^

Well, by that token, the Nazis killed some Frenchmen, sooo...

About what?

Pretty much everything he said about DeGaulle was true.

Yeah, I'm only 10 minutes in but so far it's pretty sensible.

There's too much to even begin to point out, but it all ends as per usual with lindy rabbiting on about all sorts yet providing no sources for many of his claims.

Here's just two: The actual physical 'liberation' of Paris -was- by the Free French Forces during the Allied advance (Eisenhower intended to skip it entirely) so they and egotistical wank De Gaulle do actually have a leg to stand on with that claim.

SOE did not 'become' MI6 and were actually quite serious rivals for much of that period.

There's lots more in there, but I don't want to go off on one.

bawbag: You're correct that MI6 was formed in WW1. The SOE was the immediate predecessor of the CIA which may have been what he was thinking of. There's perhaps a comment there about how the French mythologized their resistance discounting the Allies, which upsets the UK, who mythologize their resistance discounting the US, who was too big and powerful to really care.

I am interested in the points he gets wrong if you want to go into it more. It seems that overall he's talking about the difficulty of managing irregular forces and coordinating irregular operations.

As to the Liberation of Paris: I agree he could have phrased it better as the way he described it didn't mention the Free French. However the point of describing the equipment used in the liberation of Paris was to then contrast it with De Gaulle's speech and point out that the Free French had no ability to supply, equip, and transport their forces without the allies. Which is also a fair point.

He *said* the physical liberation of Paris was done by the "Free French" forces. He pointed out that De Gaulle was an egotistical wank (your own words), and explained that the decision to march into Paris was done against the better judgement of the Allied High Command, who would have have rather just skipped it (which you also just said). So where's the problem? You just agreed with him on all three of your salient points regarding the liberation of Paris!

As for the SOE, you're only half-right. The SOE may have had some rivalries with quote-unquote "MI6" during the war, but the SOE was originally formed as an offshoot of MI6 (Section D), and, following the end of the war, was re-absorbed by its parent organization - with many of these former SOE operatives going on to form the basis for the romantic, Cold War vision of what MI6 was about (which is the thing Lloyd was getting at).


0-for-2 so far, but what else have you got?

EH, I'm disinclined to argue with someone who's permanently doing a bit. Not going further with that, you knock yourself out though. :^)

Gravidwithhate, I think in the main his issue is one of oversimplification and just straight up, clichéd english underestimation of the french role in the kinds of passive and active resistance that undermined the Vichy, greatly aided the allies and ofc hamstringed and harangued the nazi occupying forces.

eg. Charbonnages de France strikes, Provence, the assassinations, the colour plans , liberation of Brittany, Corsica, Paris, providing logistical support for the allies etc.

There's a fair few comments on the video itself that cover similar ground to where I would go further with it, suffice to say I think his arguments are full of holes but peppered with bits of the truth.

"The SOE was the immediate predecessor of the CIA"

You meant the OSS I think? I'm not as familiar with US stuff as I am with my home nation though.

Yes, you're right. It's SOE helped form OSS became CIA. I got confused.

My "bit" is listening to every side of the debate, evaluating the claims as fairly as possible, and then presenting arguments that are carefully backed by reason and evidence.

I have shown you why both of your objections are lacking. If you do not have any better ones (and I suspect you don't), then there is no need for ad hominem - just admit you were wrong about Lloyd, and try watching this video again with a more open mind.

You might find you agree with him!

"straight up, clichéd english underestimation"
- is not an argument, and is frankly a little racist.

"undermined the Vichy, greatly aided the allies and ofc hamstringed and harangued the nazi occupying forces."
- Lloyd neither denied nor underestimated any of these things. He admitted that the French resistance accomplished all of these things, then he pointed out that these things were only made possible because they had been managed and coordinated by the British military intelligence service. Unless you can show that Lloyd was *wrong* - i.e. unless you can show that the French Resistance WAS NOT a bunch of bickering, infighting, right-wing militia yahoos, and that they DIDN'T need the stoic Brits to keep them on-task, doing jobs that were actually beneficial towards the war effort - then you don't have a leg to stand on here.

You cannot support your claim that Lloyd is "underestimating" the French Resistance, when clearly, based upon the evidence, it is you who are *over*estimating the French.

haha nice try Mr EH.

DeGaulle's main purpose was as continuity for French intellectual liberalism. I think Lindy misdiagnosed DeGaulle's chief failing, which was post War, where he pushed for heavy decolonization out of an intellectual/theoretical emphasis, rather than the actual desire of the colonized, who were actually pretty happy to be part of the broader French cultural footprint. A lot of the 21st century's issues with Islamic extremism stems not from the American wars of adventure and more of generational struggle between incomplete Francophilic institutions on the Near East and Soviet push in the Brezhnev era. Americans just stepped into a beehive that neoconservatives weren't fully educated on, due to ideological disregard for non-Anglophone liberalism.

Oh and in fact, I'd also forgotten that during the same term abroad, in a separate incident, the host family had told her that in France it's considered proper etiquette to keep your hands above the table, because if they're hidden nobody else can tell if you're masturbating.

Honestly? That's kind of hot.

Every time I've been to France, the streets were filled with public drunkards. Also, they bring their dogs into supermarkets and the dogs shit on the floors.

Why go to France to have this experience?

We do that every Monday.

Meme - do you mean masturbating to war drills (football joke?), keeping hands on tables, getting fall-down drunk in public, or shitting all over the supermarket floor?

You say those things like they're somehow independent of one another!

Not for the French, I'll grant you that.

I'M JUST SO HARD FOR CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT!!!

If that's one end of the spectrum I would like to what a French libertarian wanks it too.

I admit I'm enthralled by the idea of a country so sexy that everyone is in danger of breaking into masturbation at any moment, even during a family dinner.

Sounds pretty hot. How old was the daughter?

As relayed to me, there was no reason to think it was a pass.

"FRENCH RESISTANCE IS FUTILE" would be an interesting tag but I don't see it getting much love.

Evil Homer?

Perish the thought! I'm just pointing out how easy it is for an Englishman to point fingers at Germany's next door neighbor for being invaded and having no practical recourse than a furtive resistance, when his country was spared the same fate only because it was located on an island.

In terms of being able to mount a successful assault against the Germans, the English were shit out of luck. I remember this little event called Dunkirk where the English were beaten so badly by the Germans, they expected to lose 90% of their army on the beaches, and were spared only because whatever deities watch over the English Channel always bat for Britain. The Dunkirk evacuation was a remarkable study in the improbable, where a flotilla of civilian ships helped carry English soldiers back to safety while the weather was exactly the right kind of overcast for a week to let them operate without interference.

Had the Americans not gotten involved in 1941, though, it'd've been only a matter of time before England went the way of France. Which is not to say the Nazis were unstoppable -- the Soviet Union was likely to stop them eventually -- problem is, they were coming from the opposite direction and unlikely to be of much direct help in defending England.

Looking through a lot of Sealion stuff, the German ability to invade England was grossly overestimated. Even if they somehow wiped out the air force AND navy.