This is the current 6 part series running on the Smithsonian Channel and narrated by Martin Sheen. Has some very moving scenes.

It seems to me that it has a decided French bias. For example the valiant fighting of the French Army is referenced several times, and the French were given credit for allowing everyone else to escape Dunkirk. It seems a very different view of history. Your thoughts???

That's because the series originated in France. The original narration has been replaced with Sheen's. This series is more than a decade old and has been broadcast repeatedly in the United States.

I haven't seen the documentary you're referring to. Nonetheless...

The French did fight valiantly. But their planning was poor, they miscalculated where the Germans would advance into France, and they simply were ill prepared for the type of war Germany brought to them.

As far as "allowing" troops to escape capture at Dunkirk, the French scarcely had any other choice. At that point, their only hope laid in Great Britain.

Of the several hundred thousand troops evacuated from Dunkirk, 1/3 were French troops. The rest of the French Army went into captivity. There was no place to for them to go. And preventing the British from evacuating 300,000+ troops from Dunkirk would have been suicidal to the French as it would have robbed GB of troops needed to fight the Germans and ultimately free France.

French POWs were, for the most part, treated horribly by the Germans. And French colonial troops, in many instances, were simply executed by the Germans.

IMO, the story of France under occupation is undertold. The story of their army as POWs is undertold. The hardships and humiliation the French underwent is something to be remembered.

Thank you. In most historical accounts that I have read the French seem to be noted by their tendency to surrender. DeGaulle,however, was generally viewed in a favorable light. It is interesting to me to see the different perspectives according to who wrote the history.

The French tendency to surrender is mostly fiction. The more territory the Germans gained in France, the more leverage they had in getting the French to surrender. The threat of atrocities against soldiers' families is a powerful incentive.

The Free French army gave up nothing in terms of fighting prowess and tenacity to other allied armies.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
The French tendency to surrender is mostly fiction.

I have posted this before:

As for the whole French “surrender monkeys” idiocy, that’s something that deserves a little reading of actual history. World War II is of course the conflict that everyone thinks of when trotting out that stale canard, but who else surrendered in that war? Poland was first (if we don’t count how the British and Czechs backed down to Hitler without a shot), but ultimately what were the other countries that surrendered? Finland, Norway, Italy, several small Axis allies, Japan, and let’s not forget the greatest surrenderer of them all: Germany. (Germany surrendered twice in 27 years to abandon major wars; France surrendered once during the period, and then started fighting again. French forces made more than token contributions on the side of the US and the UK during WWII, but they initially refused to surrender to us in North Africa.)

And what about World War I? Who besides Germany surrendered? Russia and Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), and some smaller nations.

Returning to France, yes, they surrendered in World War II—after suffering close to twice the battle deaths in less than six weeks than the US did after in years in Vietnam—and we surrendered as well. (Okay, ours wasn’t a formal surrender, but in most ways it was more disgraceful because our population was far larger, our army wasn’t destroyed, and the country wasn’t on the verge of being destroyed; we just got tired, picked up our ball, and went home despite being points ahead.) And as several other countries also fought on the Republic of Vietnam’s side, it could be said that the Australians and the others also surrendered in that war. Plus, let’s not forget that the RVN surrendered formally.

In Korea the US and other UN forces didn’t actually surrender, but we all said, “Okay, that’s enough; we’re going to stop trying to defeat the aggressors in this war”: not exactly worthy of parades down Broadway. The only difference between that and what happened in Vietnam was that we didn’t pull out to leave South Korea to be overrun by the Communists.

More recently, the Soviet Union surrendered in Afghanistan, so that was twice in 72 years for Russians as compared with once for France during the period. If we include all of the twentieth century, Russia surrendered three times (first to Japan), so maybe they should get first place in the modern surrender count.

But what about Điện Biên Phủ, didn’t France surrender there? Yes, but that was a battle, not the war, and if we consider it a surrender, what about the Australians and New Zealanders at Gallipoli, or the British at Dunkirk, or the US in the Philippines, or the British (again) at Singapore, or countless other battles, big and small, that saw someone other than France surrendering? Major campaigns that saw German surrenders in WWII occurred in North Africa and at Stalingrad. Individually, Russians, British, Italians, Germans, and other nationalities surrendered in droves during that conflict.

The French did finally pull out of Vietnam—but in the same manner as virtually all the other colonial powers around the world. Those retreats were often in response to armed uprisings, and were at least de facto military surrenders as well.

The French only surrendered after putting up a fight. If you want an example of a country being steamrolled right over without even (or barely) putting up a fight, look to Belgium. I laughed when Belgium said it was "declaring war" on ISIS a few years ago.

With the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII this year, there was a massive flyover of DC scheduled for this past weekend and was going to be live-streamed for those who couldn't attend (covered in this recent thread: DC flyover ).

Some of my old flying buddies and their planes were scheduled to participate so I had planned on watching.

When the flyover was scrubbed due to WX, the sponsors switched their live-streaming coverage and instead replaced it with footage from a similar event held five years ago during the 70th anniversary in combination with some WWII aviation footage as well as some very interesting WWII era Arsenal of Democracy factory production footage, detailing the accounts of the engineers and civilian workers back home and the efforts and sacrifices made on the home front that enabled the final victory.

This portion of the streaming content was really very well done and with footage and interviews that I had never seen or heard before and really enjoyed the stories...however, the last portion of the replacement streaming content was Smithsonian Air & Space Museum video conference between Brigadier General Charles McGee (one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen) as well as two NASM officials).

I've seen previous interviews and read comments from General McGee before, and greatly admire and respect the man's accomplishments and sacrifices, not to mention his thoughtfulness and composure and the class that he carries himself with. That he can recall what he can at 101 years old is remarkable. I'm also not opposed to a discussion of the racism and bias both in civilian life as well as the military at that time, and therefore the racism and the segregation that the Tuskegee airmen faced while serving in combat. It is a historical fact and deserves to be recognized... however, the efforts and accomplishments of the Tuskegee airmen in WWII extend beyond this topic. In fact, General McGee's Air Force career spanned WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, to include over 400 combat missions.

While there were a smattering of war & mission related questions during the hour long interview, both the woman moderating/ interviewing him (I can't recall her name or NASM position) as well as the black NASM director Lonnie Bunch (I don't recall his specific title but it was something along the lines of director of the NASM African American exhibits wing) continually focused the interview questions on the racism/ segregation types...to the point that it became apparent that they wanted to focus more on this aspect than the General's war and combat experiences. In fact, when the woman moderator asked a question of Director Bunch, he often seemed prepared for the question with a smoothly polished instant reply commenting on the racism and segregation aspects.

At the end of the interview they took a few selected questions from the online audience, including a couple also focused on segregation/ racism. One of the final questions posed to both the General as well as Director Lonnie Bunch was along the lines of "why is inclusion and diversity so important to the goal of NASM?"

A few years ago, mysteriously, a subscription to the Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine started showing up in my mail box. I never ordered it, never paid for it, and I've never found anyone I know who admits to buying me a subscription. When they send me bills to renew my subscription I ignore them...and yet the magazines keep appearing.

It's not a bad magazine per se, it usually includes some decent to excellent photographs, and the stories are often interesting. However the stories are written in a simplistic manner...and there is often an attempt to throw in a diversity/ inclusion angle to them...

...I recall, as a kid, standing in the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and as an older boy and young man, I practically lived at the National Aviation and Space Museum) at one point in my life and marveling at their exhibits. I've attended several NASM after-hour events, and have even had different pictures of myself appear a couple times in various exhibits (to be certain it was the activities I was involved in and not myself that was the focus)...however I find myself questioning the focus of the Smithsonian museums and just how far they are willing to go to slant their narrative on history.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

...I recall, as a kid, standing in the Smithsonian museum of National Museum of Natural History, and as an older boy and young man, I practically lived at the National Aviation and Space Museum) at one point in my life and marveling at their exhibits. I've attended several NASM after-hour events, and have even had different pictures of myself appear a couple times in various exhibits (to be certain it was the activities I was involved in and not myself that was the focus)...however I find myself questioning the focus of the Smithsonian museums and just how far they are willing to go to slant their narrative on history.

Air & Space Magazine is available on the www:

https://www.airspacemag.com/

I don't see strong indications of a race/gender emphasis on the www site, but then again I only click on articles that interest me.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
The French only surrendered after putting up a fight. If you want an example of a country being steamrolled right over without even (or barely) putting up a fight, look to Belgium.

Just like the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" myth of the French, your "waffle-eating surrender ape" characterization of the Belgians is completely unearned.

Small countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark did what they could against an overwhelmingly superior adversary. Just because they were overwhelmed doesn't mean they "didn't put up a fight". They simply didn't have the manpower, armament, or land to drag it out for over a month before defeat, like Poland, France, or Norway.

The Belgians knew from the beginning that they had no chance to hold out for any extended period by themselves and would require the assistance of the British and French. The hope was that the British, French, and Belgians together could hold the line somewhere within Belgium and blunt the German offensive until reinforced, as they had in WW1. But once the British and French forces in Belgium were cut off, the Belgians had zero chance on their own. Despite that, Belgium held out for 18 total days (longer than many of their peers), suffering 6,000 killed and 15,850 wounded in their over two weeks of fighting.

Additionally, just like the Free French, the Free Belgians continued the fight with their remaining forces that escaped to England and in their overseas colonies in Africa throughout the rest of the war, aiding however they could. (The Poles, Norwegians, Danes, Czech, Luxembourgish, and Dutch did the same.)

Approximately 50,000 Belgian servicemen served in these Free Belgian forces for the remainder of the war, not counting resistance members that remained in Belgium during the war. These Free Belgian forces included a Belgian infantry brigade that fought with the British Army in the Normandy Invasion and subsequent battles in France and the Low Countries, a Belgian Commando Troop that saw service in Italy and Northwest Europe, the 5th SAS Squadron that was made up almost entirely of Belgians, two RAF squadrons made up of Belgians, a handful of remaining Belgian naval vessels crewed by Belgian sailors that went on to fight in the Battle of the Atlantic, and the large Belgian Congolese "Force Publique" that fought the Italians in East Africa and freed Ethiopia.

The Free Belgians even provided the uranium used in the US's two atomic bombs, from their uranium mines in the unoccupied Belgian Congo.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
Air & Space Magazine is available on the www:

https://www.airspacemag.com/

I don't see strong indications of a race/gender emphasis on the www site, but then again I only click on articles that interest me.

To be sure, the emphasis that I detect isn't nearly as in-your-face as some examples, but it does seem to regularly appear...but, then again, perhaps my aversion (bias ) to all things PC has been hyper-sensitized due to years of over-exposure.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
If you want an example of a country being steamrolled right over without even (or barely) putting up a fight, look to Belgium.

Countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Denmark did what they could against an overwhelmingly superior adversary.

Just because they were overwhelmed doesn't mean they "didn't put up a fight". (Besides, Belgium held out for 18 days, longer than Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands put together.)

Additionally, like the French, the Belgians continued the fight with their remaining forces in England and their overseas colonies in Africa throughout the rest of the war, aiding however they could.

Just like the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" myth of the French, your "waffle-eating surrender ape" characterization of the Belgians is a completely unearned myth.

In WW I, for the initial German offensive to be successful, they were on a timetable, and they had to push past Belgium to get into France. While ultimately a defeat, the intricate Belgian ring fort and troops stationed at Liege mounted a significant and credible defense that slowed the Germans by several days and knocked them off their timetable.

The Belgians did what they could with what they had...and deserve to be recognized and respected for their efforts.

The French soldiers fought well but the speed of the German advances had the French leadership paralyzed.

In 1940 French tanks were actually better tank-for-tank than those in the Panzer Divisions, but most of the French tanks were spread about the countryside like so many daisies while the Germans had concentrated theirs at the main point of attack.

The German strategies and generalship would have taxed anyone at that point - blitzkrieg was completely novel in 1939-40 - but the French had put so much money and mental commitment into their line of border forts that they had no contingency plans when punched in the middle through the Ardennes, well north of the end of Maginot line.

Game over. To the extent that a case could be made that had the Germans played their game differently and aggressively pushed along the Channel coast to prevent evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk, that this one attack might have ended WWII then and there.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
Game over.

For an excellent analysis and commentary on the many factors that affected the conduct and outcome of World War II, I highly recommend The Second World Wars by Victor Davis Hanson. It’s one of many insightful books Hanson has written that do an outstanding job of explaining not only what happened in various conflicts, but the underlying reasons why they happened. As just one example, he specifically discusses the superiority of French tanks at the beginning of the war, but how they were not used effectively to stop the German attack.

Wars[sic] is a bit repetitious in places, but part of that is due to his unusual approach of examining factors individually and separately, such as tanks and artillery, infantry forces, naval forces, air power, and the military commanders and national leaders. For the student of history his approach emphasizes and helps us remember and understand the key points.

I took a tour of France & Belgium as part of a Normandy anniversary tour. The French put up quite a fight against the Germans, killing 27,000 and destroying about a third of the Luftwaffe's planes at the time, while losing about 85,000 troops. The British Expeditionary Force loss about 66,000 before the Dunkirk evacuation.

But you won't find hardly any monuments to the WWII French soldiers in France, I think we saw one, and that was actually from WWI that had the WWII war dead added to it. It was not France's finest hour, and they know it.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
For an excellent analysis and commentary on the many factors that affected the conduct and outcome of World War II, I highly recommend The Second World Wars by Victor Davis Hanson.

Thanks for the suggestion, just ordered a copy.