The reason the British had red uniforms is because red dye was cheaper to produce then any other colour.
Don't want to pay to much to outfit the lower classes old boy. They might think we actually care about them. (Best read with a British accent)
For those who like to make uneducated jokes about french soldiers in WW2...
- Thread starter Heimrick
- Start date
- Status
The reason the British had red uniforms is because red dye was cheaper to produce then any other colour.
Don't want to pay to much to outfit the lower classes old boy. They might think we actually care about them. (Best read with a British accent)
"It was invented, if such a thing can be invented, by the British in the first war, when their last great offensive, one that forced a German surrender, jumped off with the battle of Amiens on 8 August 1918" page 102, The Second World War by Gordon Corrigan. The first few chapters go into more detail, basically it was combined arms and by-passing strongpoints but I'm oversimplifying it.
I almost feel smart except I just read it a couple of days ago.
Absolutely untrue. Communists and Nazis had a natural aversion to each other. The French communists were more terrified of the Nazis than anyone else. Look what happened to German communists under the Nazis. Germany's alliance with the USSR was only one of convenience so they could divide Poland up between the two of them.
The only reason Great Britain even sent troops to France in 1940 was Winston Churchill. He was very much a believer in French military prowess. He was shocked when he visited France in May,1940 at the confusion and defeatism which dominated French affairs. And France had a huge population compared to Canada. I don't know where 500,000 Frenchmen were killed in WW2 as 90,000 were killed in 1940 and outside of a sideshow in North Africa the French saw no action until Dday. They were given a place at the surrender table out of all proportion to their importance to the war effort which wasn't much. Churchill was asked after WW2 what the heaviest cross he had to bear was, he replied" The Cross of Lorraine". DeGaulle was an absolutely insufferable boob and impossible to deal with.
Last edited:
Google it? I can't even spell it!
Lee Enfield
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Alberta
Read about the sabotage of french fighter aircraft production by communist s. Of course this was occurring in the late 30s as well.
This link https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/l0_2svVuAuA indicates that while the French Communist party directed it's members to sabotage all aspects of the defensive war, they were in disarray and don't seem to have had any meaningful negative impact upon the defense of France.
Last edited:
JACKSMYDOG
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Haldimand County, Ontario
The French communists did have a negative impact (mostly on the army's morale) on the defensive war against Germany but really stepped up their game after Russia was invaded, the orders came from Moscow and were obeyed, the French communist resistance was more motivated and effective than the other resistance movements.
French don't like to talk about it, but a lot of them collaborated with the Germans and that included rounding up of Jews.
Grizz
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
For those that think Canada and the allies were completely innocent in regards to the Jews, at best we showed antipathy, at worst we were supportive of the Germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.b...adings/CanadaandJewishRefugeesinthe1930s.html
Most telling quote from the link above is "Still in 1946, a full year after the end of the war and of the disclosure of the horrors of the holocaust, a poll conducted by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion showed that 60% of Canadians approved of the exclusion of Jews from Canadian immigration"
The French soldiers were courageous, but they used outdated equipment, with outdated tactics (though at that point were considered modern) and had a resounding defeat. Still the rep they get is completely undeserved, and in modern times they are actually one of the few countries that I feel can actually defend itself without help from other nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.b...adings/CanadaandJewishRefugeesinthe1930s.html
Most telling quote from the link above is "Still in 1946, a full year after the end of the war and of the disclosure of the horrors of the holocaust, a poll conducted by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion showed that 60% of Canadians approved of the exclusion of Jews from Canadian immigration"
The French soldiers were courageous, but they used outdated equipment, with outdated tactics (though at that point were considered modern) and had a resounding defeat. Still the rep they get is completely undeserved, and in modern times they are actually one of the few countries that I feel can actually defend itself without help from other nations.
You are right and that is why there is very little published in France about the French Vichy government and how close they came to changing sides and declaring war on the Allies. The British were under no illusions when they attacked/destroyed the French fleet. The choice given to the French navy was join the Free French Army, sail to a neutral port or scuttle your ships. Hard decision by your average sailor but they were never consulted.
I think a lot of our criticisms of French cowardice stem from generations of Britain at war with France (and Spain, and Holland, and...you name it
). Nazi collaboration during ww2? Yep, they were invaded and occupied don't forget. Ask yourself what you would do if Attila the Hun set up shop in your living room and began dictating what you were going to have for dinner, who was going to do the cooking and clean up ect., and you were powerless to remove him and his crony's. It's survival time. One does what one does to survive in these situations and in the French situation they were ruled by a force that touted a 1000 year reign (and at the time, it looked as though that was an accurate boast!).
The only reason Britain avoided full on invasion and occupation was the fact it's an island and Panzer tanks don't float. I recall the stories from my grandparents in Scotland. They were expecting to have to repel German paratroops and were woefully ill equipped to do so. Had Germany put boots on the ground v. a bombing campaign, Britain would have fell. (probably within weeks) This was the opinion of those who were there at the time. They were committed to fight and would have done so, but they knew the reality behind the tough talk was annihilation of life as they knew it if the Germans came with force from the air.
Our prejudices with the French lay in the 100 years war. Even William Shakespeare buffoons French battle tactics in his Henry the V play. These well entrenched prejudices were cemented with the occurrences of panic retreats of the French during gas attacks of the first world war (Ypres), when if not for the Canadians {and British} holding the line all would have been lost. (actually the French troops were Algerian, but for our understanding through the history books they were "French")
). Nazi collaboration during ww2? Yep, they were invaded and occupied don't forget. Ask yourself what you would do if Attila the Hun set up shop in your living room and began dictating what you were going to have for dinner, who was going to do the cooking and clean up ect., and you were powerless to remove him and his crony's. It's survival time. One does what one does to survive in these situations and in the French situation they were ruled by a force that touted a 1000 year reign (and at the time, it looked as though that was an accurate boast!).The only reason Britain avoided full on invasion and occupation was the fact it's an island and Panzer tanks don't float. I recall the stories from my grandparents in Scotland. They were expecting to have to repel German paratroops and were woefully ill equipped to do so. Had Germany put boots on the ground v. a bombing campaign, Britain would have fell. (probably within weeks) This was the opinion of those who were there at the time. They were committed to fight and would have done so, but they knew the reality behind the tough talk was annihilation of life as they knew it if the Germans came with force from the air.
Our prejudices with the French lay in the 100 years war. Even William Shakespeare buffoons French battle tactics in his Henry the V play. These well entrenched prejudices were cemented with the occurrences of panic retreats of the French during gas attacks of the first world war (Ypres), when if not for the Canadians {and British} holding the line all would have been lost. (actually the French troops were Algerian, but for our understanding through the history books they were "French")
- Status
