Antifa and Neo Nazis Clash in Dover

[Ghatawerpya]

To be fair though, everyone was doing it

Doesn't seem like Stalin intentionally recruited children and used them as cannon fodder, in any case. Fact remains that Uncle Joe wasn't the psychopathic executioner of forty-five million.

But he was a psychopathic executioner...

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Battle for Cable Street, Part II, Dover Edition.

Considering Cable Street ended up gathering more support for Mosley, I don't really feel these two are comparable. None of these skinheads really have the tact of the BUF.

Since when did Cable Street benefit the BUF? (Not that it mattered much considering public support for the BUF was already dwindling)

[Kubra]

yeah, while more than that were content to sit back and accept travail famille patrie. It was not armed force, but a parliamentary majority that dissolved the third republic.

You wanna know why France's population was so "eager" to roll with Vichy? Well it's simple if you actually look at the context.
France had lost 1/20 of it's total population in WW1. 1/5 of it's young men from 19 to 27 years had perished in the fight. Up to 3/5 of those who survived were either mentally or physically scared. The whole east of the country were a good lot of the industries were located had been transformed into a barren wasteland. By the '40, France still hadn't recovered neither demographically nor economically and even less psychologically.

When Hitler started to stir up troubles, people simply felt that they were fucked from the start and that especially in France where the people were under the impression that they, along with Russia, were the ones who had to suffer the more from the war as they had to contain the flood of the German Army in their lands.
Then Russia unilaterally withdraw itself from it's defensive alliance and Hitler escalated the shit 'till the allies needed to declare war, a small allied offensive advancing of some miles into the German lines only to then wait for them to react; a move which was strategically good but morally devastating.
The French soldiers were powerless when faced to this drole de guerre and that especially since they felt that the English simply didn't supported them, a thing actually quite accurate, and were, literally, bombarded by German propaganda; then the Nazi counter-attack was launched in the Ardennes and shit got crazy.
As the German advance was viewed as unstoppable and the Président de la République was to shy to impose itself, the parlement managed to force him to resign and give the full-powers to Pétain, a general who was quite esteemed by the population because of it's role in the battle of Verdun.

However, Pétain may not have been able to conserve popular support nor to maintain so easily a climate of relative docility of the population if the U.K didn't played straight the trope of the "Perfide Albion" and made the horrible move to plunder the idle French navy at Mers el-Khébir, destroying six fleets and killing a thousand of so of sailor. This act was perceived as a back-stab by the public and crystallized an already strong resent against the English whose lack of support was, until then, saw as cowardice; the long rivalry between the two countries, that four decades of entente cordiale didn't managed to erase completely, being thus replaced by downright hatred.
Both the Nazis and Vichy were quick to use this event as propaganda anti-allies, a thing a good lot of the population was receptive about, and that especially when the American and British started to bomb cities in France, deliberately targeting civilians, causing more than 75 000 death for more than 550 000 tonnes of bombs being launched; making France the second most touched by allied bombing country after Germany.

tl;dr : Things are way more complicated than you try to make them sound. If people supported Vichy, it's because it was the only government who remotely cared about them and didn't neither occupied nor actively tried to kill them.

Can you name a power in the war that did not deliberately target civilians? Can we imagine a second world war in which the decimation of industry via aerial bombardment was not a tactic? A certain mindset dominated this war on both sides, of total war and victory at all costs. For whatever political drawbacks there were to actions like, as you mention, the attack on the French Navy at Mers El-Khebir, it was the result of a mindset that became necessary from the scope of the war itself. If the french population could not comprehend such, as other populations grimly did both in this war and subsequent wars, it was only as to their backwardness as compared to the other powers of the continent.

"remotely cared about them", insofar as the category "frenchman" excludes socialists, jews, or a fair number of colonial subjects. If that is not the case, it follows that yeah, the vichy regime was pretty cool on the subject of killing frenchmen.

[Al-Portug]

K?

Just making sure that was known. *shrugs* A lot of people assume I'm a communist.

The problem I have with anarchism is that leaders naturally develop in society: some people are better at some things than others. This being the case, the more skilled people would naturally have more control over their aptitudes than the less skilled. This happens by itself, without anything. This is also not bad, it leads to efficiency.

To quote Bakunin: "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker."

"In the matter of kingdoms, I refer to the authority of the king"

[Tafhan]

Antifas annoying, but at least they aren't Nazis.

[TotallyNotEvilLand]

Antifas annoying, but at least they aren't Nazis.

That's basically the most reasonable way to see it.

[Napkiraly]

] Can you name a power in the war that did not deliberately target civilians? Can we imagine a second world war in which the decimation of industry via aerial bombardment was not a tactic? A certain mindset dominated this war on both sides, of total war and victory at all costs. For whatever political drawbacks there were to actions like, as you mention, the attack on the French Navy at Mers El-Khebir, it was the result of a mindset that became necessary from the scope of the war itself. If the french population could not comprehend such, as other populations grimly did both in this war and subsequent wars, it was only as to their backwardness as compared to the other powers of the continent.

"remotely cared about them", insofar as the category "frenchman" excludes socialists, jews, or a fair number of colonial subjects. If that is not the case, it follows that yeah, the vichy regime was pretty cool on the subject of killing frenchmen.

Yeah, about Mers El-Khebir that isn't a stab in the back, that's a mindset that was popular at the time. It was viewed as necessary since the UK couldn't guarantee that the French navy wouldn't have been turned over to the Germans, by either will or force, meant the need to disable the fleet. In all honesty, if most French people cannot comprehend that, then they are incredibly naive at best. That said Aelex does get a lot right, and a bit wrong (particularly about the USSR), as to a) why France fell so quickly b) why many were willing to put up with either the German occupation or the Vichy government.

Though I will note, I do love how once again the UK is brought up as the source of all evils by once again by the avowed Gaullist.

[Aelex]

Can you name a power in the war that did not deliberately target civilians? Can we imagine a second world war in which the decimation of industry via aerial bombardment was not a tactic? A certain mindset dominated this war on both sides, of total war and victory at all costs. For whatever political drawbacks there were to actions like, as you mention, the attack on the French Navy at Mers El-Khebir, it was the result of a mindset that became necessary from the scope of the war itself. If the french population could not comprehend such, as other populations grimly did both in this war and subsequent wars, it was only as to their backwardness as compared to the other powers of the continent.

"remotely cared about them", insofar as the category "frenchman" excludes socialists, jews, or a fair number of colonial subjects. If that is not the case, it follows that yeah, the vichy regime was pretty cool on the subject of killing frenchmen.

And you fail once more to grasp the essence of my point.

Common folk never cared and will never care about the grand strategy. You could go on and on about how these moves were necessary and what not but, in the end, it will change nothing in how the "pleb" view it.

The bombardments that are depriving you of your job at the local factory, destroying your house and killing your children, spouse and parents were not seen as any less wrong just because it was your "allies", the same one who left you to die when the fight was needed, who were doing it.

Because, if I'm plundering your town, burning your ground and killing your family; even if it's for your "own good", I doubt you'll be able or even want to see the bigger picture.

That's why the "plebs", the silencious mass, are eager to either passively or actively suport the people who're pretending to have their interests in mind. Because for them, there are no differences between those who try to kill them and even a fake protector is better than none.

So, no. No "backwardness" was involved, just mere cynicism and to some point egoism.

[Aelex]

Yeah, about Mers El-Khebir that isn't a stab in the back, that's a mindset that was popular at the time. It was viewed as necessary since the UK couldn't guarantee that the French navy wouldn't have been turned over to the Germans, by either will or force, meant the need to disable the fleet. In all honesty, if most French people cannot comprehend that, then they are incredibly naive at best. That said Aelex does get a lot right, and a bit wrong (particularly about the USSR), as to a) why France fell so quickly b) why many were willing to put up with either the German occupation or the Vichy government.

Though I will note, I do love how once again the UK is brought up as the source of all evils by once again by the avowed Gaullist.

It may not have made it clear enough but I said that El-Khébir was "perceived" by the population to be a betrayal at the time, not that I actually thought it was really one.
I would say that it was more the fault of tensions and incomprehension from both sides and that it was, if not the best, at least the less worst move to do in this situation.

And I'm not trying to make the U.K the Devil neither; I'm just acknowledging the wrongs that it did.
The U.K also made a lot, a damn lot in fact, for France and I'm not in any way trying to downplay it but it's just that it wasn't relevant to the point I was making.

If anything, I would say that it's rather the U.S that I would see as more "bad" for it's petty behaviour and tentatives of puppeting.

[Kubra]

Can you name a power in the war that did not deliberately target civilians? Can we imagine a second world war in which the decimation of industry via aerial bombardment was not a tactic? A certain mindset dominated this war on both sides, of total war and victory at all costs. For whatever political drawbacks there were to actions like, as you mention, the attack on the French Navy at Mers El-Khebir, it was the result of a mindset that became necessary from the scope of the war itself. If the french population could not comprehend such, as other populations grimly did both in this war and subsequent wars, it was only as to their backwardness as compared to the other powers of the continent.

"remotely cared about them", insofar as the category "frenchman" excludes socialists, jews, or a fair number of colonial subjects. If that is not the case, it follows that yeah, the vichy regime was pretty cool on the subject of killing frenchmen.

And you fail once more to grasp the essence of my point.

Common folk never cared and will never care about the grand strategy. You could go on and on about how these moves were necessary and what not but, in the end, it will change nothing in how the "pleb" view it.

The bombardments that are depriving you of your job at the local factory, destroying your house and killing your children, spouse and parents were not seen as any less wrong just because it was your "allies", the same one who left you to die when the fight was needed, who were doing it.

Because, if I'm plundering your town, burning your ground and killing your family; even if it's for your "own good", I doubt you'll be able or even want to see the bigger picture.

That's why the "plebs", the silencious mass, are eager to either passively or actively suport the people who're pretending to have their interests in mind. Because for them, there are no differences between those who try to kill them and even a fake protector is better than none.

So, no. No "backwardness" was involved, just mere cynicism and to some point egoism.

This is an insult to all the "plebs" doggedly occupying the forests of the mainland, passing intelligence to the allies in order for them to plan the bombings you mention, all while putting their families at risk of brutal reprisals. Folks can withstand a lot, given the right mindset.