Maybe this thread is getting side-tracked for no good reason, my good friend "Fantassin" remarked about certain actions by various people in post 56, since then we have been trying to keep the thread on-track whilst politely responding to those who are more interested in rape and pillage. As a child raised in post war Brittany I can assure you that people were very wary of each other, mistrust of outsiders, and constant unease. In rural areas anyone that could not speak our language, Breton, was viewed with suspicion, to the point of being ostracised, something that has to be experienced before it is understood, maybe my wariness today, my propensity to strike back for no apparent reason. Those that really understand me know that kinship transcend the rocks.

One of the better threads on here for a while. Despite a few potential handbrake turns off down sides streets pretty much stuck to topic and was all the better for it. Very interesting, the amount of knowledge the users of this site show is the main reason for coming here.

Originally Posted by old_n_fat

One of the better threads on here for a while. Despite a few potential handbrake turns off down sides streets pretty much stuck to topic and was all the better for it. Very interesting, the amount of knowledge the users of this site show is the main reason for coming here.

Totally agree - it' nice to see input from all over the place, people in France, USA, England hell, even probably some Jocks...

Anyway, does the Fr experience in WW2 have any bearing on their post-War NATO self-eviction, or was that, as so much else, down to Gen DeG? Just wondering, as the Fr are thoroughly part of NATO again now, and seem to have hurt no-one but themselves by keeping out of the NATO military structures throughout most of the cold war.

Originally Posted by OldSnowy

Totally agree - it' nice to see input from all over the place, people in France, USA, England hell, even probably some Jocks...

Anyway, does the Fr experience in WW2 have any bearing on their post-War NATO self-eviction, or was that, as so much else, down to Gen DeG? Just wondering, as the Fr are thoroughly part of NATO again now, and seem to have hurt no-one but themselves by keeping out of the NATO military structures throughout most of the cold war.

A bit of both.
The French experience in WW2 and his personal experience of it led De Gaulle to pursue his French national Independence policies, he had one of the biggest ego's in history.
He did not quit NATO membership, just the integrated command and direct involvement. Preferring France to be independent with its own military and nukes.

Originally Posted by Emsav

Maybe this thread is getting side-tracked for no good reason, my good friend "Fantassin" remarked about certain actions by various people in post 56, since then we have been trying to keep the thread on-track whilst politely responding to those who are more interested in rape and pillage. As a child raised in post war Brittany I can assure you that people were very wary of each other, mistrust of outsiders, an constant unease. In rural areas anyone that could not speak our language, Breton, was viewed with suspicion, to the point of being ostracised, something that has to be experienced before it is understood, maybe my wariness today, my propensity to strike back for no reason. Those that really understand me know that kinship transcend the rocks.

Emsav, I think there is a difference between getting side-tracked and discussing an argument that not only draws parallels with a different environment but blurs the difference between a voluntary act and an involuntary one. I have not seen an argument being presented that the German Army indulged in rape on a large scale in France nor that the physical survival was seen as being as dependent upon women trading sex for food (I'm sure there were many individual cases but I've seen nothing to suggest it happened on the German scale).

Please do not take this as an attempt on my part to lessen the many and various acts of oppression that the Germans enforced on France, nor the effects of occupation and division on the psyche of France. However, horrors such as Oradour-sur-Glane were a relative rarity, not the common-place that occurred in the East, and French women (by and large) do not appear to have had the experiences of the East German women. IMO, it doesn't help to understand what went on and why by conflating behaviours that occurred under what seem to be qualitatively and quantitatively different situations (nor do I find the logic of his argument particularly persuasive for the reasons stated).

Originally Posted by Excognito

Emsav, I think there is a difference between getting side-tracked and discussing an argument that not only draws parallels with a different environment but blurs the difference between a voluntary act and an involuntary one. I have not seen an argument being presented that the German Army indulged in rape on a large scale in France nor that the physical survival was seen as being as dependent upon women trading sex for food (I'm sure there were many individual cases but I've seen nothing to suggest it happened on the German scale).

Please do not take this as an attempt on my part to lessen the many and various acts of oppression that the Germans enforced on France, nor the effects of occupation and division on the psyche of France. However, horrors such as Oradour-sur-Glane were a relative rarity, not the common-place that occurred in the East, and French women (by and large) do not appear to have had the experiences of the East German women. IMO, it doesn't help to understand what went on and why by conflating behaviours that occurred under what seem to be qualitatively and quantitatively different situations (nor do I find the logic of his argument particularly persuasive for the reasons stated).

Although not on the scale of the Eastern Front, France lost 350,000 civilian casualties directly attributed to military activity or crimes against humanity. 30,000 casualties can be directly linked to reprisal executions from records, although the real number is logically much higher.

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Although not on the scale of the Eastern Front, France lost 350,000 civilian casualties directly attributed to military activity or crimes against humanity. 30,000 casualties can be directly linked to reprisal executions from records, although the real number is logically much higher.

As I said, I in no way wish to lessen the impact on France of the German occupation. However, neither do I think it serves the interests of understanding France by drawing undue parallels with what the Germans and Russians did elsewhere.

Would you rather have been a French/British POW in the hands of the Germans, or a Russian/Polish POW in the hands of the Germans?
Would you rather have been a French woman during the German invasion of France or a German woman during the Russian invasion of Germany?

Few of the above experiences would have been pleasant, and France needs neither to appeal to others' experiences nor to reduce the relative severity of those other experiences. She has quite enough of her own to work with.

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Although not on the scale of the Eastern Front, France lost 350,000 civilian casualties directly attributed to military activity or crimes against humanity. 30,000 casualties can be directly linked to reprisal executions from records, although the real number is logically much higher.

Would that include the Jews deported by the Milice? A bit of an unfair question, but the Russians included a lot of their own executions and gulag victims in their war casualties to arrive at the 20,000,000 figure.

Originally Posted by Alsacien

A bit of both.
The French experience in WW2 and his personal experience of it led De Gaulle to pursue his French national Independence policies, he had one of the biggest ego's in history.
He did not quit NATO membership, just the integrated command and direct involvement. Preferring France to be independent with its own military and nukes.

While Knowing he was protected by USAREUR & BAOR, and the Bundeswehr.

Suez 1956 showed Général de Gaulle the limits of the USA's support. After that, he basically said "never again" and he made sure France would never again be subjected to a nuclear black mail.

After a while the USA realized that having France as a "wild card" which was not included in all the nuclear talks with the russians was a bonus and they did not hinder the development of the French "Force de frappe" (without US delivered KC-135, for example, the Mirage IV would not have gone to Moscow...)