Paris 1940 & 1944

[Owen]

Thanks to adam I found this at te USNA site.
World War II Photos

81. "A Frenchman weeps as German soldiers march into the French capital, Paris, on June 14, 1940, after the Allied armies had been driven back across France." 208-PP-10A-3. (ww2_81.jpg)

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by Owen D

Thanks to adam I found this at te USNA site.
World War II Photos

81. "A Frenchman weeps as German soldiers march into the French capital, Paris, on June 14, 1940, after the Allied armies had been driven back across France." 208-PP-10A-3. (ww2_81.jpg)

It's funny, I must have seen that chaps face, cropped in, many times when some light Anglo/French mockery was being indulged in, but placed in it's real context it's an exceptionally powerful image.
I had no idea that was why he was crying.

[Arsenal vg-33]

Originally Posted by Owen D

Thanks to adam I found this at te USNA site.
World War II Photos

81. "A Frenchman weeps as German soldiers march into the French capital, Paris, on June 14, 1940, after the Allied armies had been driven back across France." 208-PP-10A-3. (ww2_81.jpg)

This is quite incorrect. This scene is actually from a motion film taken in southern France (Marseille, I believe). The event taking place was a ceremony in which French regimental flags are being taken to North Africa to prevent their capture by the Germans. If I'm not mistaken, this occurred as the Armistice was being signed. Obviously, the man is overwhelmed with emotions at the symbolism of the army retreating to North Africa to save the regimental standards.

If you ever see this footage, look closely at the people immediately behind him, particularly to his right. You will notice people are applauding. Definately not a scene from Paris. It is unfortunately, one of the most misinterpreted images of the war regarding the Fall of France.

[Arsenal vg-33]

Originally Posted by sapper

I said that despite the bar on the British some got there. As to the French playing a great part in the freeing of the City? In fact they did very little, only coming to the surface as the Germans fled the City.

Sir, I respectfully yet strongly disagree with you. May I refer you to an excellent book, "France the Dark Years, 1940-1944" by Julian Jackson, casualties during the paris uprising inlcuded over "901 members of the FFI and 582 civilians were killed; another 2,000 were wounded; German casualties numbered 3,200.". (pg. 567)


As for the lack of British presence in Paris during the city's liberation, one reason given was the still possible resentment lingering in the populace over the British attack at Mers-el-Kebir. This is mentioned in small part in the book, "Is Paris Burning?", Larry Collins/Dominique Lapierre, which is also a very good book, if a bit romanticized.

[4th wilts]

i understand ike,on his lofty perch wanted paris bypassed,so the paris lot did not use up army food etc,etc,but the french 2nd a/d under u.s command,could not help themselves.yours,lee.

[Arsenal vg-33]

Originally Posted by 4th wilts

i understand ike,on his lofty perch wanted paris bypassed,so the paris lot did not use up army food etc,etc,but the french 2nd a/d under u.s command,could not help themselves.yours,lee.

True. There was a row because Eisenhower initially had plans to bypass Paris. Gen. de Gaulle threatened to withdraw the French 2e DB and order it himself to make the dash to Paris if the Allies planned to bypass it. The commander of 2e DB, Gen. Leclerc, was only too happy to oblige, and it seemed he was going to make the move himself if no one else gave the order.

Gen. Leclerc had a habit of reviewing orders given to him by the Americans as suggestions, whereas orders from de Gaulle were usually to be followed to the letter. This attitude would be seen again during the Colmar Pocket battles and during the race to Berchtesgaden. However, Leclerc's decision to dash to Strasbourg was entirely his own I believe.

I think the decision to go to Paris is for the most part undervalued. Militarily, Paris was symbolic as well as important. Politically however it was anything but symbolic. Ge. de Gaulle persuaded Eisenhower to give the go ahead very eloquently and made it quite clear there was a good chance that the communists powers within Paris itself could stand to gain huge politcal clout if they were to succeed in taking control of several key military and administratorial buildings. Eisenhower quickly realized the potential for political disaster in this scenario and it was surely a factor in his decision to let the 2e DB go. In the long run, I would say this decision certainly was a benefit to the Allied cause as a whole.

[Paul Reed]

To be far to Brian (Sapper) I suspect he is just voicing the opinion of British troops at the time. They had reason to think this way of the French, for as they journeyed north on the 'great swan' they encountered little example of French 'resistance' except in certain areas of the coal fields where communist inspired resistance amongst communist mining unions was strong. Mostly they found French people only interested in resistance since the landings in Normandy. The British never really trusted the FFI, which I suspect is one of the reasons British troops were not involved in the liberation of Paris.

[4th wilts]

does anyone know the american corps and army the french 2a/d was under the command of,when they moved to paris.yours,lee.

[Arsenal vg-33]

Originally Posted by 4th wilts

does anyone know the american corps and army the french 2a/d was under the command of,when they moved to paris.yours,lee.

I believe French 2e DB was part of Patton's Third Army, specifically V Corps. According to "Is Paris Burning?" (Collins and Lapierre), Americans Lt. Dick Rifkind and Cpt. Bob Hoye were Leclerc's liason officers to General Gerow (Gen. Leclerc's immediate superior). (pg. 154)

[4th wilts]

sounds about right.was that corps not ordered north to block germans escaping falaise.yours,lee.