Jump to content

Talk:Appeal of 18 June

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

the correct link to "Original version in french:" seams to be : (that's the link that is on the french page)

http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appel_du_18_juin

Almost no one heard it. Although BBC could be received in France, very few people listened to it at this time (even its french-speaking programme). Add to that the fact that many people were on the roads, and that radio receivers were not portable devices... However, the Appeal was printed in most french newspapers the later day as his text was relayed by the news agency Havas.


--I went to the link above and it seems to have moved. The new link is http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Appel_du_18_juin Maltodextrin 00:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Maltodextrin[reply]

Merger with Charles de Gaulle

[edit]

"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Charles de Gaulle." Please leave this as a separate article. Thank you. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

[edit]

The sketch is somewhat unfortunate because it makes De Gaulle look almost exactly like Adolf Hitler. --Mathew5000 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone

[edit]

The article implies that the speech was heard in France at 7 pm local time. Is that correct, or was it broadcast by De Gaulle at 7 pm London time? Either way, it should be made explicit in the article. --Mathew5000 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the corresponding French Wikipedia article Appel du 18 juin; it says that De Gaulle's speech was recorded at 6pm on June 18th and broadcast at 10pm, then rebroadcast the next day at 4pm. It does not specify time zones. It also mentions another speech De Gaulle gave on June 22, which was heard more widely in France. Hopefully somebody can find a reliable source and either correct the English article or correct the French article. --Mathew5000 20:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the UK and France were then using the same time zones - Western European Time is ambiguous on this point. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article now says that 10PM BST (GMT+1) was 8PM Paris. That could not have been the case as France was either also on GMT+1 at that point, or on GMT+2 which Northern France moved to in Summer 1940, although I suspect it hadn’t happened at that point. Either way, it wouldn’t have been GMT-1 which a time 8PM would have implied. NotMuchToSay (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was British cabinet opposed to the speech?

[edit]

Current version of the article states, "despite the British Cabinet's efforts to block the broadcast". The article Free French Forces says "Some of the British Cabinet had attempted to block the speech" which surely is more correct. But neither article says why there was opposition within the Cabinet. If a reliable source can be found to explain that, it should be put in the article. --Mathew5000 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was because they were worried that it might provoke Petain to hand over the French fleet to the fascists and wanted to avoid anything potentially inflammatory. I've added a ref to this effect. Badgerpatrol 11:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some error

[edit]

Hello i'm french and i see some error :

The appeal is the origin of the French Resistance to the German occupation.

The french communist resistants for exeample fight when Germany attack URSS. But this appeal is certainly the origin of the Free French Forces.

General de Gaulle was the de facto leader of the Free French Forces which had escaped to London in World War II.

De Gaulle went to London to ask help, Petain signed the armistice on June 15, 1940 , De Gaulle make his speech the 18, but the Free French Forces was founded later. Moreover, I don't know if the difference between the Free French Forces and the resistance is understanding. The resistance was various group and all don't recognize De Gaulle as the leader, it's Jean Moulin who had unified the group and ,only after this unification, De Gaulle became the leader of resitance( 1942-1943).

I hope you understand what i mean. Rémi Thevenoux. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.214.162.136 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, there are several errors (content). The armistice was signed the 22nd, for example.--132.231.54.1 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"La France a perdu une bataille..."

[edit]

When did de Gaulle give his famous "France has lost a battle. But France has not lost the war!" line? I always thought it was in this speech. Was it actually in a different radio address? Funnyhat 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not from a speech but from the London Poster: http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L’Affiche_de_Londres?match=en

Awien (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:De-gaulle-radio.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the BBC record the speech?

[edit]

"The BBC did not deem the speech important enough to be recorded" strikes me as not impossible but somewhat implausible. I have therefore, for now, changed it to simply read "The BBC did not record the speech".

We have here a speech that involved special permission from the Prime Minister, over the objections of at least some Cabinet members of the leader of the Free French Forces after the fall of France to Germany. It strikes me as pretty unlikely - though not impossible - that the BBC "did not deem the speech important enough".

I suppose if recording the speech was, at the BBC at that time, an incredibly difficult and rare thing to do, such that recording it would cost the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of pounds or something, then the reason for not recording it might be that they didn't deem it important enough. But given the amount of recorded material from that era, that seems unlikely. I doubt if anyone said "Oh, should we record this?" and got an answer of "Oh, gosh, no, it's not that important, it's just Charles de Gaulle speaking with special permission from the Prime Minister, making a speech urging the French people to keep fighting... how could that be important?"

Well, in any event, it seems that the best thing will be to remove that bit unless and until a source is found - and I hope that one will be, because this fact of it not being recorded seems to me to be a very interesting bit of historical trivia, and I would love to know more about it!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One BBC page is here [1]
It does say that the original was not recorded
Also details here [2] and the only ref to reasons for not recording seem to be AOL here [3]
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AOL News source does seem to give more historical context, the theory being that "de Gaulle was the most junior general in the French army, so BBC engineers decided not to record it." That's plausible. The author appears to be a completely respectable contemporary journalist, but it is not clear to me whether the reason that the BBC didn't record it is something he knows from some other sources or just his own speculation. Still, this is a solid first step to establishing this anecdote as not just something we accidentally invented here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from BBC Sound Archive that the BBC sometimes recorded things they were told not to, and retained things they were told to destroy; the historical perspective may not have been clear to them at the time; however, I did watch a programme on the Yesterday channel (A Year To Remember) this very day (actually, now yesterday, technically, since my day currently runs from 15:00 UTC to 03:00 UTC), dealing with 1940 in which this point is specifically made and {{cite episode}} would seem to cover this as a reliable source. Problem? Rodhullandemu 01:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You sort of lost me there. Anyway, I don't doubt that the BBC didn't record it. What interests me is whether they didn't record it by accident, or seriously because they didn't think it would be important. That's a very cute anecdote if true, but also so cute as an anecdote that one must wonder if it is true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will see if I can retrieve the episode from my HD or otherwise; I tend to retain a lot of stuff in case it may be useful, but it is a struggle to keep up with the details unless there is a difference of opinion. However, that may take some time to arise, and sadly I am not the Library of Congress, although one day, I may be. Bedtime. Rodhullandemu 01:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I absolutely understand you now. You watched a program about this, and the program may have or did specifically say that it was not recorded because it wasn't thought to be important at the time, and if so (and you will try to go back and find it) this could be a reliable source. Yes. I know that's exactly what you said when I said that you lost me but for some reason I wasn't parsing correctly. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit bizarre though. There was so much uproar caused and so many who wanted it stopped that I would have thought someone in one of the secret services, either UK or US, would have asked them to record it for playback to interested parties.
As for the BBC not recording it themselves it may well have been that they did record it and perhaps broke the record...and I'm sure they wouldn't want to admit that !
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! I think that, either way, it's a fascinating bit of history and I'm curious to know what the best sources have to say about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange - that archived French version says that it was recorded at 18:00 on the 18th and played from the recording at 22:00 and broadcast again from the recording the next day at 16:00.
no refs though !! quel surprise
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens! Now I am indulging in a fantasy that there has been a myth circulating for years that it wasn't recorded, but it really was recorded and just hasn't turned up yet. It's in a desk drawer somewhere at the BBC, maybe. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - the Glasgow Herald printed this article [4] on Monday 24 Jun 1940. It states:
"General De Gaulle was relieved of his command on account of the broadcast he made over the London wireless on Saturday."
That would have been the 22 June - quite an outcome for the poor man !
The Glasgow Herald, 19 June 1940, also gives text of the speech from the 18th, but it is unclear as to how accurate the translation may have been. In any event it seems to differ, quite substantially in the parts quoted, from the text in the article.[5]
If the Herald account is accurate that would imply that he varied quite a lot from the text. I am still searching for other accounts from the weekend to see if there were other reports which may verify if he went in person on the seperate days (by way of differences in the speeches etc.). One problem is that many of the standard American papers, such as the New York Times, are pay-per-view.
Chaosdruid (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And on todays date in 1940 (lol nice coincidence) reported by "(C.P.)", on 24 June in the Ottowa Citizen [6], it says the broadcast from Petain dismissing De Gaulle was "in a broadcast heard in London tonight" - unclear as to whether it is 23rd or 22nd though I suspect the latter.
But the report [7] from the St. Petersburg Times Thursday 20 June 1940 says "...last Monday night..." - implying the London broadcast was on the 17th June - and "De Gaulle was taken to task specially by the Interior Minister Charles Pomaret, for having advocatedin a London broadcast Monday nighta French-British union, with the industrial help ofthe United States "to crush our enemies" Pomaret said De Gaulle had been ordered to return to France from London."
That same report says "(A British radio broadcast picked up last night by NBC...)" - If "picked up" means by radio is it possible that there may be a recording somewhere in the US ? - If not then the only way they could have heard it the other broadcast (not the speech but supposedly in London only? before the 22nd speech) was if they had a recording sent from England and if that is the case then they may have had a recording of the 18th sent over also...(I added this after server lost session)
Sounds like the whole thing dragged on from the first broadcast on the 17th where he is reprimanded to him getting fired on the 24th.
Chaosdruid (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange - that archived French version says that it was recorded at 18:00 on the 18th
and played from the recording at 22:00 and broadcast again from the recording the next
day at 16:00.
no refs though !! quel surprise
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, how about:
Fenby, Jonathan; The General: Charles de Gaulle and the France He Saved: New York; Skyhorse Publishing; 2012; p. 33 (This was originally published in London)
The General's speech was recorded and then broadcast at 10 p.m. By the time it went out, he had dined at the Langham Hotel with de Courcel and gone back to his flat. His aide thought he was happier than he had been since leaving Bordeaux. To his understandable annoyance when he discovered this the following day, the BBC did not keep the recording. Very few people heard his words that night.
Dick Kimball (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe pétain speech 16th of june / appel du 16 juin 1940

[edit]

Does anyone know where I could find Philippe Pétain's speech of the 16th of June 1940?


Quelqu'n a une idée où peux-je trouver l' appel du Philippe Pétain le 16 juin 1940?


Thank you / Merci

--David-bel (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you quite sure of the date? According to:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_P%C3%A9tain#Carri.C3.A8re_politique

Carrière politique

...
16 juin 1940, président du Conseil
11 juillet 1940 - 20 août 1944, chef de l’État français

Meilleurs vœux,
Dick Kimball (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant use of english term "appeal" instead of "call"

[edit]

With my little english knowledge and the good on-line french-englis dictionnaries, I pretend taht the term "appeal" has a sexual connotation as "sex-appeal". The french meaning of "appel du 18 juin 1940" is better translated in english as "call", "call for arms (weapons, fight).

--Rgimilio (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rgimilio, you're right that "call" would be a reasonable translation here, although it could potentially sound trivialising, as though de Gaulle had made a phone call to somebody.
However, you're quite wrong about "appeal" having the suggestive connotation of sex appeal. The legal denotation is completely specific, the attempt to get a sentence overturned, and has no sexual connotations whatsoever. As for the meaning of "earnest request", most people would probably think first of fund-raising campaigns rather than sex, but would also find the term used to urge a certain action or attitude perfectly normal and completely free of any sexual overtones. In other words, both denotation and connotation are appropriate and acceptable in this context.
But in any case, the point is moot, because the broadcast simply (and correctly) is known as the "appeal", and that is also the term used by your own government on its official website [8]. WP follows trustworthy sources, and the government of France is as authoritative a source as it gets on a subject such as this.
So the bottom line is, the present version should stand. Thank you. Awien (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance vs. Alliance

[edit]

In the § Context it says: 

...the British Cabinet's objections that such a broadcast could provoke the Pétain
government into a closer allegiance with Germany.[1]

I quote the synonyms for each from Wiktionary:
allegiance: 

fidelity, loyalty, adherence

alliance: 

(union by relationship in qualities): connection, affinity, union
(act of allying): union
(persons or parties allied): coalition, league, confederation, team (informal)

I respectfully suggest that alliance would more accurately convey the relationship between Das Reich and l'État français (commonly called "Vichy.") Dick Kimball (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The Guardian, "A Mesmerising Oratory", 29 April 2007.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appeal of 18 June. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Appeal of 18 June. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The later speech

[edit]

Is there a transcript of the speech of June 22nd, the one that was heard all over the world? Valetude (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

France, not Vichy France.

[edit]

Am I not correct in noting that Vichy France did not exist at this time?

So saying "Broadcasted to Vichy France" is incorrect, no? I've changed it to France (the third republic) instead. Techyo12 (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Appeal_of_18_June&oldid=1217781011"