Jump to content

Talk:Liberation of Paris/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This article is nonsense

The French did not liberate Paris. As Scott says, the Battle of Paris took place at Falaise. Uppity little frogs, who the hell do they think they are

this comment is nonsense, just like you. who liberated Paris then if not the french, was it you little arrogant grasshopper? you don't even have enough courage to sign your posts... Cliché Online (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

propaganda & historical distorsion

I've corrected the infobox removing the US infantry division that was in the combatant list while they came after the battle and paraded with their french allies once the capital was free. it was the french themselves who freed paris. the Allies freed france not paris. as a result the US are still regarded as the liberator and the french are overlooked, this is false version of history and pure propaganda. looking in the german article what can we see? the "US vs the German" and "American victory"... my... this is a bad joke about rampant propaganda. Paris By Night 01:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

corrected the WWII article, there was a mere undetailed line about the event... and added the famous US parade here, where it belongs. Paris By Night 01:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Decisive French victory" eh? Interesting"

yes pal, just like in the Hundred Years War, the Siege of Yorktown and the Battle of Austerlitz, and they kicked asses in the Suez Crisis as well but since you have been educated watching the Simpsons show you might have missed it! :) Paris By Night 02:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

oh by the way, with 3200 cute germans killed, this article should deserve a bit more attention and details, since this is about the overlooked BATTLE OF PARIS ! why not becoming a good boy and working on it instead of making vandalism and posting stupid comments in the edit history?! sorry to ruin the post-2004 myth... :D Paris By Night 02:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is pure French propaganda. Yeah, Leclerc's division was the first into the city, but it simply handed the (undeserved) honor because Eisenhower was a gentleman. And it mostly just walked in. One division can't "liberate" an entire city of millions of people.
Tell me, Paris by Night, which German divisions did Leclerc defeat? Name them. How many tanks did they have? How much artillery? Where were its trenches? Which neighborhoods were destroyed in house to house fighting?
Paris was liberated at the Falais Gap, where the German army in France was destroyed, period. A quarter million German soldiers were killed in a few days. After that, the Germans simply abandoned the city to a remnant tasked with blowing it up.
There was no "Battle of Paris" outside of the brave but unwise rising of the local population. This article is nonsense. (By the way, the French kicked asses at Suez? Yeah, as if the Israelis hadn't already defeated the Egyptians completely. What next, the French won at Sedan? And stop the personal and national insults. Did anyone ever suggest that you learned your history at the the de Gaulle-Chirac School of Backstabbing?)Scott Adler 00:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with Scott Adler. The Free French could have risen up earlier - you why not? Cos they needed the Allies (AKA Britain, America & Canada) to do all the work! As Scott said, you do not liberate a city with one division.Tourskin 03:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree with Scott by the way the americans only came in paris when the battle was over... (they entered wwii only in 1941 btw... churchill supplicated them to come in time with no success) heard about von choltitz's surrender to the french Scott? seen the Liberation of Paris urban warfare? (archive video). the americans should be removed from the article's combattants lists since they were not there during the battle. the german article have the german and us as combattants? surprising? no german propaganda (pride). having the americans in this article's infobox list is just US propaganda. the whole english wikipedia is british/us propaganda, with the other languages translating their articles from the english ones (the french articles are UK/US biased). a question, why are they no WWII German Operations but all operations are US/UK in the english wikipedia er? sorry to ruin the myth guys. Cliché Online (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

german vandalism

Nonsense. Vandalism reverted

  • beware there is someone here, Kurt Leyman, who reverted my edits (here and in the german article) to false statement claiming the US fought instead of the french while they only paraded on august 29, and the infobox picture is leclerc's free french armored division. cross of lorraine and france flags can be seen in the picture's full size version. the vehicles were US-built of course (just like in the First Indochina War) hence the "white star", but it was FRENCH division, not US. the US have nothing to do with this battle, sorry to ruin the myth. for your information the free french are not in the combatant list in the overlord and the battle of bir hakem does not exist in the german wiki... twice the pride, double the fall! Paris By Night 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

a must see video

german liers

the german have removed the correction edits in their article, the correct image captions, and the video showing the actual fight was removed as "spam", they tried by all means to hide the truth which is the french fought alone the german, beat them, and that the american came after the battle and have nothing to do with THIS battle. they are so ashamed that they are lying. this is funny. Paris By Night 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is more like packing the stuff up and leaving the city without taking the french up on nasty house to house fighting. I might be misinformed, but as far as i knew there was no real 'battle' but only an uprising that prompted the german forces which were still left in the city to abonded it. Btw, why wasn't Paris blown up? I heard something about a Führerbefehl along that lines... -Deutscher Lügner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.251.253 (talk) 01:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

why paris was not destroyed? Von Choltitz refused to execute hitler's order and the french caught von choltitz in time, that's why. this is in the article. read it the part called German surrender (25 August) to get the french and german povs. Cliché Online (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor English

Large parts of this are in poor English, clearly written by someone whose first language isn't English. It needs a bit of editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.208.98 (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. I've changed the non-English word "resistants" (intended to be a plural noun, apparently meaning a member of the French resistance) in a few places to things such as "FFI member" or "French irregular", but there may be a better word or phrase to replace it, and much correction of the English as a whole is necessary. MayerG (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising?

Isn't that a bit over the top? The Polish resistance and Warsaw uprising is an affair totally different to the french resistance and the Batte of Paris. Do we have any polish here who would like to comment? I got the impression that as far as the Polish are concerned they regard the french resistance much more critical than usual espically in comparison to their own exploits (a look at the statistics of destroyed trains makes clear where this comes from). Somewun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.96.25 (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

were the polish in paris to comment what happened? antifrench propaganda ok....Cliché Online (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mills at Pantin

How do these two entries together? The same day in Pantin, a barge filled with mines exploded and destroyed the Great Windmills.[9] On 19 August he ordered the destruction of the Pantin great windmills in order to starve the population.[19] You cannot have an accident and a planned destruction at the same time, can you? - Somewun

German Surrender Section

The section on the German surrender is very unclear. There is one part that talks of both the memoirs of Dietrich von Choltitz and ______blank. I'm assuming that the 1966 film is meant to go there. It also talks about the argument over Chotitz's role in "saving" Paris, but neglects to mention his refusal to burn the city. If I new more about the subject I would edit it myself, but I do not. So, if someone has the time/knowledge, please clear it up.OlinOfTheHillPeople (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hotel Meurice or Gare Montparnasse?

The article on the surrender might be missing something out. This article sais that Choltitz made his surrender at the Hotel, but the article on Choltitz and the Gare Montparnasse says it took place inside the station. The article on the Hotel Meurice says he agreed to Leclerc's terms at the hotel. 78.149.205.64 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

White washed liberation

Why is there no mention of the Allies' insistence that the liberating French troops be all white? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.52.238 (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i think there is no such stuff in the article because no one knew it. interestingly -yet unsurprising- this french criticism comes from the british bbc... it should be added to the article though. Cliché Online (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
There was also discussion in the French press this spring which it would be good to try to reference. Awien (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

German "administration" of Paris?

Why does the opening paragraph refer to the German administration of Paris? Let's be honest with ourselves and each other. Whether we like it or not, the Germans conquered and ruled Paris (along with the rest of France). It doesn't matter that it was through a puppet government - that puppet government (the Vichy) existed at the pleasure of the German government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.18.58 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dietrich von Choltitz

"There is a controversy about von Choltitz's actual role during the battle since he is regarded in totally different way in France and Germany. In Germany, he is regarded as a humanist and a hero who saved Paris from urban warfare and destruction.[...]"

So it all comes down to: "The Germans" try to make a hero out of a bad guy and don't care about historic evidence etc. If you're able to read the article about von Choltitz in the German wikpedia, you'll see that it isn't that onesided at all. I find this part of the article rather offensive. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually at the funeral of von Coltitz many high ranking french soldiers were present. They surely wouldn´t have done that if the saw him only as the evil German, would they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.212.174.184 (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Republicans

With Raymond Dronne was la "Nueve" 9th Battalion made ntirely with Spaniards who were the first at the "Hotel de Ville". In the Resistance were Spanish Republicans refugees too.

Takima (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Republicans

With Raymond Dronne was la "Nueve" 9th Battalion made ntirely with Spaniards who were the first at the "Hotel de Ville". In the Resistance were Spanish Republicans refugees too.

Takima (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sourcing

I'm moving the following unsourced material here from the article until it can be properly sourced per WP:NOR/WP:V. The first of these two sections also needs to be rewritten, as it is written like a personal essay:

Entrance of the 2nd Armored Division and 4th US Infantry division (24–25 August)

The Allied forces traveled toward Paris on two routes. The northern column, expected to be the main effort, consisted of the bulk of the French division in the lead, some American reconnaissance and engineer troops and four battalions of the V Corps’ artillery. The southern column consisted of a French combat command, most of the U.S. cavalry, the V Corps headquarters and the 4th Infantry Division, in that order. The columns made good progress. By nightfall on the 23rd they were less than 20 miles from the capital. The northern column was beyond Rambouillet on the road to Versailles. The southern column was in similar position. Just short of their goal, however, the French met German opposition. Leclerc reached Rambouillet in the evening and learned from reconnaissance elements and French civilians that the Germans had set up a solid defensive line outside of Paris. Getting into the city would be no easy matter. Trying to speed up his advance, Leclerc changed his main effort from the northern column to the southern by sending a combat command from the northern force to the southern. His decision was unfortunate in three respects. He inadvertently chose to make his main effort at the place where the German defenses were the strongest and in the greatest depth. He put his main effort out of range of supporting artillery in the northern column. And finally, he impinged on the route of advance reserved for the 4th Infantry Division.

The division attacked at dawn on August 24. The northern column fought fiercely to gain about 15 miles. By evening, the troops had reached the Pont de Sevres, a wide bridge across the Seine. It was still intact, and a few tanks crossed the river and entered the suburb of Boulogne-Billancourt. Paris proper was less than two miles away at the Porte de St. Cloud. But the troops stayed where they were, as enthusiastic civilians swarmed over them in eager welcome, pressing flowers, kisses and wine on their liberators. The main column in the south advanced about 13 miles with great difficulty. The head of the column was still about five miles from the closest entrance, the Porte d’Orléans; seven miles from the final objective, the Panthéon; and about eight miles from the Ile de la Cité and Notre Dame, the center of the capital.

The supposed expiration of the armistice at noon on the 24th was very much on the minds of the Americans. It was incredible to them that the French were making such little progress. They seemed to be procrastinating. French troops, Bradley later said,’stumbled reluctantly through a Gallic wall as townsfolk…slowed the French advance with wine and celebration.’ To Gerow, Leclerc’s attack seemed halfhearted. Hoping to shame the French into greater effort, Gerow asked Bradley whether he could send the 4th Division into the city. Bradley was angry. How long could Choltitz wait for regular troops before destroying the capital? Bradley said he could not let the French ‘dance their way to Paris.’ He told Gerow, ‘To hell with prestige. Tell the 4th to slam on in and take the liberation.’ Gerow informed Maj. Gen. Raymond O. Barton, the 4th’s commander, and Leclerc that precedence in favor of the French no longer applied. Barton’s 4th Division was to enter the city, too.

On receipt of this information, Leclerc made one more attempt to get his troops into Paris during the night of August 24. It was impossible for him to order the northern column to continue beyond the Sevres bridge because, as the French reported, ‘liaison between the columns for all practical purposes no longer exists.’ This, too, was a mistake or an oversight by Leclerc, an error due to inexperience. So Leclerc, who was with his main effort in the south, sent a detachment of tanks and halftracks forward. This small force, under Captain Raymond Dronne, rolled along side roads and back streets, crossed the Seine by the Pont d’Austerlitz, drove along the quays on the right bank and reached the Hôtel de Ville just before midnight, August 24.

The bells of nearby Notre Dame began to ring joyously. Another church took up the refrain and then another. Soon all the churches in Paris were ringing their bells in celebration. A cascade of sound washed over the city. Not many Parisians had gone to sleep that night. The telephones had been working, and everyone knew that soldiers were in the suburbs. The bells of the churches could mean only one thing: The liberators had arrived.

French ultimatum (25 August)

On 25 August, at 10:30AM, General Pierre Billotte, commander of the First French Armored Brigade (the 2nd Armored Division's tactical group), sent an ultimatum to von Choltitz. Raoul Nordling played the role of mediator and delivered the message.


Nightscream (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


The removed portion, which was added in May 2009 by an anonymous IP, has an air of "déjà lu": underlined text is 100 per cent verbatim, the rest pretty close, taken from Martin Blumenson Breakout and Pursuit, pp. 610-614. Consequently, this would be more a case of copyright infringement than one of lack of source. The whole thing is true to the fact, it simply has to be rewritten giving Blumenson's Breakout and Pursuit as its source. Blumenson's sources are from various Corps & Divisions Operations in the ETO, memos, books, interviews, conversations, (Eisenhower, Bradley, Gerow, Barton, de Gaulle, Leclerc, Choltitz, Nordling...)

--Frania W. (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberation_of_Paris/Archive_1&oldid=851180197"