Catching up with this one. I was a student in France, in Vichy in 1966-67. There were French people working hard to change the reputation of the town from the war, but I could see signs of the war with some blocks of houses still rubble or the plaque in the center of town dedicated to 25 students shot by the Gestapo. They were around my age. The town was full of spas that were closed for the winter (The Romans like coming there) but quite a pretty town. That plaque, however, haunted me for many years. Twenty years after the end of WWII the occupation was still present. I recommend watching the French Village, an amazing French TV series about a small village during the war from the first shot fired to after liberation.

@D45VR

3 ай бұрын

I shall look for that series. Thanks.

Another cracking, thought provoking show, Paul!

What a great presentation on France under the Vichy regime. Dr. Millington's provides some excellent knowledge and insight into a critical part of not only World War 2 but also French history. I highly recommend this show!

What happened to France was so easily avoidable. After Hitler was finished with his first takeovers in the East (Austria, Czech, Poland), he went straight into planning his attacks on West Europe. He took his time, and the French had plenty of warning that an attack was imminent, yet even with their superiority in pretty much every area from men to tanks and aircraft, they chose to sit on their asses (the so-called SITSkrieg). Sure, the Germans bypassed the Maginot and went in through the Ardennes, but had the French bothered to take the initiative to do recon past the line along their entire border, they would have seen a massive column of vehicles, tanks, weapons and infantry backed up, slowly crawling through the forest. Sitting ducks. The French could have strafed, bombed, and annihilated the German column easily, therefore ending the invasion before it even began. In the end, the French did not want a fight, and hoped by ignoring it, it would just go away.

What I discovered about this topic is quite how sensitive this whole subject still is, decades on. I have a lifelong friend who currently lives in what was Vichy France. When I asked him to discuss the points discussed with the locals he absolutely refused, claiming that asking any such questions would alienate him from the locals. Brilliant presentation as always.

@johnwhite2576

11 ай бұрын

Of course French don’t want to discuss …they are ashamed as they should be

Another great presentation. It shows the importance to keep an open mind, even on a "loaded" subject.

I am the daughter of a ferociously French mother ( now 97 years old) . She was a teenager and young adult during the war. Hence my intense interest in WW2 and especially, in France’s position. I am bilingual and bicultural but, growing up in America, from a very young age I was told by people who could hardly know, that France hated America and that the French were anti-Semitic cowards and collaborators. As a little girl, and even later, I cried and defended France, knowing my huge French family where the war was a constant subject of long French family lunches that lasted into late afternoon. Of course I later understood that this cruelty was born of total ignorance. I learned that there was no way to defend myself and France. But it is always soooo soothing to hear historians speak about France based upon academic knowledge that I had from a visceral point of view.

1:13:00 You are so right. The stigma and prejudices attached to cowardly French soldiers surrendering without a fight in 1940 is very much ingrained in the Anglosphere, we see it all the time whenever "France" comes up in a conversation or topic in the media, forums and in particular on "social" media. Unfortunately, it takes a lot more time and effort to undo contemptuous stereotypes than creating and perpetuating them... It is also very true that French historiography has focused massively on Vichy, the Occupation and Collaboration, the deportation of Jews etc in the past 50 years or so. The amount of books, conferences and tv documentaries on those subjects is staggering. The rehabilitation of the French army is very recent. Until the 2010s, very few people cared about this aspect of the war, the only "positive" aspect which has been consistently studied and highlighted was the Resistance. Until very recently most French people had no idea of what had happened in May-June 1940. There is nothing in the French school curriculum on these events, the focus is entirely on Vichy, collaboration etc. Many French soldiers coming back from captivity after the war felt completely misunderstood and forgotten and their sacrifices ignored if not ridiculed, a trend that has been largely perpetuated by pop culture and cinema over decades. The dead didn't even get their own "Monument aux Morts", the French authorities simply added their names to the existing monuments dedicated to the dead of WW1. There were loads of war memoirs written by veterans in the 20 years following 1945, but in the late 60s this stopped abruptely as the media were just not interested and only had eyes for the Resistance. After that, they simply stopped talking about it and acknowledged the general indifference they were subjected to. I think they called themselves the "Génération sacrifiée", the Scrificed Generation.

A great conversation. Thank you!

excellent information, just what I was curious about. Thank you WW2 TV as always, fabulous presentation

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you, Chris is a clear and concise presenter

Exceptionally dissected and presented by Dr. Millington.

Plenty of points to ponder after watching this interesting and informative episode !

Excellent - thank you

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS. Excellent!

Great presentation. Thank you.

Excellent talk very informative

thank you for the amazing work you do

Excellent presentation. Very informative.

The French collaboration in 1940 was horrific. Philippe Petain, the French President of the collaborationist Vichy government of France, willingly hunted down and deported more than 70,000 Jewish men, women and children to Nazi death camps. After the war he was convicted of treason and sentenced to death but because of his age, it was reduced to a life sentence. The French Vichy regime introduced anti-Jewish race laws to the French North African territories in October of 1940

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

You've posted that three times now. What's your point? Other than to show that you are a Francophobe?

@steadyasshegoes7795

Жыл бұрын

@@WW2TVFrancophobe? Really? Someone chooses a view contrary to yours which an overwhelmingly amount of evidence supports and you respond by accusing them of hating French people?

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

@@steadyasshegoes7795 My remark to Trevor wasn;t just based on this one comment, but a series of anti-French insults across several of my shows. Plus as I pointed out to Trevor and others, just referring to the French Jews deported and killed without also including the greater figure of French Jews that were hidden and saved is very one-sided

It wasn't until a few years ago that I was set straight about France's performance in 1940 being better than the reputation they received. It was my then teenage daughter, looking at WW2 with her fresh eyes, who explained to me that the French fought bravely and had good equipment. They were simply beaten by new strategic thinking from the Germans. Once the military situation became untenable, they had no choice but to surrender. The surrender monkey memes are truly unfair. Anyhow, thank you for this thought provoking discussion about how complex things were for the French under German occupation. As the father of five myself, if asked to risk my life and my family's lives, I'd also likely say, you first.

Excellent discussion. Thank you.

Catching up on shows I missed. A very thought provoking presentation by Chris on the occupation. So many interesting points raised regards what really constitutes collaboration, resistance or apathetic co-existence with the occupiers. I would hope that with shows & books & net articles on this topic over the last 20 years, the lazy trope of the 1940 French soldier dropping the rifle (which to date, no historical record of even one specific example has been found) is consigned to history. But alas, regards some myths, no matter how much evidence is produced to disprove, some in the West will still prefer to be "submariners in a sea of ignorance" and que the stale jokes.

Paul, Thanks for this interesting presentation with Dr.Millington. A complex subject but one point emerges clearly-the terms 'resistance' and 'collaboration' are difficult to define accurately and can be misused. It is clear that as you say the majority of citizens just did what they had to to survive occupation-Chris made a great point about the lack of adequate rations and hunger alone was a disincentive to resistance. Also the subject of wartime resistance is a sensitive one to the French nation-to this day many are reluctant to discuss the part played by relatives or family members in the 'maquis'!

This is a great show. The make-up and discourse of the 20s and 30s Franch of politics was probably an indication of how the population would have behaved under occupation. A patchwork quilt of parties, outlooks, activism, and apathy. So complex, and entirely understandable how complex the French reaction to occupation was, and making sweeping statement like Paxton shows no understanding of French history.

Wow, reading through all the comments, it seems some have no understanding regarding surviving an occupation by hostile forces, nor could they have.They have never experienced it. Could France have done better in holding out against the Nazis? With the benefit of hindsight, yes. Certain decisions could have been made regarding Maginot. Was the Vichy collaborative? Yes, it obviously was, were elements of Vichy resistant? Again yes. The point of the presentation, which was excellent and thought provoking is to understand the whole concept of living under occupation, how people can be manipulated, fragmented by region, religion, politics etc and then their response to the deprivation of basic freedom.To judge anyone without experiencing these conditions does nothing for intellectual growth.To learn and try to understand how a nation survived and then rebuilt its own integrity is intellectually challenging.

tremendous presentation: Dr. Millington is an outstanding speaker and his presentation brings out some fascinating details on France during ww2, especially regarding the always interesting topics of the French resistance and also French collaborators under the German occupation; also provides details on Vichy France. Great job, Paul and Dr. Millington, at bringing out the various "nuances" of these matters.

Some time ago in the 1970s I knew a French woman who remarked that no one knew of the resistance movement until mid 1944 when they suddenly appeared out of nowhere.( American) Having the men leave families to hide in the Maquis is damaging to their marriage. Some women told their husbands "Go if you must, but don't imagine you can come back!

Do you think you could do a video of how the 2 atomic bombs ended a massive wave of reprisal killings against Chinese civilians in occupied China. As the Japanese realized defeat was imminent, like in other campaigns in the Pacific, they decided to take it out on villages as they retreated. These atrocities are well documented in the Philippines as the Americans took back the country. Anyway, my mom's best friend lived in one of these villages. She told us that her entire village was all lined up along a freshly dug ditch they were forced to dig themselves. She remembers there were at least 3 heavy machine guns pointed at them being loaded as women and children sobbed knowing what was coming. As the commander was just about to give the order to open fire, the radio operator called out to the commander to take an urgent message from headquarters. He would disappear into the communications truck for 5 to 10 min. When he emerged, he was crying like a little schoolgirl. He was just informed about Japan's unconditional surrender and because of the 2 atomic bombs, all imperial forces were ordered to cease reprisal massacres of entire villages all along the countryside. According to the unit's translator who was also sympathetic to the Chinese, he informed the village that Japanese command was worried the Americans would catch wind of this mass murder campaign and unleash yet more A-bombs on Japan as punishment. So my mom's friend was literally within seconds of execution as were hundreds of other villages occupied by the Japanese. The 2 A-bombs easily prevented the deaths hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians. Again, you just need to look at what happened to the indigenous population of occupied countries as the Japanese were forced to retreat against the American onslaught. My mom's friend would emigrate to Canada shortly after the war where she would raise a family that currently stands at just over 20 members. I don't believe I've seen any documentary on this aspect of the war.

@joshwhite3339

Жыл бұрын

Look up Richard B Frank's work. He tries to take into account the ongoing killings the Japanese were doing elsewhere during that time.

@jabom99

11 ай бұрын

When the Doolittle raid happened, the Japanese could not do anything in reprisal to the Americans at that time. So what they did was slaughter 200,000 Chinese.

Hello folks. Great presentation by a real expert of the French experience of German occupation and the shifting historical perspectives. A-ok.

Like that “victory syndrome” very true

Recently became aware of Paul's work and am making my way through the catalogue, so late to this fascinating discussion. I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance with the rationalization theme around Vichy. It is precipitating metaphorical flashbacks to Southern US Civil War "lost cause" apologists I've encountered over the years. Especially in the context of: -Union générale des israélites de France -Milice française -75,000 deported to Auschwitz -SS Division Charlemagne -Et al . . . From my limited perspective, "Cohabitational collaborators" and "phenomenon of resistance . . . " seem to be overly nuanced and woefully inadequate descriptive terms for Vichy French (and many other French) post-1940 actions and behavior. Your hand does not need to be on the rail car latch to share complicity. I suppose that one might rationalize Vichy ongoing collaboration with the apparently winning German side because they confused 1940 Nazi state with the 1914 version of the German state--but I'm not generous enough to do that.

Great video, thank you! One thing we should avoid doing is confusing the perception of the French population, that of politicians and that of the military. In the 1930s up to the German attack in 1940, the military knew very well the French armed forces were not ready for another war, in spite of (obviously) overconfident propaganda and various ill-informed opinions in France and abroad. They knew they were lacking reserves, lacking aricraft, lacking a variety of armaments and equipment, and above all lacking properly trained conscripts to back up the small professional core of their forces. Yet, all that could have been offset, the Maginot Line could have changed the game, had the French HC not made catastrophicly bad decisions regarding troop deployment along the Meuse river. Still, contrary to the population, some politicians and many foreign commentators, French officers had no illusions about the state of the French armed forces at the ouset ouf war. Regarding the Communists not resisting the occupier following Stalin's order, again we shouldn't confuse the actions of the French Communist party's leaders and the mass of the communists members. While the leaders mostly followed Stalin's instructions blindly, many regular members of the party were appalled and either simply didn't follow Stalin's instructions or started resisting from the summer of 1940. As a result, many were expelled from the party and some even had a bounty on their head by orders from Moscow. Even the sabotage actions in armament factories prior to the German attack were not as widespread as has been claimed for a long time.

Mustn't forget that for many within the British politics and the establishment, the realpolitik thing to do was to come to terms with the Nazis after the fall of France.

Just catching up. Being German with French relatives, this is an(other) interesting topic.

Petin's radio message reminds me of the emperor of Japan going on the radio and telling his country that they must bear the unbearable. It's easy to say that they shouldn't have surrendered but there was clearly no other option. We're very lucky that we had the option to fight. If Hitler hadn't held up his troops at Dunkirk the world would be so very different now. Not in a good way.

@joshwhite3339

Жыл бұрын

LMAO not sure what difference a handful of British divisions at Dunkirk made. Britain had an advanced strategic air defense system, an equal air force, a vastly superior navy, much stronger allies, and access to an empire's worth of resources and manpower. Germany wasn't going to be putting them down anytime soon, BEF or no BEF.

Woody, I know that Millington did a deep dive into the research of the documents, including those written in French, about the French Resistance and Collaboration, but I really appreciated your numerous interruptions with your subjective unsourced assertions. Too bad you don't have a word count; I am thinking you whipped him.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

I'm not quite sure of the tone of this comment. I like to think i play Devil's advocate and ask important questions

a fascinating presentation. A couple of points not really mentioned- the ECONOMIC strain on France during the occupation- France had to pay Germany a crippling amount each and every day to pay for the occupation! The internecine war between different Resistance cells who were just as likely to fight among each other as fight the Germans. The French state- the police and other authorities were responsible for rounding up jewish citizens.

Explain why the Brits and Yanks only told Free French forces of the Normandy landings at the last minute, because they knew the French would inform the Germans. Only 1 French commando unit took part in the landing at Ouistreham with British commando’s.

@WW2TV

11 ай бұрын

Ridiculous comment

@BingoFrogstrangler

10 ай бұрын

@@WW2TV Prove it,British intelligence knew the Free French in London was riddled with informers sending intel back to the Germans.If not true ,explain then why was their minimal involvement by the Free French Forces during the the Normandy campaign .And please don’t bring up the excuse the they were preparing for the “ Champagne Campaign “ with the Americans.

@phlm9038

8 ай бұрын

@@BingoFrogstrangler No, they were preparing for Operation Dragoon.

@BingoFrogstrangler

8 ай бұрын

@@phlm9038 If you knew anything or anybody who was involved with “Dragoon” you would know it was commonly referred to as the “Champagne Campaign “, the French would not even advance unless it was a low rate vine yard they would have to cross.Please read at least one book about the campaign before commenting.

@phlm9038

8 ай бұрын

@@BingoFrogstrangler The official names of the operation were Anvil and Dragoon.

Cool, nuanced show about occupied France.

The Statute de Juifs in October 1940 created soley by the French with Petain's backing was enough to indicate the nature of the regime. As far as its department in Algeria its Jewish citizens were stripped of their citizenship ovenight

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

4 comments within a few minutes, all of them displaying some real anti-French bias

I often wonder if our views and attitudes would have been as they are today had we like France had been under German occupation It is a fact of course that if this had been the fact the D day landings would have taken place sooner or later but certainly not in France or in GB for that matter ❤

German troops entered Paris on 14 June. The French forces had withdrawn from the city the day before and it was declared an ‘open city’ - which meant Paris was left un-defended by the French. This started the ignominious story of French collaboration. On June 22, 1940, Marshall Philippe Petain’s government signed the armistice.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Your point?

😊👍👍👍👍👍

Actually the Maginot Line worked, it forced the Germans to attack through the Ardenne. The fact is the French were always on the back foot anticipating where they (the Germans) would attack. You don’t mention the Milice Francaise? It would also be beneficial to discuss famous people like Picasso, Coco Channel or Camus; what were they doing during the occupation

I think it is worth noting that France, the not Vichy part, was occupied by the Wehrmacht, the military. In contrast, the more northern parts of Europe, Holland, Denmark etc, were occupied by Germany proper. Therefore these occupational regimes were far more politics based, leaning more on Quislings and the likes.

Howdy folks. Outstanding presentation on occupied France with plenty of moral dilemmas. French were in an awful position and I’m not going to criticize any but the ardent fascists.

IMO you can't understand the occupation until you take a deep dive into French politics pre-war. Secondly, I've been to France, seen that every small town and village has two monuments. One to the dead of the Great War and another to the French civilians "par le barbarisme de les Nazis". If your country has never been occupied, you need to be extremely careful and very well informed before you judge. I visited a war museum in Caen, and the English-speaking staff there were extolling the virtues of "Le Resistance" but when I asked them about why France was occupied in the first place, they didn't seem to be able (or willing) to answer.

So maybe I didn’t understand but I was a little troubled by his assertion that Vichy was a democratic construct. It’s true that it’s power structure was populated by previous politicians of the Republic but they were only right wing of the Republic. I believe Petain had the support of many French civilians but Vichy was decidedly undemocratic.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Depends on your definitions I guess

@johnwhite2576

11 ай бұрын

Yes petain tried to arrest his predecessor he’s that for open mindedness and democracy by the way petain never stood for any election!!! Gradual realization is in the best of French tradition picking the winter staring in huge 1944! What utter roundish this guy ispewing

consideration of the british & french empires does not significantly change the common understanding of the situation in june 1940: britain had the support of its empire but, without britain's commitment to resistance, the empire would have counted for nothing. free french control of the french empire did not alter the situation on the european continent.

Was there a more collaborationist Western country than France in WW2 ? Holland a close second.

@WW2TV

9 ай бұрын

Depends how you quantify the question I think. Norway must be up there too? But France saved a higher number of her Jews than some other countries and had an active Resistance - Brittany, Vercors etc

The colonies were the source of forced conscription for French army.. Throughout the war both black & Muslim troops composed of the majority of French forces although this is often denied by French now

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

4 comments within a few minutes, all of them displaying some real anti-French bias

@Raph1805

Жыл бұрын

No one in France ever denies the fact that Colonial troops were a major part of the French army at that time. Some do not know much about this fact because they simply haven't learned or read enough about it, but there's never any denial of it.

🤔🗯️ that's a qaundry that one? Yes I get the point on the main but the part with the British soilder being handed the light of freedom was perhaps simply representative of Britain's position at the time but with some propaganda added on for national pride etc as well as a little dig at the French for making such a bloody mess of things? At the end of the day I'm anything but an expert but could/would the empire have truly come to save the nation if Germany had managed conquer us as they did with the others in Europe?

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

Yep, I take your point, but the images were certainly worthy of brief discussion

@oldschoolpete2551

2 жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV 👍 Not doubting that for a second, I like all this stuff far better than those other channels who seem to do nothing but show old stuff from the history channel etc I've seen a million times with very little examination of the situation at hand

@chrismillington4054

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comment. You're right, but I intended the image to illustrate more today's attitudes to the 'myth' of Britain fighting on alone after France was floored. I could have been clearer on this point.

@oldschoolpete2551

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrismillington4054 ✌️

After Christal Night November 1938 it was well known and covered in western media how the Nazis dealt with their Jewish citizens. The French were not, in general, Nazis but the majority were from the 30s xenophonic , antisemitic and mixed with with histoiric anti British sentiments. In relation to their feelings to Communism it is difficult to define clearly as a good many supported the USSR. Vichy was chosen because of its availability of decent hotels being a smart well known spa town

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

4 comments within a few minutes, all of them displaying some real anti-French bias

@Chiller01

Жыл бұрын

There was enough antisemitism to go around in the late 30’s. Both the US and Canada turned away European Jewish refugees. Had Britain fallen in 1940 I believe the Nazis could have found enough antisemitic Britains to facilitate Jewish deportation. The precipitous fall of France is an interesting complex issue but the French as a people are no more morally suspect than the rest of the West. Britain and especially Canada and the US benefitted by geographic barriers but all were relatively ill prepared for German expansionist militarism.

Regarding the Battle of Britain being something represented with pride and the French not having that... A really common filmclip in almost every Battle of Britain documentary is of a flight of MS406s firing their guns, France's main fighter that never went the the BoB. The video editors must think they're Hurricanes; but the clip's directly stolen from the battle of France, they just can't tell the different roundels on the black and white film!

@ScoTreVan

Жыл бұрын

The British stood alone in the "Battle of Britain" with the help of the courageous Polish pilots. The RAF manage to defeat the onslaught of the Luftwaffe, something the French failed to do.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

@@ScoTreVan The combined DUKE forces along with many European pilots fought the Battle of Britain. The Britain being alone tired line is BS and you know it is

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

@@ScoTreVan Errr, you know that many RAF units fought in the Battle for France too?

@BingoFrogstrangler

9 ай бұрын

@@WW2TV do check of how many French pilots took part in the BoB ,you just might be might surprised how low the number is.

@WW2TV

9 ай бұрын

@@BingoFrogstrangler your point?

Difference between Britain and France's position after the crushing defeat of the Allies in 1940 is very important. Britain yes the land war is lost was able to withdraw the core element of it's Army and rebuild from there. Britain also can take shelter behind it's world first class royal Navy and be safe from an Invasion. For France though they had lost the core of their army, they are broken, they have not much left to defend the Motherland. Paris is in a daggers edge of falling and there is No Royal Navy to hide behind and be safe when all else failed. Germans troop walked unopposed in French towns, French people hid in fear of the jackboot. It is easy to brave, and demand to fight to end when no enemy troop has a foot on your soil. France if it continued to fight would lead only to more destruction and death for the French people, and so No Government could really accept that for a lost cause. As did many other nations when the reality set in. If Germany was fighting a war of extermination on the French then yes the French would have fought till the end, But that was not the scenario in place thank god. The French people like many people in times of occupation are just trying to live their lives and be safe and avoid unneeded trouble. Yes some actively fought the Germans but most just tried to live through the hard times. There where of course collaborators and pro German people, those who did not care, but I think most French people did want a free France but like in most countries and history most of the population ain't going to actively fight nor can. Same would have happened in Britain or even America if they where occupied. They are not cowards though because many did it from a rational viewpoint like if I die what happens to my child, or if I rebel the town will be punished. Most people where not in the resistance but they had no love for the Germans either and would turn a blind eye or aid French resistance fighters if they could. Which helps create a better atmosphere for resistance to flourish in. The only ones you could really hate are those who actively helped the Germans out of the glee of their own heart (Not those forced at gunpoint or by threats) and even help rat out and round up people for the CAMPS or those who aided the Allies or resistance.

@BingoFrogstrangler

9 ай бұрын

So what would the French had done if they had Paris blitzed the same way London was.

@Historyfan476AD

9 ай бұрын

@@BingoFrogstrangler That's hard to stay, since Paris did not need to be blitzed and the fact is Germany has a land border will overrun the City anyway. I guess if Paris was safe from invasion as London was, I think they grit their teeth and endure it like London then.

French "collaboration" saved how many French (and German) lives, as opposed to Allied invasion which cost how many French, American and German lives? And which is labeled treason, and which patriotic? Treasonous and patriotic to *WHAT* and to *WHOM* exactly is the question. And exactly why does only *ONE* answer trump the other. Inquiring minds would really like to know.

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

What an odd question

@johngordonmeade361

2 жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV Maybe the New Order would have saved millions of lives of Europe and America if they were successful - we'll never know. At the end of the day at least what we do know is this, that Petain and Vichy *SAVED* countless thousands of lives and casualties - while the Allies and invasion *TOOK* and *LOST* thousands and thousands of lives. Now I only ask, shouldn't *THAT* factor into deciding who is judged a patriot and who is judged a traitor?

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

@@johngordonmeade361 so you ate suggesting that the New Order that we know killed 11000000 might have saved lives? That sounds like the words of a Nazi apologist to me

@johngordonmeade361

2 жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV I apologize for asking a serious question. I see now that this is not the place for that. Good bye.

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

@@johngordonmeade361 I like the way you deleted your earlier reply. You know the one that made you sound like an apologist. Good bye

strange your chat did not cover the outright collboration of the French Police, the brutal intenment camps, civil service, Judiciary & legal services with Vichy. Without them the Germans could not have occupied France and transported about 72,000 Jews to their certain deaths

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

There's only so much we can cover in one show

@gordonspicer

Жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV was not much better when watching specific video by same guest on Vichy's treatment of its Jews. For me the point which is constantly missing is Vichy's complete involvement of the administtration & civil administration in tracking down, rounding up and finally transporting them from the Free French area to the German occupied. This continued without let up after the Germans invqded Vichy in late 1942. This involved all types of French Police, French rail, guards etc. On top of that their legislation allowed the theft of Jewish businesses, homes, works or arts, bank accounts. It was wholesale state robbery second only to that of German. It seems to me if you undertake this difficult subject more effort should have been devoted to the above specially as you are experts in this particular subject

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

@@gordonspicerIt's all about balance surely? Vichy allowed 25% of France's Jews to be deported and killed / France saved 75% of its Jews - two ways of conveying the same fact. The thing uis I live in France, I have made my home here and am always trying to present a balanced view

@gordonspicer

Жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV strange wording "allowed"? Not better to say they after the Statut des Juifs 1940 instigated their brutal internment and transfer mostly to Drancy Paris and then onto their deaths by gassing.?. France does not gain "brownie points' by the numbers of Jews hidden. Frankly I don't think you have enough knowledge or your "heart in' this subject. and maybe too Vichy balanced ? I too have settled in SW France and have made a long & detailed study of the subject from English & French sources. I try to be objective and not to pander to either side. I will not bother you more

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

@@gordonspicer "I don't think you have enough knowledge" - thanks for that

That's what I'm talking about. Why didn't France buy tanks? Who paid for Hitler's and Stalin's tanks? Economies, taxes, workers. Capitalism wasn't doing well in the 30s.

@michaeldunne338

2 жыл бұрын

France did buy tanks, but it was playing catch up with the Germans on a number of fronts: Technological (widespread diffusion of radio technology, three man turret, more dependable engines/drive systems), doctrinal, organizational (having larger formations; and employing and supporting them effectively ), etc. With regards to technology the French actually had tanks that were better armored, with relatively powerful guns. With regards to doctrine and organization, in response to what was seen with the invasion of Poland, the French were reorganizing to field the equivalent of three tank divisions in early 1940.

@Lance2023

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldunne338 German penetration paralyzed or even cut off the allied log configured for ww1 tempo. The tanks that France did buy couldn't get ammo and gas to get more ammo and gas. Log couldn't push supplies so allied tanks couldn't configure even if they knew what was going on or how to defend.

@Lance2023

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldunne338 actually my point was that the axis didn't have to pay for anything they were just going to take it.

@michaeldunne338

2 жыл бұрын

@@Lance2023 Not sure anyone is contesting the fact that the French had logistical problems, that were then made worse by the German breakthrough. Heck, French armored units that were not cut off by the breakthrough at Sedan had trouble massing for further operations later on. On the other side of the coin, the French did check temporarily two Panzers divisions at Gembloux, before the French First Army had to turnaround and deal with the consequences of the Germany breakthrough to its south.

@michaeldunne338

2 жыл бұрын

@@Lance2023 well, they Nazis got lucky at times, and yes, got a windfall with various operations/maneuvers, notably with Bohemia, the Skoda facilities and all those Czech tanks, which made a meaningful contribution (T-35s and T-38s). Similarly, believe they got a decent addition of to the officer corp when incorporating willing elements of the Austrian army. But the Germans did have a dry run in moving armor into Austria, and then in employing them in Poland (maybe with entering the Sudetenland and Bohemia too, but can't recalled?). So gathered essential "hands on" experience. As for the taking of "things," well seems the Panzer divisions of the breakthrough at the Ardennes supposedly were able to draw upon regular petrol stations as well as depots of the French, helping themselves to what was abandoned, or left unguarded. At least that is one image that was conveyed back in the 1970s/1980s documentaries.

A little naive, playing down the collaboration by a sizeable minority of Individuals , who rejected resistance in any form ,, and again no mention of the many more among very many French communities who actively assisted the occupation joining or supporting the French pro Nazi and German authorities during the war ,, no mention of the terrible murderous revenge inflicted by communist resistance groups upon these so called collaborationists particularly northern France & Flanders post late 1944 & 1945 , as the German armies receded in its wake , the French on French /Belgium vengeance killing (as the British military stood by passively looking on ) reached a particularly frenzied peak for a month or two, this has never really been openly recorded successfully.. honestly

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

My question for you is how can a community collaborate? Surely only individuals can? France, as with all the occupied Countries cannot be judged by what the leadership of towns and cities did. Of course, there were towns with Mayors who did the work and bidding of the Germans, but how does speak for the population? Mayors especially were caught in the shitty position of either being removed and replaced or continuing to serve their communities, albeit as part of the Nazi regime.

@Tom-xm7iq

Жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV Of course a community can collaborate as can a community resist , you have communities of Paris street market workers , communities can take many forms , can you deny religious communities actively collaborated with the occupation authorities,,

@Tom-xm7iq

Жыл бұрын

If one as part of any community Just carries on ,conforming , rejecting even the most passive covert form resistance, making perhaps a financial profit or even just contributing to a status Quo with the occupation authorities , is that not collaborating, and not as suggested here just surviving the war years as best you can ..!

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

@@Tom-xm7iq They were exactly the points we made that Collaboration and Resistance are not flexible enough as terms

@Tom-xm7iq

Жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV A story from war time Paris .. a market trader from Paris , to survive had to sell the shaven headed German military types his produce , he had to .! A collaborator ? , he would shave the sides of his head ( Germanic style ) but on top he would let his dark curly locks grow to ( in the eyes of the Nazis) an obscene length , in his beret he would appear cropped & work all day selling his wears to the occupiers, in the evening after packed away his stall , he would pass through the main military checkpoint on his way home , after a smile and a joke with the guards he would doff his cap , letting his locks fall about his shoulders , the smiles would immediately fall from the Germans faces , a collaborator no , resistance takes many forms , they never shot him , and in the 1950s the sons of these traders on being forced , conscripted into the French military to fight in Indochina used the same form of resistance to their own French drill sergeants and NCOs , in England we call it the crew cut ,,, , viva la mort ,!

Good idea poor presentation and guest

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Poor in what regard? Dr Millington absolutely knows this subject and explained it brillantly

@xys7536

Жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV he explained very little I'm going to bed now more later

@ScoTreVan

Жыл бұрын

@@xys7536 Very little explained.. not a good presentation.