Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   You are the President of France on the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I and your nation's greatest WWI hero was also sentenced to death for high treason after WWII. What do you do?   ( bbc.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Mr Macron, Vichy France, France, Charles de Gaulle, President Emmanuel Macron, Ptain, Nazi collaborator Philippe, disastrous choices  
•       •       •

7421 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Nov 2018 at 11:19 PM (6 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
6 days ago  
Surrender.
 
6 days ago  
You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.
 
6 days ago  
And referring to Pétain, Mr Macron said: "He was a great soldier", although he had made "disastrous choices" during the Nazi occupation of France.

I realize this is a translation, but when did "evil actions" become simply "disastrous choices"? If I choose to do a combover, that is a disastrous choice. If I collaborate with Nazis in the deaths of thousands, I'm simply evil.
 
6 days ago  
I just finished a book that said civilian casualties in WWI were 15%. That went up to 65% in WWII. And the wars of the late 20th century claimed 90%.
 
6 days ago  
Invite Trump as a distraction?
 
6 days ago  
yuck

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
6 days ago  

wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.


They made a female Ghostbusters.
 
6 days ago  
The French..they ran.
 
6 days ago  
Blame the Joos?

Do NOT blame the Jews for anything please. Except maybe really, really, really good pastrami.

/too soon
 
6 days ago  

wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.


If you're trying to imply anything about Petain's choice to surrender in 1940, *you* can STFU.  Britain suffered those losses and kept fighting.  Belgium suffered those losses and kept fighting.  France was the only country the Nazis invaded that DIDN'T send its government into exile to continue the fight.  Literally every single other one never gave up, all the way down to Greece and Yugoslavia.

Petain made the wrong choice in 1940.  Period.  There are no extenuating circumstances.
 
6 days ago  
Quit honoring "heroes" of wars. Wars are a result of those who participate in them.
 
6 days ago  
Petain??????
Marechal Foch by a wide margin, Petain was their biggest waster of men this side of Haig.
 
6 days ago  

fusillade762: I just finished a book that said civilian casualties in WWI were 15%. That went up to 65% in WWII. And the wars of the late 20th century claimed 90%.


Which book?
 
6 days ago  
The contrast between the wars could not be more marked.. but the French disaster of WW2 (morally and militarily) was simply a result of the horrors of WW1, combined with rabid anglophobia.
 
6 days ago  

NEDM: Literally every single other one never gave up, all the way down to Greece and Yugoslavia.


Oh, I forgot Denmark.  Excuse me, they didn't set up a government in exile.

They also didn't collaborate, so they're still better than Petain and Vichy France.
 
6 days ago  
Statue to his boot, of course
 
6 days ago  
Many jews  were saved by hiding in his mustache.
 
6 days ago  

Dknsvsbl: Petain??????
Marechal Foch by a wide margin, Petain was their biggest waster of men this side of Haig.


...look, I think the man sold his country down the river in 1940, but he was a hero to the French before that.  He held the line at Verdun, and that reputation alone allowed him to stop the French army mutinies of 1917.  Those did immeasurable things for French morale and psyche, and likely kept them in the war long enough to see it through.

/they also had much more "bloody" generals than him
 
6 days ago  

AliceBToklasLives: If I choose to do a combover, that is a disastrous choice.


Maybe if you weren't so fond of hyperbole you'd understand.
 
6 days ago  

NEDM: He held the line at Verdun,


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
6 days ago  
The hardcore history podcast by Dan Carlin gives a 15hr+ overview of WWI.  Blueprint for Armageddon, Shows 50-55, gives an incredibly sobering view, from beginning to the end, that holds nothing back. Well worth a listen.
 
6 days ago  
Acknowledge that sometime in history things were shiatty so that they see the failures of the past as to not repeat them.

Or have a bunch of gin and do the speech ass talking like Jim Carey in Ace Ventura.
 
6 days ago  

wejash: Otherwise STFU, I think.


It was the BBC.  Oh, and your post made no sense, btw.
 
6 days ago  

Shedim: fusillade762: I just finished a book that said civilian casualties in WWI were 15%. That went up to 65% in WWII. And the wars of the late 20th century claimed 90%.

Which book?


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
6 days ago  
Well, obviously his crimes were not that bad. If they were they would have executed him.
 
rka
6 days ago  

wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.


It's a BBC article about a French story and outraged reactions from the French themselves. Why are you dragging America into this?
 
6 days ago  
Petain was with a doubt a hero of WWI.  He was also a fierce patriot for the French nation  and felt he had no choice but to head his nation's call to take over its crumbling government.   He would have been far smarter to either Stay in Spain or go to the UK and offer his services as leader of the Free French forces.

He choice to return to France and an untenable situation, yes he made horrible choices as leader of Vichy France and marred his reputation for ever.   I do how ever think it is possible to honor his deed in world war I without dragging in the failures of his later life.
 
6 days ago  

NEDM: wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.

If you're trying to imply anything about Petain's choice to surrender in 1940, *you* can STFU.  Britain suffered those losses and kept fighting.  Belgium suffered those losses and kept fighting.  France was the only country the Nazis invaded that DIDN'T send its government into exile to continue the fight.  Literally every single other one never gave up, all the way down to Greece and Yugoslavia.

Petain made the wrong choice in 1940.  Period.  There are no extenuating circumstances.


The French sealed their fate when they lied about the scope of their "offensive" to the Poles in 1939 in a cynical attempt to maximize German casualties for minimal French lives. 80% of the Goddamned Wehrmacht was in Poland- ANY determined offensive action in September 1939 would have put the Allies over the Rhine by Halloween.

At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."[11] General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks."[12]


Catastrophic initial defeat= likely coup against Hitler and possible 1939 armistice

Sure, this would have left the Soviet Union unmolested, assuming they didn't invade eastern Poland anyway. At least the redistributed German/Czech military equipment could have been used as a deterrent against them.
 
6 days ago  

wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.


French military casualties WWII: 210,000
U.S. military casualties WWII: 407,000

/STFU indeed
 
6 days ago  

NEDM: wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.

If you're trying to imply anything about Petain's choice to surrender in 1940, *you* can STFU.  Britain suffered those losses and kept fighting.  Belgium suffered those losses and kept fighting.  France was the only country the Nazis invaded that DIDN'T send its government into exile to continue the fight.  Literally every single other one never gave up, all the way down to Greece and Yugoslavia.

Petain made the wrong choice in 1940.  Period.  There are no extenuating circumstances.


Britain wasn't being actively invaded and occupied and hadnt seen its capital overrun and occupied and was in no realistic danger of such (despite exaggerated fears to the contrary). France suffered almost a full order of magnitude dead in the Battle of France during 1940 than Britain had. France had been the great western front battlefield 20 years earlier and suffered mind boggling casualties in that war in far greater proportion than the British Empire had. Britain didn't have anything near the deep and intense internal political chaos of the French 3rd republic nor the same depth society-wide cultural PTSD following the first world war.

Those other nations also had the benefit of seeing what happened to Nazi occupied nations and judging the decision to fight on or not with far more information, and to be perfectly honest many of them provided little ultimate real value to the war effort or returning their nations to stable peace, or even ever returned to power.

It's real easy to sit there and present a simple black and white rant, but there is a massive amount of background missing there. Petain was a farkhead in his leading of Vichy France after the surrender, but the decision to surrender, in the state France was in and with the information available to it, was not as plainly and flatly stupid or incorrect as you make it out to be. Particularly when you compare the proportion of ultimate wartime civilian casualties in France to say, Greece or Yugoslavia or Poland, where they suffered and died in far greater proportion than in France. Germany's choice to not to surrender and accept occupation until the bitter end led to the bulk of its civilian casualties being suffered in the last year of the war even when it was clear they were beaten, France spared itself much of such carnage, whatever else one wants to say about the decision to surrender.
 
6 days ago  
I honestly don't know much about this guy's history but did he do something particularly supportive of the Germans? The article seems to put it in the light that he basically signed a peace Accord with the Germans to keep further fighting throughout France and did this in his late 80s.  I just seems one of those things in retrospect would he have possibly known all of the atrocities the Germans were doing? Was he actively helping them or participating them? Was his treason and just the armistice?
 
6 days ago  
And Robert E. Lee was a hero of the Mexican War. That's why he's got all the statues and streets named for him, right?
 
6 days ago  
Here's looking at you, kid.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
6 days ago  

johnny_vegas: wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.

French military casualties WWII: 210,000
U.S. military casualties WWII: 407,000

/STFU indeed


Percentage of population a factor. Also, civilian deaths were far higher in France I'm sure.
 
6 days ago  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
6 days ago  
When there are no solutions the only answer is to Breakdance. Pop n' Lock em
 
6 days ago  

king of vegas: johnny_vegas: wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.

French military casualties WWII: 210,000
U.S. military casualties WWII: 407,000

/STFU indeed

Percentage of population a factor. Also, civilian deaths were far higher in France I'm sure.


Civilian deaths absolutely, you are right.  that did not appear to be the point of the misguided, inflammatory post i responded to.
 
6 days ago  

zbtop: NEDM: wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.

If you're trying to imply anything about Petain's choice to surrender in 1940, *you* can STFU.  Britain suffered those losses and kept fighting.  Belgium suffered those losses and kept fighting.  France was the only country the Nazis invaded that DIDN'T send its government into exile to continue the fight.  Literally every single other one never gave up, all the way down to Greece and Yugoslavia.

Petain made the wrong choice in 1940.  Period.  There are no extenuating circumstances.

Britain wasn't being actively invaded and occupied and hadnt seen its capital overrun and occupied and was in no realistic danger of such (despite exaggerated fears to the contrary). France suffered almost a full order of magnitude dead in the Battle of France during 1940 than Britain had. France had been the great western front battlefield 20 years earlier and suffered mind boggling casualties in that war in far greater proportion than the British Empire had. Britain didn't have anything near the deep and intense internal political chaos of the French 3rd republic nor the same depth society-wide cultural PTSD following the first world war.

Those other nations also had the benefit of seeing what happened to Nazi occupied nations and judging the decision to fight on or not with far more information, and to be perfectly honest many of them provided little ultimate real value to the war effort or returning their nations to stable peace, or even ever returned to power.

It's real easy to sit there and present a simple black and white rant, but there is a massive amount of background missing there. Petain was a farkhead in his leading of Vichy France ...


I agree that there was a lot of really good reasons why the French were not prepared to fight a war to the death on their own territory, but the many decisions to stay out of the eastern situation, and later to effectively choose the Germans over the British were simply rotten to the core. A large part of the French government were fundamentally more sympathetic to fascism than is mentioned, they were very much right wing and fascism was significant in their society. Vichy was true collaboration.

Not all, not at all all, but a large part of the governing class.
 
6 days ago  

rka: wejash: You commemorate the amazing heroism of the millions of French troops who trudged through years of the worst thing imaginable and far too many unimaginable things. Bravery which I cannot conceive ever being able to display.

That is not hard.

And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.

It's a BBC article about a French story and outraged reactions from the French themselves. Why are you dragging America into this?


the AP is also reporting how up set French Jews are.
 
6 days ago  

WillofJ2: I honestly don't know much about this guy's history but did he do something particularly supportive of the Germans? The article seems to put it in the light that he basically signed a peace Accord with the Germans to keep further fighting throughout France and did this in his late 80s.  I just seems one of those things in retrospect would he have possibly known all of the atrocities the Germans were doing? Was he actively helping them or participating them? Was his treason and just the armistice?


No, he was a huge asshole. The Armistice itself isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor​y​/vichy-government-france-world-war-ii-​willingly-collaborated-nazis-180967160​/
 
6 days ago  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Acknowledge that sometime in history things were shiatty so that they see the failures of the past as to not repeat them.

Or have a bunch of gin and do the speech ass talking like Jim Carey in Ace Ventura.


Jim Carey may have made disastrous choices, but he held The Truman Show.  We must acknowledge the good with the bad in his tortured legacy.
 
6 days ago  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: WillofJ2: I honestly don't know much about this guy's history but did he do something particularly supportive of the Germans? The article seems to put it in the light that he basically signed a peace Accord with the Germans to keep further fighting throughout France and did this in his late 80s.  I just seems one of those things in retrospect would he have possibly known all of the atrocities the Germans were doing? Was he actively helping them or participating them? Was his treason and just the armistice?

No, he was a huge asshole. The Armistice itself isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history​/vichy-government-france-world-war-ii-​willingly-collaborated-nazis-180967160​/


thanks for the link and info
 
6 days ago  
Pull out of the EU and put his visage on your new franc.
 
6 days ago  

gaspode: zbtop: NEDM: wejash: I agree that there was a lot of really good reasons why the French were not prepared to fight a war to the death on their own territory, but the many decisions to stay out of the eastern situation, and later to effectively choose the Germans over the British were simply rotten to the core. A large part of the French government were fundamentally more sympathetic to fascism than is mentioned, they were very much right wing and fascism was significant in their society. Vichy was true collaboration.

Not all, not at all all, but a large part of the governing class.


Aye, that was definitely a thing. The best line I ever heard on it was that "the French Left was more interested in fighting the French Right than in fighting the Germans, and the French Right was more willing to be ruled by the Germans than they were the French Left". There's a lot that goes into that and it's a gross oversimplification, but yeah, there definitely was a lot of obscene collaboration that went on post-surrender and fascist sympathies among the French political classes. I had just wanted to note that the surrender itself was not the outrageous moral failing it's often portrayed as.
 
6 days ago  
Subby's mom.

/no one yet?
 
6 days ago  
If you haven't read it, I highly recommend picking up GJ Meyer's A World Undone.  He writes reverently, but not without humor.  It's a great book.  Very long though, which was wonderful, because I had a lot of gaps in my knowledge
 
6 days ago  

johnny_vegas: And when America swallows those losses, ever, it can pipe up. Otherwise STFU, I think.

French military casualties WWII: 210,000
U.S. military casualties WWII: 407,000

/STFU indeed


I cannot understand that no one seemed to grasp wejash was referring to the insanity that was WWI.
French military casualties WWI: 1,397,800
US military casualties WWI and WWII combined: 460,402

And it wasn't just the casualties. It was the insanity that was trench warfare on the Western Front, 1,000,000 artillery shells raining down in the hours preceding an attack. the borderline insane level of bravery going over the top knowing units  would take 90% casualties in a single attack, living for months in water filled trenches with dead bodies and rats until your feet virtually rot off. Only the Eastern Front in WWII could even come close to the suffer endured.

Read Gilbert or Keegan or even watch The Great War
 
6 days ago  
Benedict Arnold and Guy Fawkes also have similar complications, if you care to look into them.
Many have ultimately come to bad ends (Napoleon) after doing brave and heroic things; it is kind of a shame - and very reactionary - to judge them solely on their bad-choice decision branches.
 
6 days ago  

NEDM: If you're trying to imply anything about Petain's choice to surrender in 1940, *you* can STFU. Britain suffered those losses and kept fighting.


The UK abandoned France to it's fate at Dunkirk. Even pulled all their fighters out. Whether that was right or wrong, it certainly indicates that it was clear to the UK that France was done for at that point.
 
6 days ago  

CzarChasm: Benedict Arnold and Guy Fawkes also have similar complications, if you care to look into them.
Many have ultimately come to bad ends (Napoleon) after doing brave and heroic things; it is kind of a shame - and very reactionary - to judge them solely on their bad-choice decision branches.


Very true. Benedict Arnold is credited with saving the Revolution. Napoleon's bad rep is solely due to Britain ultimately winning and writing most of the history. If there was an evil perpetrator of the Napoleonic wars, it was Britain.
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report