Talk:Armistice of 22 June 1940

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

Old[edit]

It was Hitler's crowning moment.

Quite. Hitler must have been the happiest person in the world at that moment; his entire life vindicated. It must have been fantastic to be him on this day. His pores must have exuded triumph, power and sexual energy. None of the other dictators or political leaders in the entire century could have had such a moment of personal triumph. Their enemies were either diffuse, imaginary, or died off-stage. I imagine Eva Braun's orifice was sore for days afterwards. Perhaps this day was one of the great cusps of history, and if Hitler's life story is treated as an epic tragedy this must be akin to the infinitesimally brief moment when King Arthur had everything lined up, just right. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that Stalin would have had a similar moment of personal triumph meeting Truman and Atlee at Potsdam im 1945 secure in the knowledge that the greatest threat to the survival of the Soviet Empire and world communism -- Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany -- had been destroyed forever and that through their own errors and misjudgements the Western Allies he dispised were powerless to prevent him from doing as he wished in Central Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.47.232 (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one would think that the robots that have taken over by this point in time would have stoopped hitler but unfortunately that was not the case. more and more people began to migrate to Robot gERMANY and that is what hitler wanted more people to come to his country = more to set his robo dogs on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.65.67 (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender Delegations[edit]

Who was in the carriage? In the Wochenau newsreel, Hitler and Keitel are named on the German side, Huntziger on the French side. Who else was there, and what were their jobs? I would be interested to know who the fat civilian was with the hat, on the French side. He looked unhappy about something (g). 24.130.15.8 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Four articles I've looked at have disagreements in the timeline in June 1940 of the armistice being signed and France surrendering. The article Timeline of World War II#June gives the following:

  • June 21: Franco-German armistice negotiations begin at Compiegne.
  • June 22: Franco-German armistice signed.
  • June 24: France officially surrenders to Germany; Franco-Italian armistice signed.

This disagrees with Armistice with France (Second Compiègne) which currently says the Armistice was signed on June 21. The article Battle of France currently states that France surrendered on June 25, as does the article Military history of France during World War II#Aftermath. I don't know which is correct, so I won't make any changes, but somebody should sort this out and find the correct dates, and then ensure that these four articles are mutually consistent. --Mathew5000 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The armistice with Germany was signed on 22 June, 18:50. In it Article 23 stipulated that it would come into force six hours after an armistice was signed with Italy. The armistice with Italy was signed on 24 June, 18:35 (19:35 in Rome). Thus at 0:35 on 25 June the French Army surrendered. So there was no armistice as opposed to a capitulation: they were two aspects of the same act.--MWAK 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article[edit]

"[[Dankmar Leffler and Klaus-Peter Schambach have written a book called "The Secret Journey in the Fourth Reich?- The Legengary Railroad Carriage of Compiegne" (Geheime Fahrt ins Vierte Reich?-Der legendaere Eisenbahnwaggon von Compiegne" Printed by Barthel-Druck Arnstadt 2006). It was subsidized by IBM Germany. But since East Germans speak Russian, and not English, as a second language, I am unaware of an English Translation. email to the authors is [email protected]"

Fall of France[edit]

The article on Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope (featured today on the front page) links to this article with the link text "Fall of France". Now it seems to me (as someone unfamiliar with detail on WWII) that although Wikipedia identifies this as an alternative name for the Battle of France (in the article of the same name), the Cunningham article is right in discursively referring to the consequent armistice as being relevant part of the Fall in that context. However, this article doesn't refer to that term at all, which is confusing when it's the subject of a link of that description. Could someone who know their stuff find an appropriate way to add to the article that this is a term which is in use in relation to the Armistice? BigBlueFish (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French military[edit]

Not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but -

This claims that a small French military was preserved. Where - in the north, or south? If in the north, did it participate in the Allied invasion four years later? Brutannica (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The armistice specified that the only exception to demobilisation and disarming would be for groups necessary for the maintenance of internal order - I guess they meant the French Gendarmerie, which, although carrying out police duties, is a military force. The relevant text (my italics and emphasis) says:
Article 4. Die französische Wehrmacht zu Lande, zu Wasser und in der Luft ist in einer noch zu bestimmenden Frist demobilzumachen und abzurüsten. Ausgenommen davon sind nur jene Verbände, die für die Aufrechterhaltung der inneren Ordnung nötig sind. Ihre Stärke und Bewaffnung bestimmen Deutschland bzw. Italien. ...
Scartboy (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS The texts of the German and Italian armistices, in German and Italian respectively, are available as a 1.2MB PDF at http://www.zaoerv.de/10_1940/10_1940_1_4_b_851_2_860_1.pdf (Link courtesy of German Wikipedia) Scartboy (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have since discovered that there was a Vichy army of about 90,000 without heavy weapons or equipment, which was based in the non-occupied part of France and was disbanded when the Vichy zone was taken over by the Germans in November 1942. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#Army_of_the_Armistice Scartboy (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy section to Wikisource request[edit]

To copy the identified section to Wikisource, we need to know that the translation is in the public domain. To do that we need details of the source of the work, and/or the details of the translator, or indication that we have an OTRS of the text from the translator. Get back to me directly if there is assistance or clarification required. billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's be on Wikisource since 13 May 2004, see s:Franco-German_Armistice. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:50pm • 07:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 03 December 2014[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Armistice at Compiègne → Armistice of 22 June 1940 – I am proposing this because the current title is basically a Wikipedian neologism. The proposed title is relatively common in the literature (and in French), but it has a drawback. The armistice did not come into effect until shortly after midnight on 25 June. Another alternative would be Franco-German armistice (1940), or without parentheses ("of 1940"). There was an earlier Franco-German armistice in 1871. Relisted -- Calidum 23:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 17:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support After a brief search for the current name, I'm willing to believe that the current title is not the common name given in the literature. Yet since the sources currently included on the page are rather sparse, do you have any more to contribute that would support a new name? Regarding the discrepancy in date— I'm not terribly worried about that; V-E day suffers from a similar problem, with two documents signed on two different days. Go with the more widely used name. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We've been over all this before. It's not a Wikipedian neologism. Don't fix what ain't bust. Andrewa (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are about 10 sources I can find via Google Books that use this term. It is not the common name. Shirer used it as a section heading, and that is probably its only claim to fame. "Armistice of 22 June 1940" is more common. Where did we have this discussion before? Srnec (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As noted in the discussion for the 1918 article, I find Armistice at Compiègne, Armistice of 22 June 1940 or Franco-German Armistice of 22 June 1940 as acceptable. The formal name (translated) of the agreement is Armistice Agreement between the German High Command of the Armed Forces and French Plenipotentiaries, Compiègne, June 22 1940 and other than Second Armistice at Compiègne all have some level of usage in publications.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the rational is false; the current title is actuallly in lots of books. Support – since the oldest of the book hits credits wikipedia, nom seems to be correct that we made up this title. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Which one is Shirer?[edit]

Who are the three people in this photo, sitting on the bench? Which one is Shirer?-71.174.185.107 (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"fermented the war"[edit]

Fomented?2A02:AA1:101E:2D87:C1AD:269A:6566:1C1 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proof???[edit]

The article says "As one of Hitler's few concessions, the French Navy was to be disarmed but not surrendered, for Hitler realized that pushing France too far could result in France fighting on from the French colonial empire. " There is no source. You can easily see why a decision would be made but there is not proof Hitler made that decision or that he did for that reason. There isn't even proof that it was a concession and not a starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmallis0n (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion needed[edit]

This article needs expansion or reorganization, in order to have sections on core features of the Armistice, such as the colonial empire, the payment of costs of occupation, and retention of the French fleet. Mathglot (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armistice_of_22_June_1940&oldid=1213759421"