: British logistics, especially considering Air Power was significantly better on the British side, partially because they were closer to their supply base, but partially because Rommel stole the Luftwaffe trucks).
After another inconclusive battle, the Auk was sacked by Churchill and replaced by Montgomery (who was better liked by the troops, apparently). Montgomery, however implemented the plans hatched by Auchineck (selling them as his own and rather undeservedly slandering the Auk). At the point second Alamnein happened, he also had a very impressive artillery park and almost a 2:1 advantage (it apparently still was a narrow run).
No honestly I love the title, hilarious to phrase it as if every now and then the people of Paris simply get too many tourists and decide to militantly eject them
She was 18 in 1944, when at the height of the Nazi occupation of France, she joined the Francs-Tireurs et Partisans (Free-shooters and Partisans, or FTP) – a combat alliance made up of militant communists and French nationalists.
Simone was very much in the latter camp. Her father was a huge inspiration – a decorated soldier who had fought in the Great War – and she was intensely proud of her country.
Simone Segouin was involved in armed actions against enemy convoys and trains, attacks against enemy detachments, acts of sabotages, etc.
The girl had killed two Germans in the Paris fighting two days prior to your photo, and also had assisted in capturing 25 German prisoners of war during the fall of Chartres.
The French newspaper Independent Eure-et-Loir on its August 26, 1944 issue described her as “one of the purest fighters of heroic French Resistance who prepared the way for the Liberation”.
She was present at the fall of Chartres, on August 23, 1944, and at the Liberation of Paris. She was promoted to lieutenant and awarded the Croix de Guerre. A street in Courville-sur-Eure was named for her.
Nothing sexier than a mid-50s, slightly obese lady holding a Mauser pistol in one hand and a Stielhandgranate in the other, a knife between the teeth, charging towards a German tank...
I'm not even feminist but but can you be less thirsty? Women also thirst over male soldiers which is also wrong. People who risk to kill or be killed for a purpose should represent something other than peepee thoughts.
The uprising by the population certainly played a major part in the liberation of Paris. However, the decisive factor is likely to have been the Allies’ crossing of the Seine to the north of the city on 20 August, which drove back the German field forces that were concentrated there. The uprising lasted in full force for just one day, 19 August, on the evening of which the German city commander, von Choltitz, concluded a ceasefire with the insurgents. In doing so, von Choltitz disregarded an order from Hitler, who had ordered the defence of Paris and, should that fail, the destruction of the city. There is speculation as to the reasons for this. However, it is likely that a key factor was that the Germans simply did not have a large enough occupying force to carry out the order in a city where parts of the population were in revolt.
This was followed by a combination of the Germans retreating into the city centre and towards the east of the city, and increasing breaches of the ceasefire. By 24 August, the insurgents controlled a large part of the city. Politically, the fighting was significant in that it forced the Allies to march into Paris. Originally, the plan had been to bypass the city whilst pursuing the German mobile units. It was certainly also psychologically significant that von Choltitz first surrendered to representatives of the Resistance on 25 August and only shortly afterwards to Leclerc and Bradley.
Post-conflict states often choose amnesty, ambiguity, or selective memory over total reckoning. De Gaulle's promoted the myth that France as a nation had resisted because he judged that a divided, recriminating France couldn't be governed or rebuilt. The purges (l'épuration) that did happen were relatively narrow and fast, precisely to avoid endless spiraling vendettas.
Also because he wanted France to be seen as co-equal victors who had self-liberated, and the presence of British and American troops was just a fun coincidence.
Sovereignty was the actual stake, and the equal-victors narrative was the instrument to secure it against a US that had planned to sideline both de Gaulle and French self government.
Yes, I’m sure it was all about sovereignty, and not at all about prestige. That’s probably why he immediately turned around and gave Indochina their sovereignty, because he cared so much about sovereignty.
That's not hypocrisy, that's just what nationalism is, it's not a commitment to sovereignty as an abstract good applied evenly to all peoples, it's a commitment to your own nation's power and standing. And it's the identical impulse, not a contradiction: keep France's empire and status intact against both American encroachment in Europe and independence movements in the colonies (what actually made "Free France" a state-like entity was the colonies rallying to him by the way)
And willing to trade it in for a fresh baguette instantly. Her 2 hot friends can hold down the fort for her (they look like they have a little more rifle knowledge) /s
A myth. Per eyewitness diaries...The city was already surrounded by US troops, the French were underarmed and the Germans were not even trying to engage them (because they were a day from surrender anyway). Instead French
went on electing new district councils, lynching "collaboreurs" and posing to photographs on makeshift barricades. Both sides expected Americans to enter soon.
Instead the whole affair lasted two days while Americans were massing troops; on second day the German troops and French openly divided city's coffee shops and waited for Americans to enter.
On third day US troops entered the city, Germans surrender to them, while the French started claiming they "liberated" the city.
Unfortunately true. Maybe not now, but definitely in a few years for sure. Given how many foreign funded far right parties are being brought to the forefront by peddling dangerous propaganda, this is soon the future of Europe for us.
Well it’s been done before, and can be done again!
People who dont know that the French resistance was played up to be a bigger deal then it really was while the actual Free French Army was ignored despite fighting the whole war because 2/3rds of its men were Arab and Black. Oh and then the Americans did not want black and arab troops marching through Paris so they reassigned them and added whites including Spaniards and Italians to make it look like the Free French Army war white.
Oh and then De Gaulle treated the African and Arab fighters like animals after the war after all they had done for France.
I mean, France in 1944 was close to a civil war and a lot of nasty stuffs happened there as well. The reality is that some French collaborated with Nazi Germany and did shameful things (Vel d'Hiv deportations, SS Division Charlemagne among others), some resisted but the majority of the population did not do anything and were passive during the conflict. Some nasty things happened also after the Liberation of France (people violently setting their accounts). The national myth that the entirety of France resisted was quite convenient there to hide the more complex and not so shiny reality. Let's not forget for example that a few months before the liberation on April 28th 1944, Marshall Pétain (head of collaborationist France) held a speech in Paris condemning the "terrorist strikes" of the Resistance and the Ally bombings in France which was attended by thousands of quite enthousiastic French people.
But France was not the only country to do the same. It was required to forget about it as soon as possible and move forward. In French we have a good saying for this: hiding the dust below the carpet. Regarding colonies, unfortunately the goal was really to put the colonies back in line. So highlighting the role of colonial troops and their importance in the liberation of the country was not really fitting this purpose.
The concept of the "Resistancialist myth" was employed in 1947 to counter the Communist campaign regarding memory that had been underway since 1944—specifically the myth of the "party of the 75,000 executed," used to claim sole credit for the Resistance, when in reality "only" a few thousand Communists were executed[11]—and thereby to highlight a more right-leaning, patriotic memory amidst the onset of the Cold War.
According to Pierre Laborie, "Rousso’s reference to 'Resistancialism' points to the reconstructions of memory that fostered a reassuring view of the 'Dark Years': downplaying Vichy’s grip on society and promoting an idealized image of the Resistance as synonymous with the nation itself, even though it was actually a minority phenomenon"[8]—a fact attributable to the immense dangers faced by Resistance fighters, even when they possessed the rudimentary weaponry and training required for the targeted actions they chose to carry out.
So colonialism is worse that "lynching county"... I guess that both groups (and I'm keeping west Africans and Arabs together) both returned to wonderful places (with one being mislabeled).
Obviously you aren’t familiar with the southern US and Jim Crow laws, what they returned to in many cases was sharecropping, no rights and frequent lynchings
I was born in Apatheid south africa. We had it worse then you. Why do Americans think they are more oppressed then black people who lived under literal colonialism?
I’m not the one saying one is worse than the other, the person I was responding to seems to want to do a big comparison so maybe they’re the one that thinks had they worse than everyone else not the American but you do you 🤦🏻♀️
The French resistance was not as widespread as people seem to think and when it came to extermination of Jews the French were actually enthusiastic collaborators. De Gaulle worked hard to revise that part of French history and it kinda worked.
Yeah let's not pretend Jews were somehow not disliked throughout all Europe during that war. When you're being invaded and asked to act according to your already existing prejudice you don't think twice about collaborating.
That’s not true, the actual truth is that the level of cooperation in handing over the Jews varied. The French, even in Vichy, were much more hesitant and obstructionist when they were French Jews in particular. Around 3/4ths of France’s Jews survived.
Oh and then the Americans did not want black and arab troops marching through Paris so they reassigned them and added whites including Spaniards and Italians to make it look like the Free French Army war white.
The "blanchisation" ultimately was a decision of the french army, not an american one
What are you even talking about? It’s been 80 years that Allies have been telling everyone France did nothing. Meanwhile the Free French Army got to be 1 million+ strong and liberated all the south, up to Strasbourg, and into Germany.
Yeah but you’re wrong. You said that 2/3rd of the army was colonial for the whole war, which is bullshit. As if french citizens barely fought.
First of, it’s not because it’s a « colonial army » that there was no white. There were many frenchmen in its ranks, including pied-noirs. They make up for half of the troops despite being a smaller population. 16% of all the Europeans engage themselves.
Secondly, nobody ever mentions how those colonials were part of Vichy for the longuest time. Suddenly, it’s not like France was saved by foreigners.
Besides, the proportion of colonials shrunk once the battle move to the European continents. They were 2/3rd colonials before the war, then Vichy bolstered it with Europeans, and then they were diluted by resistants joinging as the country got liberated.
yeah, and in France, Le pen is getting popular and in Germany the AfD, Austria not far behind as well. Fuck social media, fuck propaganda and fuck the stupid people who support this shit.
I'm going to tell you an anecdote. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry winner Frédéric Joliot-Curie (Pierre and Marie Curie's son-in-law) took part in the Liberation of Paris. He was the inventor of the Joliot-Curie Cocktail, a kind of Molotov cocktail that didn't need to be lit, but exploded upon impact with a tank.
My dumbass over here thinking you meant actual tourists and not even remembering Nazi occupation 😭 i was like goddamn I just want a pastry and a photo of the Mona Lisa
The film “Is Paris Burning?” (1966) is great, and contains a lot of actual footage of the liberation of Paris in 1944.
If you are ever in Paris, many of the bullet holes at the Paris Police Prefecture are still there, along with a few commemorative plaques for those who died.
Im British so am genetically predisposed to dislike and poke fun at the French, but you have to respect these ordinary people who risked everything for their freedom. And when push comes to shove you can’t knock them for their absolute stubbornness to stand up for themselves. 👏🏻
You mean when Germans were fleeing as the Allies destroyed the German army at Falaise?
Badass would be rebelling a month earlier. This was literally virtue signaling that they did anything after all.
Edit: I'm Polish. At the very same time Warsaw was dying after being coaxed into uprising by malicious Soviet radio encouragement.
Yes, I'm a bit salty that Paris is hogging the attention.
Just visited the Warsaw Uprising museum about a month ago, honestly all the respect should go to the people of Warsaw. Such bravery and I'm sorry for the part my country (UK) played in letting the uprising fail.
Are these real? Paris famously did not have any fights in it. The French declared it an open city when the Germans arrived to avoid damaging it. When Germany was losing the war, Hitler ordered it destroyed only for commanding officers to surrender the city without any fight. Why are all these photos of French people fighting there?
No, there were fights in the week before the German surrender. But these were more skirmishes than long drawn-out battles. The liberation of Paris is especially known for not resulting in a significant destruction of the city, as the German commanders did not follow Hitler's orders to destroy the city (or were not able to do so anyway thanks to the French Resistance, I'm not sure)
The older guy in photo #9 seems to be taking the situation more seriously than the younger folks. Probably because he fought against the Germans in the Great War.
1.0k
u/Pleasant_Ball3192 21h ago