Is this right?

[ParraEelsNRL]

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.rugbyforumxiii.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D12351%26postdays%3D0%26postorder%3Dasc%26start%3D30%26sid%3D8e5d6406b61675bf7d80422a7ec9809d

"It is not Vichy which killed the XIII, but concretely Rugby with XV, written black on white since 1941, not into 41 but in October 40, not Pascot, but Voivenel, not on decision of Vichy, but on intervention of Dr. Ginesty President of the FFR"



Anyone know what the go is?

Is this right?

 

[taipan]

Vichy happened to be running the country ATT,and anything to do with England was 'on the nose".
From the Forbidden Game by Mike Rylance p 152 " hardly anything of Pascot's involvement leading up to the announcement of the ban was reported.But one reference to Pascot's work behind the scenes came from Dr Ginesty,the FFR president who had,with Pascot,met in Toulouse in October 1940 to decide how best to dismember the Ligue Francais de Rugby a`X111.After a match involving Pascot's old club at Perpognan,Ginesty went so far as to say,choosing his words carefully."rugby has had the good fortune to see Commondant Pascot(as he then was) take charge as Director of sports where he has played a role which his modesty prevents him from expanding upon".
They were two of the great colluders(sic),and Ginesty as president of the FFR had everything to gain and nothing to lose with the removal of rugby league.
The FFR(Pascot ,Ginesty et al) aimed the gun,and the Vichy merely fired it.
Part of the proud rugby union tradition no doubt.

 

[Woods99]

Vichy happened to be running the country ATT,and anything to do with England was 'on the nose".
From the Forbidden Game by Mike Rylance p 152 " hardly anything of Pascot's involvement leading up to the announcement of the ban was reported.But one reference to Pascot's work behind the scenes came from Dr Ginesty,the FFR president who had,with Pascot,met in Toulouse in October 1940 to decide how best to dismember the Ligue Francais de Rugby a`X111.After a match involving Pascot's old club at Perpognan,Ginesty went so far as to say,choosing his words carefully."rugby has had the good fortune to see Commondant Pascot(as he then was) take charge as Director of sports where he has played a role which his modesty prevents him from expanding upon".
They were two of the great colluders(sic),and Ginesty as president of the FFR had everything to gain and nothing to lose with the removal of rugby league.
The FFR(Pascot ,Ginesty et al) aimed the gun,and the Vichy merely fired it.
Part of the proud rugby union tradition no doubt.

Who cares what happened under Vichy? The great French league teams of the early fifties seemed to do pretty well, didn't they? It requires a suspension of the normal processes of human history to accept that league was strong in the early fifties, and the demise of the game was due to actions taken 10 years earlier.

It was De Gaulle who preferred rugby, as a unifying force for a fractured nation, who dealt the death-blow to league.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It's not dead.

 

[Calixte]

Who cares what happened under Vichy? The great French league teams of the early fifties seemed to do pretty well, didn't they? It requires a suspension of the normal processes of human history to accept that league was strong in the early fifties, and the demise of the game was due to actions taken 10 years earlier.

It was De Gaulle who preferred rugby, as a unifying force for a fractured nation, who dealt the death-blow to league.

Can't think how the complete banning of the game and the seizure of its assets, coupled with the right not to use its own name, might damage a sport.

Idiot, Woods.

Talk about suspending belief...

 

[Calixte]

It's not dead.

Amen.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Good to see the Dragons doing so well, I bet some of the old Ruggas are rolling in their graves at the sight of this new team.

I find the French sites fascinating, even if it's a nightmare to understand some of it.:sarcasm:

 

[Woods99]

Can't think how the complete banning of the game and the seizure of its assets, coupled with the right not to use its own name, might damage a sport.

Idiot, Woods.

Talk about suspending belief...

The first post in this thread says, and I quote "It was not Vichy that killed the XIII, but concretely rugby with XV on its back....".

So this thread starts with the premise that league was killed.....not by Vichy.......but by rugby officials. Taipan went on to talk about the role of the Vichy government, and I responded to his comments.

Calixte, I know that you are consumed with hatred with everything to do with rugby, but try to read and comprehend the earlier posts of a thread before lashing out.

I did not make the original statement that league was killed. Other posters made that.

I simply pointed out that, if league was killed by Vichy (or, as the original poster asserts, by the Vichy regime at the urging of rugby union officials), the game was amazingly alive and well a few short years later, as evidenced by the remarkable success of the French touring teams of the early fifties.

On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to have moved on since WW2, including the British people (where rugby originated, of course) who bailed the French out a couple of times, with help from people like us as well. Incidentally, on the first of those occasions, rugby union closed down in Australia, because there were no players. They were all fighting in the "war to end all wars".

League competitions, however, continued for the duration. Are you proud of that particular tradition? Anzac Test indeed.:roll:

 

[East Coast Tiger]

League competitions, however, continued for the duration. Are you proud of that particular tradition? Anzac Test indeed.:roll:

I bet league had more soldiers fighting that war than union did. Union had no players because they were streaming into the league ranks becaus it was a better game and they were being more fairly treated.

As for WWII...

UNION HELPED THE NAZIS IN FRANCE.

Are you proud of that?

 

[winnyason]

in my opinion they should take it to the high court, when the ffr13 have the funds & get compo from union. wonder what that would be with interest?

 

[taipan]

Who cares what happened under Vichy? The great French league teams of the early fifties seemed to do pretty well, didn't they? It requires a suspension of the normal processes of human history to accept that league was strong in the early fifties, and the demise of the game was due to actions taken 10 years earlier.

It was De Gaulle who preferred rugby, as a unifying force for a fractured nation, who dealt the death-blow to league.

Who cares what happened under vichy!,is as dumb a statement as who cares what happened under the nazis.It deserves no response,from anyone who follows history.
Sort of knew you would poke your head around the corner Woods. The banning of rugby league,the inability to have the game played in the schools was the final straw.After the players of the 50s retired,there was no follow on from the production line,because there was no production line from a code which was hamstrung in schools and not being offically recognised.
de Gaulle was probably instrumental in having the assets handed over to his union buddies.Unifying force WTF,it was freedom which was the unifying force.How many vichy sympathisers ended up being removed permanently ,and women having their heads shaven.
Rugby league's strength was in the south of France,where resistance to vichy was the strongest.
Finally after regaining its name,and getting access in the educational facilities the game is moving ahead albeit slowly.
Talk about an Olympic class apologist Woods is a gold medalist.Every time vichy is mentioned your lordship,charges in like a leather patcher possessed.
Sins of the fathers can do that sometimes;-)

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

The first post in this thread says, and I quote "It was not Vichy that killed the XIII, but concretely rugby with XV on its back....".

So this thread starts with the premise that league was killed.....not by Vichy.......but by rugby officials. Taipan went on to talk about the role of the Vichy government, and I responded to his comments.

Calixte, I know that you are consumed with hatred with everything to do with rugby, but try to read and comprehend the earlier posts of a thread before lashing out.

I did not make the original statement that league was killed. Other posters made that.

I simply pointed out that, if league was killed by Vichy (or, as the original poster asserts, by the Vichy regime at the urging of rugby union officials), the game was amazingly alive and well a few short years later, as evidenced by the remarkable success of the French touring teams of the early fifties.

On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to have moved on since WW2, including the British people (where rugby originated, of course) who bailed the French out a couple of times, with help from people like us as well. Incidentally, on the first of those occasions, rugby union closed down in Australia, because there were no players. They were all fighting in the "war to end all wars".

League competitions, however, continued for the duration. Are you proud of that particular tradition? Anzac Test indeed.:roll:

I never said or thought it had been killed, I only posted what some guys from another site said.

As far as I can see, the game is and has been alive over there as far back as I can remember.

Woods, being a person who has land hopped and seen some places according to yourself, you should know that French is hard to translate into English, some words come out completely opposite to what you are trying to say, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, most people who know about the RL-RU in France around the 2nd ww don't what to make a big noise about it, most would just like either repayment for the stuff lost and a public apology, with no more hang ups, if the XV where to leave to X111 alone to do their own stuff, things would be much better, you agree?

 

[taipan]

The first post in this thread says, and I quote "It was not Vichy that killed the XIII, but concretely rugby with XV on its back....".

So this thread starts with the premise that league was killed.....not by Vichy.......but by rugby officials. Taipan went on to talk about the role of the Vichy government, and I responded to his comments.

Calixte, I know that you are consumed with hatred with everything to do with rugby, but try to read and comprehend the earlier posts of a thread before lashing out.

I did not make the original statement that league was killed. Other posters made that.

I simply pointed out that, if league was killed by Vichy (or, as the original poster asserts, by the Vichy regime at the urging of rugby union officials), the game was amazingly alive and well a few short years later, as evidenced by the remarkable success of the French touring teams of the early fifties.

On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to have moved on since WW2, including the British people (where rugby originated, of course) who bailed the French out a couple of times, with help from people like us as well. Incidentally, on the first of those occasions, rugby union closed down in Australia, because there were no players. They were all fighting in the "war to end all wars".

League competitions, however, continued for the duration. Are you proud of that particular tradition? Anzac Test indeed.:roll:

Many rugby league players fought in WW2 and died,the fact that competitions continued was to give people in Oz,a diversion from the trials and tribulations of war.
Tradition you talk tradition-apartheid,collusion with the enemy.Get off your union lillywhite soapbox, it is looking rather shaky from whiteants.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

Incidentally, on the first of those occasions, rugby union closed down in Australia, because there were no players. They were all fighting in the "war to end all wars".

League competitions, however, continued for the duration. Are you proud of that particular tradition? Anzac Test indeed.:roll:

Woods, irrespective of the right/wrongs of each individual war, there is a certain nobilty that such a large proportion of union players enlisted in the war effort. I think that they did so can be a genuine and legitimate source of pride to union.

To imply however, that league players somehow dodged their responsibility is disgracefully disprespectful to those who either risked or gave their lives.

Here is a bit of light reading for you: http://www.rl1908.com/articles/war.htm

 

[Calixte]

The first post in this thread says, and I quote "It was not Vichy that killed the XIII, but concretely rugby with XV on its back....".

So this thread starts with the premise that league was killed.....not by Vichy.......but by rugby officials. Taipan went on to talk about the role of the Vichy government, and I responded to his comments.

Calixte, I know that you are consumed with hatred with everything to do with rugby, but try to read and comprehend the earlier posts of a thread before lashing out.

I did not make the original statement that league was killed. Other posters made that.

I simply pointed out that, if league was killed by Vichy (or, as the original poster asserts, by the Vichy regime at the urging of rugby union officials), the game was amazingly alive and well a few short years later, as evidenced by the remarkable success of the French touring teams of the early fifties.

On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to have moved on since WW2, including the British people (where rugby originated, of course) who bailed the French out a couple of times, with help from people like us as well. Incidentally, on the first of those occasions, rugby union closed down in Australia, because there were no players. They were all fighting in the "war to end all wars".

League competitions, however, continued for the duration. Are you proud of that particular tradition? Anzac Test indeed.:roll:

My comments responded directly to your incorrect ones, moron.

You stated rugby league could not have been affected by Vichy because of the quality French RL sides of the 1950s and that the "death-blow" was inflicted by De Gaulle. This is patently wrong.

The union role in the Vichy banning is very well documented - including by the French government. You, however, seem to deny it.

As for hatred, it is you posting on a rugby league web-site and not me on a union one. And every one of your posts has the same anti-rugby league theme. Go figure... :lol:

You repeated the comment re- "death" or have I misunderstood the term "death-blow"?

There has been no redress to French rugby league and so the issue does remain alive - irrespective of the time that has passed since the events occurred.

Your sideline about the two sports during the World Wars has been dealt with in a previous thread - don't expect me to dignify it with a detailed response here.

Further, when you have three university history degrees (I have two), you can lecture me on the history of the 20th century...

And BTW, you are now batting 0-1023 and counting.

 

[taipan]

as an adjunct to my earlier comments to Woods on the effects of the Vichy/union banning of rugby league during the war years,I would like to add further comments
1) It was not until 1993 that French rugby league finally earned the right to call itself the Fe'de'ration Francais de rugby a` X111.This despite the contravention of a law allowing a federation a free choice of name .
2)As per the "Forbidden Game":=
Rugby union's strike was to have effects that lasted long after the war had ended.the war years had seen an unprecented rise,thanks to the efforts of vichy's Commissariat General aux Sports,in the French public's participation in sport.If rugby league had still been played(repeat still been played)during that period it would almost certainly have outpaced its union rival.Instead union was given the inestimable advantage of being made compulsory in schools,with the new FFR president crowing: I agree with Pascot.Rugby (union) is a manly sport which will regenerate the people.Vichy had not only stripped rugby league bare,it had land-mined the game'spost war future,with the result that french rugby league ,less than a generation after it had begun,would enter a period of slow decline".

For anyone to suggest that as the French had an exceptional rugby league side in the early fifties that, QED this would continue,ignores the realities of the effects and after effects of the Vichy/union fandangle during the war years banning rugby league.Weak administration aside if you cant have your sport officially recognised,cant get it in the schools,get no govt financial support,have all your assets handed over to an opposing sport,have a large early 40s bank balance disappear (one can only guess where LOL),you can't grow your game or strengthen your game.Any sports administrator in Oz would agree,except those union apologists who tend to make guest appearances.

 

[Woods99]

My comments responded directly to your incorrect ones, moron.

You stated rugby league could not have been affected by Vichy because of the quality French RL sides of the 1950s and that the "death-blow" was inflicted by De Gaulle. This is patently wrong.

Okay, Mr Three University degrees (two in history),

Let me re-phrase the point that I made. How is it that French rugby league was stronger internationally 10 years after the end of WW2, given your assertion that rugby union damaged it severely under the Vichy regime?

Was league in a weakened state at the end of the war, or not? If it was in a weakened state, how did it recover to the point of producing high quality international teams in the early fifties?

Given your belief that league is a far superior game to rugby union in every respect, how is it that that apparent high point in league in France has never been remotely reached ever since?

More credible historians than you have credited (or blamed) De Gaulle with favouring rugby union as a unifying sport for the nation, when he came to power during the Algerian crisis. Do you dispute this?





The union role in the Vichy banning is very well documented - including by the French government. You, however, seem to deny it.

[/quote]

I deny nothing. I simply posed a question. The sort of question that any academically minded person might pose, and which deserves a reasoned response. If you can make one without dragging in non sequiturs and insults.

There is a lot about the Vichy regime that is repellent. Not the least is the apparent ease with which the French people accepted it, with very little force from the Germans.

As for hatred, it is you posting on a rugby league web-site and not me on a union one. And every one of your posts has the same anti-rugby league theme. Go figure... :lol:
\


You repeated the comment re- "death" or have I misunderstood the term "death-blow"?

There has been no redress to French rugby league and so the issue does remain alive - irrespective of the time that has passed since the events occurred.

This is a matter for the French, I would have thought. They don't seem to care about it. Why should anybody else?

Your sideline about the two sports during the World Wars has been dealt with in a previous thread - don't expect me to dignify it with a detailed response here.



Further, when you have three university history degrees (I have two), you can lecture me on the history of the 20th century...

And BTW, you are now batting 0-1023 and counting.

The arrogance of the over-educated. If you do know anything about my academic background it is only because you crawl around Planet Rugby, sniffing the proverbial bicycle seats for clues, without having the balls to join the debate.

I will just make the simple point that I have done far more than you will ever dream of.

 

[Woods99]

My comments responded directly to your incorrect ones, moron.

You stated rugby league could not have been affected by Vichy because of the quality French RL sides of the 1950s and that the "death-blow" was inflicted by De Gaulle. This is patently wrong.

Okay, Mr Three University degrees (two in history),

Let me re-phrase the point that I made. How is it that French rugby league was stronger internationally 10 years after the end of WW2, given your assertion that rugby union damaged it severely under the Vichy regime?

Was league in a weakened state at the end of the war, or not? If it was in a weakened state, how did it recover to the point of producing high quality international teams in the early fifties?

Given your belief that league is a far superior game to rugby union in every respect, how is it that that apparent high point in league in France has never been remotely reached ever since?

More credible historians than you have credited (or blamed) De Gaulle with favouring rugby union as a unifying sport for the nation, when he came to power during the Algerian crisis. Do you dispute this?

The union role in the Vichy banning is very well documented - including by the French government. You, however, seem to deny it.

I deny nothing. I simply posed a question. The sort of question that any academically minded person might pose, and which deserves a reasoned response. If you can make one without dragging in non sequiturs and insults.

There is a lot about the Vichy regime that is repellent. Not the least is the apparent ease with which the French people accepted it, with very little force from the Germans.

As for hatred, it is you posting on a rugby league web-site and not me on a union one. And every one of your posts has the same anti-rugby league theme. Go figure... :lol:
\


You repeated the comment re- "death" or have I misunderstood the term "death-blow"?

There has been no redress to French rugby league and so the issue does remain alive - irrespective of the time that has passed since the events occurred.

This is a matter for the French, I would have thought. They don't seem to care about it. Why should anybody else?

Your sideline about the two sports during the World Wars has been dealt with in a previous thread - don't expect me to dignify it with a detailed response here.



Further, when you have three university history degrees (I have two), you can lecture me on the history of the 20th century...

And BTW, you are now batting 0-1023 and counting.

The arrogance of the over-educated. If you do know anything about my academic background it is only because you crawl around Planet Rugby, sniffing the proverbial bicycle seats for clues, without having the balls to join the debate.

I will just make the simple point that I have done far more in life, in sports and general management, than you will ever dream of.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Why don't you post it again and I won't read it for a third time.

 

[Woods99]

Woods, irrespective of the right/wrongs of each individual war, there is a certain nobilty that such a large proportion of union players enlisted in the war effort. I think that they did so can be a genuine and legitimate source of pride to union.

To imply however, that league players somehow dodged their responsibility is disgracefully disprespectful to those who either risked or gave their lives.

Here is a bit of light reading for you: http://www.rl1908.com/articles/war.htm

In my opinion it is and was "disgracefully disrespectful" for a sport to cloak itself in the Anzac name, especially when - as the above article re-affirms - that sport continued its competition for the duration of the Great War, when most young Australian boys and men felt it their duty to enlist, and when the name came into its hallowed existence.

And yet rugby union gets tarnished because of the actions of a corrupt government in France, the very country that those young men of Australia rushed to defend in 1914-18 ( stupidly, jingoistically, whatever), and of course during the Second War, with the game that is later tarnished virtually disappearing in Queensland for 15 years, and closed down in New South Wales for the duration of the First War, and of course badly affected afterwards.

In most posts about the Vichy regime's role in attacking league, you will see the phrase bandied about that "rugby union behaved dishonourably".

I suppose that like beauty, honour is in the eye of the beholder. People behave dishonourably, not a sport.