Hey, DeGaulle claimed the French saw him as Joan of Arc. The thing about being traitiors not applying becuase France and Germany have switched territories so much doesn't seem to apply. France never extended much past the Rhine (expect for when Bonaparte was in control, a Corsican), and Germany never expanded much into France(exceptions: End of Napoleonic wars, the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, I believe during the Franco-Prussian war, but not too many exception)
The only provinces that switched between the Franco-Prussian War were Alsace and parts of Lorraine, at the time known simply as Alsace-Lorraine. And in any case, this is NOT the case. The S.S. Charlemagne troops were not from that province but from parts that were indisputably France. The reason is that Alsace-Lorraine was annexed as part of Germany as soon as the Armistice was signed, and as such the Frenchmen there were considered German. Those that served in the military were not placed in the Charlemagne, but in the normal "German" parts of the German military (most who served were forced to). Thus, the Frenchmen in the S.S. Charlemagne WERE traitors. As for them wanting to "fight Communism": Yes, that was a main thing the Germans advertised. However, this doesn't really matter. These French should have realized that at the time the Russians were on their side, and that it was the Germans who laid the iron fist on French territory. The Germans were widely considered the enemy in France; so serving under the S.S. Charlemagne is simply serving under the enemy. In any case, a majority of the French in the S.S. Charlemagne WERE fascist (especially students). That's why they were so eager to help Germany fight against Russian in the first place. Look at it this way: In a future fictional war between the United States and Canada, if I fled California to join the Canadian military because I considered the Canadians to be "right" in the war, would I be a traitor? Regardless of beliefs, yes. The biggest difference between the S.S. Charlemagne troops and Benedict Arnold was that Arnold fought against his nation for money and rewards; the troops fought against their nation for beliefs. While they're totally different circumstances they both still fought against their own nation; by definition, this is treason. And before someone comes up and says that the Free French fought against their own nation by contesting Vichy, I'll say this: keep in mind that Free France was considered the de jure/true government (legality-wise) of France during the war. Vichy France was the de facto government. Thus, the conflicts between de Gaulle's government and Vichy can be likened more to the U.S. Civil War than to a Benedict Arnold case. And de Gaulle did not claim that the French saw him as Joan of Arc; he stated that he viewed himself as Joan of Arc. It's actually all part of the weird psychology that made up de Gaulle. It's much more complicated than just "he says he's this" type of thing. You'd have to have an understanding of his childhood, life, and mind. De Gaulle considered himself a modern version of Joan of Arc with tasks similar to those of Georges Clemenceau. And he wasn't far off either. See, he noticed some things about the history of France; for instance, whenever France had been in deep trouble yet managed to save itself, it was always largely remembered as the work of one person: Arc, Napoleon, Clemenceau, etc. He thought himself to be among the ranks of these. Quite honestly, he wasn't far off at all. The French DID view him as a national savior.
That is what I was saying, in response to caeno's post. He was saying how the land has been switched so much, and that is not the case. The only thing I can think of when most of France wasn't French for a long period of time was during the Hundred Year's War
Well, parts of France were still under French control. The other parts, under the English, were disputed territory claimed by both sides. The people in all this still spoke French and stuff. The difference is that one side had French troops occupying it and the other had English troops occupying it. It's kind of hard to say which one was legally correct.
I didn't make it!
who was the freanch man that said in ww1 that the peace treatty isnt it its just a peace treaty for 20 years and was off by 65 day?
Still, some people call them traitors, some don't. You don't know the reasons why they joined to fight for germany. and that germany & france changing provinces, wasn't the point of my post - more of a joke or a thought "how could someone join this and that" kind of thing.
Don't be so hasty judging other people. Of course it's easy to do that in the internet when you're anonymous person. I'm not defending them either. I'm just saying that, 'cause you don't know everything, you shouldn't judge people.
actually, I don't even care about this issue and i wonder why i even posted a reply in here :(
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
Where foreign SS wrong? Lookin back at it perhaps so, at the time... well I can understand that some joined the SS for the sake of protecting their country and the rest of Europ from communism. Those who willingly participated into warcrimes are obviously wrong thouh without a doubt.
Yay for Donitz! points out different view. Those who were from Britain, or any part not under the threat of communism or the German army, were traitors, no if, ands, or buts about it,(no unds either, you Dutchies)