Talk:French Foreign Legion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the French Foreign Legion article.
Article policies
France Portal
French Foreign Legion is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Algeria Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] The Gulf War

Shouldn't that be Kuwait, not Iraq, that they went into? I don't think anyone went into Iraq in 1990, especially not deeply. -- popsix

You can look at the map in the Gulf War article and judge for yourself if it was deep or not, but in Iraq they were. Carl Logan 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic

The reason for its survival may be as John Elting says: "The French, being a thrifty and practical people, have always been eager to let any available foreigners assist them in any necessary bleeding and dying for la Patrie."[1]

That's an extremely un-encyclopedic sentence, violates NPOV among other things. Especially bad way to begin an article. No I'm not French; I'm actually an American and hate France. But still. Xiphoris 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All caps

Shouldn't this article be at French Foreign Legion, not French foreign legion? All caps I would think as it is a proper name. Rmhermen 13:59, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Cole Porter?

Reading the Wiki about Cole Porter I wonder when he was in the Legion ?

He was never a legionaire. He lied! Cat Balou 07:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French mainland soil

"The proposition that 'French legislation prohibits the Legion from French mainland soil, and it is therefore based on Corsica' is obviously false" -- I always thought it was the desire of the French Foreign Legion never to be stationed on French soil, for various reasons of unit pride & doctrine. Besides, during the Battle of France, 1940, it was dispatched to the French mainland to fight the Germans. (IIRC, once inside France the formations were not redeployed in time to actually engage the Germans.) -- llywrch 21:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Source for refusing French applicants?

Is there any source for the Legion refusing French applicants? David.Monniaux 19:34, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the past they could enlist, but only if they stated their nationality as Belgian, Swiss, or some other foreign French-speaking country. Nowadays everybody needs to provide a valid identification, but it seems that the French are also allowed to join. An excellent source for information on the history of the French Foreign Legion is the book "The French Foreign Legion", by Douglas Porch (ISBN 0-06-092308-3)66.167.104.91 07:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello - When the Légion Étrangere was created by Royal decree in 1831, it was envisaged as a unit comprising foreigners only. Foreign units, based on French soil, had existed in one way or another in the French forces since the 1420's, but the French Revolution put an end to that for a while, as foreign troops were viewed by the revolutionaries as agents of the repressive monarchy. Swiss troops were particularly feared, as they had proved loyal to the death for King Louis XVI against the Paris mob. Napoleon widely used foreign troops in his Grande Armée, but not based in France. The restoration of the monarchy after Napoleon's departure saw the return of Swiss troops loyal to the King.

During further revolutionary turmoil in the 1820's, King Charles X, wishing to keep his throne, bowed to public presure and disbanded his Swiss units, but left them to fend for themselves in the streets of Paris. The Paris populace was not amused. He was deposed in 1830 and Louis-Philippe, Duc d'Orleans, elected as constitutional monarch. Forming a legion of foreigners to serve in the conquest of Algeria and be based there, was his way of getting rid of the Swiss ex-soldiers from the streets of Paris. That is the main reason why Frenchmen were excluded and the Legion was not to set foot in France - a political reason. However, excluding Frenchmen was not viable. From the beginning, French mayors saw a way of emptying their jails and many petty criminals were unloaded on the newly-forming Legion. To be accepted, they had to declare themselves Belgian, Swiss or other Francophone nationality. Suitably qualified Frenchmen were accepted as French into the Legion however - as officers. That has been the pattern right up into modern times, with a relaxation of rules on 3 occasions, Franco-Prussian War 1870/71, Great War (WWI) 1914-1918 and WW2 1939-45. On these occasions, additional manpower was quickly required and war-duration units were raised. As well as recruting foreign residents and incoming foreign volunteers (from still-neutral countries), the Legion was permitted to recruit Frenchmen. The Legion's war-volunteer battalion of the Franco-Prussian War was raised mainly from Bretons, parts of the bataillon de marche/regiment de marche of 1914-15 included Frenchmen and the 11e and 12e REI of 1939-1940 openly had many Frenchmen.

In modern times, the introduction of tighter security and admission rules, has meant full identity checks. It is now easy to see if someone is French or not, where previously a French candidate would just decalre himself Belgian or suchlike. To continue to accommodate Frenchmen, in this high security age, Frenchmen are permitted to join, but to satisfy tradition may then be declared as another French-speaking nationality.

As for not being allowed on French soil, since 1831, the loyalty and fighting abilities of the Legion was proved over the next 40 years in Algeria, Spain, Crimea and Mexico, so by the start of the Franco Prussian War in 1870 - time of great danger for France, the no-France rule was postponed and the Legion was shipped to France to fight against the Germans. A wartime-only volunteer battalion was also raised in France for that war. Of course, France's growing colonial empire meant expansion of the Legion and new bases outside Algeria - Indochina, Madagascar, Dahomey, Morocco. At the start of WWI in 1914, a composite regiment of legionnaires statuioned in Algeria was sent to France. Various wartime Legion volunteer battalions were raised in France itself, from foreigners and Frenchmen. Severe battle losses plus ongoing return of certain allied nationalities to their own armed forces as they too entered the war. saw the need to reform the Legion's units in France into one big regiment - Le Régiment de Marche de la Légion Étrangère (R.M.L.E.). By the end of the war, it was France's most decorated regiment. Today, the regiment's descendants, 3E REI, wear an updated form of the old RMLE's triple fouragère.

In early 1940, the 1er REI, based in Algeria, formed a composite unit - 13e D.B.L.E., to be sent to Finland as part of a French/British task-force, to assist the Finns in their fight to repel the invasion by the Soviet Union. The joint-allied force was too late to help, but a new war awaited them when Germany invaded Norway in April 1940. The same allied force landed in Norway and fought the German invaders. The Legion was heavily involved at the battle of Narvik. When it appeared the allies had almost won the war in Norway, they were withdrawn to defend France which was now being invaded. France fell before help came and the 13e DBLE was now based in Britain. The 13e DBLE was joined by other French units based in Britain who had escaped defeat and capture and was sorted into a new formation - the Free French Brigade (aka Fighting French), led by General Koenig and the only truly French fighting force available to the Allies. These were De Gaulle's Free French. Soon, the brigade joined the British 8th Army and fought against Rommel in the desert campaign, where the 13e DBLE fought valiantly.

As mentioned above, the Legion also raised war-duration units in France in 1939, they fought well in 1940 when the Germans invaded France and suffered many casualties. They were disbanded when France surrendered.

Since France granted independence to Algeria in 1962, certain legion units were sent to reamining French possessions or closely-allied ex-colonies. Other units were allowed at last to have their bases in mainland France and Corsica. That has worked well, however, Corsican separatist movements since tried to split from France and objected to the Legion's presence. As a result, the Legion's 2e REI was moved to as new base in Nimes (mainland France) whilst the 2e REP remains in Corsica.

Lastly, don't forget that since the end of WWI, Paris has hosted a grand parade on Bastille Day every 14th July. The Legion has always been represented and still is. Each year a different representative formation of the Legion takes part and its march down the Champs Elysee is a highlight of the military parade. Traditionally, the Legion marches last of all in the procession of marching or motorised military units. This is for a practical reason - the Legion's parade march is executed at a stately 88 paces to the minute, slow by most marching standards. This goes way back the the direct Swiss ancestors of the Legion, the Regiment (Legion) de Hohenlohe of the 1820's French army, who paraded at that pace. There's a sort of irony there, today's Legion, well loved by the Paris crowd, slow-marching in the tradition of the hated Swiss of the old monarchy, who ere hated by the Paris mob !

Regards Lachlan Gow 29/10/05

[edit] Legion tried to assassinate Charles de Gaulle

Didn't the Vichy loyal part of the legion have a plan to assassinate de Gaulle over the ceding of Algeria? If no one opposes I'll add it in. Also, isn't this the basis of not letting the legion operate withing France?

Sasquatch, unless you have citable reference for this, I think you should use proper wording such that it is not taken as fact. Since the FFL is an unusual formation, it is subject to much myth and rumor. Let's not add to the confusion. As far as I know, the story of FFL elements wanting to assassinate de Gaulle was from the original version of the movie "The Jackal", based on Forsyth's novel of the same name, and is fictional (http://www.destgulch.com/movies/jackal/). There may be members or alumni of the FFL in the AOS, which was a secret organization opposed to de Gaulle and ultimately attempted to assassinate him, but it's not predominantly FFL. Many units of FFL are in fact now based in France, for example in Aubagne near Marseille. Only the paratrooper part (2eme) is based in Corsica. When you refer to Vichy loyal part of the legion, are you referring to elements that *used* to be in the Vichy part of the legion? If you can share your sources, I'd love to read/hear about it. Please sign your comments with four consecutive tildes to get a nice time stamp. Julius.kusuma 10:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, i stayed up late last night watching a TV program on the Discovery Civilization channel... and it briefly mentioned the plot as fact (although i have yet to find any other source). Though this seems sketchy, I was merely seeing if anyone more knowlegeble on the issue knew more about this. Also, i am refering to the elments the used to be loyal to the vichy as i am well aware they merged later but there was a period of division between the legion. Anyways, just one of my curiosities, did not intend to degrade the legion in any way and it is true that the legion was banned from operating in France for a while (although i'm not clear on the dates). and sorry bout the tide thing Sasquatch 06:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Beware: In French military history, the acronym FFL refers not to the French Foreign Legion but to the Free French Forces (Forces Françaises Libres) that fought alongside General De Gaulle during the Second World War. --F Sykes 15:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Er... sorry if I sound pretentious, but one should really be prudent before stating "facts" on Wikipedia on topics one does not know much about, basing oneself upon some vague statements in TV shows.

  • The group that staged several assassination attempts on de Gaulle was the OAS. The real-life organizer of the much publicized machine-gun attack on de Gaulle at the Petit-Clamart, Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry, was not a Vichy nostalgic, nor a legionnaire, but a military air engineer. I'm not an expert, but the OAS seems to have included a number of Vichy loyalists. A number of OAS-related people later joined far-right organizations.
  • A related event was the "Algiers Putsch" or the Generals' Pusch, in which some senior military officers based in Algeria revolted against their legal civilian leadership and threatened a coup d'état. This included a number of Legion officers, some of which, like Hélie de Saint Marc, were formerly in the French Resistance. They were, however, unsuccessful. David.Monniaux 10:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
David, keep in mind many readers of Wikipedia will be people who saw or read something on a topic from an unreliable source, & then turned to us to learn more. They start with vague statements, & hope to learn something definite. So please try not to bite the Newbies. ;-) -- llywrch 04:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello all - As the Legion had been formed in Algeria in 1831 largely to keep unemployed Swiss mercenaries and other possible dissidents out of France proper, it was never intended to see the Legion stationed in France. However, the grave situation in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 made it necessary for the Legion to be brought to France to fight the Germans. The next time the Legion would be stationed in France was during World War 1, where volunteer units were raised. Subsequently, France's most decorated regiment of the war was the famous RMLE of the Legion, heroes of the Western Front. Between the wars, the Legion was represented every Quattorze Juillet celebrations in Paris. In July 1939, Parisians were the first civilains to see the new style 'kepi-blanc'. In early WW2, the Legion raised volunteer units in France and a Legion reconnaisance unit, GRD97, took part in the Battle of France. In 1944-45, Legion units took part in the liberation of France and Western Europe. The hand-over of Algeria in 1962-67 saw a chnage of role for the Legion and a number of units were found bases in France.

The involvement of part of the Legion in the attempt to stage a coup d'etat in 1961 arose out of President De Gaulle's realisation that Algeria could not be held indefinitely by force and that it would have to be given independence. As a result, France's colonial troops based in Algeria would have to be re-organised, some disbanded and others relocated outside Algeria. Indigenous troops in the French army (such as Tirailleurs Algeriens) would be disbanded. Algeria had been the Legion's spiritual home since 1831 and in the bitter campaigns of the late 1950's and early 1960's, had fought hard to keep it in French hands. Having spilled much Legion blood, they felt by 1961 that they had won the war and would stay in Algeria. However, De Gaulle's bigger picture saw independence as the only possible way ahead. This made him very unpopular with pieds-noirs - white French families who had settled in Algeria since the 1830's. The OAS was a violent political resistance group which had large pied-noir support. Their protest chant was "Algerie Fran-caise !". Some Legion officers were sympathetic. In particular, the Legion's elite parachute regiment, 1er REP, was heavily involved - many officers and men, and were part of a plot to take control of Algerian radio stations and key buildings. There was some support in their sister regiment, 2e REP. However, when the call came for the coup, 2e REP did not act. 1er REP was on its own and the coup failed. The participants were tried in court and imprisoned and the 1er REP was disbanded. Starting in 1962, France's indigenous colonial army was disbanded and its French content either disbanded or re-organised and re-named and stationed in France or remaining French possessions.

Though the 1er REP had acted largely alone, De Gaulle now distrusted the Legion and intended to disband it entirely. This was highly unfortunate as, during the dark days of 1940-42, the small but loyal Free-French Brigade, called the Fighting French, which included the Legion's 13e DBLE, had kept alive France's and De Gaulle's honour and credibility, as an important part of the British 8th Army which defeated Rommel. Whilst some Legion regiments were disbanded in 1962-64 (such as 1er REP, 4e REI, 2e REC, etc) the remaining units sought to become more relevant and indispensible in order to survive the cuts. Consequently, the fate of the Legion's regiments was:-

1er RE - left Sidi Bel Abbes 1967 - moved to Aubagne, France; 2e REI - left Algeria - moved to Corte and Bonifacio, Corsica; 3e REI - left Algeria - moved to Guyane to guard Ariane space project; 4e REI - disbanded 1964; 5e REI - re-organised as part Legion/part French Army-engineers regiment called 5e Regiment Mixte du Pacifique - based in Papeete, Muraroa Atoll, Tahiti; 1er REC - left Algeria - moved to Orange, France; 2e REC - disbanded 1962; 1er REP - disbanded 1962; 2e REP - left Algeria - moved to Calvi, Corsica; 13e DBLE - left Algeria - moved to Djibouti; DLEC - small detachment based in Comore Islands, near Madagascar.

The last Legion unit finally left Algeria in 1967. This period marks the end of the old Legion and the start of the new-look Legion of specialists and fast-intervention forces, based across the World as well as Metropolitan France. The Legion were out of the public eye for a few years until the 2e REP burst into the news on 21 May 1978 with their epic air-drop and rescue of hostages around the airport, Kolwezi, Shaba Province, Zaire. Posted by Lachlan Gow - 26 October 2005

[edit] The Eurocorps-Foreign Legion concept and its Single European Regiment

The following URL is for those interested in the French Foreign Legion and its potential particiption in the process of European Union defence integration in a NATO-EU(WEU) framework at the United Nations:

http://paginas.pavconhecimento.pt/pessoais/dw/Mario%5FZanatti

and follow its debate on:

http://cervens.net/legionbbs//showthread.php?t=34
This URL is about an essay written by an independent author, and is a self-promotion page. I don't think it should be included in wikipedia. Julius.kusuma 11:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Kusuma: This URL is NOT a self-promotion page for the formal presentation of the proposed concept at the European Parliament has the official backing of the French President of France, the President of European Union Parliament and the Secretary-General of the United Nations in which ever order of preference you like.

This URL is posted as part of the essential awareness-building process through the internet and its free-information proviso. It addresses rather the difficulties of the national and institutional hierarchies in presenting a collective and concialiatory approach in a delicate portfolio removed the limitations of the national 'self-interest' that determine the evolution of the United Nations and European Union to date. July 24th 2005 0700GMT mczanatti@hotmail.com Also, unlike you, I DO NOT state the formal academic or governmental organisation whom I work for. I see that you're in MIT. Modesty beckons at least to me. DID you serve in the military for I'd consider such criticism from soldiers only....

There is no need for a personal attack here. Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a discussion board. If you were to write that, "There is a proposal for ..... supported by .....," then that is fine, BUT you should provide credible references to that proposal. Moreover, if you claim that this concept has the "official backing of the French President of France, the President of European Union Parliament and the Secretary-General of the United Nations in which ever order of preference you like," please provide a reference to this statement. The first URL that you provide is not even valid. If there is widespread, and official backing from all those that you state above, there must be a reference to the support, right?

Mr. Kusuma: LOOK at the above LINK to the colloquium before making the preceding statement: it should be obvious that the presentation of the concept at the colloquium had obvious approval. However, the colloquium is separate from the national framework and therein lies a very important demarcation from national instittutions who approve/don't approve in the last analysis: please do not put words into my approach and BE VERY careful in qualifying your statements....

The proposal is FACT since June 13th 2003 and worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Read the colloquium flyer in the URL above: you can't miss it if you look carefully...with the patronage of the President of France, the President of the European Parliament and the UN Secretary-General and Michel Barnier, Chairman on the European COnvention among others ...several e-encyclopedias already carry the same reference without my behest....

Basically what I am saying is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and hence should contain facts, not propositions of how things should be. You can write *about* the proposal, but if you do so please provide credible references. Hope that clarifies what I meant. By the way, I never use the fact that I'm at MIT as a way to support my statement. I mention it on my own PERSONAL page just to put something on that page. This is the internet, as far as I am concerned you could be the Provost of MIT and I wouldn't know. So there really is no need for a personal attack. Julius.kusuma 14:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I needed to change the entry about Serbian nationals joining the French Legion in the 80s. I wrote 'Yugoslav' for the obvious reasons that this was the name of the country from where Serbs originated, so the fact that many Serbs went there is of no greater significance than people from Shropshire going, we still say British, besides, my cousin and three of his friends all joined in 1985. My cousin is pure Croatian and the friends of his were Slovenian BUT all joined the legion as Yugoslav nationals, eventually surrendering their citizenships to adopt an identity which was loyal to the French government. Their choice, I suppose! Ragusan 21.9.2005

[edit] The Legion, The Germans, and Vietnam

I heard that after WWII many German soldiers joined the French Foreign Legion and, when the French was fighting in their war in Vietnam, the French switched from Legion troops, who were winning, to regular army troops because the French wouldn't support a war fought by former Natzis. This put the French on the losing side, forcing them to withdraw completely, leaving an opening the United States chose to fill. My only sourse for this is G. Gordon Liddy (from his radio show), so I don't know if it is true. If it is, maybe it is worth mentioning. -- Benjamin 10/6/05

Hello Benjamin - the Legion was very important to the French government's efforts to keep Indo-China in French hands. As the insurrection escalated, the French needed more and more troops. The troops available to fight were French regulars, Colonial troops (such as Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Vietnamese) and the Legion. French conscripts were to be kept out of the conflict. As a result, Legion manpower needed to be increased sharply and they opened their doors to virtually all fit volunteers. Many Germans joined the Legion at this time, including ex-Waffen-SS soldiers. The Legion - including its German elements, was heavily involved in Indonchina/Vietnam from beginning to end, including the climactic battle of Dien Bien Phu (March to May 1954). Though the French held on after Dien Bien Phu and even had some success, it was the writing on the wall for French control of their colony and the French government had to come to a deal arrangement to split Indochina into (communist) North and (democratic) South Vietnam. The other former Indochinese colonies of Laos and Cambodia were already given independence by France. The Americans oversaw the transition and were eager to invest time and men in the new South Vietnam and as France moved out forever, the USA moved in.

The USA had been interested in SE Asia since the end of WW2 and had as its post-war goal the end of colonial rule by Western powers and establishing new national democratic governments - such as ending colonial British rule in India and Malaya, ending Dutch colonial rule in the East Indies and ending French colonial rule in Indo-China. The British already had its agenda for Indian independence, which was granted in 1947. The Dutch and French however, had no immediate plans for giving up their colonies and local guerrilla wars resulted, often communist-inspired. When the Chinese civil war ended in a communist victory in 1949, the climate in the whole region changed. The British delayed their plans for Malayan independence when a communist uprising started there too. Soon Korea was at war with itself. The USA developed its "Domino Theory", which expounded that if one country fell to communism, the next would follow, then the next until SE Asia was completely communist. America's leadership therefore saw it as necessary to combat communism wherever it was threatening the region. US forces went to Korea. British forces were already fighting communists in Malaya. Though the USA had previously put severe pressure on the Netherlands to leave the East Indies, this had occurred before the big communist upsurge. The new Indonesia, whilst not officially communist, had communist leanings and its government was soon inviting Russian advisors and engineers into the country to modernise it. The USA was excluded. Meanwhile, the USA saw France's efforts in Indochina as part of the greater anti-communist effort and was prepared to render aid to keep France fighting. The USA therefore was already investing both financially and with war materiel in French Indo-China long before the French left. When the French did leave in 1955, the USA stayed and developed its links with the new South Vietnamese rulers. They kept military advisors in the country, training montagnards, flew US Navy air observation missions etc right until an escalation of incidents in the early 1960's led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and introduction of full US military operations in 1965 - the start of the Vietnam War.

As far as I am aware, the Legion's manpower needs were so great during the late 1940's early 1950's that it was happy to employ even ex-Waffen-SS troops, using the age-old change of identity method, while the French military and the French government were prepared to look the other way. As far as I know, German legionnaires were employed in Indochina until the Legion and the French moved out. France could not have done without the Legion at any stage as they were mainly infantry, whilst French regulars were paratroopers, armoured troops, artillery and engineers - France's infantry was conscript and was not used in the fighting.

regards - Lachlan Gow (26/10/05)

Why would the Germans need to change their identity...just simply say they weren't members of the SS?

69.216.97.240 01:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to apply for citizenship

I removed the sentance in the first paragraph because:

1) It's wrong. According to the Legion's web site you can apply after three years.
2) The information is listed under the membership section.

Dubhdara 13:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legion in the literature

What, no word on P. Howard (Rejtő Jenő)? 195.70.32.136 16:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] incredibly editorial

dripping with compliments, which shouldn't be in any encyclopedia.

[edit] review of French Foreign Legion article

French Foreign Legion is a professional mercenary fighting unit integrated into the main body of a French Army. Unlike other military units around Europe, it accepts various people ignoring race, religion, social origin or background of the recruits. Boasted for its discipline, fidelity and honor, French Foreign Legion, nonetheless, draws in many romantics and refugees. Generally, attracting volunteers from ‘problematic’ countries (Eastern Europe and Africa), the Legion consists of over a hundred nationalities. The multi-lingual Legion appeals to recruits with a paycheck of 975 Euros, a month (2005), an enormous sum by some standarts, and an opportunity for French citizenship.

The Wikipedia article about French Foreign legion is both brief and informative. The author starts with Legion’s history, discussing every major conflict that the French Foreign Legion participated in. Then the narrator switches to the composition, membership and current deployments of the Legion. Finally, the author lists the famous members of the Legion, and discusses the influence of the Legion on the popular culture. In general, the article provides basic encyclopedic information about the French Foreign Legion. The writer does not particularly persuade a reader with a specific viewpoint, rather relying on the second hand sources of factual information about the military unit.

It is clear that the author of the article has not been a participant of the Legion. The writer does make several strong and unsupported assumptions about the Legion. For example, he claims that desertion is a large problem in the legion. As contemporary sources suggest, desertion used to be a large problem in the Legion but it is significantly reduced today. Today, trainees entering the Legion’s service have a few opportunities to quit within the first year at the Legion . In addition, the author claims that the discipline in the Legion is “incredibly austere … far in excess of that of other contemporary units.” Nonetheless, the Legion’s official website and several other sources state that the training and the discipline of French Foreign Legion today is equivalent of any other French Army unit. Thirdly, in the “Membership” section that author states after WWII, sixty percent of French Foreign Legion was composed of German ex-combatant (even ex-SS) enlistees. That statement is not confirmed by primary sources. Indeed, this issue remains a very controversial topic, discussed by many military historians. Even though the author provides a second opinion (by journalist Bernard D. Fall), it is an overstatement to claim such high participation of German ex-POWs in French Foreign Legion without any references.

The primary account that is discussed in detail is the “History” section is the story of Capitaine Danjou [also referred to as the Battle of Cameron]. The participation of French Foreign Legion in WWI and WWII is summarized in a half of paragraph, which is much generalized considering there were books written about those events. The account of the partaking in warfare is not chronological. The author switches from Franco-Chinese War (1884-1885) to Battle of Dien Bien Phu (1954) in one sentence. To an inexperienced reader it could seem that Battle of Dien Bien Phu could have taken place during Franco-Chinese War.

The middle section of the article discuses composition and current deployments of the Legion. It is very informative and provides a place of every Legions’ unit deployment location.

The last part of the article talks about notable members of the Legion and influence of the Legion on popular culture. Interestingly enough, two out of twenty Legion’s celebrities are wanted Serbian/Croatian war criminals. Does the Legion really advertise that kind of publicity, with ten percent of famous members being wanted for genocide? In addition, the popular culture section seems somewhat out of place. It lists an appearance of Legionnaire cartoon characters and popular TV shows, creating an unusual contrast with a bloody French Legion history just a few paragraphs earlier.

The author did not list any primary sources. It appears that the author used second hand sources like books and popular articles. The only thing that reminds a bibliography is the list of external links that can lead the reader to either the official recruiting website or memoirs of ancien (retired legionnaire). Even though the length of external links consists of 16 web addresses, most of them provide only basic information about the Legion. It is somewhat disappointing because there are dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the subject. It seems that the author neglected to do in-depth research.

Overall, the author provides clear, concise, step-by-step organized information. It is good for basic information reference or to a person who is not familiar with French Foreign Legion. The article, however, is useless for people looking for detailed information. Consecutively, the preliminary reading of the article can provide convincing evidence. The further research into the subject, however, shows that the article is somewhat shallow and does not cover some very important aspects.

Several things can be done to improve this particular article. First of all, the article needs to be expanded and saturated with primary sources references (which there are plenty of). Second, the life and training of the legion sections need to be added. There are several interesting books on the subject and readers would be interested to find out about the unusual daily life and training of the Legionnaire. Moreover, the Popular Culture section needs to be significantly reduced. The encyclopedia does not need to have a reference to the Decembrists’ song or fictional Japanese anime character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradel417 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the comments. When commenting on Wikipedia articles, it is inappropriate to speak of "the narrator", "the author". Almost every article eventually has several editors, each of whom may have made only a small contribution.
We thank you for pointing out that several poorly-supported or heavily-biased statements were in the article, and in due time such errors may be corrected if they have not been already. Certainly any article will have some errors, and in this case some of them are errors that Wikipedia cites from verifiable sources, but Wikipedia editors can never be certain that those sources are indeed correct. Wikipedia editors are increasingly concerned with using good sources, and with giving readers direct references to them, but no editor is refused, and many times we make do with what is available. Thus your bringing specific errors to the table (and contrasting or improved sources) is always appreciated.
As for the popular culture section, that exists because Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, acts as a cross-reference between various topics. There are many popular culture references to the Legion that may have articles and it is always appropriate to note them in the primary article, even if it seems to have little direct importance to the topic. That said, much of that section is overly detailed. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Members of the legion

Members of the Foreign legion are NOT, in theses days french citizens. Those who join are mainly from eastern europe and the former soviet countrys. Because these people see the legion, as a opportunity for a new life, instead of that life they lived in these countrys.

 French citizens may be Officers in the legion.


That isn't true at all, You can join up as a French citizen, you just have to change your name and your nationality to a Francophone country like Belgium or a French Province. 70.106.247.101 17:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Mankind716



You are complete and utterly wrong. The members of the FFL are openly homophobic just like every other fighting force on the planet. Consider the fact that the legion generally will not allow people to enlist unless they're not in any serious relationships and officially do not allow marriage until after the initial 5 year term (and then only with written permission). Also consider the Legion used to run a thoroughly heterosexual bordello in South America until recently. They hand out (normal/non-anal) condoms to troups stationed in Africa because the troops are notorious for whoring in the region and the risk of aids is high. Now go troll elsewhere. -- 86.130.245.34 06:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have verifiable proof of what you say? It sounds like a load of crap. Cat Balou 07:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

Would not "homeland" be a better translation for Patria than nation? -- Carl Logan 11 may 2006

Would not "fatherland" be an even better translation? "Pater" being the Indo-European root meaning "father" and all. -- 69.216.97.240 01:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The ancient motto of the Legion has always been "the Legion is our Fatherland" and that's how it actually translates. That being said the official modern Legion has changed the english version when speaking about it to homeland, what with the Nazi's and all. Colin 8 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] women

what's the story of the woman who joined up? kind of strange it's not mentioned here.

Why should it be? Women make military formations weak, that's a fact. Cat Balou 07:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence of that at all actually. Women would be, and are, just as competent as men when it comes to war. Tactical mobility or superiority is probably the most important aspect in an engagement; all women have to do is learn how to stand in formation, shoot here and there, and move forward (obviously with the added complications of modern warfare). Nothing impossible there, and certainly nothing that requires you being a specific gender.

The idea we shouldn't include something in an encyclopedia because of a personal POV is not what WP is about and your premise is faulty. Woman make a military formation weak eh?, and what about the Russians in the second world war, the Israeli's in every war they've fought, or the NVA or PLF. Or the woman who act in most western militaries now in any non combat role. Or the use of Woman as nurses and doctors going back to the Crimean War, And then of course are the myriad of ancient examples from the Amazon warriors to female Samurai to barbarian woman fighting in formation alongside men. Your personal views on the nature of men and woman and military structure have no place here.Colin 8 19:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry UberCryxic for sandwitching my comment between your comment and your signature, it was an accident I don't know how to fix. Colin 8 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) UberCryxic 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there. I've only just finished my stint and the combat fitness physical standards for females is less as opposed to males. I've seen men fail on fitness tests but their level of fitness surpassed the standard that the females had to do, and because of their "Failure" these men get notices asking for them to provide proof as to why they should remain in the army. We don't even do long marches with packs anymore, atleast nothing larger than 12.5 miles, even that. In the past 9.3 miles was the norm, with 25 miles or greater (40 to 60 miles) also conducted, fully kitted up. Now its 6.25 miles and 12.5 mile "pleasure walks", and only if we feel like it! An 18 year old male has to do a minimum of 50 push ups. A female of the same age does 35. In field exercises women were often sent to the rear area (usually the medical centre on base) to get a shower after a few days for "Hygene reasons". The men only had showers at the completion of the exercise. Equal opportunity gone mad. Cat Balou 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Well you're not technically disagreeing with me, at least if you read my statement carefully. I said nothing about physical abilities; you did not really address what I said. My fundamental point was this: "Tactical mobility or superiority is probably the most important aspect in an engagement..." Tactical mobility is mostly not dependent upon physical strength. You can have a very well-trained and well-equipped women's unit versus a well-trained but poorly equipped men's unit; the latter would get raped in every case. There's a reason why those standards have dropped; warfare has changed. Napoleon's armies were the ones that had to march 30 miles a day (in those days, these differences might have made a difference, though it's unclear); modern armies cover that and more with tanks, APCs, and so on. All we have to do to get optimal combat performance from women is to simply train them in the tactical methods of the day. If they learn those, they'll be just as good as men.UberCryxic 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I did answer your question, but you, being of the so-called "Progressive" mold, are not listening to reality. Let me ask you this question: Have you ever had to carry the pack of a female soldier in addition to your own because she couldn't carry it on a short 15km march? I think not. The problem is you've never served in the military, because if you did you'd know pretty well that not all terrain is conducive to the mounted/mechanized mobility that you talk about, and it is most likely in those kinds of places where you'll find the enemy. Take a look at Afghanistan for instance. Yeah, your "tactical mobility" really works in mountainous terrain doesn't it? Urban warfare is pretty gruelling too. You have to actually dismount off your APC and do some doorkicking, or jumping over walls, or going up and down stairs, not staying inside your vehicle and hope and pray the enemy would go away like PFC Lynch did. Out of curiosity what do you know about what you call "optimal combat performance"? Am I talking to an armchair general here or what? Don't pretend to be an expert on a subject you know nothing about. Combat-level fitness or Battle fitness counts inspite of what you want to believe. A high standard of fitness is essential because last time I knew, combat was still a very physical and exhaustive endeavour. Lowering standards on the excuse that "WE have the Technology..." has been proven time and again throughout history as the wrong way to do things. Oh, and another thing...Technology has changed. Warfare hasn't. If you sent your "well trained, well equiped women's unit" against my "well trained but poorly equiped mens unit" I will still win, and I'm not kidding. Let me provide a slightly modified example of the stupidity of your logic: If your kind of logic worked, then the Soviets would not have lost in Afghanistan. Sure the mujahadeen had the stinger missile , but other than that they were poorly equiped compared to the Soviet Army. You can believe in all the crap you want to believe, but don't pass of BS to someone who knows better than you.Cat Balou 11:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Cat Balou 10:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Boy howdy is this ever OT. Does anyone have an actual answer to the anon's question? Were there women in the French Foreign Legion, and if so what is the story on them? siafu 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there was a case of one female that was with the Legion in WW2 but in terms of being trained from the ground up as a legionaire I think not Cat Balou 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the anon is referring to. Officially, the French Foreign Legion does not permit women to join, perhaps the only unit in the French army that continues this policy.UberCryxic 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, quite right, there are no women in the Legion per se. There are some female Sgts who are attached in clerical roles from the regular French army who are more or less seconded to the Legion. They do not join, nor do they go through basic training. The Legion did "adopt" Edith Piaf and she in return loved her Legionnaires (singing at least one song about them). There was a woman just after WWII whose name escapes me right now, who was unofficailly a "Legionnaire" (more or less an honorary rank due to her service at teh time)

[edit] Mexico

The three soldiers did not surrender to the Mexicans, they were the only remaining Legionarres in the battle. When called on to surrender the Legionarres replied with "only if you agree to tend to our wounded and allow us to keep our arms". The Mexican Colonol said "To men like you, we can refuse nothing".

[edit] How do you get in the Legion?

I mean like the selection process. Physical fitness, mental ability, training...

Those sort of things. The article doesn't have much info on those.

im kinda curious. Jak722 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Be really fit and have a long preparation. On Le Raid you'll be marching 150km in 3 days. Get used to running distances with load, hike long distances with heavy loads and the like. Cat Balou 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to travel to France to begin with. There are (or used to be) sixteen induction centres scattered across the country. A lot of people join at Fort du Nogent in Paris but it's better to go directly to the HQ Regiment in Aubagne (near Marseille) as you won't waste up to 3 weeks in Paris waiting enough other potential recruits to justify putting you on the train South. You don't have to be fit to join but it obviously helps. Why people showed up out of shape knowing it was the Legion and that the training was likely to be physically tough is beyond me. At Aubagne you are put through a standard battery of tests for both physical and mental aptitude before shipping out to basic training. The induction period in Aubagne takes about 3 weeks and basic training is for four months. If you aren't in shape when you begin basic training, you will be by the time you finish. When you arrive they will take all your belongings from you except money and cigarettes. If you are accepted you will never see your stuff again. If you are rejected, your personal kit is returned to you along with a train ticket to the city where you first went into the recruitment centre. In other words, if you approached the induction centre in Strasbourg, you'll be given a ticket back there.

[edit] Colonialism

I'm a little disturbed by the language in the introduction to the French Foreign Legion page. Namely, the following sentence: "the painful dismantlement of French colonial empire and finally, the loss of its fatherland: Algeria." Not only does this seem apologetic to the horrors of European colonization in Africa, but it also seems to indicate that decolonization was "painful." This is unacceptable. The colonial project, whether undertaken by Belgium, England, Spain, or France, was a brutal and merciless enterprise used to fuel the fledgling capitalist economy. Along side of the "Belgian" Congo, French Algeria was a site known for its own brand of brutality toward the colonized (the cutting off of a hand of the child of a "lazy" slave was not uncommon). Just because we're discussing the history of a European nation here does not mean we can ignore the sickening past of colonization, let alone express sympathy for its demise.

It took two wars with tens of thousands of death for the french colonial empire to disapear and thousand of refuges from Algeria (the pied-noirs). If that isn't painful I don't know what is, it was painful for all parties. Especially if you compare with the british decolonization. If you think some other line is better feel free to make a suggestion. Carl Logan 20:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Carl Logan. French colonialism was often brutal and exploitative but its ending in Algeria arose through a war of appalling atrocity on both sides. See Alastair Horne's "A Savage War of Peace" for details. Tragically the history of post-indepence Algeria has continued the same pattern - from the massacres of pro-French Muslims in 1962 to the civil war of the past decade. The cutting off of hands is a new one - certainly this brand of cruelty characterised King Leopold's Congo Free State in the 1890s but I have never heard of the French tolerating it in Algeria. Incidentally they abolished slavery there.

How people with No knowledge talk of things they don't know...Contrarily to all other Colonies Algeria was a French department (9A) and part integrand of France..I am born There in 1951 and saw as child the Algerian war...Muslim were cutting hands and other things to children and adults during the war...If it is true that certain colon have abused some workers in farm it was a small percentage of them...I grow up with a Fatma Zouina which took care of me like her own son...The majority of Algerian people were happy to be part of France...The minority which were against the Frenchs are responsible for the war and massacre of Muslim pro French with an horrible effect after the Independence 100 000 Harkis Veterans were executed by the Islamics...They want the independence but invaded France...Please check your facts before to write ineptitude about things concerning Algeria Lt Kata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.76.39 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 13 DBLE

The statement about the vichy french 6rei soldiers joining the 13th dble after the 6th defeat by the 13th dble is wrong, having spoken to the few survivors , general De Barre, who commanded the vichy french forces, of the 100 odd survivors of the 6th, 2 door ways were set up for the prisonners, one marked free french the other marked vichy french, only 4 legionnaires passed through the doorway maked free french??? the 6th REG, the inheriters of the 6threi was disbanneded after the first war in the gulf when it became known to the french governmnent that they were inheritors of a vichy french regiment. please refer to the 6 REG book, la legion en marche, for clarification of the details. 195.137.94.207 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

What's with the childish paintings as "pictures" in this article? it looks bad. 89.0.166.35 03:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt some fair use crusaders decided they were a better option then real paintings. Bigbrisco 15:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Uniforms

The leather "butcher's" apron and axe which they wield in the July 14th parade deserve some explanation. Any takers ? 89.224.198.53 12:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is only the Legion's equivalent of pioneers [[1]] who have the apron and axe. I imagine these would be because of their involvement in construction tasks traditionally involving cutting wood and carrying stone. A leather apron would protect the clothing much like a stonemason's apron ( the predecessor of the freemason's apron ). But I've got no references on hand to back this up. --203.59.33.111 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pop Culture

There currently isn't a list of Pop Culture references. But if others see fit to start one, I'd suggest an enchanting song by the Decemberists called "The Legionnaire's Lament." This is Track 8 on "Castaways and Cutouts." Iamdeadfish 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an entire article about popular culture references: French Foreign Legion in popular culture were the Decemberists song is included. Carl Logan 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Podcast as a reference?

This probably sounds incredibly stupid, but I've recently used information from George Hageman's Military History Podcast to add to the Battle of Camarón. Is a podcast a legitimate source? Hageman, from what I've gathered, uses accredited sources for his work. The Last Melon 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

are the legionnaire french citizens or not? Paris By Night 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No. They have the right to apply for French citizenship after completing 3 years of service (used to be five). Some do, most don't.

[edit] Dubious Information

Violence in the legion is not common as a means of training as this article appears to suggest. The main reason for desertion is the toughness of the training regime. Many recruits see the Legion as a means of escape and join without really knowing what they are letting themselves in for. Other factors such as theft, very long days with only six hours sleep and being unable to contact family for the first two months are more likely to result in desertion. --Alastair Swift 11:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Alastair Swift 17 July 2007.

Legion is an elite Force...If you want to join it you must accept your training and all which is part of a Legionnaire duties and traditions...I got no respect for any deserter for any excuse what so ever...When they sign they know what they are signing...There is enough informations of the French Foreign Legion every where you can't want wear the uniform and have the reputation of our "Anciens" if you cannot handle the good and the bad of The Legion...In the Legion you are pushed to the maximum of your possibilities and it is where the selection start... Many of deserter are people whom have betray the code of the Legion by doing reprehensible acts outside or inside the Legion and deserting is the easy way... LT Kata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.76.39 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Algerian Battalion

The Spaniard Carlists about 1836 raised a unit made up for the most part of defectors from the French Legion.It was known as the Algerian Battalion. It took part in the so-called "Royal Expedition" and at least once, at the battle of Barbastro in Aragon, put the French Legion to flight. This warlike Carlist unit suffered heavy losses.It was disbanded in 1838. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French language

I'm assuming you have to speak French but if not, then how are orders issued? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.249.82 (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The NCO's will demonstrate, and basically you can see what all the french guys are doing and copy them. The FFL pride themselves on the fact that they do everything in big powerful groups, so I'm guessing that most of the time even if you can't speak french, there's someone there who does and can try to demonstrate and help the others out.203.51.167.251 (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond Hayes-Lynge scandal

There is reference to this in the 'recruitment' section. I can find vague mentions on google of a musician under this name, but nothing more. This section really needs to be expanded if any information exists about this person/scandal. R-T-C (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] correction to Mexico section

Corrected this;

"attacked and besieged by two thousand members of the Mexican Army,[3] organized in three battalions of infantry and cavalry, numbering 1,200 and 800 respectively."

Obviously that should read 'two battalions' and now does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSam (talk • contribs) 03:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Detailed accounts of Camerone refer to three battalions of Mexican infantry numbering 1,200 men (see Douglas Porch and Martin Windrow). This is in addition to the 800 cavalry who encountered the Legion detachment first. Why "obviously"? - a battalion in any army in the middle of battle can vary in numbers and there is no reason to think that the Mexican forces of 1863 had particularly rigid establishment numbers for each unit. 210.246.20.41 (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)