aussiew Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 OK - I can't seem to find this on google and it's not homework! Just a fellow Bills fan with a failing memory. I got into a debate with my beau last night regarding the liberation of Paris. He says that Patton was supposed to lead the allied troops through Paris for the victory celebration, but the French President (?) insisted that the allied troops gather outside the City and he would lead the convoy in order to save face. I didn't think that Patton was even near Paris at that time, that he was still in Germany! Does anyone know the "real" story? There's a home cooked meal, a free lawn cutting and a back rub involved in this bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 He was there - Kinda "To make a long, ghastly story short, on the 19th of August 1944, 3000 Paris flics seized the main police station; the resistance, under the umbrella name of FFI, began popping away at the enemy; on the 25th General Leclerc arrived with the French 2nd Armored Division, followed by the American General Patton and the US 4th Infantry Division; and the invaders of Paris agreed to leave without blowing the place to smithereens." Basically they were going to attempt to take Paris without using force but the civil war that was going on made Ike and Omar Bradley reconsider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 Hmmmm. Interesting. So do we now believe that the French Resistance actually liberated Paris? And not the Allied troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Hmmmm. Interesting. So do we now believe that the French Resistance actually liberated Paris? And not the Allied troops? 370680[/snapback] There's an older movie, "Is Paris Burning?" - based on the book by the late Larry Collins. http://www.allwatchers.com/Topics/Info_6515.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 OK - I can't seem to find this on google and it's not homework! Just a fellow Bills fan with a failing memory. I got into a debate with my beau last night regarding the liberation of Paris. He says that Patton was supposed to lead the allied troops through Paris for the victory celebration, but the French President (?) insisted that the allied troops gather outside the City and he would lead the convoy in order to save face. I didn't think that Patton was even near Paris at that time, that he was still in Germany! Does anyone know the "real" story? There's a home cooked meal, a free lawn cutting and a back rub involved in this bet. 370565[/snapback] For the one who gives you the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 For the one who gives you the answer? That was the bet - but I'll share So here's the clincher. Did the French Government arrange with the Allies to have Patton leave the area so that De Gaulle could lead the troops in the Victory parade? My beau says that the French wanted to take the credit for driving the Germans out and that's why they didn't want an American (Patton) leading the parade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Hmmmm. Interesting. So do we now believe that the French Resistance actually liberated Paris? And not the Allied troops? 370680[/snapback] Basically, the French started making lots of noise in Paris, the German general in charge (I forget his name) decided that between the Resistance and advancing Allied armies he couldn't accomplish anything useful, so he basically pulled out (and violated his orders from Hitler to raze the city). As I recall, there was no real German presence for the 48-72 hours before the Free French 2nd Armored marched in. So yes, one could reasonably say that the Maquis liberated Paris. As for Patton's role...the 2nd FF Armored and US 4th Infantry division were subordinate to Hodges' First Army, not Patton's Third. As far as I know, Patton was never intended or ordered to liberate Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 That was the bet - but I'll share So here's the clincher. Did the French Government arrange with the Allies to have Patton leave the area so that De Gaulle could lead the troops in the Victory parade? My beau says that the French wanted to take the credit for driving the Germans out and that's why they didn't want an American (Patton) leading the parade. 370705[/snapback] Taking "Patton" out of that: yes, the French were given the pride of liberating Paris. But "did the French Government arrange"? Not that I've ever heard of. From everything I've ever read, it was a command decision by either Ike or Hodges to lead with the 2nd FF Armored into Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 Thanks guys - looks like with your help and assorted reference material, I might just win my home cooked meal, freshly cut lawn and back rub after all. I owe you one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 The populace (not just the resistance, but gendarmie, workers, anyone with a gun hidden away anywhere) did have an uprising (similar to what happened in Warsaw) upon the approach of the allies. There is some footage of it around. There was some fighting in the liberation by the Free French (after all there were some pretty fanatical types in the German military/paramilitary forces), but the humane decision by the German commander von Choltitz not to destroy Paris & surrender against his orders saved Paris from widespread & serious damage. Some 1500 members of the uprising were killed in the fighting, so it was not merely a parade. de Gaulle led the Free French as the liberators and this was a political decision whereby the generals on the ground would have been advised to let the Free French have this honour, there were also practical benefits as well. If de Gaulle had been in charge of the initial defence of France Hitler would most likely have been stopped in 1940. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 de Gaulle led the Free French as the liberators and this was a political decision whereby the generals on the ground would have been advised to let the Free French have this honour, there were also practical benefits as well. If de Gaulle had been in charge of the initial defence of France Hitler would most likely have been stopped in 1940. 371027[/snapback] Except that de Gaulle was FAR too junior for such a post, and the French Army suffered from a severe internal rot that no general was likely to address in less than five or ten peacetime years. The French in 1940 had severe problems that went well beyond leadership and doctrine...the only two things that de Gaulle really could have influenced in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 The populace (not just the resistance, but gendarmie, workers, anyone with a gun hidden away anywhere) did have an uprising (similar to what happened in Warsaw) upon the approach of the allies. There is some footage of it around. There was some fighting in the liberation by the Free French (after all there were some pretty fanatical types in the German military/paramilitary forces), but the humane decision by the German commander von Choltitz not to destroy Paris & surrender against his orders saved Paris from widespread & serious damage. Some 1500 members of the uprising were killed in the fighting, so it was not merely a parade. de Gaulle led the Free French as the liberators and this was a political decision whereby the generals on the ground would have been advised to let the Free French have this honour, there were also practical benefits as well. If de Gaulle had been in charge of the initial defence of France Hitler would most likely have been stopped in 1940. 371027[/snapback] I give my boy Guederian more credit than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 I give my boy Guederian more credit than that. Who's Guederian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Who's Guederian? 371269[/snapback] Think Panzers / "blitzkrieg". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Who's Guederian? 371269[/snapback] He was the basic designer of the Wermacht concept of "Blitzkrieg", or lightning war. He was the leader of the armored/mobile movements against the static French defenses in 1940. France actually had more and better tanks, but had no real tactical concept of how to use them. Guedarian's tactics and strategy had the Germans deep behind the Maginot line, and exploiting their penetrations before the French knew what hit them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Think Panzers / "blitzkrieg". 371272[/snapback] You, me and Tom have to get together sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 You, me and Tom have to get together sometime. 371275[/snapback] My head would explode from the data upload. If you guys are PhD-level in military history, I'm somewhere around junior high (and sketchy on anything post-Great War, at that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 He was the basic designer of the Wermacht concept of "Blitzkrieg", or lightning war. He was the leader of the armored/mobile movements against the static French defenses in 1940. France actually had more and better tanks, but had no real tactical concept of how to use them. Guedarian's tactics and strategy had the Germans deep behind the Maginot line, and exploiting their penetrations before the French knew what hit them. 371274[/snapback] Guderian's operational theory. Rommel's tactics, and Manstein's strategy. And Guderian didn't do anything more than synthesize the theories of Liddel-Hart, Fuller, Tukachevsky, etc. Which is very important, don't get me wrong...he put into practice what the others merely conjectured. But he didn't invent the mobile operational art any more than Steve Jobs invented the home computer or Bill Gates the operating system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Guderian's operational theory. Rommel's tactics, and Manstein's strategy. And Guderian didn't do anything more than synthesize the theories of Liddel-Hart, Fuller, Tukachevsky, etc. Which is very important, don't get me wrong...he put into practice what the others merely conjectured. But he didn't invent the mobile operational art any more than Steve Jobs invented the home computer or Bill Gates the operating system... 371301[/snapback] Oh, don't fugging start...Geek. There are always those with the theories, but it takes a rounded visionary that's been in the field to practicalize them. Rommel was a student, not a teacher. Next thing, you will be telling me John Holland was the secret behind Doenitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Dorks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts