History is written by the Victors!

[Firefly]

Is this true in your opinion? I for one believe that its 90% true and offer the following example:

1. The 1 st US Civil War was initiated by 13 Colonies who sought to break away from Britian as they thought themselves to be economically stifled and did not receive the appropriate representation. After a number of years they won their cause and declared themselves free and independent.

History as written by them shows this as a war of independance from tyranny, when in reality it was an insurgent civil war.

2. The 2nd US Civil War took place when 13 states (or parts therof) declared themselves independent as they thought they were being economically stifled and were not being represented, these were called Rebels by the remainder and forcibly returned to the Union.

History as written by the victors, portrayed this as a just act and brought rebels who sought to break away into line.

Without getting into the morals of slavery (which wasnt even an issue for US politicians in 1860) what was the diffrence in the 2 acts other than history is written by the victor?

Id be interested in some thoughts as I have a great enthusiasm for this period in world history.

[pdf27]

Id be interested in some thoughts as I have a great enthusiasm for this period in world history.
Only thought that really springs to mind is that in the case of the revolutionary war, the US colonies had no democratic representation in the place they were ultimately ruled from (London) while in the case of the US Civil War, they did (in Washington and then Richmond). Not sure if that makes one better or worse though.

[Cactus]

More than likely I think history is mostly written by the victors. I assume had my textbook been written by a Nazi or something of that sort it would explain how Hitler should have won and how bad the Allies were. I like to read material written by the losers as well though I like, if possible to hear from both sides of the fence.

[LargeBrew]

I have a couple of friends in Japan who are both teachers ( Ito and Atzuko) I spent some time with them in Tokyo back in the early 90's and was supprised that though they could talk volumes on the bombing of Japan they had no knowledge of the treatment of allied prisoners or the occupation of China.
Japans expansionist policy is glossed over and their defeat is ascribed to the use of superior science ( atom bomb) rather than superior military force.
History may well be written by the victors but don't underestimate the ability of the losers slip into denile

[Gen. Sandworm]

Is this true in your opinion? I for one believe that its 90% true and offer the following example:

1. The 1 st US Civil War was initiated by 13 Colonies who sought to break away from Britian as they thought themselves to be economically stifled and did not receive the appropriate representation. After a number of years they won their cause and declared themselves free and independent.

History as written by them shows this as a war of independance from tyranny, when in reality it was an insurgent civil war.

2. The 2nd US Civil War took place when 13 states (or parts therof) declared themselves independent as they thought they were being economically stifled and were not being represented, these were called Rebels by the remainder and forcibly returned to the Union.

History as written by the victors, portrayed this as a just act and brought rebels who sought to break away into line.

Without getting into the morals of slavery (which wasnt even an issue for US politicians in 1860) what was the diffrence in the 2 acts other than history is written by the victor?

Id be interested in some thoughts as I have a great enthusiasm for this period in world history.

Great Googa Mooga. :shock:

I will agree with you that History is written by the victors but however you sense of American History is a bit f**ked. The American War of Indepedence was fought due to the bungling of the British Government with respect to their subjects in the American Colonies. Ever read the Declaration of Independence???! Its an actually well written document and that has great meaning behind it. But you would make it seem that it were more likely to say "ah f**k you bastards and your bad teeth we dont wanna pay your taxes anymore." And thanks to Britain's continued bungling of things we did win our independence from them.

Thats the problem with the Brits you have really bad habit of sticking people in places and then wondering why it gets out of control. Most of the orginal settlers in America were people that didnt fit, werent wanted or had enough of being crapped upon. So bacially we were a bunch of people that were mostly not wanted in Great Britain. Georgia for instance used to be a penal colony. And then you wonder why we revolted. Especially when we were forced to pay taxes to pay for wars and we didnt even have 1 member in the house of commons. Another bright idea by the Brits was sticking all those protestants in northern Ireland. Good call there ol chap believe there is still a mess there today. :roll: Isreal is another but im not even going into that mess.

On to your next point about THE CIVIL WAR. K 1st there were a few more than 13 states. Secondly the only real relation between that war and the war of independence is a basic failure of communication. If you want the truth IMO about the American Civil war read what I wrote here
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=195&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
4th post of mine down. Long one.

If your getting at the point that if the allies had lost WW2 and history would be written by the Nazi's and Japanese im sure your right. As im sure there would have been a nasty war crimes trial conducted by them as well.

Without getting into the morals of slavery (which wasnt even an issue for US politicians in 1860) what was the diffrence in the 2 acts other than history is written by the victor?

Uh yea slavery was an issue but not the sole issue. Anyhow you ask what is the difference. We had tried to reason with the British government in regards to our concerns and complaints. They went more or less went unheard. In later case the Southern states were to quick to pick up arms for what they thought was right. I dont blame them they did have a valid arguement however they did not need to act so quickly. Dont know about you but i dont start punching people out just because i think they are going to disagree with me. The bottom line, as in most wars, is the breakdown of communications. I think it was Robert McNamara's Lesson #2 that was Empathize with your enemy. (The Fog of War) What he is saying it try to put yourself in the shoes of your enemy. The Brits did not do this nor did the Southerners. The people of the Northern states didnt much either however were not the agressors in this case.

[IRONMAN]

Is this true in your opinion? I for one believe that its 90% true and offer the following example:

1. The 1 st US Civil War was initiated by 13 Colonies who sought to break away from Britian as they thought themselves to be economically stifled and did not receive the appropriate representation. After a number of years they won their cause and declared themselves free and independent.


Well said General.

The War for Independance was not a US civil war because it was not faught amongst Americans. A civil war means people within a nation fighting on seperate sides. That was not the case with the War for Independance. It was a war between the Americans and the British, with Native Americans fighting on both sides in relatively small numbers..

[reiver]

Is this true in your opinion? I for one believe that its 90% true and offer the following example:

1. The 1 st US Civil War was initiated by 13 Colonies who sought to break away from Britian as they thought themselves to be economically stifled and did not receive the appropriate representation. After a number of years they won their cause and declared themselves free and independent.


Well said General.

The War for Independance was not a US civil war because it was not faught amongst Americans. A civil war means people within a nation fighting on seperate sides. That was not the case with the War for Independance. It was a war between the Americans and the British, with Native Americans fighting on both sides in relatively small numbers..

Not entirely true.
According to most authorities, about 15-20% of European Americans supported the Crown during the War (Tories).
Many left for canada and elsewhere at the beginning of the war, but many also fought for the Crown.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch3_p14.htm

Americans today think of the War for Independence as a revolution, but in important respects it was also a civil war. American Loyalists, or "Tories" as their opponents called them, opposed the Revolution, and many took up arms against the rebels. Estimates of the number of Loyalists range as high as 500,000, or 20 percent of the white population of the colonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#European-American_colonists

European-Americans living in British North America were divided over which side to support in the war. About 40-45% of the population supported the struggle for indepedence, and were known as Patriots (or Whigs). About 15-20% supported the British Crown during the war, and were known as Loyalists (or Tories). About 50,000 Loyalist troops served during the war years in support of the British Empire

(edited to add second link)

[IRONMAN]

Not entirely true.
According to most authorities, about 15-20% of European Americans supported the Crown during the War (Tories).
Many left for canada and elsewhere at the beginning of the war, but many also fought for the Crown.

But what you are doing is playing semantics. The War for Independance was not a was between sides in America. It was a war between Americans ans Britain. The fact that some Americans fought on the side of the British does not change the fact that the war was between Britain and Americans. Had Britain not fought to keep the colonies, there would have been no war.

It was not a war between American factions that Britain in which Britain joined on one side to fight, but instead it was a war between Britain and Americans in which some Americans joined one side to fight. :wink:

What you are saying makes as much sence as saying that the Vietnam War was a war between the US and North Vietnam, when it was a war between factions in Vietnam in which the Americans joined one side to fight. :wink:

Now, yes, I know the Vietnam War was never declared a war, but instead a "police action", so don't start on that please.

Furthermore, it's foundations were not differences between Americans, but between Americans and Britain.

Semantics do not change facts. The War for Independance was not a civil war.

[reiver]

[quote="IRONMAN A civil war means people within a nation fighting on seperate sides. quote]

Your definition.

[IRONMAN]

A civil war means people within a nation fighting on seperate sides.

Your definition.

Again, the war was between Britain and Americans. Semantics do not change that fact. Now, if you are going to say that it was a war between Americans and Britain only joined one side, then we have something to argue about.

[BDL]

Surely it was a war between some Americans and the British on one side and the other Americans, French, Dutch and Spanish on the other?

Makes it a kind of civil war (families were split, brother fought brother etc) with a war between the superpowers of the day thrown in, in my view.

[IRONMAN]

Surely it was a war between some Americans and the British on one side and the other Americans, French, Dutch and Spanish on the other?

Makes it a kind of civil war (families were split, brother fought brother etc) with a war between the superpowers of the day thrown in, in my view.

So you are saying the war came about because some Americans started a war with other Americans? :lol:

"also called United States War of Independence or American Revolutionary War (1775–83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain's North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America."

Encyclopædia Britannica (2005)

Notice that the most authoritative encyclopedia in the world does not say that the war was one between Americans and other Americans, but instead between the Americans colonies and the British.

Oooops!

[BDL]

So you are saying the war came about because some Americans started a war with other Americans? :lol:

No, I'm saying

Surely it was a war between some Americans and the British on one side and the other Americans, French, Dutch and Spanish on the other?

Makes it a kind of civil war (families were split, brother fought brother etc) with a war between the superpowers of the day thrown in, in my view

[IRONMAN]

So you are saying the war came about because some Americans started a war with other Americans? :lol:

No, I'm saying

Surely it was a war between some Americans and the British on one side and the other Americans, French, Dutch and Spanish on the other?

Makes it a kind of civil war (families were split, brother fought brother etc) with a war between the superpowers of the day thrown in, in my view

Then you are incorrect. You really love being on the fringe don't you. :roll:

[IRONMAN]

When you can prove that cause of American War for Independance was differences between factions of Americans, PLEASE, post it here. The world is waiting for your correction of history.

[Firefly]

I like this debate, I am beginning to see my point proved.

The US did not exist before the end of the War of Independance and ever since an attempt has been made to re-write history by diminishing the part that Loyalist contributed to it. Therefore how could it be a fight between Americans and British? Surely it was a fight between British-Americal colonials who wanted to break away, supported massively by France and to a lesser extent by Spain and the Netherlands, and British-American Colonials who wanted to remain a part of Britian.

Its not semantics at all. Isnt that what a Civil War is? After all, all of these guys were British and the vast majority originated there, so its not like Vietnam at all.

Good debate though.

[BDL]

Then you are incorrect.

Because?

American fought American (60th Loyal American Rifle Regiment being the most famous American unit on the British side). Both sides made use of the indigenous "Indian" population. I'm sure that many of the Americans fighting for the British would have seen it as a kind of civil war. The rebels may well have to.

It was also, clearly, a war between the superpowers of the day - France, Holland and Spaion saw a chance to get at Britain by supporting the American rebels. Without that support, there's every chance that Britiain would have won, or at least been able to fight for much longer.

I don't know all that much about the War of Independance, but that's the way I see it - if you can prove otherwise then please feel free to educate me.

editted to add - just seen your edit (again you've failed to say that you've editted your post) "you love to be on the fringe don't you?" What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[Firefly]

When you can prove that cause of American War for Independance was differences between factions of Americans, PLEASE, post it here. The world is waiting for your correction of history.

I dont think you really understand. However, its not about factions of americans, but factions of British. As Ive said before, the revolutionaries were not United States Citizens, they were British citizens untill the war ended. So the war was fought between British factions. These people were culturaly the same, it wasnt americans and brits at all.

[IRONMAN]

It was not a civil war because the Ameicans had chosen a seperate identity from Britain. Since they had decided that they were not subjects of Britain (prior to the Declaration of Independance even), they were not fighting any kind of civil war. They no longer considered themselves subjects of Britain.

If it were a civil war, that is what historians everywhere except in Britain :roll: would call it. But they don't because it was not.

[BDL]

It was not a civil war because the Ameicans had chosen a seperate identity from Britain. Since they had decided that they were not subjects of Britain (prior to the Declaration of Independance even), they were not fighting any kind of civil war. They no longer considered themselves subjects of Britain.

If it were a civil war, that is what historians everywhere except in Britain :roll: would call it. But they don't because it was not.

If Texans (for example) decided they didn't want to be part of the US anymore, and then fought a war with the US Army about it, would it be a civil war?

[IRONMAN]

Again, when you can prove that the cause of the war was between groups of Americans and not between Americans living in North America with a seperate, conciously chosen identity from Britain, and Britain, post it here.

[BDL]

If Texans (for example) decided they didn't want to be part of the US anymore, and then fought a war with the US Army about it, would it be a civil war?

[Firefly]

Again, when you can prove that the cause of the war was between groups of Americans and not between Americans living in North America with a seperate, conciously chosen identity from Britain, and Britain, post it here.

But almost half the colonists didnt have a seperate identity, and wasnt the 2nd Civil War brought about by Southerners with a separate concious identity witshing to leave the US and set up their own country - they were called Rebels werent they?

[Firefly]

If it were a civil war, that is what historians everywhere except in Britain :roll: would call it. But they don't because it was not.

You are just proving my point with your observation - history has been written by the victors?

[reiver]

I would not characterise the American Revolution primarily as a civil war by any means, but would stand by the excerpt from the post I made earlier, that in important respects it was also a civil war
(my highlighting)

To return to the original topic of the thread, there is no doubt that history is written by the victors.
Had the American Revolution been lost, it would have gone down in the history books as "The American Rebellion of 1776", just like the Indian Mutiny, an interesting and important, but ultimately irrelevent piece of history in the movement towards Colonial self-determination.

As for history being written by the victors, theres an old piece of doggerel that runs;
"Treason never prospers,
for one quite simple reason,
and that is, if it prospers,
no one dare call it treason."

[Firefly]

I would agree with the above and it would be foolish though to say that every American Loyalist thought of themselves as a Brit!

One article by the well respected Richard Holmes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/empire/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml

He sums it up better than I can.

[Gen. Sandworm]

I guess if you really wanted to ......... from a British Perspective you could call the American War of Independence a British Civil War. I dont believe anyone really calls it that. Also note that I call it the War of Independence and not the American Revolution. It was more or less a change or government. Not a extreme make over such as we seen in France a couple of decades later. There is a difference between the US War of Indepedence because they had formed a New Nation called the USA. Then they were attacked by Britain. The objective of the British were to sqaush what they felt was a rebellion. The US would defend their country from now foreign invaders. Regardless of who fought for whom the all 13 colonies did dissolve their connections with the British Crown.

On the otherhand, as I have somewhat stated, The US civil war........the North was trying to negoiate peace with the south even after they had succeded from the Union. (Which was their right.) The Southerners decided that they would just give up on that idea and start with agressive measures. The real first shots of the US Civil war started at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. The USA was attacked by the CSA. Thats when the real objectives came clear. The US would rejoin the southern states. The CSA would quickly capture Washington and force the US to concede them independence.

I will say that the South was more in their rights but made the bad decision to attack the US. If you truly study the war you will see that the US was not prepared for war in the early years. Why? Because it still felt that a peaceful conclusion could still be reached. Ive said this before in another thread ....... that if the Civil war were today that I would fight for the South. (NOW THAT THEIR IS NO SLAVERY ISSUE) Because the real and valid complaint of the Southern states were States rights. Which have been slowly taken away from citizens of the US ever since the war.

Anyhow these our my thoughts

[festamus]

I guess if you really wanted to ......... from a British Perspective you could call the American War of Independence a British Civil War.

But does this not then feed back into the original topic - e.g. Victors writing history.

You say "from a British perspective", but since it has a basis in fact (e.g. that "loyalists" existed at all), it is merely the victor's interpretation that it is *not* a civil war from the American perspective too. Maybe it is expedient to the victor to forget (or at least gloss over) when writing history, the fact that a large number of people in the colonies did not want to be independent from Britain. Entirely understandably of course! Far better for the future stability of the nation to say "We won!" rather than "Well, half of us did, whereas you other half got beat and things didn't turn out how you wanted!" (note - I say "half" as a figure of speech, not as the breakdown of Patriots and Tories!)

Does anyone know whether American school kids are taught that the population was divided and faught on both sides, or is it presented as Americans versus British for simplicity? (since on an "academic" level I'm sure it's gone into in far more detail than anyone has here, but most people will learn about such things in school and no more).

On a not entirely unrelated not of national disunity, I wonder how WWII is played out in France, given that half of France fell under German occupation while the other half of France fell into line to form "Vichy" France... Is Vichy France something of prominence in the French telling of that period in history, or the dirty little family secret which is played down or glossed over as much as possible?

[Firefly]

The above is a good post and has got me thinking about what we are taught. For years here in Scotland Scottish history was basically glossed over in favour of British history. Its only fairly recently that the Scots history has come more to the fore.

I only chose the US civil war and war of Independance as an example that sprung to mind, it was not meant as any slight on the US. However, the Canadian colonies stuck with the crown, I wonder why they didnt join in the war of independance, does anyone know if any canadians chose to fight against the Brits?

[reiver]

I guess if you really wanted to ......... from a British Perspective you could call the American War of Independence a British Civil War. I dont believe anyone really calls it that. Also note that I call it the War of Independence and not the American Revolution. It was more or less a change or government. Not a extreme make over such as we seen in France a couple of decades later. There is a difference between the US War of Indepedence because they had formed a New Nation called the USA. Then they were attacked by Britain. The objective of the British were to sqaush what they felt was a rebellion. The US would defend their country from now foreign invaders. Regardless of who fought for whom the all 13 colonies did dissolve their connections with the British Crown.

I wouldn't take issue with any of the above....from an American perspective. :)
To say, though, that the Founding Fathers had "formed a new nation" is a slight exaggeration.
They had declared a new nation, which is not quite the same thing.
The nation was formed and forged first in the fires of the war itself, and then in the aftermath.
Bear in mind that the new nation didn't have its first President until 1789.
As for it being a rebellion, that is exactly what it was...until you won.
Until then, as I said above, it was treason against the Crown.
Had you lost, that's exactly how it would have been written, as a treasonous rebellion that failed.
Similarly, the "rebels", new Americans, call them what you will, saw the "loyal" Tories as traitors to the new country they, the rebels, were trying to create, just as the Tories saw the rebels as traitors against the Crown.
With regard to negotiations, the First Continental Congress had sent a Petition for Redress of Grievance to the Crown.
It had remained unanswered when the Second Continental Congress met in 1775.
As a result, the Congress formed a "Continental Army" and declared a new currency.
Britain reacted to these acts as a declaration of rebellion, which, when seen in an historical perspective, and not by applying the now taken-for-granted (by the West) right of self-determination, it was.
Britain, by todays standards, reacted badly.
By the standards and mores of the time, the Crown could hardly have reacted in any other way.
Like most wars, the causes of the American Revolution/American War of Independence are not simple, much as we might like to make them so.
That we today most easily refer to the conflict as the War of American Independence proves the point of the thread.
History is written by the victors.

I offer a quote from the National Archives website, which opens its history of the Declaration of American Independence.

Nations come into being in many ways. Military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between defenders of the old order and supporters of the new--all these occurrences and more have marked the emergences of new nations, large and small. The birth of our own nation included them all.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_history.html

[reiver]

However, the Canadian colonies stuck with the crown, I wonder why they didnt join in the war of independance, does anyone know if any canadians chose to fight against the Brits?

It seems to have been quite the reverse.
From Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_%28American_Revolution%29

Following the end of the American Revolutionary War and the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, Loyalist soldiers and civilians were evacuated from New York and resettled in other colonies of the British Empire, most notably in the future Canada: the two colonies of Nova Scotia (including modern-day New Brunswick, receiving in total some 25,000 Loyalist refugees) and Canada (including the Eastern Townships and modern-day Ontario, receiving altogether some 10,000 refugees). This group of people are most often referred to as United Empire Loyalists. In effect, the new British North American provinces of Upper Canada (the forerunner of Ontario) and New Brunswick were founded as places of refuge for the United Empire Loyalists

[IRONMAN]

What name do the British use for that war in their schoolbooks? Do they call it the "American War for Independance". The "American Revolution"? Do they call it the "First American Civil War"?

The Encyclopedia Britanica refers to it as the "American Rvolution". The only civil war involing Americans in their books is the American Civil War (19th century)

[LargeBrew]

When I was at school (65-76) it was the War of Independance. Funnily enough my history teacher was an Austrailian, Jesuit priest, ex Austrailian SAS Vietnam veteran. He claimed that the trigger for the colonistst was due to disputed taxation to pay for a standing army to defend the American colonies from the French. I have to admit that he was very anti-American but on the whole a top bloke and a memorable teacher.

[reiver]

What name do the British use for that war in their schoolbooks? Do they call it the "American War for Independance". The "American Revolution"? Do they call it the "First American Civil War"?

The Encyclopedia Britanica refers to it as the "American Rvolution". The only civil war involing Americans in their books is the American Civil War (19th century)
Primarily as the "American War for Independance", occasionally as the "American Revolution".

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well so do we all pretty much agree then that history is written by the victors? Coz I really cant think of to many situations where the victor didnt get somekind of glory for the outcome. Anyone?

[Cuts]

Perhaps history is being re-written by apologists ?

Sometimes they produce a more accurate representation of what really went on, but I've noticed a number of people refuting certain victories purely, (it seems to me,) to get publicity.
There are people who consider there to be no such thing as bad publicity.

[Man of Stoat]

Well so do we all pretty much agree then that history is written by the victors? Coz I really cant think of to many situations where the victor didnt get somekind of glory for the outcome. Anyone?

Sinking of the French fleet in 1940? That was not very well thought of by the Brits.
Rainbow warrior?
Soviet crushing of popular revolutions? (although I'm sure they were portrayed as glorious victories in the Ostblok)

[Cuts]

......

Rainbow warrior?

......

France's greatest naval victory...

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well so do we all pretty much agree then that history is written by the victors? Coz I really cant think of to many situations where the victor didnt get somekind of glory for the outcome. Anyone?

Sinking of the French fleet in 1940? That was not very well thought of by the Brits.
Rainbow warrior?
Soviet crushing of popular revolutions? (although I'm sure they were portrayed as glorious victories in the Ostblok)

Are you talking about the French sinking their ships because they were afraid that they would end up in German hands. The fleet in Toulon? I think that happened in 1942 when the German occupied the rest of France or Vichy France. Anyhow I think that would be regarded a successful resistance movement. Dont know how they explain WW2 in France but im sure they dont touch on it alot. Of couse from what I know about the French you probably arent going to see many on the site to tell us. Especially Parisian's. Sorry I love France but I hate Paris. Nice city but loaded with assholes. :mrgreen:

[Walther]

No, I think he is talking about the sinking of the French fleet in Oran, Algeria, by the RAF after it refused to join the allieds.

Jan

[festamus]

Minor correction - the fleet was sunk by the guns of the Royal Navy - not the RAF.

[Walther]

I thought I had read somewhere that it succumbed to a big RAF bomb raid.

Jan

[Man of Stoat]

The Royal Navy sank the French fleet in port after the French capitulation - they said "come join us, mes amis", to which the French replied "soddez-vous off". So unfortunately we had to sink them to avoid the Germans acquiring a powerful surface fleet, which could have turned the Battle of the Atlantic, or indeed the whole war.

[reiver]

Well so do we all pretty much agree then that history is written by the victors? Coz I really cant think of to many situations where the victor didnt get somekind of glory for the outcome. Anyone?

Sinking of the French fleet in 1940? That was not very well thought of by the Brits.
Rainbow warrior?
Soviet crushing of popular revolutions? (although I'm sure they were portrayed as glorious victories in the Ostblok)

Are you talking about the French sinking their ships because they were afraid that they would end up in German hands. The fleet in Toulon? I think that happened in 1942 when the German occupied the rest of France or Vichy France. Anyhow I think that would be regarded a successful resistance movement. Dont know how they explain WW2 in France but im sure they dont touch on it alot. Of couse from what I know about the French you probably arent going to see many on the site to tell us. Especially Parisian's. Sorry I love France but I hate Paris. Nice city but loaded with assholes. :mrgreen:

The story of the destruction of the French Fleet by the British Navy, together with the reasons behind it, can be found here :

http://www.answers.com/topic/destruction-of-the-french-fleet-at-mers-el-kebir


One key paragraph from the article :
In the whole action against Mers-el-Kebir, 1297 French sailors were killed and about 350 were wounded. The action severely strained relations between Britain and France for some time, and gave the Germans a propaganda coup.

However, the action was very influential amongst the leadership of the United States, which was gradually preparing public opinion for escalating involvement in the war. Following the rapid success of the German military, there was considerable speculation that the United Kingdom would soon fall. There seemed to be a great risk that the Royal Navy would fall into German hands, including any material provided to the British by the USA. Martin Gilbert in his biography of Churchill wrote "Within a few days 'Oran' had become a symbol of British ruthlessness and determination".

[2nd of foot]

You can also include the revision of the record of the resistance in France. Up until recently the part the resistance played in the war was exaggerated. As more and more info is coming out of the woodwork the part the resistance played in the war changes. This can be put down to reinventing the part France played as much for home consumption as for history.

[Gen. Sandworm]

You can also include the revision of the record of the resistance in France. Up until recently the part the resistance played in the war was exaggerated. As more and more info is coming out of the woodwork the part the resistance played in the war changes. This can be put down to reinventing the part France played as much for home consumption as for history.

Well I dont know about France.........but the Norwegians (only 3 million at the time) seem to be very proud of there resistence to the Germans. Especially since Denmark quickly gave up, Sweden wimped out and the Finns were just fucking confused. I dont know yet but Ill have to ask when i get to Norway how much they learn about WW2. I would say from the Swedes and Finns that I know that their knowledge of WW2 is pretty poor. Or maybe just none of them were interested.

Edited to add:

I know that the French do not like to talk about WW2 much at all so they much learn about it pretty well. Not alot to be proud of besides the resistance and De Gaulle walking into Paris after the allies paved the way.