Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 8/10/2002 9:35:32 PM   
CCB


Posts: 4208
Joined: 3/21/2002
Status: offline 		[IMG]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/avatar.php?userid=2110&dateline=1028746739[/IMG]

Nice avatar Les. :) Did you scan it from one of your SL counters or pick it up off the internet?

If you scanned it, can you scan and email me some of those counters? :D

_____________________________

Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 151
- 8/10/2002 10:47:19 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Look for a PM from me CCB

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 152
- 9/7/2002 3:25:58 AM   
maniacalmonkey


Posts: 110
Joined: 7/5/2002
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]So they lost.
Therefore : someone else's fault :
British : they bailed out
Belgian : they surrendered after 18 days (betrayal !)
Netherlands : they surrendered even faster.
[/QUOTE]

OY!!

We fought for five days where the Nazi's had planned only one, and the lines held until Rotterdam was fire-bombed to "speed up" the attack. And where were the French when this tiny little country fought so valiantly against the most awesome war machine of its time (and right next door, mind you). Show me a Frenchman with the guts to say that the Netherlands "betrayed" them in WWII and I'll tell you where to collect his remains... :mad:

Now, back into calm mode :)

I've finally finished reading this thread - excellent work! Some very interesting speculations in here, especially that very detailed one about Japana maybe attacking Russia. Kudos!

Now that I'm pumping up my nationalism I think I'll go find some Dutch scenarios, hehe.

_____________________________

When cities burn and armies turn,
and flee in disarray,
Cowards will cry 'tis best to fly
and fight another day,
But warriors know it in their marrow when they
die and fall,
It is better to have fought and lost than not have
fought at all.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 153
Pivotal Battle: The Battle of France - 9/7/2002 3:54:53 PM   
Zoltar DEXTER

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: Novorossiysk, Russian Federation
Status: offline 		The Battle of France is in my opinion the real turning point of WWII.

The French defeat made possible everything after: the Battle of Britain, Barbarossa,......

France and Britain combined outweighted Germany economically and militarly, and had vast ressources with their colonies.

The combined French and British forces exceeded the Wermacht.
http://www.sandiego.edu/~cshimp/strength1940.htm

The outcome, just before the real stuff begun in May 1940, was not so evident. The German victory is even more brillant that we usually understand it.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/12052

but even the Germans themselves had difficulties in apprehending the Blitzkrieg
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/13140


I would like to had the following comments to what Bernard and Unknown_Ennemy said:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Unknown_Ennemy
- No spirit : agreed, most of french were not eager to die for the liberty of Poland. And worst, one of the more powerful political party at the time : the communist party, was strongly versus the war and despite being banned, covertly advocated peace since the beginning of war.
- no leader : wrong. De Gaule, Leclerc, Giraud anyone ? The only problem is that they were regarded as strange fools when war should be run by serious people.
[/B][/QUOTE]

-No spirit ? Yes and no
French soldiers, when they were correctly led, put more than a fight against the Germans. (around 100,000 casualties in 1.5 month).
Concerning the betrayal of Petain, you have to understand the French context of the time.
This arrivist seized the opportunity of the "debacle" to make almost a coup (he was appointed after a stormy arrested the parlamentaries who wanted to leave Bordeaux for North Africa to reform a government over there).
The French people, stunned by the sudden defeat (they had been told for years that there would be no war, that they had the best armies,...), humiliated by the loss of half of the country to the ennemy, trusted Petain, and accepted his "vision" and was easily bought by "...no longer suffering, we have lost..."
Just after Petain's misleading declaration, De Gaulle tried, from London, to move the French Nation by saying the evidence: France could and had to continue fighting... But only a hanfull heard his call....


-No leader ? No
French generals were intelligent but:
1- French high rank officers came from the same mould: they graduatted from the same school (usually Polythecnics, very high level education but very [B]theoretical[/B], sometimes from St Cyr). They were very conservative (as Unknown_Ennemy puts it: too independent-of-though officers were seen as highly dangerous). L'Ecole de Guerre, compulsory mid-career formation to reach upper positions, was a model of conservatism.
Consequently, as righly stated by Bernard and Unknown_Ennemy, the entire French conception of warfare (from weapon design [no radios in tanks, ridiculous autonomy for the B1Bis,...] to strategy) were based on WWI principles. But the only army with other conceptions was the Heer.

Nevertheless, it clearly denotes that most of the the French generals were theorists and no pragmatists. (it is the usual problem of French elites)

2- Agressiveness was not a sought quality. Generals were not selected for their moral strength. Pusillanimity was therefore common at that level.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernard
[B]Also note that the Resistance really begun with the communist, after 22.06.1941.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Uncorrect. The Resistance started right after the armistice, led by catholics and people who did not accept the situation. Of course, when the communist bastards (Maurice THOREZ, their leader, was obliged to flee to the USSR in 1939 when he said that French communists had to oppose the French war effort against Germany) joigned them, the Resistance became stronger.
Just after the war, the same communist bastards exaggerated their true involvement in the Resistance. Unfortunatly, it is now the accepted version.

_____________________________

Zoltar - French Grognard exiled in Novorossiysk

"Duc in altum" - Sail to deep water

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 154
- 9/7/2002 4:39:04 PM   
CCB


Posts: 4208
Joined: 3/21/2002
Status: offline 		Bon poteau! Merci mon ami! :)

_____________________________

Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 155
Re: Pivotal Battle: The Battle of France - 9/7/2002 5:53:01 PM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zoltar DEXTER
[B]
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/12052
[/B][/QUOTE]
Interesting article. The connection between the "Sturmtruppen" tactics and the Blitzkrieg is mostly being overlooked.

BTW Rommel had his share of this connection.

[QUOTE]Caporetto - October 24, 1917

In October 1917, the Italian front collapsed at Caporetto as a result of Germany's intervention behalf of Austro-Hungary..

The German commanders developed new tactics to deal with the vertiginous terrain and strong fortifications of the eastern Italian Alps. The infiltration and shock tactics would be used during the 1918 offensive in the west, and then combined with tanks in World War II and renamed the blitzkrieg.

Special, elite units called storm troops slipped forward behind a short artillery, barrage containing a high percentage of gas. They would overrun forward defenses while the enemy was still sheltering from the expected bombardment. Then, as resistance stiffened, they bypassed strong points to attack disorganized units and rear areas. To maximize shock effect, these units were provided with the heaviest and handiest fire power available: portable light machine guns (Lewis, Parabellum, lightened Maxim, or Madsen), extra grenades, and pistols replaced many of the rifles normally carried by German infantry. One German junior infantry officer was especially impressed by the tactics. He captured a small but critical Italian mountain top in the battle: Irwin Rommel).
[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://battlefieldvacations.com/ITALY/piave.asp[/URL]
[QUOTE]In 1916, during the Battle of Caporetto in Italy, his mountain combat group breached the Italian fortification system and captured over nine thousand prisoners. In December 1917 Rommel received Germany's highest award for bravery, the Pour le mérite. His superior called him "a commander of genius whom his troops followed with blind trust anywhere."
Although not on the General Staff, in 1919 Captain Rommel was accepted into the Reichswehr, the small professional army allowed the Weimar Republic under the Versailles Treaty. A company commander in the 1920s, he became an instructor in tactics at the Dresden school for infantry officers in 1929, and from 1935 to 1938 was head of the War College in Potsdam. After Austria's absorption into the German Reich in 1938, Rommel, now a colonel, commanded the officer training school in Vienna's Neustadt.
[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.forces70.freeserve.co.uk/Afrika%20Korps/Rommel.htm[/URL]

Just one example.

I have respect for Liddell Hart. But the Germans invented those tactics already in WWI.

Just a reference to the question "Who invented the Blitzkrieg tactics?"

_____________________________

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

Lord Acton

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 156
Re: Pivotal Battle: The Battle of France - 9/7/2002 6:12:51 PM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zoltar DEXTER
[B]but even the Germans themselves had difficulties in apprehending the Blitzkrieg
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/13140
[/B][/QUOTE]
Good article. But I wouldn't back its conclusion.
[QUOTE]Blitzkrieg was then, no brilliantly thought out military development. It was a fortunate combination of armor and tactics that relied on highly skilled and motivated soldiers to achieve its impressive results. The German High Command failed to either support or develop this revolution in warfare. Their only contribution to its success being the limited ability to tolerate the rogue behavior of its practitioners as long as it proved successful.
[/QUOTE]
The delopement of this revolution would have been the mechanization of [I]all[/I] units. A task that the Germans surely would have loved to execute. There were plans for even more PzDiv and PzGrenDiv. But the war economy wasn't able to produce that much tanks/trucks/cars, not to mention the later gas shortage.

_____________________________

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

Lord Acton

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 157
- 9/8/2002 6:44:10 PM   
cbclimber


Posts: 24
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Missouri
Status: offline 		I think the Italian advance into Albania MUST be considered.

_____________________________


(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 158
- 9/10/2002 12:37:48 AM   
AbsntMndedProf


Posts: 1780
Joined: 7/6/2001
From: Boston, Massachusetts
Status: offline 		I would say the Battle of Britain. Had the Luftwaffe continued its raids on RAF airbases, instead of diverting thier attacks to London, Fighter Command would have been toast and Opperation Sealion would have put Britain, and D-Day out of the picture. Also Rommel probably would have gotten the one or two divisions he needed to take Egypt and the Suez Canal, the real strategic objective in the Middle East at the time. (Oil not being discovered there until after the war.)

Also, the loss of the Battle of Britain led to the invasion of the U.S.S.R., which ultimately cost the Axis the war. (I've read in various sources that Germany threw upwards of 2/3 of their miliary might against the Soviet Union.)

Eric Maietta (Throwing my two cents in.) :D

_____________________________


(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 159
no - 9/10/2002 1:26:06 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		I must disagree. Dowding always had the option of simply pulling his squadrons back, north of london. It was never as desperate
as is portrayed. There is no drama in a battle of attrition,
so people try to create it by exagerating.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 160
- 9/10/2002 7:52:42 AM   
Brigz


Posts: 1162
Joined: 1/20/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by AbsntMndedProf
[B]Also, the loss of the Battle of Britain led to the invasion of the U.S.S.R., which ultimately cost the Axis the war. (I've read in various sources that Germany threw upwards of 2/3 of their miliary might against the Soviet Union.)

Eric Maietta (Throwing my two cents in.) :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Have to dissagree with the first part of this. The loss of the Battle of Britain did not lead to the invasion of the USSR. Hitler had eyes on the Soviet Union back when he wrote Mein Kampf, long before he came to power. The main purpose of the Battle of Britain was to invade and knock England out of the war so he could more securely invade the Soviet Union. Hitler actually admired the British people and hoped, by overthrowing the British government, that England would become an ally in his war against the Bolshiviks. Obviously a big pipe-dream on Hitler's part. But with England in or out of the war, Hitler always intended to invade the USSR and he did even after losing the Battle of Britain.

I certainly agree with the second part. The invasion of the Soviet Union was the main factor for the demise of the Third Reich in a matter of years instead of decades. Hitler totally miscalculated the nature of Stalin and the Soviet population.

_____________________________

“You're only young once but you can be immature for as long as you want”

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 161
Two major Battles - 9/12/2002 1:56:04 PM   
Ironfist

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 3/22/2002
From: Cincinnati,Ohio.
Status: offline 		I think if Germany had finished off the RAF instead of bombing their citys they may have been able to take Great Britian out of the war. The second worst mistake was stopping the advance on Moscow. If Germany had takeing the city along with Stalin himself instead of turning south like they did. I think the Hard core Russians would have surrender soon since noone would be able to take Command without a major power struggle.

_____________________________

Waffen Soldat Hesselbrock
11th SS Freiwilligen Nordland Div.
23rd SS PzrGdr. Reg. Norge.
7th Kompanie 1st Zug.
__________________
Capt.Stransky,"I will show you how a Prussian Officer fights!". Sgt.Steiner," And I will show you, where the IronC

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 162
Re: no - 9/13/2002 6:47:28 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I must disagree. Dowding always had the option of simply pulling his squadrons back, north of london. It was never as desperate
as is portrayed. There is no drama in a battle of attrition,
so people try to create it by exagerating. [/B][/QUOTE]


Totally agree with you...........the "desparate battle" was a beatup for propagander (S?).

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 163
- 9/13/2002 11:20:41 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Chiteng
[QUOTE]I must disagree. Dowding always had the option of simply pulling his squadrons back, north of london. It was never as desperate as is portrayed. There is no drama in a battle of attrition, so people try to create it by exagerating.
[/QUOTE]

A bit blunt, but I'd have to agree. John Terraine said pretty much the same in "The Right of the Line" (RAF WWII history pub 1998).
Same from the recent BBC1 doco series "War and Conflict" by Dr Chris Bellamy
[QUOTE]The German invasion plans were amateurish for they regarded the Channel as little more than a wide river crossing. For even if the Germans had achieved their aim of destroying the RAF, they might still have failed to establish a foothold because the British Royal Navy was so strong. Suppression of the enemy air force would have been the first difficult step to a German victory, but it was not the only factor. There was nothing to stop the British from withdrawing their aircraft northwards, out of range of the German fighters if they started to lose the air battle, keeping the aircraft in reserve to counter an attempted German invasion. [/QUOTE]

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 164
hi - 9/16/2002 11:24:14 PM   
kdevere

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 3/21/2002
From: schoharie,ny
Status: offline 		my thought is either battle of the buldge orthe battle for berlin you know germany could of one there armys were the strongest at the beginning of ww2 and if hitler didnt attack russia then germany could have won the war

_____________________________

keelan devere
Part of the original Waffen-SS formation, SS-Stabswache Berlin was formed by Oberstgruppenfüuhrer Joseph (Sepp) Dietrich as a Praetorian Guard responsible for protecting Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler became one

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 165
Soviet resistance - 9/17/2002 12:18:11 AM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline 		"I certainly agree with the second part. The invasion of the Soviet Union was the main factor for the demise of the Third Reich in a matter of years instead of decades. Hitler totally miscalculated the nature of Stalin and the Soviet population."

Hitler's miscalculation was in not even attempting to win over the Soviet population. He made it altogether too obvious that the best they could expect out of German victory was enslavement and he didn't think it worthwhile to even disguise this aim. There were a lot of signs in 1941 that great portions of the Soviet population were open to collaboration with an anti-Soviet effort before the reality of the German occupation hit home. Probably the worst mistake Hitler made in the entire war was to send in the SS squads instead of setting up a collaborationist regime and attempting to convince the Soviet population that he was engaged in a war of liberation.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 166
- 9/17/2002 7:18:23 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		kdevere omits to realise a very distinct reality.

The time period was about several governments and ideologies clashing. While Hitler might have waited, there is zero doubt that Stalin had his own plans.

Every day week month the Germans hesitated in confronting the Soviet war machine, was just another day the Soviet war machine became stronger.

Hitler's actions in the West, were merely results brought on by his desire to indulge ambitions to the East.

Hitler had never had any desire to squash France or Britain (or any of the other Western Nations. But he had long desired "living space" in the East.

His "living space" though, caused him to go to war, when he pushed that last push, and went over the brink.

Stalin, in his own little world, had ambitions of World Communism. It's anyone's guess when he would have done some pushing, but he had every intention of pursuing his "ambitions" as well.

But being at war with Germany made him an "ally". Although only the most idiotic would ever have seen the Russian military machine, as a friend.

This was adequately proved from 1946 until the final collapse of the Soviet Union.

Today, Russia is still Russia, but they are free of the Communist way (sort of:) ).
Things change eventually. The Americans were once at war with England afer all eh.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 167
yalta - 9/18/2002 12:49:21 AM   
Bernard

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		intersting thread, war in the east inevtable due to communism expansion.

in the same optic : Yalta.

a battle of words between the 3 great leaders (sorry about the french or chinese, not invited).

lost by Roosevelt (he said at som time that if the west gave Uncle Joe all he wanted, Russia would feel compelled to cooperate.
he priviledged personal relationships.
R and Churchill kind of abandoned Poland to their communist fate.
pivotal... really.
battmle also, with a lot of casualties...

_____________________________

Ben

Verzage ni

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 168
battle - 9/23/2002 9:34:45 PM   
david1003

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 9/22/2002
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		for what its worth, here is my shot,
in my opinion, Kursk, after that the German panzers were defeated and Germany had to defend way back to Berlin.
Strategicly I think it was a mistake to start a two front war, they should have tried to invade GB , in 40 or 41 at last.

Greetings

David

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 169
Yalta myth - 9/24/2002 7:03:52 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline 		I see the great Yalta myth rears its ugly head again. Precisely what did FDR "give away" at Yalta that the Russian army had not or was not going to secure anyway? Vienna was falling to the Red Army at about that time, Warsaw, Budapest, Slovakia, and the Balkans were already under Red Army control. Churchill, who had no delusions about Stalin recognized that Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was inevitable. Neutralization of Austria was not something Stalin needed to have accepted. Meanwhile on the West Front, Allied forces were a month away from Crossing the Rhine and were not entirely sanguine about how rapidly they could proceed into Germany.
The only room for maneuver would have after FDR's death if Patton had been unleashed to take Prague, we could have had a free Czech Republic fifty year's earlier. Everything else was already set in stone in geopolitical terms and the U.S. at all levels very badly wanted the Russians to share the casualties of invading Japan. But even if we did not ask the Russians to come in, they doubtless would have attacked the Japanese on their own in Manchuria and Korea.
Yalta was neither a battle nor a defeat for any of the participants.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 170
Re: battle - 9/24/2002 11:05:19 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by david1003
[B]for what its worth, here is my shot,
in my opinion, Kursk, after that the German panzers were defeated and Germany had to defend way back to Berlin.
Strategicly I think it was a mistake to start a two front war, they should have tried to invade GB , in 40 or 41 at last.

Greetings

David [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, at kursk, the german panzers weren´t defeated, only AFTER the battle, in the withdrawbattles, the german lost many damaged tanks, they normally could repair, so kursk hasn´t that importance to the german tank troop.... but it is a keypoint, because the german army never launched an invasion

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 171
- 9/25/2002 12:25:00 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Adnan Meshuggi
[QUOTE]Well, at kursk, the german panzers weren´t defeated, only AFTER the battle[/QUOTE]

I assume you're refering to Manstein's force in the South.

Depends what you mean by defeated. The panzers were never forced to give ground (until ordered) in their efforts to take Kursk from the South but they were bled white from 8 days of smashing their way through prepared defences and engaging reserves.

After Prokhorovka, they had little offensive power left and had not gained a sufficiently wide base to continue the drive (with what they had left) nor had they destroyed all the Soviet Tank forces between them and Kursk. Despite most of their losses being repairable, the fact was they were still losses that reduced their offensive power and that occured from the battle. Since they were never going to be in a position to stop, rest and repair during their drive for Kursk (even without the major Soviet offensive occuring), I'd call it a defeat with heavy losses.

If you're the attacker and you run out of steam before reaching your objective and are left in a small salient that you cannot hope to hold, by default it would be considered a defeat (regardless of how well you performed under the circumstances).

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 172
- 10/9/2002 11:51:37 PM   
Unknown_Enemy

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 9/10/2001
From: France, Paris
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]From Zoltar DEXTER
No spirit ? Yes and no [/QUOTE]

By no spirit, I mean the absolute confidence in defence over any attack strategy. Dare to imagine the consequence if France/allied would have attacked the Ruhr during the Poland invasion ? But that is only a dream, as the french military needed about 9 weeks to mobilize the army. The UK needed even longer to arrive. When both the french & UK were ready, poland did not exist anymore. Here again, typical lack of preparation, and WW1 army. Send the professionnal core of the army in the Ruhr while it was empty was a fool's idea. /sarcasm on/ How could they leave france undefended ??? /sarcasm off/


[QUOTE] From Zoltar DEXTER
Uncorrect. The Resistance started right after the armistice, led by catholics and people who did not accept the situation. Of course, when the communist bastards (Maurice THOREZ, their leader, was obliged to flee to the USSR in 1939 when he said that French communists had to oppose the French war effort against Germany) joigned them, the Resistance became stronger. [/QUOTE]

Yes, the some resistance started right after the armistice. But at the time, it was almost not noticed. The real resistance, the one who was really useful, not on a military side, but on the intelligence side started in 1941. The communist party was already a secret organisation, hiding since the beginning of the war. They did not had to organise hidden group, which proved so difficult to set up. They were already there, had an efficient central command and countless suporters. Most of the "Gaullist" resistance group went really online end of 42/beginning of 43. So I have to disagree here, we can like it or not, but a majority of resistance in france has been the fact of communists.

_____________________________

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagh'nagl fhtagn.
Yaah ! Yaah ! Cthulhu fhtagn ! Cthulhu fhtagn !

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 173
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.656