Talk:Battle of France - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Director (talk | contribs) at 10:48, 16 November 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:48, 16 November 2010 by Director (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Battle of France was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
December 28, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: South Pacific / British / Canadian / Dutch / European / French / German / North America / Polish / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	Dutch military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	World War II task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

France High‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of France article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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 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 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead photograph and image censorship

French users have been deleting a photograph of German soldiers marching in Paris. (User:UltimaRatio User:Frania Wisniewska ). 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 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 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 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 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 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 carrots→ 22:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We should find a photo of tourist formations marching past the Arc. Historical perspective. --DIREKTOR 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 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 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 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

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:

English prisoners,
French General Gamelin,
French troops embarking on an British ship,
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 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 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 (Template:Lang-nl) was part of Case Yellow (Template:Lang-de), 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/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 Misplaced Pages? How's that for a suggestion? :P User:Frania Wisniewska & pals are roaming around Misplaced Pages 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 10:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the paranoid and melodramatic tone—your attempt to discredit any opposition to your contentious edits as malicious "censorship" is a deplorable tactic—your caption is factually incorrect: Paris did not "surrender," but was declared an open city 13 June when the French government moved to Bordeaux. The Armistice—i.e. the "surrender" of France, if it'll make you happy—was declared 22 June, meaning there had occurred nothing by the date of the photo that remotely fits your description. Secondly—and I hold this to be the proper context for any disinterested and honest discussion of the topic—given the organized, focused, relentless, and extremely effective campaigns, waged in the United States in particular and in English-speaking countries more generally, to besmirch, discredit, and ridicule French military history, your denunciation of other editors' "ulterior motives" are bound to come across as a little disingenuous. The Eastern Front ended with the raising of the Soviet flag over the Reichstag—an "iconic" image if I ever saw one—but the editors there apparently did not find it essential to plant that photograph in the Infobox. Albrecht (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're looking for villains in the wrong places. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My tone may be rough I admit, but I think my frustration is not without cause. Why in the world should this image be removed from Misplaced Pages?? --DIREKTOR 02:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking to Albrecht. He's looking for a conspiracy that isn't there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm a Nazi that hates the French military. I mean, this is the first time I ever discussed (or even thought about) it, but hey why not... :)

Btw, to declare an "open city" is a type of surrender, where a city surrenders without battle (quote: "abandoning all defensive efforts") - as opposed to "conventional" surrender, a term which does not imply there was no fighting. Also thank you for the history lesson, however I assure you your efforts were needless. --DIREKTOR 10:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories: