Talk:French Resistance/Archive 1

Archive 1

rv edits by 62.53.32.175 to last version by UkPaolo

62.53.32.175 has previously blanked this page; this time, it seems he removed much original content and replaced it with text from [1] Detritus 05:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

I would like your thoughts on cleaning this up? ComputerJoe 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This Text

Was added by an anon. It looks like it could be of use, but it at least needs to be cleaned up.--Shanel 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

-(I HOPE THIS IS NOT OUT OF PLACE :)- French resistance in 1944, summary , Later that month the German Army began a campaign of repression throughout France. This included a policy of reprisals against civilians living in towns and villages close to the scene of attacks carried out by members of the French Resistance. As one official wrote on 15th April, 1944 that the authorities "wanted to strike fear into the population and change their opinion by showing them that the evils they were suffering were the direct consequence of the existence of the marquis and that they had made the mistake of tolerating them."

On 5th June, 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower asked the BBC sent out coded messages to the resistance asking them to carry out acts of resistance during the D-day landings in order to help Allied forces establish a beachhead on the Normandy coast.

This included attacks on the occupied garrisons in the towns of Tulle and Gueret. In revenge for the French attack on the German garrison 120 men were hanged in Tulle on 9th June. Later that day another 67 were murdered in Argenton.

These armed resistance groups were able to slow down the attempt by the 2nd SS Panzer Division to get to the Normandy beaches. It was decided to carry out a revenge attack that would frighten the French people into submission. On 10th June a group of soldiers led by Major Otto Dickmann, entered Oradour-sur-Glane, a village in the Haute-Vienne region of France. He ordered the execution of more than 600 men, women and children before setting fire to the village. --164.58.68.3 14:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is mostly accurate material IMO. Ericd 19:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Review

The article covers the basics of the French Resistance movement in World War II, but it does so in an often scattered, haphazard manner. The introductory “Origins” section provides a coherent and well thought-out introduction to the topic. The article quickly degenerates, however, into a series of facts and lists, which lack a basic overall structure.

The author does not come across as trying to persuade the reader of a particular view of the Resistance. Instead he seems to be concerned with providing the basic historical facts of the movement. In the case of this article, this tactic has led to a fragmented gathering of lists (i.e. Risks Involved, List of Groups) and short paragraphs (i.e. Activities) with little connection to information preceding or following. Ironically, this does serve to highlight the rather fragmented nature of the Resistance movement itself, as the author has clearly struggled to weave a common thread through what were myriad cells operating for the most part independent of one another.

In addition to scattering random facts across the page the author fails to follow up on the facts that he does provide. He assumes familiarity with the key people involved and provides no information about who they are, or how they came to be involved with the Resistance. Given that this is an encyclopedia article in which one can click on the name of an individual and be taken to a page about that person, a full biography is not needed, but it would be nice to have some basic background information on important figures.

The “Origins” section of the article stands out as the most convincing and well-written section. Very quickly, however, it seems as if the author lost steam in the middle of the article and resorted to simple recitation of facts without any concern for a sense of narrative or even for a well flowing paper. By the end of the article one is less convinced of the validity of certain statements, owing to confusing sentence structure and grammatical errors, which suggests a certain carelessness in research and composition.

No sources are given, although there is a “further reading” list. If this is assumed to be a list of sources as well, it is adequate yet sparse. There are only two books listed, both of which are written in the not too distant past. They may well serve as authoritative sources, but it would be nice to see a few more texts used in the research as well.

Notably missing from the article is any analysis of the effectiveness of the French Resistance in World War II. There is no mention of the relative importance of the Resistance operations to the overall war effort. The reader is given no hint as to whether the movement was tactically effective or merely served to boost French moral. The author briefly mentions operations before and during D-Day, but does not indicate how big a role they played in the invasion or how important the Resistance was to the Allies.

Aside from the missing information about the effectiveness of the Resistance, the article does contain some useful, if basic, information. What it fails to do, however, is convey that information in a well thought-out, coherent manner. In general, the material is there, but it needs to be better organized.

Benz0519 19:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

quote : "On August 15th, 1941, Charles de Gaulle addressed the people of France from London."

obviously wrong. The first call for resistance from De Gaulle is named "Appel du 18 Juin" and took place on this date in 1940.

But was the Appeal of June 18 in fact a call for resistance action within France? It doesn't read that way; it reads as an appeal for military volunteers to join the Free French Forces and fight outside France. De Gaulle specifically calls on French soldiers to come to British territory and contact him. Was there another radio appeal in August 1941 where de Gaulle specifically asked for internal resistance? I don't know but I don't find that implausible. --Mathew5000 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

@Mathew The first call was effectively mainly addressed to military forces not yet seized by Germans, or located in france "empire". But it contains this seminal sentence : "Quoi qu'il arrive, la flamme de la résistance française ne doit pas s'éteindre et ne s'éteindra pas." which define the name and the spirit of a patriotic resistance movement whatever could be location or function of the listener. furthermor, on june 22, De Gaulle renew his message to french soldiers, engineers, & workers to refuse the Petain governement politic. This message end by : "j'invite tous les français qui veulent rester libres à m'écouter et a me suivre"

More factually, a simple look to the chronology shows noticeable events of resistance quite ahead of august 1941. 14 juillet 1940 : Fondation du mouvement de résistance parisien Les Amis d'Alain Fournier. 17 juillet 1940 : Parachutage du premier espion de la France Libre en Zone Occupée. 25 septembre 1940 : Premier tract du groupe du musée de l'Homme, groupe de résistants parisiens. 29 septembre 1940 : Constitution d’un groupe de résistants catholiques à Lyon sous la houlette de Emmanuel Mounier. octobre 1940 : Parution des premiers numéros des journaux de la résistance français tels Pantagruel, L'Université Libre, Notre Droit, Libre France, La Révolution française, En Captivité, L'Homme Libre. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronologie_de_la_France_pendant_la_Seconde_Guerre_mondiale_(1940-1945)

Resistance is mainly a grass root movement, many people have acted by their way, without plan or directive at the beginning. So, giving a unique birth date for all branches is not relevant. For example most part of french communist stay iddle until Barbarossa offensive. But anyway, the firt acts of retaliation against the occupants, and the creation of clandestine networks take place immediately during spring and autumn 1940. And the De Gaulle address is the first Milestone of this movement. Cordially - Philippe Denis - Paris

I edited the "Origins" part of the article to quote the passage you mention from the Appeal of June 18. I'm still curious, however, about that date of August 15, 1941. --Mathew5000 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd

It seems odd that searching for "La Résistance" goes straight to some wrestling article rather than here. Shouldn't this be the primary "La Résistance" article? --Comrade Yev 03:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is inconsistent with the page on Jean Moulin. This page claims:

the Gestapo captured resistance member René Hardy. Klaus Barbie tortured Moulin's whereabouts out of him and Moulin was arrested

However, that fact is suspect. The page on Jean Moulin claims:

René Hardy was caught and released by the Gestapo. They followed him when he came to the meeting at the doctor's house in Caluire, thus leading the Germans to Jean Moulin. Some believe that this was a deliberate act of treason; others think René Hardy was simply reckless.

Two trials were unable to determine that René Hardy was a traitor, and both concluded that he was innocent.

I don't know which is correct, but they should be consistent.--Bex 21:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre never really joined a groups of resistance.Read Nathalie Sarraute opinion on Sartre " he just wrote one or two papers" on Vichy with friends and never publish the documents in the underground !

Sartre is not considered even nearly as a resistant, except maybe in the US where he was famous for describing the Liberation in Combat newspaper and was hailed as a hero. He is actually considered in France as one of the worst example of people jumping in the wagon at day D+1. Actually this article deserves the neutrality flag because it conveys so much the uneducated American view on the French resistance, with a clear "romantic" side.200.199.23.121 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Epstein- I added his name and surname because he was a commander of FTP in Paris in 1943, During his command he changed tactic of FTP group in Paris. I will try to write more about him. I'm going to write a short biography of Manouchian, Marcel Langer and article about FTP-MOI. I asked about advice. My plan is that after short introduction, I am going to write about action in which took a part polishmen. I borrowed from Silesian Library in Katowice books about participation of polishmen in french resistance. If I find any information about the other nationalities I will write it too. I would like to ask if people who take a part in writing article french resistance agree on this plan. If you have any suggestions on page history of french resistance

Jean Bruller If I have good memory he wrote memories. In his memories he wrote about his participation in resistance

Louis Aragon- AFter process of Manouchian Group he wrote poem "The red poster"

In french resistance took a part polishmen. They could be divide on five groups, 1 polishmen who settled in France in XIX century after collapsing of uprisings. 2 Polishmen from Westfalia- they were from this part of Poland who was taken by Prussia in 1795 they moved to Westfalia for work in mines and industry- who moved to France in 1919 after agreement between polish and french goverments. 3 Polish soldiers from international brigades. 4 Polishmen from Werhmacht and organisation of Todt- they were recruited to Werhmacht after annextion Wielkopolska, Kujawy, Silesia, Pomerania to germany in october 1939. 5 Soldiers from polish army which took a part in french campaign in my june 1940 and were interned by goverment of Vichy.

About books I think that good book for this article could be history of resistance which was written by Henri Michelet.

Renaming the article?

To "The legend of the French Resistance". Or possibly adding a section about how the de Gaulle goverment created this "legend"? :)

---

I'd certainly be against renaming it. I don't know if you're comment was meant to be constructive, or just another jibe at the French, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was well meant. If so, there could certainly be a place for a new entry, or a section in this one, on how the de Gaulle govt. used the romantic image of the resistance for their own ends and how a legend grew up around the resistance in order to negate some of the shame French people felt because of Vichy. However, renaming the article would suggest the resistance never existed, which is not just stupid, but also disrepecful to the thousands of French people who gave their lives fighting fascism. 217.196.239.189 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) seanjw

The cross of Lorraine

What happened to The cross of Lorraine and why? S.dedalus 06:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FFI

I am looking for a link to the FFI for the article Maurice Kriegel-Valrimont. Should I just link to this page? Or should there be a separate article explaining what FFI stands for? Also, I was going to add Kriegel-Valrimont to the list of notable resistance members. He was one of those accepting the German surrender in Paris. Would that be OK? Itsmejudith 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For FFI, see French Forces of the Interior. Maurice KV is actually one of those accepting the German surrender in Paris. I do not like at all this stupid "list of notable persons" but you may add MKV to this list. He is actually a leader of the french resistance. --EdC2 16:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

'The Memory of the Resistance - The Legendary Myth'

What, exactly, does this section mean? It's very difficult to understand. RKernan 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

German Communists

My professor was talking about the involvement of Spanish Republicans and German Communists as being important backbone of the resistance. This article seems to focus a lot on "anti-German" which... should be clarified and something about German leftist groups forced out by the Nazis should be added. 128.175.83.176 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

what did they wear

Did the french resistance have a certain outfit that they wore, because from what I know I think they wore these long coats and berets, did all French resistance groups dress this way or am I wrong? Atomic45 06:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You're so wrong : Resistance is a general name which regroup clandestine fighters. Clandestine ! It would have been so easy for the Gestapo to recognize them if they wear all the same outfit... No, definitively not: They were trying to be as normal as they could... NicDumZ ~ 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see, well I asked this question because I wish to find some information on world war two, I am trying to write a novel, and I want accurate information, look at the bottom of my talk page. Also what does clandestine mean? Atomic45 07:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

wikt:clandestine :)

I may have misused the word in my sentence; perhaps the word has a slightly different meaning in english. Here I meant underground, secret. Maquisards may have used some sort of uniforms, but others, resistants editing underground newspapers, or those helping allies soldiers to escape, or those providing intelligence to allies secret services could not afford to wear a special cloth or uniform ! Lucie Aubrac for example, was a teacher in her "public" life, trying to act as normally as she could, and in her clandestine/secret/illegal life, she was helping to edit the resistance newspaper Libération... I would suggest you to read her mémoires, Outwitting the Gestapo, translated from the French Ils partiront dans l'ivresse : It is a nice book to read, and it's about a French resistante :) . Hope it helps. NicDumZ ~ 08:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Also, for example, lets say there is this resistance group, where the members wear a red scarf and beret, thats how they identify each other, however if all resistance groups went out dressed this this way, the gestapo would immediately recognise them, right? 58.168.230.237 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no - resistance organisations, and terrorist organisations today, learned very quickly that the way to survive is to organise into small cells, so that if one of them was captured then he could not betray too many of his comrades if he was tortured; people in the same cell would know each other, but in no way would they wear anything which would identify themselves as resistants to outsiders - it would be suicidal. Members of the Resistance in one cell would not know members in another cell. For example, the UK television personality Carol Vorderman was recently shown tracing the wartime activities of her estranged father, who was in the Dutch Resistance; this was not an easy task as there are now no other people alive from his cell, so there were few records of his activities. -- Arwel (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and even in the same cell, wearing the same outfit was be dangerous : Just imagine that the gestapo had learned, by *some way*, that some resistants were wearing a red scarf and a beret... It would have been so easy for them to arrest everybody corresponding to that description... NicDumZ ~ 10:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Section is very ambiguous

In recent years some have stated that the French Resistance has not been afforded due recognition for its contribution to halting Hitler's march through France. In 1946 the Allied Forces acknowledged French heroics and declared that the resistance was not only central to diverting Hitler's forces away from an easy route across the English Channel, but also that France's reclamation of Paris ensured German forces were without a strong base during the last stages of the war.

This section should be rewritten. "Hitler's march through France" evokes 1940, a campaign in which the French Resistance did not yet exist. Perhaps "contribution to delaying the movement of German troops in reaction to the Normandy Invasion" or something along those lines would work better. Likewise, "Hitler's forces away from an easy route across the English Channel" sounds like it is implying the French Resistance prevented Germany from invading England. Finally, the German forces were without a strong base in France during the final stages of the war because the Allies (France included) pushed them out of France, not because any particular Allied power took control of Paris. De Gaulle's establishment of a stable French government after the liberation of Paris materially aided the Allied cause, but once the Germans were out of France, they would have in any case not had a "strong base" there. Comments? W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the paragraph should be re-written. Your change sounds good, but should we perhaps not replace the entire paragraph with more relevant content? The French wikipedia, which a lot of this article has been translated from, doesn't mention anything about this paragraph in its introduction. The 1946 acknowledgement is also unverifiable; I have searched for it on the internet and cannot find it anywhere other than mirror Wikipedia sites. Ta, Kitkatcrazy (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss the paragraph. If instances of French resistance effectiveness are sought, then volumes like the U.S. Army's "Breakout and Pursuit" mentions at least a few actions where the resistance actively worked with Allied forces as they liberated regions of France. I think the original concept of the paragraph was okay but as it is written it is vague and as you note includes unverifiable claims. Cheers, --W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this as well In any analysis, Eisenhower was likely over-valuing the resistance's military importance with the intent of raising its morale. A curious sentence. I'd like to know when Eisenhower made that statement. If it was after the end of the war, I doubt he intended to raise the morale of a force that no longer existed, having been either disbanded or integrated into the regular French forces. The part about "in any analysis" rankles me because it assumes we all automatically agree with the sentence, but maybe that's just me reacting to it. Cheers, --W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a really good quote, but I think it's a bit too disheartening to have in the introduction. I found a similar one online at [2] (scroll down to the highlighted sentence) - "However, as was the case with all of the European resistance and partisan forces (with the exception of Russia and the Balkans) the military importance of the French resistance was probably less great than their political and moral importance. They were an important symbol of French independence, the refusal to lie down after defeat. Their actions were probably more important after the war than during it; the memory of brave French men and women who, at a terrible cost to themselves, refused to accept the Hitler tyranny." I think an edited version of this quote along with yours should go in the Role of the Resistance in the Liberaton section. I'm still not really sure about "has not been afforded due recognition..." because I know it may have done a great deal in aiding the Allies, but I haven't found any signal saying that it has not been recognised enough. Most of its members got medals awarded to them by the President of France, and those who pass away get obituaries in major publications. What do you think? Kitkatcrazy (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The "afforded due recognition" sentence sounds more akin to a political complaint than a statement that belongs in an encyclopedia to me. Honestly, that seems like a situation that former members of the Resistance had to evaluate for themselves -- "Was I recognized for my efforts?" Likewise, the "in any analysis..." statement is POV, at the least it should be changed to "Eisenhower may have been over-valuing ...", but even that statement sounds like someone wondering in an opinion piece rather than encyclopedic statement of fact. It may be useful to consider a quote from the British official history of the Second World War: The Resistance movement in France was not only an invaluable factor in the national revival but was of immediate assistance to the Allies. Its existence depended on personal initiative, courage and self-sacrifice but its effectiveness depended mainly on the Allies' supply of arms and other equipment and on guidance which related its actions to the Overlord campaign. Without arms and explosives it could have done little damage to the enemy; without military direction it would have been of much less help to the Allies....By their damage and disruption of rail, road and telephone communications they helped to hamper the movement of German troops against the Allied lodgement, enemy re-grouping after the Allied break-out and the German retreat from France; they facilitated the Allies' rapid advance by enabling them to dispense with many normal precautions for flank protection and mopping-up; by furnishing military intelligence; and by providing in liberated areas organised groups ready to undertake static guard duties at short notice without further training....Meanwhile in the south, guerilla operations of the Maquis so weakened the German control of central and southern France that the Allies' landings in the Mediterranean were materially eased and their advance northwards to join General Eisenhower's command greatly assisted. (Victory in the West, Vol. I, pp. 573-574). I think this quote makes an important point that the comparisons to numbers of divisions miss, i.e., there were very important aspects of the Resistance that having nothing to do with military calculations, such as impact on the national outlook. Cheers, --W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Another great quote :). I think the new paragraph should go along the lines of these quotes, with the mention of the resistance's political and moral importance both during the war and for decades after. The "halting Hitler's march through France" should be replaced with "facilitated the Allies' rapid advance".. So a possible new paragraph, taking information from the third paragraph:

The French Resistance played a valuable role in facilitating the Allies' rapid advance through France following the invasion of Normandy in June 1944, by providing military intelligence on the Atlantic Wall and coordinating acts of sabotage on power, transport and telecommunications networks. It was also politically and morally important for France both during the occupation and for decades after as it allowed the country to forget the collaboration of the Vichy Regime.

Any changes you would make to it? Ta, Kitkatcrazy (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Only this, in the last part - "as it provided the country with an inspiring example that stood in marked contrast to the collaboration of the Vichy Regime." And add "and Wehrmacht dispositions" after "intelligence on the Atlantic Wall". Looks great to me. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, we can replace the paragraph with that then. The new paragraph conflicts with the one below it, so that will have to be modified aswell, I'm not sure what to though, what do you think would suit? Kitkatcrazy (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(tabbing left) - Perhaps a paragraph that closes the story of the Resistance. Something like:
After the landings in Normandy and Provence, fighters of the Resistance were organized more formally into units known as the French Forces of the Interior. Estimated to have a strength of 100,000 in June 1944, the strength of the FFI grew rapidly, doubling by July 1944, and reaching 400,000 by October 1944. Although the amalgamation of the FFI was in some cases fraught with political difficulty, it was ultimately successful and allowed France to re-establish a reasonably large army of 1.2 million men by VE Day.
I would also move the sentence "The Resistance was pulled from all layers and groups of French society, from conservative Roman Catholics (including priests), to liberals, anarchists, and communists." to the end of the first paragraph of the article as it follows "Resistance groups comprised small groups of armed men and women (referred to as the maquis when based in the countryside), publishers of underground newspapers, and escape networks that helped Allied soldiers." reasonably well. The FFI text is pulled from text I wrote for the FFI article. It is all just my suggestion, though. If you don't think the FFI information belongs there, that's fine with me. Cheers, --W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The FFI paragraph is really good :). The only minor things I would change would be "fighters of the Resistance" to "resistance combatants", and "Estimated to have a strength of 100,000 in June 1944, the strength of the FFI grew rapidly, doubling by July 1944, and reaching 400,000 by October 1944" to "Estimated to have a strength of 100,000 in June 1944, the FFI grew rapidly, doubling by the following month and reaching 400,000 in October of that year". Thanks, Kitkatcrazy (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Kitkatcrazy. At least the first three paragraphs will look better, heh. Cheers, --W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Affiche rouge.jpg

Image:Affiche rouge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"...symbol of the resistance" [sic] - image caption

The image at the top of the page is captioned: "The Croix de Lorraine, chosen by General de Gaulle as the symbol of the resistance" [lower case sic; emphasis mine]. The Cross of Lorraine page indicates that the symbol represents the Free French Forces under De Gaulle. As I lack access to Pharand (2001), the caption's source, I ask that this discrepancy be clarified, and rectified if necessary. -- Thank you, Deborahjay (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

CFD to rename Franc Tireurs category

Category:Members of the FTP has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Paris1324.jpg

The image Image:Paris1324.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resistance in Alsace and Moselle

There is nothing about resistance in Alsace and Moselle annexed. There is a specific article in french wiki : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9sistance_en_Alsace_et_en_Moselle_annex%C3%A9es —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.141.127 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

POWN "Monika" and other Polish groups

According to my books there were more than 50 thousands Poles in resistance in France. I am puzzled why they are not mentioned. After all, most of them were in independent organisation (POWN), and others in units of substantial autonomy. Any reasons for the omission? If not, I will try to add some info in next week. Szopen (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower quote

Some smart guy revert de correction that I did in the eisenhower quote, and now it's wrong again. I'll correct it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.115.93 (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is called cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia, not being a "smart guy". Too many IP editors vandalize Wiki, which is why I reverted the edit until I could verify the quote (and you are correct on the quote -- thank you for the contribution.) Suggest you get a regular user ID or at least explain IP edits on the article talk page so others know what is happening is a positive contribution. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, I understand 201.51.121.219 (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Breadth of social groups in Resistantce

Previously, the article said that "all" social, religious, class and political groups were in the Resistance. All is improper. Certainly, the pro-fascist French Popular Party was not in the range of political groups in the Resistance.Dogru144 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

resistance French Indochina

Gilbert Sabattier, divisional commander of colonial forces in Tonkin, who later became head of the French military resistance in northern Indo-China. from Cliché Online (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

References

The role of Special Operations Executive hardly mentioned in this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Executive#France

Writing SOE out of the history of the French resistance started with DeGaulle at the end of the war, but this is English language wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.208.124 (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Albert Speer Quote

The effectiveness of the French Resistance is one of the main discussion threads in above postings.

Quite revealing is Albert Speer's quote after his arrest as part of the Flensburg Government on 23 May 1945.

When questioned on his views on the French Resistance he simply replied "What French Resistance?" [3] [4]

Dwight D. Eisenhower's quote regarding "10 divisions" could be very well be explained that, both as commander-and-chief and later as president - he had a (french) ally to appease. By contrast, the occupying Germans were amazed by the level of collaboration, rather than resistance encountered in France.

HagenUK (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

HagenUK's argumentation looks specious to me. Speer had no military competence; he was an architect by training, and his remit as Minister of Armaments did not expand to occupied territories. Who do you believe, the top military mind with an overview of the situation as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, or the sycophant who caved in to Hitler repeatedly on propaganda as well as on fact? For that matter, if intent to appease is assigned to Eisenhower, doesn't intent to belittle the opposition accrue to a leading Nazi, or for that matter intent to belittle the other European forces to the British propaganda under Churchill and subsequently?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversial figures

"It is estimated that FFI killed some 2,000 Germans, while suffering the losses of about 4,000 or 5,000; further, the French losses included about 10,000 civilians killed in German reprisals and about 6,000 collaborators, victims of the French civil war"

Those numbers seem weak to me, considering the fact that the Germans lost more than 3000 KIA and the Resistance 1000 in the liberation of paris alone (and the resistance was not overly active in Paris). I have other numbers (about 7000 KIA for the Germans and 40,000 captured southwest of the Loire river only during the summer of 1944) but I've not retrieve the sources yet. Also, I think the FFIs lost between 20,000 and 30,000 killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.219.65 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you read Julian Jackson's book "Fance the Dark years", p 559, you'll see that in Marseille alone, the FFI insurrection cost 5,500 deaths to the germans.

"and the resistance was not overly active in Paris". Read the book "Paris 40-44" (2001), and you will change your mind... 85.170.18.111 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The numbers listed in the English-language article look badly underestimated. The numbers of French killed on the French-language version, even limited to the well-sourced minima, are well above those currently listed here (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9sistance_int%C3%A9rieure_fran%C3%A7aise#Bilan). I will start revising based on the proven sources, but welcome input and suggestions.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Many figures in this article are funny stupid. Classic anti-french propaganda. Check Dictionnaire historique de la Résistance et de la France libre (2006) for serious figures. 85.170.18.111 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

AGAIN, I have had to put back into the article paragraphs dealing with Douglas Porch's comments on the Resistance, including the inflated PCF figures and Eisenhower's inflation of their worth. These keep getting reverted. Porch's book, 'The French Secret Services', comments greatly on the effectiveness and mythologising of the French Resistance movement.

If you're going to revert again, please say why.

Also, changed "Ally" to "Allied" in two cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.72.3 (talk) 10:34 am, Today (UTC−4)

THANK YOU, Dublin, for finally commenting on the talk page. The problem with your previous edits is that too many comments were weasel-worded ("it has been suggested ...", etc.), are very POV, and give the strong impression of gainsaying contributions by the French resistance for the purpose of satisfying your personal opinion about the French Resistance. If you have reliable sources that question the contributions of the French resistance, then by all means introduce the material into the article and provide a reference that other editors can consult if desired. For example, you changed a line that read "The French Résistance played a significant role" to "The French Résistance is said to have played a significant role" -- that is weasel wording and it is your opinion. Try reading "Breakout and Pursuit" by Martin Blumenson -- it provides many examples of very real assistance provided by the Resistance. In another instance, you inserted the comment "However, how significant this role actually was has been disputed" without any reference to a reliable source. This kind of clever gainsaying is nothing new in Wikipedia and I can guarantee you that experienced editors will almost always revert such edits especially if they are made by an account that is only identified with an IP address -- because that is a tactic that is used constantly by editors who are pushing a POV that they are unwilling to reliably source.

Of your edits on 5 October 2011, please identify (in the article, not on this talk page) which work by Porch you are referring to, along with a page number, so that it can be sourced if desired. Finally, if you take issue with an article, it is almost always better to bring the issue up on the article's talk page first and discuss it with other editors. Trying to force changes through edit wars is a lose-lose for all parties involved. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't somebody come here and state why they were reverting the changes? I'm pretty new to dabbling with wikipedia, as I've never considered it a reliable source and as such didn't use it much.

As for a neutral point of view, I can assure you, my own is generally more neutral on the subject than the actual article, which is riddled with bias and contains some very dubious information. Being from Ireland (which had no part in WWII), I don't tend to have a political point of view on the war, but I am certainly of the opinion that the contribution from the French Resistance has been exaggerated, both during the war and after and Douglas Porch's comments are nothing new.

As stated, my additions were from Porch's book "The French Secret Services". I'll get it out again and add the lines of reference. For the time being, I have added an article in the 'San Francisco Chronicle' dealing with his book. Although, I personally dislike the term, "French Resistance Myth", the points in the article still stand.

In addition, what you consider "weasel-worded", I would consider more to the point. "...said to have played a significant role..." is much clearer (and closer to the truth) than "...played a significant role..." which is too matter of fact. How significant the resistance was, is and always has been a matter of debate among historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.76.33 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community and like all communities, it has its way of doing things. One thing that you could have done would have been to establish a regular account. Among other things, this associates a talk page with you personally, and on such talk pages newcomers are provided with useful guidelines on how to productively interact with the community. Also, as I mentioned above, editors identified solely by IP addresses are regarded with a certain amount of skepticism because there is a long history of the anonymity provided by IP addresses being used to provide cover for point-of-view pushing. As for weasel-wording, take a look at the link I provided with the term. Again, this is part of the Wiki "system", and without the system making some kind of stand on the use of such phrases, IMO there would be such rampant abuse that the value of many articles would rapidly decline. BTW, at the end of your comments on talk pages, I suggest you end the post with four "~" marks (no spaces between) -- this will leave a "signature" on the comments. If you have questions about how Wikipedia operates as a community, you may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump. Another useful resource is Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. W. B. Wilson (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to WB Wilson to invite me to this discussion. To our IP-friend, I've never read a book of Douglas Porch and had never heard of him as an authority on French History. But my sources are the masters of this subject : John M. Merriman, professor at Yale University, maybe the best living non-french expert on the modern history of France, Jean-Pierre Azéma, Henri Michel... You should know that thousands and thousands of books have been written on the French Resistance, the fact that one book claims something doesn't cancel the thousands of other books that said differently. To be more specific about your modifs : Eisenhower was not known to be particularly fond of de Gaulle, why would he have inflated numbers? Where is the proof? For the number of communists executed, there is no doubt that the communist party exaggerated but 350 is a number impossibly low : we have lists of persons executed by the nazis which are not complete but give us positive evidences that several thousands of french communists were executed. You say that you are neutral because you're Irish but I would still prefer a French historian who know what he is talking about, even if you suspect him only because of his nationality. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have one book by Porch that includes a fairly long chapter titled "The Mediterranean Road to France's Resurrection, 1940-1945". The content of this chapter indicates that Porch is not a lightweight when it comes to French military history in the Second World War; he understands many of the subtle relationships and influences that shaped the post-1940 French forces. Nor did I detect any contempt by him for the French Resistance. He discusses the Amalgamation at length and gives a fair assessment of the pros and cons of the troops drawn from Resistance ranks. I haven't seen his work "The French Secret Services" so it is difficult for me to judge the context in which he makes the comments pointed to by the IP editor. All things considered, the "Legacy" portion of the article is a good place to include contending views of historians as long as they are reliably sourced and accurately reflect their context. At the very least, Porch's contentions could be mentioned in footnotes that address the existence of widely varying views among historians. W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the article referenced by the IP editor. If Bernard Kaplan is accurately representing Porch's views in this article, then something is awry here. Blumenson's Breakout and Pursuit has several mentions of active assistance by French Resistance forces to Allied forces liberating France and these instances do not even consider the Resistance's contributions in clearing SW France with some assistance by the British SOE. I'd guess that part of the problem is with the article itself as it presents the appearance of having cherry-picked some of Porch's quotes without discussing any context he may have made them in. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty damning commentary on Porch's French Secret Services work.

Oddly enough, Porch's book mirrors the strengths and weaknesses of the French secret services themselves. He has a tendency to be uncritical of his sources, which of necessity, given the lack of official documentation, rely heavily on memoirs and journalistic accounts, but which are insufficiently corroborated by scholarly studies of the political and military background to events (for example, on the myth of the Resistance, there is no mention of secondary authorities such as Robert Paxton or Henri Rousso [pp. 262 et seq.]). This is redolent of the hearsay and unsubstantiated data collected by the domestic intelligence services, most notably the Renseignements generaux, on France's own citizens. Porch tends to use sources when they confirm his pre-conceived ideas and reject the same ones when they conflict with them (for example, pp. 204, 282, 437, 484). He has a tendency to shoot from the hip with explanations, without having fully analysed all the secondary material on the subject, such as the reasons for Mitterrand's hesitations over intervention in the Gulf War (pp. 492-93), mirroring the French services' propensity for action above analysis. In the case of the French secret services this led to the disastrous bungling in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985; in the case of Porch this leads to some rather idiosyncratic interpretations, such as the carnage at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 being largely due to French desires "to maintain control of the opium harvest" (p. 319), something not mentioned in the usual serious secondary sources, few of which Porch bothers to cite.

-- from this website review. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. It's likely that the article misrepresent the content of the book. Anyway, as the subject of French Secret Services is not primarily the French Resistance, serious additional references would be absolutely necessary for any important modification.Eleventh1 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Legacy??

Half of the section Legacy describes the épuration sauvage and the other half the films. I believe that Resistance inspired the French, let's say like War of Indepedence inspired the Americans.--GeoTrou (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Faked picture

Ww2-102.jpg is, I believe, is a photograph of actors taken after the war. Note that the men have found themselves in danger, and yet the supposed Frenchmen is gripping his submachine gun along the bolt track. His hand would no doubt be broken if he fired. This seems to be a odd mistake to be made by a hardened resistance member.65.37.28.154 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image description is : http://www.archives.gov/research/ww2/photos/images/ww2-102.jpg An American officer and a French partisan crouch behind an auto (staged photo, 1944). 111-SC-217401.. So, yes. And ? NicDumZ ~ 15:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct that the resistance fighter is incorrectly holding his Sten, there is a small number in the bottom right hand corner of the signifying as a US Signal corp number. Those numbers are subtracted onto the negative and registered with the US government. this photo is found archival registry and is listed as taken in 1944. Now if the resistance member were in a firing position I would tend to agree, however, with the signal corp number, and his not firing, I will have to disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.245.46 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

are we sure the american lieutenant isn't audie murphy? i see a resemblance.Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Role of "foreign" intelligence (SOE, SIS, OSS…) in the Résistance

Even though i am French ;) I totally agree with a previous comment: not mentioning the involvement of "foreign" intelligence services like SOE (and the SIS or the OSS) in this article is akin to rewriting history. (NB: The French article *does* have two sections on SOE and OSS, even if their role is clearly downplayed - as is the role of French BCRA, by the way). --Henri Hudson (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a start on that. It does strike me as a little odd that the SOE, MI6 or the OSS should not be mentioned at all. Along the same levels, one of my pet peeves around here is that so many historical articles do not present the topic in a chronological manner. I think that there is a problem in this article presents the Resistance as fixed and rigid when it was not. The Resistance changed and evolved as the war went on, and so to really understand the topic requires an understanding of the fluidity and evolving nature of the resistance. To put it bluntly, to pretend that situation in France in 1940 was the same in 1944 is a massive distortion of history. I like to present things in a chronological manner because it allows one to see things in context. For example, the marquis, which is one of the most famous aspects of the resistance only emerged in 1943. It is striking that the Milice was only created in 1943 to hunt down the resistance, which would suggest that before 1943 Vichy did not find such an organization necessary. Finally, I would like to suggest this article could use definitions of what is resistance. Some historians only count those engaging in combat with the Germans as resistance while others favored more a broader definition with those who hid Jews be included in the resistance. Declaration of my own bias; I favor the wider definition and I include things like writing for an underground newspaper, hiding Jews and providing intelligence to the Allies as part of the resistance, through I know that some historians do not.--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French Resistance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718144428/http://www.memoire-net.org/article.php3?id_article=98 to http://www.memoire-net.org/article.php3?id_article=98

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French Resistance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807175110/http://www.ordredelaliberation.fr/us_doc/1_1_1_1.html to http://www.ordredelaliberation.fr/us_doc/1_1_1_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Résistance" or "Resistance"

Is there a reason the article uses the French spelling about 100 times, despite the facts that 1) this is the English Wikipedia, 2) "Resistance" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and 3) the article title is "French Resistance", not "French Résistance"? Popcornduff (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It also uses "Resistance" in equal measure. Unless part of a title or quote from French, it should all be standardized to "Resistance". Loopy30 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the vote of support. I've also been doing some copy editing to remove redundant words and add some much-needed punctuation. The prose in this article is a rambling mess... Popcornduff (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

neutrality

Why is this article disputed? Stargoat 17:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Many Europeans believe that this is historical revisionism, and that the French Resistance was (a) numerically insignificant considering the huge population of France and (b) did not really achieve important victories to further the Allied cause. The lengths that the French have gone to outline the importance of this resistance movement cause suspicion of tampering with the true history of WWII. -- -=vyruss=- 03:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where is the problem did the article claim that the large majority of the French population was in the Resistance did it claim that they achieved major victories ?

Ericd 11:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ditto for me. As for the "important victories", I refer you to Crusade in Europe by general Dwight Eisenhower; if I remember well, he mentioned that the French resistance, by coordinated sabotaging of the railways and other similar actions, hampered the German army's abilities to fight back the landing in Normandy. Of course, this does not mean that they single-handedly win victory; this means they played a role, not extremely important but not insignificant either, in the direction of victory. David.Monniaux 07:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To give an idea of the role of the French resistance. The resistance destroyed 1800 railways targets before and after the D-day against 2400 destroyed by the Allied bombers. This needed less explosive than the load of a single Mosquito plane (by far not the largest bomber used by the Allied). Ericd 11:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is it comparable to other resistance movements? For instance, the Polish ZWZ-AK between January 1941 and July 30, 1944 destroyed 6 930 locomotives, damaged further 803, derailed 732 military transports, burnt or blew up 443, damaged 19 058 (not a typo!) railway cars, blew up 38 bridges... not to mention other sabotage actions (like for instance almost 5 000 damaged plane engines) and effects of open actions. Are there any exact numbers for the effects of the French resistance actions? Halibutt 12:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Very good question. David.Monniaux 21:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could offer external links would help show the actions of the French resistance in specific events and numbers. Then I think we can wrap this page up? -=vyruss=- 07:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In any case, if there are no better, precise arguments for the article being biased, I'll remove the bias tag. David.Monniaux 21:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think there's is no doubt that the Polish resistance movement was much more important that the French resistance. I think 350 000 persons vs. 100 000. However this doesnt't make this article NPOV biased IMO. Ericd 21:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some Frenchmen do tend to emphasize the resistance and belittle spread of Vichy France which has made some historians suspicious - not to mention many false resistants who have graved publicity. And they are hardly the only resistance fighters that might have misreported their feats. Personally I doubt that anobody actually kept any kind of precise count. Various groups and cells did not keep written records of their membership lest they fall into German hands, so there is no accurate numbers. For political purposes, communists claimed more martyrs in Paris than there were casualties in total.

However, I still find it hard to understand the reason for this POV tag; French resistance movements existed and comparing the damage they caused to feats of other resistance movements is not particularly relevant. Numbers of resisters in Denmark and Belgium were even smaller. Still I would not consider any of those more or less important. Polish resistance movement was definitely larger than the French one, but debating which is more important will probably cause lots of unnecessary and biased argument.

What the article does lack is references to various evaluations of stragetical importance of the French resistance.

One point; in the previous version I wrote that the term French Resistance is a name for all the resistance movements, when now the article begins "The French Resistance was the resistance movement". French Resistance was hardly a cooperative whole, despite of the contemporary and later gaullist and communist attempts to make it look like it. It was a mixmatch of various groups with their own methods and political ideologies and, in some cases, their own agendas.- Skysmith 10:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One factor is that, at least for a while, the Germans tried to "play it soft" in France, while they considered Poles to be some kind of inferior breed whose leadership was to be exterminated so that the population could be the servant of the Germans. Furthermore, initially, half of France was run by Vichy France, which, despite largely being a puppet regime, was not equivalent to direct German occupation. David.Monniaux 11:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something that confuses me when the combat record of the FFI is discussed is that their combat service after liberation is almost never mentioned. They were not simply drafted into the regular army, they formed FFI battalions and brigades that fought alongside the French regular army for months before being finally merged into regular army units. Moreover, in the months leading up to D-Day, the Allies conserved the FFI's resources deliberately so that they could be used to maximum effect in support of conventional operations. W. B. Wilson 13:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

the truth is france is overlooked especially by the british and americans. there's not a single article about the battle of the maquis, and the liberation of paris is till regarded (in germany) as well as an US vs German battle which is REVIONISM. the americans came after the battle. Paris By Night 21:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't mention a single thing that the resistance did that might be considered wrong or immoral. The morality of the French resistance is not a black and white issue yet this article makes it seem as if they did no wrong. They tortured many Germans and killed Germans sympathizer after the war. Why isn't this included?

I agree, the problem is that very few authors in main-stream historiography focus and publish on crimes by underground-fighters and partisans. Both types of activities were (and are) outlawed in international law, given that those actual-combatants do pretend to be civilians (perfidy), use civilians as human shields and invite reprisals (which were legal) from the side of the occupational forces. I actually wonder what the opinion of the French-Resistance fans is on ISIS-Partisans operating in Syria and other countries. --105.0.0.41 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

New Section

I'd suggest a new section itn the article with various historians viewpoints on the overall impact of the French Resistance. I don't think the article is POV as it stands- it just explains the French Resistance existed, a bit about what it did and how it was structured.

There is still a lot of debate about how much of an impact it had. After D-day, the resistance certainly played a role in the liberation of Paris etc. It also played and continues to play a very important psycological role for the French. It's hardly surprising the French people today want to remember the resistance more than Vichy. Maybe this also needs to be in the article.

Finally, most countries view of their own role in WW2 tends to be a bit biased. How many Americans or British people know that 80% of casualities inflicted on the Germany Army were inflicted by the Soviets?

---

We don't want to know this - like the French don't want to know that most of the French were collaborators and most of the resistance was commies.

To whoever posted the above comment, could you please put some sort of page break in. Your original post made it look like it was part of my larger post. I have to take issue with your assertion that "most" French people were collaborators. I think you'll find most French people just got on with their lives neither supporting nor fighting against the German occupation. You could argue that anything other than active resistance counts as collaboration, but that isn't the general meaning of collaboration.

Ditto with the above. By the way, the French know very well that a lot in the Résistance were Communists (following Germany's breaching the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), because the French Communist Party based a lot of its post-war aura on this. Get your facts right before commenting. David.Monniaux 01:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Urlanis, 20 000 Frenchmen died in the Resistance, while 40 to 50 thousand Frenchmen died while serving in the German army. Out of pre-war population of 40 million, the amount of resistance people killed is 0.05% . Other european resistance dead - in Poland - 33 thousand of 35 million (0.09%), in Yugoslavia - 300 thousand of 16 million (1.88%), in Albania - 29 thousand of 1 million (2.9%). As you can see, the proportion of people killed to total population in the Polish resistance is about 20 times less than in Yugoslavia and 30 times less than in Albania. The french did more to help the nazis, than they did to fight them. According to Alan Tailor - "Germans found enough fuel [in France] for the first grand campaign in Russia. Taking occupation fees from France allowed having an army of 18 million people" Ko Soi IX 16:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? 33 thousand killed in Poland? Only in Warsaw Uprising was killed between 150,000–300,000 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.68.54 (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who "Urlanis" is, but figures provided by Ian Sumner in "The French Army 1939-1945 (2)" indicate the FFI losses were 24,000 and the German service losses were 38,000. Your comment, however, misses a key aspect. The 24,000 FFI dead were volunteers; the 38,000 dead in German service were overwhelmingly drafted into German military service as a consequence of Germany declaring that Alsace and Lorraine were German territories and their citizens were therefore German and subject to service in the Wehrmacht. The figure of 18 million sounds grossly inflated -- try less than 10 million, as documented in Table One on page 254 of Volume III of Burkhard Müller-Hillebrand's Das Heer 1933-1945 (Frankfurt am Main: E. S. Mittler & Sohn, 1969). And it should not be necessary to point out that Germany's military adventures were supported by plundered resources from many nations, not just France. W. B. Wilson 13:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you are stupid, how could arrogant foreigners like you could know about underground groups that were secretly active during the german occupation. did anyone of you has ever heard about Operation Jedburgh and the french resistance in french indochina under japanese occupation? don't make me laugh you are ridiculous and fed with propaganda. wikipedia itselft is a powerfull tool of revisionsm based on a UK/US biaised view with most of its articles being translated from the english to other language and propagating the same UK/US nationalist propaganda and myth. Paris By Night 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. He isn't American or British. In fact, he happens to be from the USSR. Also, talking in that condescending tone isn't productive at all. You are making all these claims, but unlike Wilson you aren't giving any evidence. 142.151.185.196 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Myth? Many Sources?

This little paragraph casually states that "Many sources claim the notion of the French resistance, in whatever form, is mostly a post-war myth designed to cleanse the history of the French role in collaborating or acquiescing to German occupation and crimes against humanity." and cites two sources, both of which are reviews of a single book by Douglas Porch. At minimum, this is poor scholarship. This book was published in 1996. Are there other sources that argue the same thing?04:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting what this YouTuber has to say. Apparently, for most of WWII the French resistance was more keen to kill each other (competing communist, socialist and Gaulist groups) than the Germans. If there is any truth in what he says, the Germans killed about 30,000 French citizens during the occupation. So did the Resistance, killing about the same number of their "undesirable" competing groups. 82.16.59.172 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism

How come there is no mention of the word terrorism or terrorist in this article? The French resistance (as well as most other resistance movements) were terrorists by today's standards. Blowing up bridges, attacking (unarmed) supplycolumns and assassinating German soldiers are activities much similar to what's happening in Iraq right now. Terrorism is mentioned in the Partisans article (added by me), should we add something here? I could argue (though it would be OR for now) that the Maquis are little different from the Islamic Army in Iraq or similar groups. Please comment if it's worth investigating sources. Wiki1609 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you consider that terrorism is the action to terrorise a population by various actions (bombs, assassinations, threats...). in this regard, considering that the population was more worried by the occupation troops than the resistants, i would rather said that the German were terrorist as they used collective punishment on population as Oradour-sur-Glane 89.83.119.175 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally groups are termed 'terrorist' when they chose violent means to obtain their ends over non-violent alternatives, e.g., the ballot box. In democracies people who disagree with the sitting government are free to band together and organise an alternative political party. If they are popular enough to gain support they are then free to stand on their chosen policies at the next General Election. Most 'terrorist' groups in the West have little or no popular support and so instead resort to violence as a means to publicise their grievances, real or imagined. One of the requirements of a healthy democracy is that the sitting government attempts to please the various minorities, while in return the minority interests agree to acquiesce to and accept the legitimacy of the sitting government's authority. A 'terrorist' group does not accept this obligation.

In non-democracies the people generally have no non-violent alternative to removing an unpopular government or ruler. In such circumstances they are them usually termed 'freedom fighters'. This also applies to 'fake' democracies where there is only one political party that an electorate can vote for, or where their is no secret ballot, and people can be coerced into voting one particular way, i.e. for the sitting government.

People in occupied France and elsewhere had no non-violent means of removing the Nazi occupation, and so their sometimes-violent actions are not termed 'terrorism' by anyone other than the Nazis. Their (the Nazi's) justification for this was that the French Government in 1940 had signed a surrender document which specified that French personnel would lay down their arms and not continue to fight German forces.

One of the difficulties faced by French men and women in choosing whether to resist or not was that unlike the governments of other occupied countries their own government had remained in France rather than go into exile in the UK, which gave the French Government a legal legitimacy in many people's eyes that the occupation governments in Belgium, Holland, etc., did not possess.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Max Hastings's book on the Resistance: some firm ground for a new start on this article

As a scholar whose work overlaps this topic, may I suggest an impartial source, from which to make a new start on this article now that Gaullism, defunct, no longer politicizes the issue? It is peculiar to find in this article no references to the many books of the most admired and cited historian of the Second World War. Max Hastings (whom I do not know personally or have any connection with) is known for his impartiality judging WW2's mythic encounters. http://www.maxhastings.com/about/ He has even written a book on the French Resistance, which is unhelpfully named Das Reich. Read the blurb for it, and I think you will agree that here is where a more impartial article could begin to take shape. It "overturns many cherished legends about Resistance." "Das Reich is an account of the march north to Normandy in June 1944 by the 2nd SS Panzer Division – the Das Reich of the title – during which the Germans inflicted appalling atrocities on French people in reprisal for real and imagined attacks by the Resistance. Most notoriously, men of the Das Reich hanged 99 innocent hostages from the balconies of Tulle in the Correze, and massacred more than 500 people of all ages in the village of Oradour-sur-Glane. In writing the book, Max set out to explore a legendary episode from both the French and German perspectives. He interviewed many former members of the Maquis who fought the Das Reich, together with officers and soldiers of the division, some of whom had been convicted of war crimes. He met former British agents of SOE who had parachuted into France to aid the Resistance, and pieced together a little-known epic of the SAS, who targeted petrol trains destined to fuel the Das Reich’s tanks, but then fell victim to a devastating German attack. The book overturns many cherished legends about Resistance, and also paints a vivid portrait of what happened in occupied France in June 1944 from the viewpoints of both the German and French people."Profhum (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hastings is a journalist, not a historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus was that the ngrams and arguments cited were not compelling. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

---

French Resistance → French resistance – MOS:CAPS states that "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." However, an ngram search reveals that the capitalised form is only slightly ahead of the uncapped form in books and, furthermore, when we search for "French resistance was", (in an attempt to eliminate title matches) we find that "French resistance was" has a lead over "French Resistance was". There therefore seems little reason to capitalise this, and it isn't really a proper name.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support, per nom, commonname, and consistency with other articles (eg. Jewish resistance during the Holocaust, German resistance, etc.) Added benefit is that it no longer implies that the French resistance was one group. FYI, I just boldly moved Austrian Resistance to Austrian resistance—similarly, the latter has more ngrams results. If anyone objects an RM can be done. buidhe 09:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I must be seeing a different Ngram, because nothing in it suggests that capitalisation isn't the norm. Srnec (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, try this n-gram which uses the more common 'the' instead of 'was'. And per the page's External links, and per search engine searches (even using lower case). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The ngrams do not show that the title phrase is "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority" of RS. Randy's modified ngram query is, in my view, less effective than the one cited by Amakaru. "the French [Rr]esistance" occurs within the titles of works much more commonly than "French [Rr]esistance was", so it does a worse job of limiting the data to instances of the title phrase in running text. Colin M (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The article is about THE "French Resistance", not the resistance of French people._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  A complete red herring. Nobody disputes that it's about a particular resistance at a point in time, but despite that it's not routinely capitalised. Much like Civil rights movement, Rwandan genocide or any other specific events in history that are not rendered upper case on Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "French" is a qualifier attached to the basic title "[the] Resistance", a phrase which usually refers to this resistance and is a direct translation of the French "La Résistance". When referred to in this way, "Resistance" is usually capitalized. Britannica uses "The Resistance". While of course not all cases of "the Resistance" refer to this movement, I also note that the topline ngram can be revised like this, which shows that the capitalized version is more frequent than either "French Resistance" or "French resistance" ("the resistance" is not included here because it clearly could refer to other contexts). Note the spike in the 1940s. Dekimasuよ! 05:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dubious tag

I put a dubious tag on a tale included in the subsection "1944: The height of the Resistance." The notion that SOE agent Nancy Wake led an army of 7,000 marquisards is folklore. Wake wasn't even the leader of a three-person Special Operations Executive (SOE) network parachuted in to help the marquisards, and most certainly was not the leader of an army. Given the enormous length of this article the several sentences about Wake should probably be removed, or at least made less rah-rah and more factual.

In writing about SOE agents one should always be conscious of the official SOE historian M.R.D. Foot's statement that most of the extensive literature about SOE agents is worthless or about the wrong people. Caution is dictated in sourcing.

And why is the more recent talk page in the archive while this old talk page is front and center? Something weird there. Smallchief (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Keliher English archive

I discovered a great archive of French Resistance publications in English translation, that could be useful as source for this, and other Resistance-related articles. Please see Draft talk:Clandestine press of the French Resistance#Keliher English archive. Mathglot (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Way too much from Oursby and Crowley

I have nothing in particular about either of them, but the article would benefit from more diverse sources. Surely there are many on this topic. Also, *that* many citations in a row from the same book make me wonder about copyvio Elinruby (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mémorial de la France Combattante, Le Mont-Valérien - Suresnes - France - 2005.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

French Nationalist Resistance

A recent disagreement needs to be discussed; the lead of a good Wikipedia article is a summary of the content, and as such contains no information not detailed in the body, most of which, especially considering the subject of this, being properly sourced. As such, any statement in the lead MUST be accurate, and in agreement with its following content.

Were any members of the Resistance Nationalists?

This publication states that there were indeed French Nationalist Resisters (in the intro no less). If the article is currently not properly covering this apparently reliable statement well enough, the concern needs to be addressed. Since the IP editor chose to revert my reversion instead of start a discussion, I am bringing the issue to the community as a whole, as further editing by me might be (reasonably) considered aggressive. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox result field

The "result" field in the Infobox says that the result of French Resistance was, "Partial liberation of France, concurrently with the victory of the Allies".

I don't know what that means. All of France was 10% liberated? A few towns or regions were fully liberated? Either of those, which happened at the same time as a local victory by the Allies? But it says, "the victory of the Allies", but that can't mean VE day, so is it when they reached the Rhine?

Maybe "result" should just be removed, unless we can come up with something concise that makes sense here. One issue when thinking of wording, is that this is the "result" field, not the "what-did-they-do" field, so just putting in, "Local acts of sabotage, and support of Allied invasion" doesn't work, since that's not "the result". Can we really state with reliable sourcing what "the result" of French Resistance action was? I'm leaning towards just removing it, but interested in others' thoughts. Mathglot (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion makes sense. Smallchief (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion, based on a limited knowledge, is that the result of the Resistance was to generally disrupt the Nazis and assist the Allies; in this regard, and with summary style in mind, their result was that of the Allies, rendering the |result= "The Allies won \o/". I agree; without substantial citation and suitable, unequivocal rewrite, it should probably be removed. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem here, is that the wrong Infobox is on this article: it's currently using "{{Infobox military conflict}}". That's the wrong one; the Battle of Normandy is a military conflict that had a result, and World War II had a result, and even blowing up one railroad siding or hiding one paratrooper, has a result, but a division or a brigade or an army or a platoon or a Resistance cell doesn't have a "result" because they are not events or conflicts or actions, they are actors in them.

The "result" field never made sense here; I've removed it. If someone has the time and inclination, the current Infobox should be replaced with something more appropriate; perhaps {{Infobox military unit}} although the loose, decentralized operation of dispersed Resistance cells operating autonomously around the country via amorphous groups whose tasks and personnel were vaguely defined or not at all and shared as little information as possible, is very different than the highly centralized operation of a military unit with a formal chain of command, defined hierarchy of ranks and operating structure. Unless there's something better, that may be the closest template available. Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I found one that might be better: {{Infobox war faction}}. Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Note:

1. There is no requirement for any infobox; they're for convenient summary, and not necessary.
2. It is perfectly acceptable to build a custom infobox to summarise the article. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

{{Infobox militant organization}} aka {{Infobox war faction}} does look more suitable; an article describing a specific timeframe of the Irish Republican Army (1919–1922) uses it, for example. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(←) I've removed the {{Copy edit}} template; this isn't a matter for copy-editors to deal with. Copy-editing means editing copy (fixing spelling, grammar, poor word choices etc, and improving clarity and flow), not fixing technical problems. Next time, please use {{Cleanup}} or another more appropriate maintenance template if you cannot deal with the problem yourselves. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that section French Resistance#Chronology be split into a separate page called Chronology of the French Resistance. This article is getting too long and could survive on its own as a separate article; this is the longest section of this page, accounting for 120k bytes, or exactly 50% of the article. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

Also, the 1964 film "The Train" needs to be included in the section about the French Resistance in the cinema. A review can be found at http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=109515. --chainsfall 10:33 EST, 10 May 2007

This page needs review. I don't know enough about the subject to do it, but points to consider:

• Assembling into paragraphs and subtopics.
  • Done in the large, but would need some more work. David.Monniaux 03:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Needs NPOVing of the language.
• A fair assessment of the effectiveness of the Resistance - I know that they were the basis of many tales of derring-do (Nancy Wake for instance) but how much did they actually achieve in, say, ending the war sooner?

--Robert Merkel 11:18, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For whoever decides to tackle this: the book Occupation by Ian Ousby is pretty good. -- Tarquin 12:02, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See also Crusade in Europe by Dwight D. Eisenhower, I think there are mentions of the role of French Resistance. David.Monniaux 11:14, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Corrected a few grammar mistakes. -- Chrism 17:21, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Whoever updates this should probably start by reading Jackson, J: France, the dark years; 2001

I removed the "ironic" mention about Algeria and Indochina. I'm not sure it belongs here, and it was not much NPOV. David.Monniaux 03:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fourcade

I'm not up on wikipedia procedures, but there seems to be a lot mising from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance

I can provide a biog of Marie-Madeleine Fourcade [a 'Marie Fourcade' is mentioned, but with no biog] - she was my godmother. I think I have one written by my father who was her controller. He was also indirectly SIS controller of Rémy's Confrèrie Notre-Dame [it is mentioned, but not him or his boss in what I guess we would now see as the rival Gaullist BCRA, Col Passy].

Incidentally it does not mention her group [reseau], probably the largest [Arche de Nöe/Noah's Ark] about which there is a book of that name respectively in French and English.

I guess one could add to this topic for ever, but I would not want to get into the larger picture, nor would I want biographical details which are accurate significantly altered except for style.

Huge amounts of material are now available from the BCRA archive in the Archives National in Paris and the NARA in Washington.

You are welcome to add material, if you can specify sources. If you can provide details for Ms Fourcade, you could include it into the article about her, Marie Fourcade (click this red link or the one on the page to start the new article) - Skysmith 11:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Supression

I have removed from the list Simone de Beauvoir, Mathilde Carre, André Gide, Simone Weil. fr:EdC

Important Omissions

This article has two important omissions. I only find the briefest of mentions of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) which supplied arms, supplies, agents, and in some cases leadership to elements of the French Resistance. Two sections of SOE, F (French) and RF (Gaullist), sent nearly 1,000 agents into France (including many who were captured and killed by the Germans) and hundreds of planeloads of supplies, mostly dropped by parachute. SOE was vastly more important to the French Resistance than some other participants listed in the article. (Cajun Americans? Really?)

Secondly, the escape and evasion lines which helped people, especially downed allied airmen, escape German-occupied territory, get a mention only in a paragraph about the Dutch-Paris Line. The Dutch-Paris line was only one of many escape and evasion lines, several of which were of equal or greater importance. See Escape and evasion lines (World War II).

This article has already been identified as being too long, so I hesitate to contribute without deleting or transferring some of the less important sections. Any views on that? Smallchief (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

the grammar is unclear

I am working on rewording some of the material. The grammar in the article in unclearly worded. WalkingRadiance (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)