Talk:Battle of France

Reluctance of Reynard to surrender

I found a citation for that; it's a newspaper clipping: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19660921&id=AtoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QlcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5224,3352623 I am horrible at editing wiki pages, so please add.

Casualties

The number of casualties presented here for Germany is doubtful. I really put it in doubt because I guess they are much overestimated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.198.204.68 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But on what is this guess based? You just feel it couldn't be that high for an easy victory? Perhaps the victory was not all that easy then...Or can you refer to improved sources?--MWAK (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Allied Casualties - higher estimates of French and British losses, more detailed data on Belgian and Dutch losses

French losses in WW2 until June of 1940 were reported as 52,329 confirmed killed, but as many 352,314 wounded and 1,194,806 captured or missing (reported in "État récapitulatif établi rétroactivement le 10 juillet 1942"). Factual number of killed was probably at least 120,000 (at least 70,000 of those reported missing were also killed) or even more, as there were 352,314 wounded (assuming the proportion of dead : wounded was like 1 : 2,5 (1) - then French dead could number even 140,000+).

This document from French archives (SHDT 7N23) that I mentioned ("État récapitulatif établi rétroactivement le 10 juillet 1942"), dated 10 July 1942, lists French casualties from September 1939 to June 1940. And it gives those numbers that I quoted above. As French losses from September 1939 to April 1940 were close to minimal, vast majority must have been suffered in May and June of 1940

(1) Assuming the proportion of French killed to WIA was similar to that of German killed to WIA.

Now casualties of other Allies (not including captured):

British losses were ca. 5,531 - 6,000 dead (2) and 15,490 wounded = ca. 21,000 - 21,500. Belgian losses were 7,650 killed and 15,850 wounded = at least 22,450. Dutch losses were 2,890 killed and 6,898 wounded = 9,788.

Polish and maybe also Czechoslovakian losses are probably included in French losses, but I'm not fully sure..

(2) British non-combat deaths are included here too, but missing presumed dead are not included here! Also casualties after sinking Lancastria (these numbered a few thousands dead & missing) are NOT included here yet. In fact British dead and missing could number even 11 thousands, including 7 thousands on the ground and 4 thousands on Lancastria.

So we've got at least 472,500 French losses and at least 54,000 losses of French allies = ca. 526,500+ bloody losses (dead, wounded, missing presumed dead) - not including captured.

Peter558 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Photograph of weeping Frenchman

Please go here[1] for correct information on that photograph wrongly given as a Frenchman weeping while watching German troops parading on the Champs Élysées in Paris on 14 June 1940. The photograph was taken in Toulon at the time French troops were leaving for French colonies in Africa. The picture was used in the 1943 United States Army propaganda film Divide and Conquer (Why We Fight #3, @54:50) directed by Frank Capra.

Why would the Frenchwoman on the right of the weeping man be applauding victorious Germans parading?

--Frania W. (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the context of the photograph and its erroneous caption, the Frenchman was actually weeping over the departure of French war standards, but there is no doubt that the cause of his grief was the disaster in the Battle of France. Please do not use the caption as an excuse to remove the image altogether (as part of your apparent modus operandi of removing all images representing French defeat in some way). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead photograph and image censorship

This image is being repeatedly removed from the article

• French users have been deleting a photograph of German soldiers marching in Paris. (User:UltimaRatio [2] User:Frania Wisniewska [3]). This is unacceptable, and should it happen again it will have to be reported in the proper venue as POV content blanking.
• The current lead image depicts British prisoners of war at Dunkirk. British forces formed 5% of the military forces engaged in the Battle of France (316,000/6,650,000) or around 9.5% of the total Allied forces (316,000/3,300,000), so imho we can probably do better. This battle was, bay far, the most significant Axis victory of World War II, and imho the removed image best represents the catastrophic nature of the defeat and is a good candidate for the lead. It is also a very famous photograph very representative of the overall outcome of the Battle of France. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

First I'm not French, second I'm not nationalist, third your favourite picture does not picture the battle of France and is redundant with an other nazi propaganda picture in the article.UltimaRatio (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please. The picture does depict the Battle of France (10 May – 25 June 1940) - it was taken on 14 June 1940. Secondly, by your narrow "definition" of what depicts the Battle of France, the picture of prisoners of war does not do so either. You will be reported for repeated content blanking. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, do it please. Your very "helpful" contributions on the French history and your intolerable behaviour on the discussion pages will be reported too.UltimaRatio (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You do not get to decide and proclaim images "redundant", remove them and then edit-war over it. Your entire rationale is nonsensical. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis marching by the Arch of Triumph seems a very fitting image for the article's lead photo, as compared with a generic photo of some POW's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn straight Baseball, this image is famous and certainly belongs in the article mark nutley (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to being deleted entirely from the article... on a whim --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

One concern I have is the user griping about "Nazi propaganda". Maybe it was such in 1940, but now it's merely a historical fact, as the Huns were driven from France (how's that for some propaganda?) and the country is mostly in the hands of the French and the tourists now... some of whom are even German. It's an iconic photo. I don't see why the user should have a problem with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We should find a photo of tourist formations marching past the Arc. Historical perspective. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be marching rather casually; and note the guy in the background, on a bicycle, wearing a primitive version of a cyclist's helmet. Maybe they were tourists... wearing the latest Paris fashions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There are about three pictures of Nazis parading in Paris in this article (2 marching in front of the Arc de Triomphe)... Isn't it slightly redundant ? UltimaRatio (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really, the germans walked all over paris. It is kinda the iconic image of france after it`s defeat really, so the images are fine. mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised to notice this famous photo was under-represented when it is freely available - it depicts in one image an entire period of French history. I'm not so surprised after these discussions, though... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

On 26SEP10, within 6 minutes, DIREKTOR put this picture in prominence in three articles:

• Battle of France
• Arc de Triomphe
• Paris

Previous to this edit[4] by DIREKTOR on 26SEP10, there was no warring about this picture which has been in article "Battle of France" for many months.

A picture representing nazi soldiers marching by the Arc de Triomphe on 14 June 1940 does not belong as first picture of the article titled "Battle of France"; it belongs to the end of it, as the "Battle of France" did not begin with naz marching through Paris.

There are plenty of pictures available illustrating a "battle", not a march to end the show. For instance, photographs similar to those[5] [6]

Also, please note that out of 15 pictures (last count),

• 11 show Germans & German actions, including 2 of Germans marching in Paris with view of Arc de Triomphe & one of the naz-in-chief in front of Eiffel Tower;
• 4 represent:

1. English prisoners,
2. French General Gamelin,
3. French troops embarking on an British ship,
4. one crying Frenchman.

Missing:

• Towns & villages in ruin
• Stukas of the Luftwaffe diving on columns of refugees during the exodus, zeroing in on the millions of Dutch, Belgian, French people on the roads, killing an unknown number.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure those could all be subjects to be explored in the body of the article. The lead photo indicates a summary of what happened - namely, that the Nazis (temporarily) conquered Paris. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the picture during the same session (within six minutes! :) because I had just finished cropping and repairing the image with my new Photoshop CS5 - along with a very very large number of other files including images of Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles de Gaulle, as well as (finally) introducing proper French colours from the tricolour in the Free French Flag, etc., etc...

You should know, the usual method of attacking me with absurd ideological implications is to call me a "communist". I'm rather enjoying the change of pace. :D But seriously, I'm certainly not any sort of "Nazi-sympathizer" (I'm not even German), so I seriously suggest you cease opposing this image on such grounds and with such implications. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm French, so DIREKTOR, once more, will talk about the French users, nationalists… but

• Battle of France: In World War II, the Battle of France, also known as the Fall of France, was the German invasion of France and the Low Countries.
• Battle of Belgium: The Battle of Belgium or Belgian Campaign formed part of the greater Battle of France.
• Battle of the Netherlands: The Battle of the Netherlands (Dutch: Slag om Nederland) was part of Case Yellow (German: Fall Gelb), the German invasion of the Low Countries (Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) and France during World War II.

This picture is not related to the Low Countries or, more specifically, Belgium or the Netherlands.
File:British prisoners at Dunkerque, France.jpg is much more related to the campaign; the Battle of Dunkirk was the turning point of the whole campaign; I put this pict back as lead image. Alvar☮ 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-126-0347-09A, Paris, Deutsche Truppen am Arc de Triomphe.jpg can be found on Wehrmacht, Battle of France, History of France and Arc de Triomphe; isn't it too much? Alvar☮ 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As there was never a consensus for the change in the first place, I have put the photo of the English POWs back at top of article & that of the marching naz in the section where it chronologically belongs.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me suggest a solution. Why don't you create some kind of collage picture, just like in Eastern Front (World War II)'s infobox ? Naevus 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Naevus for the suggestion.

Another suggestion (mine) would be the use of a map, which gives a better idea of the evolution of a battle. i.e. what the article is about.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1940FranceBlitz.jpg

This would solve the problem of the photographs, which could then be put in their respective place.

May I also suggest that at least one picture of refugees on the roads of France, as the illustration of the 1940 Battle of France cannot be summarised with one photograph of English POWs and several of German officers & naz marching through Paris. Nothing in this article represents the civilian population. Millions from the Netherlands, Belgium & France were on the roads.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or... OR... we could NOT censor an image from Wikipedia? How's that for a suggestion? :P User:Frania Wisniewska & pals are roaming around Wikipedia with a bunch of buddies (likely recruited after a while from frWiki) trying to remove this image because it depicts French defeat. In the Battle of France. :P

I don't mind a colage if it includes the famous pic of the German parade, but I think we will all find "User:Frania & pals" is here to REMOVE this image from the lead, not to improve the images in this article. They will not accept any colage idea that includes this image.

These folks should not be allowed to get away with this. You'd have to be pretty stupid not to see through this play and its primary goal. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)