Talk:Free France

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / French / World War II C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force World War II task force France C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

I've expanded this as I think the original was too Anglo-centric. Brits tend to see the Battle of France as ending at Dunkirk but that wasn't the case even at the time (eg Alanbrooke and the Canadian First Division were landed in France on 2 June). It matters because one cannot understand French bitterness against both the British and De Gaulle without the context of what happened after Dunkirk (a period that features a number of the most heroic episodes in French military history eg the Samur cavalry cadets).

Happy to discuss. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of this date, there are no section edit links. This can be caused by an archive template, which turns them off, or unbalanced tags of other types. I will check briefly, but don't have time for an extended investigation of this. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked as far back as 809824702 of 17:47, November 11, 2017, and there are no section edit links that far back. It's extremely unlikely this would not have been noticed that long, and in any case, there are plenty of edit summaries with section names generated by section edit link editing; this is almost certainly the fault of a template transcluded here, with a bug in it recently added. (I just hope it's not something I introduced, because I edit templates, but haven't made any relevant changes lately to anything that seems a likely culprit.) Can someone take a look? Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the {{Archive}} template in this edit, as analyzed and fixed by users xaosflux and Izno, with my thanks. Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Struck irrelevant/inaccurate part. Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The anthem is not a recording from the ww2 era, and the anthem came from 1909, by Jean Note and the file is even in La Marseillaise — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTTRZON (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTTTRZON: welcome to Wikipedia! I think you're talking about the audio file of the recording linked near the top of the Infobox in the right sidebar, is that right? The anthem itself, La Marseillaise, dates to 1795. That audio file contains a recording identified as having been made in 1907. The song itself is the same one that became the national anthem in 1795.

I can imagine that an older recording was chosen on purpose, in order to show the continuity of Free France with older Republican tradition, rather than select a recording from the time when the Vichy regime was in nominal control of French soil, although in reality Metropolitan France was under the boot of Nazi Germany. Choosing an earlier recording imho, is a subtle way to reject the validity of Vichy, and I find it a nice touch. If audio recording had existed in 1795, I would've chosen one recorded then. Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For god sake, why all that talk for what is basically trivia, and that 99.9 % of readers won't care about. Why not spend that energy on improving the article as such? One way of improving it would be to reduce it by about a third to a half, as it contains way too much trivia and minor or peripheral info, especially in the eye of the non-French reader. --Lubiesque (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that map in the infobox with its complicated color scheme and dates ― probably made by some editor with too much free time on his/her hands ― I can understand why so many Wikipedia contributors hate infoboxes.--Lubiesque (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new at this but the above mentioned paragraph really strike my attention for it's totally unneutral tone, and some facts (like in the liberation of Paris black troops were prevented to act when the only Free French unit present was the 2nd Armored, a unit formed by white french from all over the world) seems wrong but the thing at the end a about the last betrayal about ending colonial troop pentions, is false. They were frozen after the independences. Here you have a BBC article from 2010 about a change that make again those pentions like the one's for metropolitan France.

https://www.bbc.com/news/10617955

The whole paragraph seems based on a few pages of one book. I hope that somebody with more experience and some knowledge can clarify this.

I do agree with this editor; the racism section is completely biased and needs to be renovated. Have tagged it for POV issues. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone know if there was a unified name for the Free French land forces/army? I have been looking through the article but have found nothing to answer my question. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is written in a non-neutral and biased tone. It refers to the "final betrayal" of the soldiers and reads more like a book review or summary than an encylopedia. There are other examples throughout the whole section(eg."disheartening rejection", "valiant efforts" ) as well as collected anecdotes used to further highlight an editors viewpoint. I tried to remove the section for these reasons and got reverted but I feel that the whole section still needs to be removed due to it being unneutral and being partially irrelevant.Originalcola (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely accurate and sourced. The complaints about this section are racist and incorrect. This section should absolutely not be labeled as disputed or inaccurate. 24.101.44.56 (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been removed. While discussion on racism and racial hierarchy in the Free French is a valid topic, the section in it's current state is purely pushing POV. Johny Potts is also not exactly a historian. If the section is rewritten with multiple sources cross referencing, examining ideas that things such as the blanchiment were based on concepts of troops being able to deal with climatic conditions (which was a concept developed in World War One), the idea of De Gaulle wanting a more extensive French role in the victory rather than merely doing it because they were of 'colour' etc. then section should be re-added. Until then it is better removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FR1914 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

freeflee 45.122.44.209 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph is simply untrue. De Gaulle was still in France when the French Cabinet agreed they had to ask the Germans for an armistice. He had been conspiring with the British already, while an Under-Secretary of State. This was discovered and General Weygand issued orders for an arrest warrant for de Gaulle. The British Ambassador in France secretly aided de Gaulle to escape to England. The French army units which had been evacuated with the British at Dunkirk had in the meantime already been recalled to France, leaving tiny numbers of men in England who, essentially, deserted and did not return. The Armistice was signed on June 22, 1940 by the legitimate French Government, then situated in Bordeaux, having evacuated Paris. De Gaulle placed himself at the disposal of British Government and Churchill, who allowed him to make broadcasts to France. It was some time afterwards that the British set up the so-called "Free French" force, then a tiny unit of de Gaulle and the AWOL dissidents already mentioned. France had left the war in June 1940 and this was begrudgingly acknowedged by Britain. It was much much later that the British set up their fake French "Government-in-exile" which had no credibility whatsoever under international law and at a time when the USA still maintained full diplomatic relations with the French Government now relocated to the town of Vichy (Paris being under German military occupation). Your page reads like a British propaganda page. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:CDDE:F751:312E:83D9 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

jffevsns Vvjond gen DJ dlsbdbd 45.122.44.209 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently translating this article into the Chinese Wiki, and when I checked the references inserted, I found a lot of mistakes.

1. When quoting the books of Kim Munholland and C.P. Stacey, one author's name is put into the other's book, and vice versa.

2. Two books by Jean-François Muracciole are cited. However, the footnotes are not marked with the year, so it is impossible to figure out which book the footnotes refer to.

3. None of the footnotes follow Harvard's book citation format, and according to my inspection, many of them do not match the content to be cited.

-- Yankees from Canada (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... is also the name of the German article Stephphie (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be wrong Stephphie (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]