« prev   random   next »

2
0

Some 70,000 French Civilians Died During The D-Day Invasion

By ohomen171 following x   2019 Jun 7, 6:41am 576 views   24 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


#d-dayhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/romanticizing-d-day-ignores-thousands-of-civilian-deaths
1   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 7, 6:58am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Nobody "romanticizes" D-Day. It is a commemoration for the sacrifices made.

From the article:

Those histories and visualizations of D-Day show the Norman people almost only when they turned out to celebrate the arrival of their liberators. However, many of the liberated could not turn out and others had little enthusiasm to muster for the ouster of their German occupiers. Take a close look at the 1979 parade through Bayeux in that video. Most of the onlookers stand mute except for a wave here and there as their “liberators” drive past. They were perhaps expressing a profound awareness that not everything about their liberation was glorious.

So, I presume the French would rather have stayed under German control?
2   Tenpoundbass   ignore (14)   2019 Jun 7, 8:02am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The most heroic thing the French ever did. They didn't run for once, they ran toward the bombs to help the allied forces win.

Freedom is a glorious thing Oliver.
3   Tenpoundbass   ignore (14)   2019 Jun 7, 10:09am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Damn Oliver you normally go around spreading Historical information that was only minted 3 days ago?

Do you really trust the fetid propaganda from the Left? Especially when it's coordinated propaganda.
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=French+Civilians+participation+in+D+Day&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

So many outlets reporting the same take and narrative. Not one historical article older than 3 days ago supports their claims?

Isn't it Odd how the Left call Trump and his supporters Nazi's but they can all coalesce to form a unified outlet of Fake News and Propaganda to defend the Nazi's and spin the Normandy beach landing as a war crime.
4   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 10:15am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What's the fucking alternative in his mind? Leave the Nazis alone? Let them keep whatever land they invaded and annexed? Let them keep killing Jews and whoever they deemed "untermenshen" by millions?

Fucking Hanoi Janes should go and fuck themselves.
5   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 10:23am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ohomen171 says

“French civilians suffered far worse casualties as a result of their liberation by the Allies than were inflicted by their Nazi German occupiers”


"Far worse"? Worse than this?:

"Of the 340,000 Jews living in metropolitan/continental France in 1940, more than 75,000 were deported to death camps, where about 72,500 were killed. " -- wiki.

I guess French Jews are not considered "French civilians" by that self-righteous fuck.
6   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 10:29am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Little known fact: Many of the French Pacifists in the 1930s became the most enthusiastic Hitler supporters.

Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

Source: George Orwell.

He's correct, inside most pacifists isn't pacifism, but the desire of their own team to submit to violent opponents.
7   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 10:34am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If there is a lesson there it's the following: next time your nation faces something like Hitler you fucking hold you obligations towards your allies, not pretend you are at war for 8 month while doing basically nothing with twice as much tanks and artillery as the enemy at your disposal. Better tanks to boot.
8   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 7, 10:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Hugolas_Madurez says
If there is a lesson there it's the following: next time your nation faces something like Hitler you fucking hold you obligations towards your allies, not pretend you are at war for 8 month while doing basically nothing with twice as much tanks and artillery as the enemy at your disposal. Better tanks to boot.

You're talking of France? What tanks? What planes? All France had was the ligne Maginot. You learn the lesson from the previous war: one in which defense was vastly more efficient that offense. Wrong lesson.
How long did the US stood and did nothing?
9   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 10:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
You're talking of France? What tanks? What planes? All France had was the ligne Maginot. You learn the lesson from the previous war: one in which defense was vastly more efficient that offense. Wrong lesson.


Not true. France was paralyzed by a long flirtation with Pacificism. Read what Googly Eyes Sartre wrote in the Trenches.

The French had millions of men, and could have waltzed into the Rhine - 30% of German Industry - brushing aside only a few battalions of aged "Stomach" Soldiers, middle aged men with Ulcers and IBS unfit for the regular Wehrmacht units. French tanks had thicker armor and bigger guns than the German ones, which were mostly Panzer Is and IIs. In fact, the reason the Germans learned to use the FlaK-88, an anti-aircraft gun, as an anti-tank gun was because the German Panzers were unable to stop the French Tanks with their own guns, unless from a rear shot at close range. During the one time deGaulle was allowed to concentrate tanks and counter-attack, which the old guard WW1 General immediately stopped once he got too far into German lines and recalled him.

But, yes, the French decided to stay put. The French Generals intended to fight WW1 again.

The French and Brits believed that Russia would get into it with Germany over Poland, which is why the Molotov-Ribbentropf pact was a shot. The plan was that, since WW1 was a meat grinder, this would be also. Whether the Germans or Russians ended up beating the other, it would be a Pyrhic victory, and the Allies could simply sweep in and mop up the exhausted, drained-of-blood, bankrupt victor.

There was literal champagne opening in Paris and London when the Soviets were reported to be crossing into Poland. They dropped their bottles when the two armies met up and shook hands, and began to panic. They weren't going to get the minimum 2-3 years they thought a Russo-German war would buy them.

BTW, Chain Home funding barely passed the British Parliament, with Labour and Tory alike bemoaning the pitiful cost of the system that allowed the Brits to win the Battle of Britain, and wondering if it would anger Herr Hitler.
10   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 7, 11:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

To put things in perspective: Let's imagine Canada had a population of 500 millions and the US had lost 14 millions men fighting them 20 yrs ago: How much appetite would Americans have now to "waltz into Toronto" should a new war break out?

Americans have very romantic notions about war. Probably because the most deadly war fought by the US is still the civil war.

Europe had as many casualties as the US civil war in the first month of WW1.
11   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 11:22am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
You're talking of France? What tanks? What planes? All France had was the ligne Maginot.


Wrong. France had twice as much tanks with better armor and better cannons than Germany. And twice as much artillery. Less aircarft though. These are well-known numbers.
12   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 11:24am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
How long did the US stood and did nothing?


US wasn't an ally of Poland in 1939, HELLO! France was. France had real obligations towards Poland and even declared a war against Germany but pretty much did noting for 8 month. The term "Phony War" is self-explanatory.
13   6rdB   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 7, 11:27am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
What tanks?

I read that some of French medium tanks were impenetrable by German tank weapons
In armour and firepower, French tanks were generally not inferior to their German counterparts. In one incident, a single Char B1 "Eure" was able to destroy thirteen German tanks within a few minutes in Stonne on 16 May 1940, all of them Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks. The 37mm and 20mm guns the Germans used were ineffective at penetrating the thick armour of the B1, which was able to return safely despite being hit a large number of times.[2] Even German General Rommel was surprised at how the French tanks withstood the German tank shells and had to resort to using the German 88 artillery as antitank guns against the French tanks to knock them out. Setbacks the French military suffered were more related to strategy, tactics and organisation than technology and design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_France
14   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 7, 11:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ok so how long did the US stood and did nothing after Germany declared war on the US, making the US an ally of England and France and Poland against Germany?
15   6rdB   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 7, 11:34am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
US stood and did nothing after Germany declared war on the US

JAPAN
16   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 11:35am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Ok so how long did the US stood and did nothing after Germany declared war on the US, making the US an ally of England and France and Poland against Germany?



Not long. The thinking in the immediate aftermath of Dec 7th, 1941, was that the US would go after Japan primarily. Hitler was dumb enough to declare war on America a few days later, however, and the Allies then agreed to a Europe first strategy.

But of course the US was arming and supplying the Brits all long, long before Pearl Harbor. To the point of extending our national maritime boundaries hundreds of miles out, and reserving the right - and executing it - of sinking contacts that refused to actively identify themselves in these new expanded US Waters. IE U-Boats.
17   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 7, 11:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
The French and Brits believed that Russia would get into it with Germany over Poland

Yeah... jump in at the last minute when other countries are exhausted by years of fighting.
Humm.... Wonder who else had the same idea.
18   6rdB   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 7, 11:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Wonder who else had the same idea.

So-called Uncle Joe, and it backfired on him just as spectacularly as it backfired on French and British
19   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 11:37am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Ok so how long did the US stood and did nothing after Germany declared war on the US?


Not a day: US was already engaged in a real hot war with German ally - Japan.
20   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 11:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Yeah... jump in at the last minute when other countries are exhausted by years of fighting.
Humm.... Wonder who else had the same idea.


If you're referring to WW1, wrong.

Wilson dragged his heels despite massive evidence, even convictions, of terror and sabotage cells undeniably controlled by German Diplomats that began shortly after the war started.

The Kaiser via the German Embassies were actively sabotaging Neutral US Ships by placing time-delay bombs in the coal hoppers of US flagged neutral merchant ships, plotting to dose the huge stables around NYC with Anthrax, blow up bridges between the US and Canada, and of course engineering the "Black Tom" explosion.

https://www.npr.org/2014/02/25/282439233/during-world-war-i-germany-unleashed-terrorist-cell-in-america

The Black Tom sabotage was so enormous it damaged the Statue of Liberty and blew out windows across the river in Southern Manhattan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion
21   OccasionalCortex   ignore (3)   2019 Jun 7, 11:45am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
I presume the French would rather have stayed under German control?


The vast majority of them, yes. Those in the resistance were far outnumbered by those collaborating. And when Hitler 'asked' Vichy France to load their jews onto the box cars headed east, the French enthusiastically cooperated.
22   6rdB   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 7, 11:51am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
If you're referring to WW1

I think it is referred to WW2. Read Molotov's memoirs/interviews. Stalin had the same idea as French and British, and was unpleasantly surprised by fast defeat of French
23   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 11:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OccasionalCortex says
The vast majority of them, yes. Those in the resistance were far outnumbered by those collaborating. And when Hitler 'asked' Vichy France to load their jews onto the box cars headed east, the French enthusiastically cooperated.



Yup. Another group:

(v) Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China . It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.


http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

The always deeply insightful Orwell.
24   Rin   ignore (3)   2019 Jun 8, 3:29am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
inside most pacifists isn't pacifism


Wasn't that the point of the original Star Trek's 'City on the Edge of Forever' where Joan Collins was a pre-WWII pacifist, whose latter actions caused the Allies to lose and thus, submitted the world to subjugation forever, ending the ST future timeline?

And so for Kirk to right the wrong, which McCoy unintentionally created, Collins had to die.

I think it was ranked as ST's most profound episode, esp for a series as poorly acted as the original one.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions