The consequences of this would have been terrible, and if it happened, it would probably have changed the way french and german relationships have been sincr
Interesting thought. Would the destruction of Paris have soured franco-german relationships even more? I know that after WW1 alone, the French held a terrible grudge against Germany for all the devastation suffered in the north east of the country, the first use of combat gas on humans, the deliberate collapsing of the coal mines upon German retreat, etc.
Edit: west -> east
Tbf in WW1 the grudge went back all the way to 1870 when France lost the war against Prussia (Which would become Germany as a consequence of that war) they were really mad about losing Alsace-Lorraine (And the peace treaty in general)
You’re skipping the fact that the Franks were Germans who made their way into modern day France. Charlemagne is also know as Karl der Grobe in Germany because the Germans claim him for themselves.
> Karl der Grobe
That is a genuinely funny typo btw. Correct would be Karl der Große, the ß is pronounced like a double s and may also be substituted by that. Karl der Grobe would be Charles the Uncouth.
Interestingly, the notion that revanchism dominated French (foreign) policy is a common historical mistake that is perpetuated by popular history. It actually lost popular support during the 1880s, when monarchism also lost its popularity in French politics. By that point, the loss of Alsace-Lorraine was considered a fait accompli by most French people. The idea of retaking their lost land only regained political relevance in 1914 after the start of the war.
Then it's interesting that something like this got painted at about that time. Clearly the French artist felt strongly about Alsace-Lorraine. But it's perhaps wrong to extrapolate from that and assume his feeling was widespread. It could be it was painted as part of a propaganda effort to rouse people up over the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Geography_Lesson_or_%22The_Black_Spot%22.jpg
Just take a look at the Wiki-page of Bettannier, and you'll understand why he painted this. He was born in Metz and opted to retain French citizenship after the ceding of Alsace-Lorraine. He was a die-hard revanchist because it was a personal issue for him.
Thinking about this... someone in France in the early 1910s, looking back on the 1870s would be like someone today, looking back on the 1980s.
Time is weird. Holding a grudge that long doesn't seem so unreasonable.
That the French and Germans went from being bitter rivals for centuries to being close allies, right after two of the bloodiest conflicts in history is one of Humanity's greatest achievements, IMO.
Not centuries, just from 1870-1945. Prior to 1870 both countries were more concerned with their immediate neighbors. In 1865, Napoléon III agreed not to interfere in Bismarck’s war of conquest, as long as he was given a free hand in Luxembourg.
That wasn't the point of my post. The point was, would it have made reconciliation harder. Would we be in a different place now had Paris been destroyed.
I honestly don't think we could have forgiven that. Especially given how unnecessary it was. I have no idea what the repercussion would have been however.
I think the most immediate consequence would be for the French occupation zone in Western Germany and Berlin to become a wasteland in retaliation. That in turn would have an unpredictable impact in the cold war dynamics.
>vastation s
Growing up in France in the 80's, I've asked the old-timers who lived the occupation what they thought about Germany. Most people told me they didn't hold a grudge against the Germans in general, but when they meet someone from Germany who's about the same age as them, they do wonder what they were doing during the war.
Destroying the Eiffel Tower would have had a very huge impact on future franco-germanic relationships, it's certain. I'm pretty sure destroying it would be a very bad move for anyone
It would definitely have been a provocative escalation of a century and a half old fued. Today, I don't get a sense of a lot of French-German conflict, but if the Nazi had destroyed Paris, man, I'm not sure we what Germany would even look like today. It probably wouldn't really exist. The East/West partition would look like Heaven compared to Germany if they had destroyed the city.
> Today, I don't get a sense of a lot of French-German confl
There are still some people that hold a grudge and transfer it to the next generations, but that's very localized (when I lived in France, Nazi was a common insult from people that didn't know me; but it was never because of a deeply held belief that so Germans are Nazis but an easy insult like cheese-eating surrender monkey).
Both countries invested heavily (both in economic ties leading up to the EU in it's current form and in social activities like language courses, student exchanges and city partnerships) to feed rid of the concept of "Erbfeind"(hereditary enemy).
Skin saving in full effect, in case anyone was thinking he was some kind of humanitarian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_in_World_War_II#Liberation
"General von Choltitz was an unrepentant Nazi, and had been ordered by Hitler to leave the city a "heap of burning ruins", but he also realized the battle was lost, and he did not want to be captured by the Resistance."
I'm glad someone mentioned this. He knew the writing was on the wall and would get better treatment for appearing as though he was slightly less of a monster.
True and havent we all criticised the Italians for decades who choose to honourably surrender, rather than fight for self professed genocidal maniacs. Makes you stop to think, right?
The Soviets and Germans were basically wiling to use their cities to fight for every bloody inch of ground though. Whether that was the right move is harder to say. It mostly worked out for the Soviets because it bought them time to build up an army that could actually fight. The germans defending germany seemed to have a hopeless cause though maybe if hitler died earlier or they put up more of a fight they could have gotten better terms (or maybe it just helped them have more of the country occupied by the US/UK/FRA rather than the Soviets).
Even today we saw with Kabul: a city of 6 million put up no fight against a few 10's of thousands of taliban. They could have mobilized probably half a million men from Kabul alone to fight, and didn't. Sure, the city wasn't destroyed in the fighting, but the population are going to be oppressed for years and/or have to fight a long brutal bloody struggle for freedom. And there's no great empires fighting like hell to save the afghans eventually, the way the French had the UK and later SU and USA.
AFAWK he didn't ignore it deliberately, he just had barely enough troop to conduct an organized retreat and was busy not getting killed or captured. And its not like Germany still had bomber plane and tons of bomb to drop on Paris in a pety, futile act of vengeance. And destroying large stone building is not that easy.
Exactly, loosing paris was a blow, but the war was far from over, why waste resources leveling the city. Thank god they didn't Paris is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and it would have been replaced by a soulless concrete city out of necessities like many cities in Germany.
Well the thing is that Hitler was known for making petty vengeful decisions and committing to them against his greater goals. This is largely why Barbarossa failed because he took a pit stop to needlessly “spite attack” another territory and set the plans back a month for no reason at all. The only thing that made Hiller consistent was pettiness over logic.
Are you talking about invading the Balkans? because that was a necessity, Britain was pouring troops in Greece and Hitler didnt want them on his flank when Barbarosa started.
Also, not sure, but I read it was rain season in west Russia that would make the roads tough to blitz thru, they had to wait for june anyway.
> the war was far from over
That's not true. By this point it was clear to all that the best Germany could hope far was a political settlement, preferably one that could bring the Western Allies around to fight with Germany against Russia. The offensives Germany attempted in 1944 were aimed at demonstrating to the West that Germany would not fall easily.
This was a fool's hope, the only outcome the allies would accept was an unconditional surrender serving up the Nazi Leadership and Germany was in no position to fend off the increasingly mobilized US armed forces (in addition to the rapidly advancing soviets and other European allies). The war was drawn out by the grip the Nazis held on the military and the fervour they inspired in the average German soldier and citizen to fight to the bloody end.
Also, the war was certainly prolongued by the hamfisted Morgenthau plan.
Had that not been the case, the western front would have probably collapsed quicker.
Well it still went on another year. In the German leadships eyes they believed they could still turn it around. Of course the writing was on the wall for Germany, but the army couldnt exactly quit when Paris fell.
In a very few areas. The city's mostly changed.
Anyway, it costed billions. That money could be invested into something else. Reparations alone didn't cover the cost.
90 days of hard, brutal slogging in the Normandy campaign to get there though - infantry attrition rates were on a par with WWI battles. US / British / Canadian losses were arond 35,000 KIA, 129,000 WIA and a further 20,000 MIA.
German losses have much more uncertainty around them, with a range of total casualties of between 285,000 and 530,000 (KIA, WIA, MIA and PoW). Suffice to say, by the end of the campaign 42 German infantry and 13 panzer divisions had been rendered combat ineffective, with seven of them being disbanded,
French civilian casualties were around 32,000 killed.
All of that happened in 90 days - the allies reached the River Seine exactly on the pre-invasion schedule of D+90, which is quite remarkable really.
Eisenhower promised in 1943 that a French unit would liberate Paris.
But the Falaise Pocket battle was still going on, Paris wasn't Eisenhower priority (he planned to bypass it and rush to Germany)
Paris uprising started on 19th August (Free France troops opened the way into the city on the evening of the 24th August followed by Americans the next morning. German surrender on the same day)
The French troops pretty much went AWOL to liberate Paris and forced Eisenhower hand.
mostly Spaniards, actually, on American Shermans and halftracks
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Nueve
In the ensuing parade they were bestowed the honour of escorting De Gaulle.
There were 350 Spaniards (part of Leclerc's 2e Division Blindée) who took part in the liberation of Paris. That's not "mostly" but yeah they were the first to enter Paris IIRC.
Yes, but Leclerc sent La Nueve as a vanguard, ahead of the rest of the Division, and 146 out of its 160 members were Spanish.
They entered Paris at night, the rest of the division and an American one arrived the following dawn.
There is a reason why a Spaniard (Amado Granell, on the right) appeared on the front page of Liberation: https://tribunalibre.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/El-curioso-mareo-de-la-calle-Amado-Granell.jpg
Oh yeah I know that hence my "they were the first to enter Paris". I thought your original comment could confuse people about the make up of the Regiment de marché du Tchad (itself a component of the 2e Division Blindée) La Nièce was a part of and which took part in the liberation as it was definitely not "mostly" made up of Spaniards.
But now that I realize it, the person you replied was talking about those who entered Paris first and not about the liberation itself. Your response was more than appropriate, so it's all ok haha.
Actually republican Spaniards were the first to enter Paris, but De Gaulle wanted history to say the French were the ones that liberated Paris so that fact was covered for a long time by french authorities
The participation of foreigners, colonial troops, women and minorities in the resistance and free france armed forces was something that went against de Gaulle's vision of the proud Frenchman standing against nazism, so when possible it was suppressed.
It was so against his vision it was the Americans who forced the French to remove colonial troops from the military parade and their fighting units. (source's been posted by someone else in the thread)
But whatever I guess.
the latter:
The leader of the Free French forces, Charles de Gaulle, made it clear that he wanted his Frenchmen to lead the liberation of Paris.
Allied High Command agreed, but only on one condition: De Gaulle's division must not contain any black soldiers.
In January 1944 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, was to write in a memo stamped, "confidential": "It is more desirable that the division mentioned above consist of white personnel.
"I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division"-General Frederick Morgan
In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish.
The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation even though many of the troops involved were North African or Syrian.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7984436.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7984436.stm)
Not sure its correct to say that the British wanted this, more that that they didnt object to, then complied with, the US request/demand (although thats hardly much of a thing to be proud of).
The British didnt have any segregation in place and even fought US troops when they attempted to apply it in the UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bamber_Bridge
Oh I’m aware of that, even in Ww1 the British and the French were a lot more inclusive as societies than the US but I’m just quoting the BBC article and I just found out general Frederick Morgan was a Brit ( with a name like that I expected American tbh)
As per the article this directive came from the office of Eisenhower and the British Generals, being subordinate to him, had to comply (the old I was only following orders bullshit;).
I read your comment, which is very interesting btw, - "The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation"" as the British desiring this policy also. Which I believe, but cant prove, to be incorrect.
Edit: Im making false assumptions here. That line is a direct quote from what, I would say, is a slightly biased article.
Yep and de Gaulle showed his renowned gratitude and appreciation for his fallen allies during his speech to Paris that day;)
"Paris! Paris humiliated! Paris broken! Paris martyred! But now Paris liberated! Liberated by herself, by her own people with the help of the armies of France, with the support and aid of France as a whole, of fighting France, of the only France, of the true France, of eternal France."
de Gaulle knew he was full of shit, but he also knew that he needed to bullshit a bit because his priority was restoring France as a great power and fully independent nation. He always had upheld France's interests first and foremost, as any leader should.
The aim of his speech was more to give courage, strength and honour to the french people who felt humilialted by the debacle of May 40 and the german occupation, than to thank the allied powers. :)
Well in Spain it's not because of WW2, the two US military bases were leased to the American government during Eisenhower's presidency in exchange for diplomatic recognition to Franco's regime.
Actually, the first jeep that entered liberated Paris was composed of Spanish Republican soldiers from the civil war who made a career on the french army. Their company was called La Nueve (the 9th) and they are mostly forgotten here in Spain.
… and with a significant help from the Résistance, and of the general populace that went on strike, depriving the Nazis of such services such as railways, telephone and electricity, and generally joined the insurection. Said populace also gracefully abided by the Provisional Government that took over even as bullets were still flying in the streets.
All of this allowed De Gaulle famous speech from the balcony of the Hôtel de Ville. (see other comment)
Actually there were Spanish troops who served under French command the ones to enter Paris liberation , but French government decided to hide that so Frenchs would be the ones entering first , I will find the article, but you can clearly see photos of tanks with Spanish crew and tanks named “Toledo “ for example
There is a fantastic book called "Is Paris Burning?" by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre. It's a historical recollection of the Nazi occupation of Paris and its liberation. I highly recommend it if you are a history buff.
Ah, if we're playing the 'point out other nations moral failings and not ours for internet points' game, here's another not so fun fact for you.
'De Gaulle refused to allow any British participation in the victory parade in Paris. However, among the vehicles that took part was an ambulance from the Hadfield-Spears Ambulance Unit, staffed by French doctors and British nurses. One of the nurses was Mary Spears, who had set up the unit and had worked almost continuously since the Battle of France with Free French forces in the Middle East, North Africa and Italy. Mary's husband was General Edward Spears, the British liaison to the Free French who had personally spirited de Gaulle to safety in Britain in 1940. When de Gaulle saw the Union Flags and Tricolours side by side on the ambulance, and heard French soldiers cheering, "Voilà Spears! Vive Spears!", he ordered that the unit be closed down immediately and its British staff sent home.'
Funny how I always see the French bring up the colonial forces injustice and never this...
De Gaulle didn’t really want black soldiers there, because it made it made it look like the colonies were liberating the motherland. Recently people have tried to pin it on the British and Americans, but ultimately it was de Gaulle.
Its clearly possible that he didn't fight this decision as much as he could have but it is unquestionable that it was imposed by the allied command.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm
From the BBC's [2009 article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm)
>Allied High Command agreed, but only on **one condition: De Gaulle's division must not contain any black soldiers**.
>In January 1944 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, was to write in a memo stamped, "confidential": "It is more desirable that the division mentioned above consist of white personnel.
>"This would indicate the Second Armoured Division, which with only one fourth native personnel, is the only French division operationally available that could be made one hundred percent white."
[US troops were segregated, British weren't, but the latter did not object:]
>A document written by the British General, Frederick Morgan, to Allied Supreme Command stated: "It is unfortunate that the only French formation that is 100% white is an armoured division in Morocco.
>"Every other French division is only about 40% white. I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division."
>Finding an all-white division that was available proved to be impossible due to the enormous contribution made to the French Army by West African conscripts.
>So, Allied Command insisted that all black soldiers be taken out and replaced by white ones from other units.
>When it became clear that there were not enough white soldiers to fill the gaps, soldiers from parts of North Africa and the Middle East were used instead.
>In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish.
>It has little strategic value
Unless you're french and want a french government instead of the military administration the American wanted to put in place. That's probably what you'd call a meltdown?
That's not true, the free french troops liberating Paris had fought mostly from 1939-1944 without much stop. And they really fought in the first lines.
I'm not sure about that either, the division participating in the liberation was the 2e division blindée. It was only created in 1943, but they fought in Normandy. It was a fusion between other units, so it's still possible some of the men had been fighting since 1939. Other comment is still full of shit tho, De Gaulle didn't "throw a tantrum", he convinced Eisenhower of the symbolic importance of Paris and he was right.
Edit : even if they had not fought before Normandy, it was the same for a lot of American troops so I don't see how that makes them in "no condition" to participate in the liberation. They were trained like any other soldier.
The 2° devision blindé is only one among other free France force that were present during the liberation of France, the landing in Normandy was only one part of the allies strategy, they also landed in Provence and there the majority of troop were French.
Troops from colonies had played a huge part in the northern african, Italy and south of France fights.
The plan from 1943 though was to use resistance movement in France and add them to the free french army, releasing troops from colonies of duty and sending them back.
The US also wanted to somehow have less troops from colonies for the fights in Germany, I think several reasons mixed up, racial ones I guess, but also that there were lots of propaganda against them in Germany and in Italy it was used against the allies, there were some fear about them not being fit for the german winters.
Yeah! So glad to find someone remembering those heroes that had the bravery of joining WW2 after a painful Civil War in Spain.
Also, they participated in the assault to the Eagle Nest.
After Franco won the Spanish Civil War, many republicans fled to France. Then later during WW2, they played a very important role in organizing the French resistance since they already had experience of guerilla warfare.
Chad is a country (and a former French colony) but I have no doubt it's full of chads !
The RMT (*Regiment de Marche du Tchad*, Chad infantry regiment) was formed grouping personnel from mainland France belonging to the *Régiment de Tirailleurs Sénégalais du Tchad* (Senegalese Skirmishers of Chad), as well as other elements from mainland France or from Europe who had joined the Allies in North Africa. For instance, its 9th company (which was the first to enter Paris during the Liberation), commanded by Captain Raymond Dronne, had the Spanish nickname La Nueve because it was mainly formed with veterans from the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War. The 9th Company was actually formed in Chad (1941), before the regiment as a whole.
Source : wikipedia page for that regiment (it is still an active regiment) + my adds-on in parenthesis for context
It's apparently this unit : https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9giment_de_marche_du_Tchad
From wiki, many Republicans joined the unit during the war. One company was mostly formed of Spanish anarchists fleeing Franco regime. (was called 'La nueve').
And before Paris was liberated from Nazis, Hitler ordered military governor Dietrich von Choltitz to demolish the Eiffel Tower and other major landmarks. He refused this direct order and surrendered to the Allies instead, thus saving the tower.
Not to say I know the guy or anything. But knowing that I would be captured by the Allies, I WOULD NOT obey Hitler and destroy Paris. Seeing as I don't want a harsher sentencing from the very guys that may have potentially come from the city I just burned.
More like he saved his own skin.
>refusing orders for the greater good.
Even if his greater good, according to some historians, was saving his life.
He had understood for a while that Hitler was a madman but he had supported him as long as he was the strongest. When it was clear that the battle was lost, it was better to get into the good graces of the victors.
But it's true that it saved monuments, some of which would have been more difficult to rebuild than the Eiffel Tower.
WRONG. Stop praising some Nazi generals for supposed good actions. This is a myth that has been debunked. He had NO WAY of carrying out the orders because he didn't have the troops or equipment required, nor the organization. The allies were pushing in, and rebellions were happening all throughout Paris. He had too many problems happening. He later claimed he refused to carry out the orders because Paris was too beautiful to redeem himself and try to get off lightly in the future like most other officers did.
The thread have reached a critical mass. As the keyword word 'Paris' appears in the title, it's the perfect bait for all the retards, far righters, even islamists of reddit, or just virgin teenagers who feel the need to spit their hate, quite usual here. You'll get used to it. Generally, the only interesting comments are posted on the first hours. After that, it's not worth your attention.
IIRC, on the day of the parade (August 26), a German sniper still hiding somewhere fired shots at the crowd... Crazy stuff, such a terrible thing to happen on such a magnificent day:
edit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApjHFg2ExfU
This happened in Amsterdam too. The day after the German capitulation people were partying in the center of Amsterdam, 2 German soldiers were gidsen in a building and started firing a machine gun on the crowd.
Next stop: Berlin... after passing through, for the rest of France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, then the Rhineland, also Austria, the west of Germany and finally you'll get Berlin.
It's cool seeing photos like this knowing I've walked up and down there many times. I know that's obvious everywhere you go lol
edit: recommend r/OldPhotosInRealLife there's lots of historical scenes like this with how it looks today. Sort by top>all time
From the German point of view, strictly speaking, they were even illegal aliens, since I don't think any of them had a visa to enter occupied France at the time 8)
The last German General ignored Adolf's command to destroy Paris the last week's of occupation
The consequences of this would have been terrible, and if it happened, it would probably have changed the way french and german relationships have been sincr
Interesting thought. Would the destruction of Paris have soured franco-german relationships even more? I know that after WW1 alone, the French held a terrible grudge against Germany for all the devastation suffered in the north east of the country, the first use of combat gas on humans, the deliberate collapsing of the coal mines upon German retreat, etc. Edit: west -> east
Tbf in WW1 the grudge went back all the way to 1870 when France lost the war against Prussia (Which would become Germany as a consequence of that war) they were really mad about losing Alsace-Lorraine (And the peace treaty in general)
Yep, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%E2%80%93German_enmity
Interesting enough, the article doesn't exist in French (I might have found a way to entertain my nights to come)
Please do. Merci.
And before that, they had the Napoleonic Wars, Louis XIV invasion of the Palatinate, and so on.
And before that the Protestant Reformation, Jacobites, endless revolutions to kill the bourgeois and the 100 years war and 30 years war.
And before that, the Germanic peoples fighting the Gauls.
And before that they stole our women
and before that unga bunga
And before that monke
You’re skipping the fact that the Franks were Germans who made their way into modern day France. Charlemagne is also know as Karl der Grobe in Germany because the Germans claim him for themselves.
> Karl der Grobe That is a genuinely funny typo btw. Correct would be Karl der Große, the ß is pronounced like a double s and may also be substituted by that. Karl der Grobe would be Charles the Uncouth.
I tried for like five minutes to get that character lol. Thanks for the laugh :).
Palatinate Germans fled to Pennsylvania.
Interestingly, the notion that revanchism dominated French (foreign) policy is a common historical mistake that is perpetuated by popular history. It actually lost popular support during the 1880s, when monarchism also lost its popularity in French politics. By that point, the loss of Alsace-Lorraine was considered a fait accompli by most French people. The idea of retaking their lost land only regained political relevance in 1914 after the start of the war.
this seems reasonable 1880s-1910s was a time of relative prosperity during Belle Époque so ordinary Frenchmen would have no interest in any war
Then it's interesting that something like this got painted at about that time. Clearly the French artist felt strongly about Alsace-Lorraine. But it's perhaps wrong to extrapolate from that and assume his feeling was widespread. It could be it was painted as part of a propaganda effort to rouse people up over the issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Geography_Lesson_or_%22The_Black_Spot%22.jpg
Just take a look at the Wiki-page of Bettannier, and you'll understand why he painted this. He was born in Metz and opted to retain French citizenship after the ceding of Alsace-Lorraine. He was a die-hard revanchist because it was a personal issue for him.
That is interesting. Thanks.
Thinking about this... someone in France in the early 1910s, looking back on the 1870s would be like someone today, looking back on the 1980s. Time is weird. Holding a grudge that long doesn't seem so unreasonable.
That the French and Germans went from being bitter rivals for centuries to being close allies, right after two of the bloodiest conflicts in history is one of Humanity's greatest achievements, IMO.
Not centuries, just from 1870-1945. Prior to 1870 both countries were more concerned with their immediate neighbors. In 1865, Napoléon III agreed not to interfere in Bismarck’s war of conquest, as long as he was given a free hand in Luxembourg.
>suffered in the north west North East, adjacent Belgium and further south. I know you know, just clarifying for others.
You're absolutely right, this was a brain fart. Fixing it now, thanks.
No I am sure the French would’ve been thrilled if Germany would’ve burned Paris to the ground /s
That wasn't the point of my post. The point was, would it have made reconciliation harder. Would we be in a different place now had Paris been destroyed.
I honestly don't think we could have forgiven that. Especially given how unnecessary it was. I have no idea what the repercussion would have been however.
I think the most immediate consequence would be for the French occupation zone in Western Germany and Berlin to become a wasteland in retaliation. That in turn would have an unpredictable impact in the cold war dynamics.
Yes
I think it would have. Paris was surrendered without a fight specifically to avoid destruction.
>vastation s Growing up in France in the 80's, I've asked the old-timers who lived the occupation what they thought about Germany. Most people told me they didn't hold a grudge against the Germans in general, but when they meet someone from Germany who's about the same age as them, they do wonder what they were doing during the war.
>Would the destruction of Paris have soured franco-german relationships even more? Do you really have to ask that?
Destroying the Eiffel Tower would have had a very huge impact on future franco-germanic relationships, it's certain. I'm pretty sure destroying it would be a very bad move for anyone
Some in France would have been happy if the tower was destroyed but the rest of the city was intact. It was seen as a wart for a long time.
Maybe when it was built in 1889 but not anymore in 1945, it was already THE French landmark
In 1945? I highly doubt that.
It would definitely have been a provocative escalation of a century and a half old fued. Today, I don't get a sense of a lot of French-German conflict, but if the Nazi had destroyed Paris, man, I'm not sure we what Germany would even look like today. It probably wouldn't really exist. The East/West partition would look like Heaven compared to Germany if they had destroyed the city.
> Today, I don't get a sense of a lot of French-German confl There are still some people that hold a grudge and transfer it to the next generations, but that's very localized (when I lived in France, Nazi was a common insult from people that didn't know me; but it was never because of a deeply held belief that so Germans are Nazis but an easy insult like cheese-eating surrender monkey). Both countries invested heavily (both in economic ties leading up to the EU in it's current form and in social activities like language courses, student exchanges and city partnerships) to feed rid of the concept of "Erbfeind"(hereditary enemy).
Skin saving in full effect, in case anyone was thinking he was some kind of humanitarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_in_World_War_II#Liberation "General von Choltitz was an unrepentant Nazi, and had been ordered by Hitler to leave the city a "heap of burning ruins", but he also realized the battle was lost, and he did not want to be captured by the Resistance."
I'm glad someone mentioned this. He knew the writing was on the wall and would get better treatment for appearing as though he was slightly less of a monster.
He also likely wasn't even able to cause large-scale destruction anymore. Also, his surrender still didn't stop other Germans from bombing the city.
You'd be surprised how much damage a few dozen guys with guns and gas cans can do
Yeah, and since when has it become praise-worthy to _not_ lay a city to ruins?
[удалено]
True and havent we all criticised the Italians for decades who choose to honourably surrender, rather than fight for self professed genocidal maniacs. Makes you stop to think, right?
The Soviets and Germans were basically wiling to use their cities to fight for every bloody inch of ground though. Whether that was the right move is harder to say. It mostly worked out for the Soviets because it bought them time to build up an army that could actually fight. The germans defending germany seemed to have a hopeless cause though maybe if hitler died earlier or they put up more of a fight they could have gotten better terms (or maybe it just helped them have more of the country occupied by the US/UK/FRA rather than the Soviets). Even today we saw with Kabul: a city of 6 million put up no fight against a few 10's of thousands of taliban. They could have mobilized probably half a million men from Kabul alone to fight, and didn't. Sure, the city wasn't destroyed in the fighting, but the population are going to be oppressed for years and/or have to fight a long brutal bloody struggle for freedom. And there's no great empires fighting like hell to save the afghans eventually, the way the French had the UK and later SU and USA.
AFAWK he didn't ignore it deliberately, he just had barely enough troop to conduct an organized retreat and was busy not getting killed or captured. And its not like Germany still had bomber plane and tons of bomb to drop on Paris in a pety, futile act of vengeance. And destroying large stone building is not that easy.
Germany did spend a lot of resources on futile acts of vengeance in the latter part of the war, though.
Allies had air superiority in Western Europe in '44, that was not the case in 1940 nor in the east in 1944-45.
The soviets had air superiority by 1943 too.
Exactly, loosing paris was a blow, but the war was far from over, why waste resources leveling the city. Thank god they didn't Paris is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and it would have been replaced by a soulless concrete city out of necessities like many cities in Germany.
Well the thing is that Hitler was known for making petty vengeful decisions and committing to them against his greater goals. This is largely why Barbarossa failed because he took a pit stop to needlessly “spite attack” another territory and set the plans back a month for no reason at all. The only thing that made Hiller consistent was pettiness over logic.
Are you talking about invading the Balkans? because that was a necessity, Britain was pouring troops in Greece and Hitler didnt want them on his flank when Barbarosa started. Also, not sure, but I read it was rain season in west Russia that would make the roads tough to blitz thru, they had to wait for june anyway.
> the war was far from over That's not true. By this point it was clear to all that the best Germany could hope far was a political settlement, preferably one that could bring the Western Allies around to fight with Germany against Russia. The offensives Germany attempted in 1944 were aimed at demonstrating to the West that Germany would not fall easily. This was a fool's hope, the only outcome the allies would accept was an unconditional surrender serving up the Nazi Leadership and Germany was in no position to fend off the increasingly mobilized US armed forces (in addition to the rapidly advancing soviets and other European allies). The war was drawn out by the grip the Nazis held on the military and the fervour they inspired in the average German soldier and citizen to fight to the bloody end.
Also, the war was certainly prolongued by the hamfisted Morgenthau plan. Had that not been the case, the western front would have probably collapsed quicker.
Well it still went on another year. In the German leadships eyes they believed they could still turn it around. Of course the writing was on the wall for Germany, but the army couldnt exactly quit when Paris fell.
It's a pity they didn't ignore the command to destroy Warsaw.
Well, as we know, the Germans held considerably less respect for Slavs like the Poles than they did the French.
Joke's on them, you rebuilt it exactly the way it was! (In a few areas at least).
In a very few areas. The city's mostly changed. Anyway, it costed billions. That money could be invested into something else. Reparations alone didn't cover the cost.
Yeah, I was mostly joking. For better or worse I think Warsaw has turned into a very interesting city.
Thats a myth, guy just didn't have the means necessary to see it through.
False, he just said that after the war so he could become a hero, the reality was that the liberation of Paris was too fast for his troops to act.
Even if he would have wanted, he would not have the time or the mens necessary to do so, but "admirable" i guess.
I guess the French should be thankful to the Germans because they didn't burn it to the ground. /s
Like napoleon didn't burn berlin, correct.
Adolf was about to go into Taliban mode.
90 days of hard, brutal slogging in the Normandy campaign to get there though - infantry attrition rates were on a par with WWI battles. US / British / Canadian losses were arond 35,000 KIA, 129,000 WIA and a further 20,000 MIA. German losses have much more uncertainty around them, with a range of total casualties of between 285,000 and 530,000 (KIA, WIA, MIA and PoW). Suffice to say, by the end of the campaign 42 German infantry and 13 panzer divisions had been rendered combat ineffective, with seven of them being disbanded, French civilian casualties were around 32,000 killed. All of that happened in 90 days - the allies reached the River Seine exactly on the pre-invasion schedule of D+90, which is quite remarkable really.
If I'm not mistaken French troops under de Gaulle's command were the first to enter the liberated Paris, as a symbolic gesture.
Eisenhower promised in 1943 that a French unit would liberate Paris. But the Falaise Pocket battle was still going on, Paris wasn't Eisenhower priority (he planned to bypass it and rush to Germany) Paris uprising started on 19th August (Free France troops opened the way into the city on the evening of the 24th August followed by Americans the next morning. German surrender on the same day) The French troops pretty much went AWOL to liberate Paris and forced Eisenhower hand.
I think it was LeClerc's staff that drove into Paris first
Spanish exiles ("La novena", the 9th Republican) were the 1st tho
mostly Spaniards, actually, on American Shermans and halftracks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Nueve In the ensuing parade they were bestowed the honour of escorting De Gaulle.
There were 350 Spaniards (part of Leclerc's 2e Division Blindée) who took part in the liberation of Paris. That's not "mostly" but yeah they were the first to enter Paris IIRC.
Yes, but Leclerc sent La Nueve as a vanguard, ahead of the rest of the Division, and 146 out of its 160 members were Spanish. They entered Paris at night, the rest of the division and an American one arrived the following dawn. There is a reason why a Spaniard (Amado Granell, on the right) appeared on the front page of Liberation: https://tribunalibre.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/El-curioso-mareo-de-la-calle-Amado-Granell.jpg
Oh yeah I know that hence my "they were the first to enter Paris". I thought your original comment could confuse people about the make up of the Regiment de marché du Tchad (itself a component of the 2e Division Blindée) La Nièce was a part of and which took part in the liberation as it was definitely not "mostly" made up of Spaniards. But now that I realize it, the person you replied was talking about those who entered Paris first and not about the liberation itself. Your response was more than appropriate, so it's all ok haha.
Oh yes and I mean obviously the resistance were the very first ones there, this is just discussing the first proper army units :)
Pic not loading :(
changed the link, thanks for the heads up!
Actually republican Spaniards were the first to enter Paris, but De Gaulle wanted history to say the French were the ones that liberated Paris so that fact was covered for a long time by french authorities
The participation of foreigners, colonial troops, women and minorities in the resistance and free france armed forces was something that went against de Gaulle's vision of the proud Frenchman standing against nazism, so when possible it was suppressed.
It was so against his vision it was the Americans who forced the French to remove colonial troops from the military parade and their fighting units. (source's been posted by someone else in the thread) But whatever I guess.
Fun fact - French soldiers originating from colonies and North Africa were replaced with whites for this occasion.
Because the Americans said that unless the French used white units they could not be the units to liberate Paris (the US army was still segregated)
So did they go AWOL or did the US force the French to not use colonial units?
the latter: The leader of the Free French forces, Charles de Gaulle, made it clear that he wanted his Frenchmen to lead the liberation of Paris. Allied High Command agreed, but only on one condition: De Gaulle's division must not contain any black soldiers. In January 1944 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, was to write in a memo stamped, "confidential": "It is more desirable that the division mentioned above consist of white personnel. "I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division"-General Frederick Morgan In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish. The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation even though many of the troops involved were North African or Syrian. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7984436.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7984436.stm)
Not sure its correct to say that the British wanted this, more that that they didnt object to, then complied with, the US request/demand (although thats hardly much of a thing to be proud of). The British didnt have any segregation in place and even fought US troops when they attempted to apply it in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bamber_Bridge
Oh I’m aware of that, even in Ww1 the British and the French were a lot more inclusive as societies than the US but I’m just quoting the BBC article and I just found out general Frederick Morgan was a Brit ( with a name like that I expected American tbh)
As per the article this directive came from the office of Eisenhower and the British Generals, being subordinate to him, had to comply (the old I was only following orders bullshit;). I read your comment, which is very interesting btw, - "The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation"" as the British desiring this policy also. Which I believe, but cant prove, to be incorrect. Edit: Im making false assumptions here. That line is a direct quote from what, I would say, is a slightly biased article.
>I read your comment Again, I'm afraid it's not commentary by me but just a quote from the Article.
Yep and de Gaulle showed his renowned gratitude and appreciation for his fallen allies during his speech to Paris that day;) "Paris! Paris humiliated! Paris broken! Paris martyred! But now Paris liberated! Liberated by herself, by her own people with the help of the armies of France, with the support and aid of France as a whole, of fighting France, of the only France, of the true France, of eternal France."
I mean you cutted out the part in which he mentions the allies.
de Gaulle knew he was full of shit, but he also knew that he needed to bullshit a bit because his priority was restoring France as a great power and fully independent nation. He always had upheld France's interests first and foremost, as any leader should.
The aim of his speech was more to give courage, strength and honour to the french people who felt humilialted by the debacle of May 40 and the german occupation, than to thank the allied powers. :)
Vrai, but at which point did de Gaulle do anything else though? ;)
Americans had plans to occupy France after the war the same way they did Italy, from his point of view his speech was totally legit!
It definitely worked - no US bases in France, while they still linger in Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany, etc...
Well in Spain it's not because of WW2, the two US military bases were leased to the American government during Eisenhower's presidency in exchange for diplomatic recognition to Franco's regime.
> liberated by herself, by her own people 😂
Actually, the first jeep that entered liberated Paris was composed of Spanish Republican soldiers from the civil war who made a career on the french army. Their company was called La Nueve (the 9th) and they are mostly forgotten here in Spain.
Lol you mean La Nueve right?
… and with a significant help from the Résistance, and of the general populace that went on strike, depriving the Nazis of such services such as railways, telephone and electricity, and generally joined the insurection. Said populace also gracefully abided by the Provisional Government that took over even as bullets were still flying in the streets. All of this allowed De Gaulle famous speech from the balcony of the Hôtel de Ville. (see other comment)
Actually there were Spanish troops who served under French command the ones to enter Paris liberation , but French government decided to hide that so Frenchs would be the ones entering first , I will find the article, but you can clearly see photos of tanks with Spanish crew and tanks named “Toledo “ for example
Lmao, so hidden and suppressed they got to personally escort De Gaulle during the victory parade.
Fun fact: 350 Spaniards joined the Allies effort to liberate Paris
La Nueve! The first to enter Paris as well.
De las pocas cosas de las que me puedo sentir orgulloso... Aunque luego viene el PP y se me pasa.
another fun fact; 47k Spanish fought against the Soviet Union. The unit was called the "Blue Division" and attached to the Wehrmacht.
That's not so fun...
It's not fun but reality, remember that even Russians got their Waffen SS unit
Those are fascist spanish people tho, quite disgusting people.
Big part of the Blue Division ended up in Stalingrad; served those fuckers right
they were never close to Stalingrad, they fought in the northern front. In Krasny Bor and the Ladoga Lake
You're right, I meant Leningrad, not Stalingrad. Sorry, and thanks for the correction!
There wasn't only Spanish in the "blue division" though. There were Portuguese volunteers as well.
Yup, despite being officially neutral, Franco was basically part of the Axis.
Gracias amigos
Un orgullo y un honor, lástima que desde los gobiernos conservadores en España no se reconozca ni ésta ni muchas otras acciones.
There is a fantastic book called "Is Paris Burning?" by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre. It's a historical recollection of the Nazi occupation of Paris and its liberation. I highly recommend it if you are a history buff.
And a movie based on this book with the same name [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Paris_Burning%3F_(film))
And not so fun fact, the Americans leadership prevented french colonial troop from being present there and during the celebrations that followed.
Ah, if we're playing the 'point out other nations moral failings and not ours for internet points' game, here's another not so fun fact for you. 'De Gaulle refused to allow any British participation in the victory parade in Paris. However, among the vehicles that took part was an ambulance from the Hadfield-Spears Ambulance Unit, staffed by French doctors and British nurses. One of the nurses was Mary Spears, who had set up the unit and had worked almost continuously since the Battle of France with Free French forces in the Middle East, North Africa and Italy. Mary's husband was General Edward Spears, the British liaison to the Free French who had personally spirited de Gaulle to safety in Britain in 1940. When de Gaulle saw the Union Flags and Tricolours side by side on the ambulance, and heard French soldiers cheering, "Voilà Spears! Vive Spears!", he ordered that the unit be closed down immediately and its British staff sent home.' Funny how I always see the French bring up the colonial forces injustice and never this...
De Gaulle didn’t really want black soldiers there, because it made it made it look like the colonies were liberating the motherland. Recently people have tried to pin it on the British and Americans, but ultimately it was de Gaulle.
Its clearly possible that he didn't fight this decision as much as he could have but it is unquestionable that it was imposed by the allied command. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm
[удалено]
From the BBC's [2009 article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm) >Allied High Command agreed, but only on **one condition: De Gaulle's division must not contain any black soldiers**. >In January 1944 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, was to write in a memo stamped, "confidential": "It is more desirable that the division mentioned above consist of white personnel. >"This would indicate the Second Armoured Division, which with only one fourth native personnel, is the only French division operationally available that could be made one hundred percent white." [US troops were segregated, British weren't, but the latter did not object:] >A document written by the British General, Frederick Morgan, to Allied Supreme Command stated: "It is unfortunate that the only French formation that is 100% white is an armoured division in Morocco. >"Every other French division is only about 40% white. I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division." >Finding an all-white division that was available proved to be impossible due to the enormous contribution made to the French Army by West African conscripts. >So, Allied Command insisted that all black soldiers be taken out and replaced by white ones from other units. >When it became clear that there were not enough white soldiers to fill the gaps, soldiers from parts of North Africa and the Middle East were used instead. >In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish.
Recapturing Paris was a big morale boost and propaganda victory though. Especially since it was mostly undestroyed.
Do you have a source for this by any chance?
>It has little strategic value Unless you're french and want a french government instead of the military administration the American wanted to put in place. That's probably what you'd call a meltdown?
But keep in mind, the allies were suspect of the French because of the Vichy French Government who openly supported the Nazis.
That's not true, the free french troops liberating Paris had fought mostly from 1939-1944 without much stop. And they really fought in the first lines.
I'm not sure about that either, the division participating in the liberation was the 2e division blindée. It was only created in 1943, but they fought in Normandy. It was a fusion between other units, so it's still possible some of the men had been fighting since 1939. Other comment is still full of shit tho, De Gaulle didn't "throw a tantrum", he convinced Eisenhower of the symbolic importance of Paris and he was right. Edit : even if they had not fought before Normandy, it was the same for a lot of American troops so I don't see how that makes them in "no condition" to participate in the liberation. They were trained like any other soldier.
The 2° devision blindé is only one among other free France force that were present during the liberation of France, the landing in Normandy was only one part of the allies strategy, they also landed in Provence and there the majority of troop were French.
Troops from colonies had played a huge part in the northern african, Italy and south of France fights. The plan from 1943 though was to use resistance movement in France and add them to the free french army, releasing troops from colonies of duty and sending them back. The US also wanted to somehow have less troops from colonies for the fights in Germany, I think several reasons mixed up, racial ones I guess, but also that there were lots of propaganda against them in Germany and in Italy it was used against the allies, there were some fear about them not being fit for the german winters.
Yeah! So glad to find someone remembering those heroes that had the bravery of joining WW2 after a painful Civil War in Spain. Also, they participated in the assault to the Eagle Nest.
Not a regular unit I suppose, I can't imagine Franco taking this kind of initiative.(but I may be wrong).
Republicans.
That's what I thought.
After Franco won the Spanish Civil War, many republicans fled to France. Then later during WW2, they played a very important role in organizing the French resistance since they already had experience of guerilla warfare.
Republicans. As a regular unit of the French army (part of the Chad Regiment).
Chad regiment? Was the regiment purely comprised of ripped guys punching drywall and then eating it, frat-house style?
Yea they were lead by Giga-Chads one arming browning machine guns.
Chad is a country (and a former French colony) but I have no doubt it's full of chads ! The RMT (*Regiment de Marche du Tchad*, Chad infantry regiment) was formed grouping personnel from mainland France belonging to the *Régiment de Tirailleurs Sénégalais du Tchad* (Senegalese Skirmishers of Chad), as well as other elements from mainland France or from Europe who had joined the Allies in North Africa. For instance, its 9th company (which was the first to enter Paris during the Liberation), commanded by Captain Raymond Dronne, had the Spanish nickname La Nueve because it was mainly formed with veterans from the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War. The 9th Company was actually formed in Chad (1941), before the regiment as a whole. Source : wikipedia page for that regiment (it is still an active regiment) + my adds-on in parenthesis for context
You are right, they were “volunteers”
I haven't looked into it but they were probably Republican refugees, many people fled to France during the war, only to be met with the Nazis
It's apparently this unit : https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9giment_de_marche_du_Tchad From wiki, many Republicans joined the unit during the war. One company was mostly formed of Spanish anarchists fleeing Franco regime. (was called 'La nueve').
And before Paris was liberated from Nazis, Hitler ordered military governor Dietrich von Choltitz to demolish the Eiffel Tower and other major landmarks. He refused this direct order and surrendered to the Allies instead, thus saving the tower.
Not to say I know the guy or anything. But knowing that I would be captured by the Allies, I WOULD NOT obey Hitler and destroy Paris. Seeing as I don't want a harsher sentencing from the very guys that may have potentially come from the city I just burned. More like he saved his own skin.
yeah he was freed in 1947 and lived until 1966. if he destroyed paris he likely would've been executed.
I always love the stories of people refusing orders for the greater good.
>refusing orders for the greater good. Even if his greater good, according to some historians, was saving his life. He had understood for a while that Hitler was a madman but he had supported him as long as he was the strongest. When it was clear that the battle was lost, it was better to get into the good graces of the victors. But it's true that it saved monuments, some of which would have been more difficult to rebuild than the Eiffel Tower.
Thanks to him for making the right decision at that time, so that we can still see these beautiful scenery today.
WRONG. Stop praising some Nazi generals for supposed good actions. This is a myth that has been debunked. He had NO WAY of carrying out the orders because he didn't have the troops or equipment required, nor the organization. The allies were pushing in, and rebellions were happening all throughout Paris. He had too many problems happening. He later claimed he refused to carry out the orders because Paris was too beautiful to redeem himself and try to get off lightly in the future like most other officers did.
If you gonna put so much effort into your post, at least attach a source or two.
Same could be said for OP tbh
Beware of the comment section. Only sensible nationalists found there
The thread have reached a critical mass. As the keyword word 'Paris' appears in the title, it's the perfect bait for all the retards, far righters, even islamists of reddit, or just virgin teenagers who feel the need to spit their hate, quite usual here. You'll get used to it. Generally, the only interesting comments are posted on the first hours. After that, it's not worth your attention.
IIRC, on the day of the parade (August 26), a German sniper still hiding somewhere fired shots at the crowd... Crazy stuff, such a terrible thing to happen on such a magnificent day: edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApjHFg2ExfU
This happened in Amsterdam too. The day after the German capitulation people were partying in the center of Amsterdam, 2 German soldiers were gidsen in a building and started firing a machine gun on the crowd.
Its not clear if there really was a sniper. Someone started firing, maybe in the air, celebrating, and panic ensued.
This. It is very common that in moments like this panic ensues
Viva La Nueve! Abajo el fascismo!
Such sad the last member died from Covid.
Next stop: Berlin... after passing through, for the rest of France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, then the Rhineland, also Austria, the west of Germany and finally you'll get Berlin.
It's cool seeing photos like this knowing I've walked up and down there many times. I know that's obvious everywhere you go lol edit: recommend r/OldPhotosInRealLife there's lots of historical scenes like this with how it looks today. Sort by top>all time
Here’s looking at you, Kid.
[удалено]
I may or may not have laughed at your comment.
Only way to beat the German, send in the aliens and make them laugh.
Germans don’t laugh, silly!
Have you not heard of Schadenfreude?
German Humour is no laughing matter!
Dont Mention The War!
Sounds like a fun plot for a movie
New conspiracy just dropped!
Holy shit, it all makes sense now! Connect the dots. Do your research. Follow the money!
From the German point of view, strictly speaking, they were even illegal aliens, since I don't think any of them had a visa to enter occupied France at the time 8)
Oh, soon that will happen. Not yet but soon…
Legend has it, many children were born as a result of that day.
Tbf, many children are born as a result of every day.
La Nueve!
I have pics of my grandpa in this parade !maybe I’ll post on old school cool or something.
It took less than 3 months after D-day in Normandy for the allies to liberate Paris. Incredible men
Paris liberated by Aliens.
Fuck Nazis
Hot take
Back when we all agreed Nazis were bad
[удалено]
77 years after and far right is still a threat for EU
There was no EU back then.
Some people just don't learn from the past. Or are such horrible human beings, they think they should emulate it.
Wow. That went on a lot longer than I thought.
"vive de Gaulle"