Talk:Liberation of Paris

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

Background[edit]

The first sentence under "Background" needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8850:DBBB:8C8:B7F0:1399:75EE (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The title of this article is POV

it is traditional. And I actually don't agree that it shows bias. Paris definitely considered itself liberated Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive?[edit]

How is this decisive? Paris was more of a liabilty for the German army then anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben200 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many images?[edit]

When I scrolled through this article, the first thing that I noticed was that there are many small images, to a point where the article seems cluttered with them. Does anyone agree that several of the images are unnecessary and should be removed? —ems24 02:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. SilkTork *YES! 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choltitz' role[edit]

The sources used to "analyse" Choltitz' role during this battle are a joke, to say the least. I have a stack of copies from the original German war documents from the military archives in Freiburg and there is little to support the French version (as the article claims). For example, Choltitz explicitly ordered not to destroy any food "as a matter of principle" on 18 August 1944. But some poorly researched and politically motivated TV documentary seems to be a far more reliable source. Besides, it is not true that Choltitz has still an overall positive image in Germany. Recently, it has become public that he admitted to have executed Jews on the Eastern Front. But it is also true that he was in much closer contact with the German military resistance against Hitler than we had previously known. In summary, Choltitz was neither a hero nor a pure Nazi war criminal. Please see the results from Sönke Neitzel, Taping Hitler's Generals, with Choltitz' eavesdropped conversations in captivity. This Wiki article definitely needs some improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.158.10.31 (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you scan these and post a link to them here I will happily rewrite and properly document this section. 2605:A000:DFC0:5C:6DF5:185B:8D1:2F20 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the text:

In his memoir Brennt Paris? ("Is Paris Burning?"), first published in 1950, Choltitz describes himself as the saviour of Paris.[dubious – discuss] .....

Whether Choltitz "saved" Paris does not matter in his description of his historical role. The question is whether he I do not have his book, so someone who does have it can cite his perception: did he say that he made the decision that kept the German Armed forces from demolishing Paris? On this Walther Choltitz is the definitive authority. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Republicans.[edit]

Spanish Republicans from the 9 División were the first to enter in Paris on August 25th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.31.197.167 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but they were in an African colonial unit. The majority of the unit was Spanish though, it is true. Elinruby (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French expatriate/foreign involvement[edit]

It is reported tens of thousands of ethnic French, either are expatriates holding dual nationality in other countries (mainly neutral or not involved in the war) and children of French citizens overseas, participated in the Liberation of Paris. One example was Mexican-born Rene Luis Campeon, a lieutanant, was thought as the first French Free Forces person to entered the city of Paris in the Liberation process. Some of the diaspora loyal to their countryment in France came from Australia, Southern Africa and South America. They entered France in secret or in safety by international agreements from Britain although a few came through Switzerland and Spain, then to encountered the civilian Resistance whom were in contact with the exiled Free French. This is alike the numerous stories of French, British and American volunteers on both sides of the Spanish Civil War, especially the British-born George Orwell whom fought for the Spanish Republican side as a devoted socialist will later become a political novelist author. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs source Elinruby (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American involvement[edit]

I couldn't find any source for american direct involvment into this battle. Eisenhower the supreme commander of allied armies was against intervention at that time. French leaders had to disobey to launch this operation. Besides, wikipedia article for Raymond O'barton is considered lacking sources and it doesn't even say his division participated directly to fighting. 4th Infantry Division article says instead that "they gave French forces the first place in the liberation of their capital" which, to me, sounds like an euphemism to say that they let the french do the fighting.

If someone can bring sources please do. Otherwise, with no reliable sources and to prevent further vandalism like EpidemiaCorinthiana edit, removing USA flag from the infobox seems the most indicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.161 (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're French? If so, I can appreciate the difficulties in finding sources in another language; but let us give credit where it is due. The following is of import:

Although the Germans had resisted effectively on 24 August, their defenses melted away during the night as Choltitz ordered Aulock to withdraw behind the Seine. General Barton, who had assembled the 4th Division near Arpajon, selected the 12th Infantry--which was closest to Paris and had lost over 1,000 casualties while attached to the 30th Division at Mortain and needed a boost to morale--to lead the division into Paris on 25 August. Motorized, the regiment started to take the road through Athis-Mons and Villeneuve-le-Roi, but gunfire from the east bank of the Seine deflected the movement away from the river. Without encountering resistance, the troops, screened by the 102d Cavalry Group, reached Notre Dame cathedral before noon, 25 August, "the only check . . . being the enormous crowd of Parisians in the streets welcoming the troops." Units of the regiment occupied the railroad stations of Austerlitz, Lyon, and Vincennes, and reconnaissance elements pushed northeast and east to the outskirts of the city. (Map 18)
While American troops secured the eastern half of Paris, the French took the western part. Langlade's command advanced to the Arc de Triomphe, Billotte's to Place du Châtelet, the spearheads of both columns meeting later at Rond Point des Champs Elysées. Dio's troops, split into two task forces, moved to the Ecole Militaire and to the Palais Bourbon. Several sharp engagements took place with Germans entrenched in public buildings, some of them of great historic value--Luxembourg, Quai d'Orsay, Palais Bourbon, Hôtel des Invalides, and Ecole Militaire among others. About two thousand Germans remained in the Bois de Boulogne. To avoid a fanatic last-ditch struggle that might irreparably damage the city, Choltitz' formal surrender was necessary. Though Nordling presented him with an ultimatum from Billotte, Choltitz refused to capitulate.

Note the 12th Infantry and the 102nd Cavalry were U.S. Army units. This text can be found at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Breakout/USA-E-Breakout-29.html .
W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"to me, sounds like an euphemism to say that they let the french do the fighting."" The opposite is more nearly true. US units made the liberation possible even in the narrow sense of who was doing the fighting during August (never mind the whole Normandy campaign). The 2eme DB was allowed to enter Paris first because Eisenhower was enough of a diplomat to see that it was necessary. Otherwise US units could easily have entered first. The 2eme DB partied their way into Paris. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a comment more than two years since last one... It breaks my heart to see how the participation of the 4th US Infantry Division in the liberation of Paris has been practically eliminated, while all the glory has been given to the French 2nd Armored Division. Necessity that liberating Paris be done by the French, because of political implication of a Communist takeover in Paris, and French pride, was finally pounded into Eisenhower's head, who, on August 22 gave the order for Leclerc's division to head for Paris. However, in case things went wrong, the US 4th ID was to be on the right flank of Lecler's division. I have nothing against the French & understand why Paris should have been liberated by French troops... yet, I cannot stand the way the liberation of Paris was attributed only to them while the US 4th ID had reached Notre Dame earlier in the morning. How would have the French *2e DB* ever managed to liberate Paris, even been able to land in France, had not it been incorporated into the US Armed Forces? When Leclerc's 2nd Armored Div landed on 1 August 1944 at Utah Beach, it was part of the XXth Corps that helped them disembark with their (American) equipment onto the beach. Their equipment was American, their clothing was American, their rifles were American, their jeeps, M8 Greyhound armored cars, M4 Sherman tanks were American, their rations were American, even Lecler's Piper Cub was American. They were able to zip thru Normandy because the Americans, British & Canadians had fought hard for nearly two months there. Without the Americans, the French 2nd Armored Division would have never been able to liberate Paris, for the simple reason that, alone, they would not even have been able to land in France. And it was given the go ahead even though US units of the Third Army were much closer to the French capital. It was great that they finally got the green light from Eisenhower to liberate their own capital - and that's the way it had to be - but not at the cost of forgetting or pushing aside the role of the US 4th ID. [1] pp. 606-618
--Blue Indigo (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for grammar[edit]

2605:A000:DFC0:5C:6DF5:185B:8D1:2F20 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I spent an hour going through this entry and correcting obvious grammar and spelling errors. I also separated many run-on sentences. I will not remove the marker requesting this type of clean-up unless someone else has checked my work to certify that the task is complete.[reply]

German Surrender section[edit]

It's utter nonsense. It should describe what happened at the surrender, not be a character assassination of a dead man. I cleaned up some of the ridiculous stuff, but I think it should be rewritten completely. --74.59.112.163 (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading external link[edit]

The first item under External Links may once have connected to a French page about the Liberation in Engish, but at present the link redirects to a tourist site. The link is:

But follow it and it leads you here: http://uk.france.fr/ (or to other language versions of the the same page depending on where in the world you are).

2A02:A03F:1661:2A00:2540:5123:14B0:B27C (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC) John[reply]

How about including this video of the Liberation?[edit]

I just found this 2016 uploaded video about the liberation of Paris. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_Lib%C3%A9ration_de_Paris,_1944.ogv . How about using it here? --Joobo (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Liberation of Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit2.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 26, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-08-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of Paris
Crowds line the Champs-Élysées as the French 2nd Armored Division rolls down the avenue from the Arc de Triomphe toward the Place de la Concorde on 26 August 1944, following the liberation of Paris. Ruled by Nazi Germany since the signing of the Second Compiègne Armistice in 1940, Paris was freed during a week-long struggle that pitted the French Forces of the Interior, the French 2nd Armored Division, and the United States Third Army against the German 325th Security Division. The battle ended with German General Dietrich von Choltitz surrendering to French forces. More than 1,700 French and 3,200 German soldiers were killed in the fighting.Photograph: Jack Downey
Archive – More featured pictures...
 Crisco 1492: I'd like to suggest a rewrite of the first sentence. Since a lot of people won't understand or know how to say 2e DB, and since it's unlikely the crowd was limited to Parisians, I propose something more like:
Crowds line the Champs-Élysées as vehicles of the French Second Armored Division (Deuxième division blindée) roll down the avenue from the Arc de Triomphe toward the Place de la Concorde . . .
Then at the second mention of the French Second Armored Division, lower down, add the definite article.
Hope this helps. Awien (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But two more tweaks? the Place de la Concorde; it ended --> the battle ended (to avoid ambiguity).
Btw, what time zone are you in these days, Chris? Cheers, Awien (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and made those tweaks. Revert me if there's an issue. Awien (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such precious years! Savour every moment. Awien (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Liberation of Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath section too long[edit]

This section is way too long and needs major trimming, some of it is irrelevant to the article. Instead most if should be placed (if not already done so) here or here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation or conquest?[edit]

Conquest is more neutral than liberation. Si Gam (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitaine Serge[edit]

The article refers to a "Capitaine Serge" who was responsible for betraying a group of FFI members who were shot in the Bois de Boulogne, and links the name to Jacques Desoubrie. The traitor is not named in the source given, and Desoubrie is not identified as Capitaine Serge in his article. Neither is there any mention on that page of a link between Desoubrie and the massacre in the Bois de Boulogne. In fact the only mention that I can find of a Capitaine Serge as a Gestapo informant is in the cast of "Paris brûle-t-il ?". Can anyone clarify? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. There is nothing to support that in the Sarkozy speech cited at the end of the sentence, which had been present since it had first been added by Paris By Night in this 2007 edit. The original unsourced addition of Serge's name was by Blue Indigo in this edit in April, 2019, and it was compounded by User:SRFerg in this edit in August 2022. I've removed these edits. Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberation_of_Paris&oldid=1214093873"