Falklands MkII

[Somebody Else]

Linky (http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006)

Time to get the JSF up and running?

[Duke Malcolm]

I read a similar article in the Scotland on Sunday, which got me quite worried. We cannot over-look such military build-ups, the garrison on the islands should be increased somewhat, and an RAF squadron should be sent as well. I think also a destroyer or two...

[Ianofsmeg16]

This comes but a year after we got rid of our Sea harriers, Wise move MoD! If an Invasion comes, would the US help?


and an RAF squadron should be sent as well. I think also a destroyer or two... we already have an RAF squadron there, tornado F3s. (",)

[Mount Suribachi]

Actually a flight of 4.

The last SHARs go in March, so now we have aircraft carriers but no aircraft....

But yeah, we should increase the garrison (1200 squaddies IIRC) and send a few more fighters down there, just for a few months to show we mean business. In a few months time it will be winter, and any assault would be impossible anyway.

But all it really needs to put a stop to the sillyness is for the US ambassador to whisper in the Argentinian presidents ear that this time there will be a US Navy carrier battle group helping the Brits out ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To the Argies: Bring it.

To Blair: Get the freaking GR9 Harriers on the Carriers!

I don't know about the garrison, but IRRC its a company (100-150) 1,200 would be a battalion. In any rate we can fly the guys out to Mount Pleasant and they can bomb up from the armoury there.

[Ianofsmeg16]

I'm afraid if the Argies try anything this time, they might get a right bloody nose, because unlike the 1982 conflict we have the infrastructure to organise a long distance campaign, hell we've been doing it in Irag and Afghanistan.

But would the US give its support? last time they didnt do much overtly did they?

[BigTex]

I wonder if the french will be selling all their pretty little weapons to the argentines this time.
Btw I always wondered this, did the french made missiles that destroyed a couple British navy ships piss the Britians off?

[Duke Malcolm]

I don't know about the garrison, but IRRC its a company (100-150) 1,200 would be a battalion.

Two battalions or regiments.


But would the US give its support? last time they didnt do much overtly did they?

They didn't do it last time because of the misinterpretation of some 19th century doctrine about colonialism and the Americas. George might be more willing to give us a helping hand...

[Ianofsmeg16]

The french made the Exocet Missiles that sunk the Sheffield and the other one whos name i cant remember.

[BigTex]

Yeah I knew that. What was amazing was they would have continued to sell the missiles to them till the CIA bought all the remaining missiles the french had. What I was wondering is how that affected the british/french relations?

[Marcellus]

What I was wondering is how that affected the british/french relations?

I believe the French were really rather helpful. I think that most of the French equipment was sold to Argentina before the risk of conflict became apparent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_war#French_involvement

[Kralizec]

According to Mitterand, Thatcher threatened to drop nukes on Argentinia if he didn't provide her with the codes to disarm the missiles Argentinia had been using. (look here (http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/905/Tunnel_Vision.html) or here (http://www.north-sea.net/2005/11/20/mitterand-thatcher-falklands/) if you don't believe me)

Got nothing against the Brits, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the literal truth. This is the iron lady we're talking about, remember.

[Mount Suribachi]

Don't forget that Britain sold Lynx helicopters to Argentina before the war, although IIRC only 2 were delivered and the rest were embargoed.

[ShadesPanther]

According to Mitterand, Thatcher threatened to drop nukes on Argentinia if he didn't provide her with the codes to disarm the missiles Argentinia had been using. (look here (http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/905/Tunnel_Vision.html) or here (http://www.north-sea.net/2005/11/20/mitterand-thatcher-falklands/) if you don't believe me)

Got nothing against the Brits, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the literal truth. This is the iron lady we're talking about, remember.

We did sink the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in WWII. Britain will go to such lengths to protect herself.

[Proletariat]

They didn't do it last time because of the misinterpretation of some 19th century doctrine about colonialism and the Americas. George might be more willing to give us a helping hand...

I certainly hope we would help. It's the very least we could do for our noblest ally and it's not as if we have much to lose in our relationship with South America these days.

[Kanamori]

Yeah. Our relationships with most of them have been screwed up before Reagan, not even to mention after Reagan and all the other blunders.:skull:

I too wish I could say that America would help, but given our record and how the Iraq war has been going (leading to more isolationism, I think) I doubt we will. Sorry.:oops:

I hope our diplomats help enough before anything ever comes of this, if anything will come of it.

Talking about our diplomats though, it might be best if they didn't get involved in Latin America.:sweatdrop:

[BelgradeWar]

I don't think anuthing's gonna happen for real. It's a bit of a show for the locals, pretty shaken these years...nationalism is a great thing to put aside economical problems...despite the oficials claiming that Argentina is now back on feet...yeah, right...

Anyway, withoutchosing sides, I was pretty amazed how the Argentian air force did some of their actions in sinking the ships. I'm not sure if it was Sheffield or Atlantic Conveyor, but they actually refueled attack plane in air from another attack plane...Mirages I think...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We did sink the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in WWII. Britain will go to such lengths to protect herself.

Well the French were going to hand that Fleet over to the Germans when they could have agreed to be under British command and keep fighting. They picked the wrong side so ended them because thats the kind of people we are.

Push the British so far and we'll just complain, push just alittle harder and we'll leave you with a smoking ruin.

Duke Malcolm, is that a comment on the garrison or my figures. A modern Infantry Battalion is three Reifle Companies, a support company and a Headquaters Company. Over all it comes to about 1,000 men, add to that 200 techies to fix the tanks etc.

[rory_20_uk]

As has been said the French lost the fleet as it decided to go German. Yup, we will attack our enemies, especially when the neutral fleet decided this.

On the TV the Navy just said that it is unlikely that there is a threat that needs to be met at sea. I hope he's got his CV up to date.

I feel that the Americans owe us some help if there were another conflict. It hardly needs to be getting their hands dirty, just get some subs to release some cruise missiles at Max range, then slip away again. No one need to know for certain that it was them that did it.

I agree that sabre rattling is the likely order of the day. That and George would love a cheap, quick battle to win means it'd be a bad idea to get involved at the moment.

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

Push the British so far and we'll just complain, push just alittle harder and we'll leave you with a smoking ruin.


Push them one step further and they send in the colonialsas soldiers first, and worse still as tourists later. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Well the French were going to hand that Fleet over to the Germans when they could have agreed to be under British command and keep fighting.
Since when ?
The French were under the orders of their government and the terms of the armistice .
None of the British demands were acceptable and Britain knew they were unacceptable .
Oh , and in case you missed it the French scuttled their fleet when the Germans did try and take it .
So where do you get the idea that they were going to hand the fleet over to the Germans ?

Edit to add ..
As has been said the French lost the fleet as it decided to go German. Yup, we will attack our enemies, especially when the neutral fleet decided this.

Oh dear , another one .

[Samurai Waki]

Well if the US got involved, it would give us the chance to give our F-22s some real combat experience.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wonder if the french will be selling all their pretty little weapons to the argentines this time.Yep - France ranks third in selling weapons to Britain's enemies behind the UK itself and their close ally the USA.


Btw I always wondered this, did the french made missiles that destroyed a couple British navy ships piss the Britians off?Yep - though French assistance to the UK ensured that we didn't piss them off as much as their noble yet neutral ally America.

[Watchman]

You know, one major reason Chavez gets off running his mouth like he does is the little detail the LatAms are heartily sick of you guys "asserting your Authority in South America" for the past oh, over a hundred years or thereabouts...

[Proletariat]

Good point. I'd actually be a little worried that GWB could use it as an opportunity to show what a cool hombre he really is towards the LatAms by snubbing the British (anything less than full-fledged support would qualify as a snub for me, in this instance). That's kinda how I view the BA's approach to that cartoon issue, anyhow.

[Strike For The South]

wait theres a South America

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wouldn't mind if they US helped the UK kick the Argentines in the slats if they acted aggresively towards our allies.

:balloon2:

[KukriKhan]

...But all it really needs to put a stop to the sillyness is for the US ambassador to whisper in the Argentinian presidents ear that this time there will be a US Navy carrier battle group helping the Brits out ~;)

The most likely scenario in the short term, I think.

The Monroe Doctrine was well beyond its shelf-life expiry date in '82, when we dithered. It's beyond the wormfood stage now, mouldering in the grave of 'once useful, but now irrelevant' ideas. (IMO)

If the lead starts flying, we'll be there. Shoulder-to-Shoulder, and all that.

[Soulforged]

wait theres a South AmericaLOL....Hey wait there's a Texas...:laugh4: :laugh4: And it's full of people like STFS...What? OH MY GOD:help: :2thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

OH MY GOD:help: :2thumbsup:

Pfft now who needs salvation you gringo AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHAHAH :mellow:

[Samurai Waki]

Of Course theres a Texas, it's the hair on America's well built, manly chest.

[Strike For The South]

Of Course theres a Texas, it's the hair on America's well built, manly chest.

im not entirely sure if thats good or not but to cover my ass...I like to think of Texas as the Testicles of steel big manly testicles of steel.

Thats right I said it

Wanna fight about it

[Samurai Waki]

I always thought Florida was that...

[Strike For The South]

I always thought Florida was that...

pfft Floridas Americas wang silly.

[JAG]

People are avoiding the question of whether the Falklands should be British and not Argentinian. I have to say it is not a speciality of mine, so maybe someone could present me with some facts. But if it seems fair and the people on the Island - for instance - wanted to go over to Argentinian rule, I wouldn't see a problem with letting the Argentineans having it.

And if there was to be a war - which, let us face it is incredibly unlikely) I am sure we would be whipped up into national frenzy like last time and it used for political ends just like it was last time, actually a pretty bog standard war then...

The US would get involved only if it served their national interest and for no other reason, they follow the sickly, dieing realist tradition, unfortunately.

[Soulforged]

People are avoiding the question of whether the Falklands should be British and not Argentinian. I have to say it is not a speciality of mine, so maybe someone could present me with some facts. But if it seems fair and the people on the Island - for instance - wanted to go over to Argentinian rule, I wouldn't see a problem with letting the Argentineans having it.With pleasure JAG. The historical facts stablish a better claim to Argentina. However given recent events and recent, again, historical facts, one is morally inclened, and by law too (depending on interpretation) to let the island as it is, I'm inclined to that too, it will be profoundly unjust to violate the principle of free determination and even more unjust to wipe out the island and occupate it with other inhabitants. However if the question is: Are the islands argentinian or british? That's of course a different one and I would still say that they're argentinian but occupied in fact by british people.

[JAG]

If they are occupied by British people who would prefer to be under British rule, then I too would say that it would be just for the British to rule it.

[InsaneApache]

In 1940, during World War II, following the surrender of France to the advancing forces of Nazi Germany, the British were unable to discover whether the terms of the surrender would allow the French fleet to be used against Britain. Such a shift in the balance of power at sea would have seriously threatened Britain's ability to keep her supply lines open, and jeopardised her survival. Winston Churchill therefore personally ordered that the French navy should either fight alongside the Royal Navy or be neutralised in some way, preventing it from falling into German hands. To prevent this, they launched Operation Catapult.

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

Seems cut and dried Tribesman.

We discussed the sovereignty aspect of this a week or so back. I think it's just another 'diversion' by the Argentine government in an attempt to distract attention away from their disasterous handling of their economy.

Galtieri did it in '82 and then went the extra mile and invaded. You would like to think that they (Argentina) had learned their lesson.

Just in case the havn't we are more than willing to give them an encore.

[spmetla]

I hope it doesn't come to war for Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands again. If it does though I hope that the US will give military support to the UK if not naval and marine then at least our air force. For you guys sticking with the US through the whole Iraq thing (so far) I think we should try and return the favor for you if attacked by Argentina (or any other nation at that).

If it does come to war I'm curious as to what Venezuela will do. They've been trying to assert themselves for a while and war with a former colonial power might be a way for them to further establish themselves in the region.

[Tribesman]

Seems cut and dried Tribesman.

Really ? what did Churchill have to say about it ?
How about Somerville , Cunningham ?
I know , what did Darlan have to say ?
Hey you can guess what Hitler and Goebells had to say , but then again perhaps you can't .
I wonder what De Gaule said ?
The only thing cut and dried about it , and what all of the above said (apart from Hilter and Goebells ) was that it was a major balls up and an absolutely discraceful episode .
Wiki is such a thourough source isn't it , oh but it does contain this bit doesn't it ......He declared that neither the Germans nor the Italians would get his ships, and that force would be repelled with force.


If they are occupied by British people who would prefer to be under British rule, then I too would say that it would be just for the British to rule it.
Yep 70% of the population are British or of British descent , and almost the entire population want Britian to keep control .
The problem is that Britain doesn't really want the Islands anymore , but cannot give them up .

[InsaneApache]

Wiki is such a thourough source isn't it

You obviously did click on the link. :)

[Banquo's Ghost]

With pleasure JAG. The historical facts stablish a better claim to Argentina.

As ever with historical facts, that is a debatable position. Argentina did not even exist when the Falklands were discovered and there had been a British colony there for several decades when General Rosas started creating a recognisable country from Buenos Ayres in the 1830s. Not much more than a bunch of sealers and poverty stricken Irishmen who had been promised land, but under Crown rule. The dictator himself was the first to start nationalist agitation about the ownership of the islands, for obvious reasons.

As a poverty stricken Irishman myself, I am no supporter of any British imperial pretensions, and common sense would dictate that the Falklands ought to be best supported (they're not viable in and of themselves) by Argentina. However, the population has made it very clear where their loyalties lie, and given that they were invaded by a junta of some of the nastier South American generals, one can understand why they may be suspicious, even of a newly democratic Argentina.

Of course, it is made complex by monetary interests. The British government would be happy to let the islands go regardless of the wishes of the locals if there wasn't so much potential wealth in the seas there. They cost a lot to garrison and support.

There won't be any sort of war. Argentina is not run by torturers and dictators any more and is way too poor. And the First Sea Lord has often noted in defence reviews that the UK no longer has the naval sea power to effect such a war.

[Tribesman]

You obviously did click on the link. :)
The wiki has a much bigger article than that one posted , but for a decent view try any of the naval history sites . There are lots dedicated to just this incident .
Which is why I cannot understand how two people managed to come up with these statements....
the French were going to hand that Fleet over to the Germans ....
As has been said the French lost the fleet as it decided to go German.
They have absolutely no connection to the reality of the events at all .

Of course, it is made complex by monetary interests. The British government would be happy to let the islands go regardless of the wishes of the locals if there wasn't so much potential wealth in the seas there.
But haruchai , the British have done a deal over those natural resources , they have signed the bulk of them over to Argentina .

[Banquo's Ghost]

But haruchai , the British have done a deal over those natural resources , they have signed the bulk of them over to Argentina .

I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that it was the bulk, I thought it was a basic negotiating position. Apologies for the statement I made. :oops:

[Tribesman]

Haruchai , its just economic viability , the mineral reserves are in a difficult environment for exploitation , it makes no sense for Britain to try and exploit them especially considering the distances involved , so give the Argentines the exploration rights . Likewise with the fishing/processing business (and farming) nearly all of the heavily subsidised endeavours have gone belly up in a very short time , the logistics of the market are just too prohibitive , so give them to those that are able to use them .
So instead of letting the resources go to waste they did a deal where Argentina can exploit them and Britain gets a cut of the profits .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe those resources were put up for tender, rather than just sold off.

As to the French Fleet:


It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German or Italian enemy. We are determined to fight on until the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers, and that our common enemy is Germany. Should we conquer we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;
(a) sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans and Italians.
(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.
If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.
(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans or Italians unless these break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance — where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.
If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.
Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German or Italian hands.

French pride sunk their ships, and British guns. The Armistice between France and Germany was a joke and no Frenchman outside France should have paid any attention.

As the the Falklands, our Armed Froces are sadly reduced and although we could fight a determined land battle we lack both Sea and Air projection power.

[Tribesman]

I believe those resources were put up for tender, rather than just sold off.

Yep , and did any British firms bid , or even show any interest in taking them ?
Only those that did it jointly with Argentinian firms .

As to the French Fleet:

Yes and .......His Majesty's Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;

All of the alternatives were unaaceptable , all were a violation of the armistice , all were against the orders of both the French government and Navy , and against the wishes of the "government " in exile ......so??????
Besides which you ignore that there was no move to hand the ships over to the axis and no move to join the axis .

[InsaneApache]

Yeah!!!!but they were French!!!! :laugh4: perhaps the First Lord got a bit mixed up :dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The armistice was a surrender by the French which made them subject to the Germans and was a joke.

The Vichey Government was a puppet. The French Admiral says neither Italian nor Germans will have his ships means nothing. The ships would have fought for the Axis with French crews, big difference.

The first alternative should have been acceptable:

sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans and Italians.


Note: With us, not under us. It leaves plenty of wigle room and given tha that French troops fought under Allied Command I don't see why French ships shouldn't. At any rate the Admiral chose to report to the puppet government in France, not the Free French.

The French had become a Vassel State, if that. At that point French Forces in the field recieving orders from the Vichey governement became enemies of Britain and the British acted accordingly.

"Yep , and did any British firms bid , or even show any interest in taking them ?
Only those that did it jointly with Argentinian firms."

Thats still different than selling it all directly to the Argentinian government, which was the implication of your ealier post.

[The Black Ship]

Had the French fleet sailed off to British ports then Vichy would have ceased to exist. Good for Churchill, not so good for the remnants of the French government that didn't believe the UK would fare any better at stooping the Axis than they had.

[Tribesman]

The French Admiral says neither Italian nor Germans will have his ships means nothing. The ships would have fought for the Axis with French crews, big difference.

Don't talk rubbish , find an example of vichy french ships joining the axis , (with the exception of minesweeping and coastal forces which were seperately covered under the armistice terms) .

Note: With us, not under us. It leaves plenty of wigle room and given tha that French troops fought under Allied Command I don't see why French ships shouldn't. At any rate the Admiral chose to report to the puppet government in France, not the Free French.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: the French govrnment in exile didn't have the same constitutional standing as say the Polish one for example , so why the hell would the admiral report to a body that has no standing instead of the one he was under the command of ?
Besides which you are ignoring De Gaulle and the exile "governments" reaction to this , and the reaction of those French forces already in Britain .

The first alternative should have been acceptable:

How ? it was against the orders to the fleet , it was against the conditions of the armistice , and it was a breach of the clause that allowed the ships to be in North African ports in the first place .
Britian screwed up badly , from the a mistranslation of the armistice agreement , a complete mess of the negotiations , the launching of actions while the negotiations were still going on , and their failure to communicate up the chain of cammand .
It was a complete balls up , and in case you didn't know , everyone involved , all the way up to the top levels of government and military say it was a balls up ......yet you think differently ?????

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well the ships were never used against the British, were they?

In the end nothing else matters.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well the ships were never used against the British, were they?

In the end nothing else matters.

*cough* 1300 dead French *cough*

[rory_20_uk]

That all? 1,300? I can happily live with that. After all they were following the orders of their government that was ipso facto with the Nazis. The options were stark, but what other ones could the British have given? The fleet was oa significant factor in preventing the British in joining the French in the habit of letting the Germans march through their capital.

Wasn't it in 1938 that in a French wargame one commander sent his tanks though the Ardennes forest, and in the tabletop battle routed the French Army? What was done about this? Oh, it was disregarded as... oh, something - not likely "we'll bet our country that it won't happen". Because this avenue was not persued the Germans attacked in the same way, and yes, routed the French. How many lives did that cost?

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

Well the ships were never used against the British, were they?

In the end nothing else matters.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So it was a ballsup but that doesn't matter , and the ships were not used by the axis , but that doesn't matter as they were not going to be used .
Though of course the french government did use them against the British , and launched retaliatary attacks on the British fleet in Gibralter .

So Wigferth , as of course the French ships in Africa did not constitute the whole fleet , then could you tell me , of all the rest of the ships that the French had , how many exactly joined the axis , or were handed over to the axis ?
Was it lots of them ? was it a few of them ? .....Or was it none of them ?
So they launched an unprovoked attack , on forces they were not at war with , to stop an occurance that wasn't going to happen anyway .
But hey that doesn't matter does it .

[InsaneApache]

Reminds me of 'Cross of Iron' when the baddie, (Maximilian Schell), ordered his troops to kill the patrol..........Hmmm, well perhaps not.

War, is never a pleasant or honourable business. Things are done for a reason. Unfortunately they didn't have the benefit of hindsight. I'm glad it wasn't my call. Allies or country?

[Duke Malcolm]

Duke Malcolm, is that a comment on the garrison or my figures. A modern Infantry Battalion is three Reifle Companies, a support company and a Headquaters Company. Over all it comes to about 1,000 men, add to that 200 techies to fix the tanks etc.

There is about 600, or just a bit more in an Infantry Battalion in the British Army

[Ianofsmeg16]

Las Islas Malvinas son Ingles :laugh4:

Just so you guys know the score :2thumbsup:




P.S Not meant to offend you soulforged, or any others that truly believe the falklands are Agrentinian. We all have our views and, even though mine may differ from yours, I respect that :2thumbsup:

[Louis VI the Fat]

So they launched an unprovoked attack, on forces they were not at war with, to stop an occurance that wasn't going to happen anyway.
But...but Tribesman...these ships of mass destruction were ready to strike Britain in 45 minutes! ~:eek:

[Louis VI the Fat]

That all? 1,300? I can happily live with that. My, perfid Albion at it's finest.

But, in all fairness, If I were the UK, I would've done the same.
I too would've realised that, unlike the first, winning this world war would require a bigger display of military prowess from Britain than shipping Canadians, Indians and Kiwi's to Flanders to die in their droves for splendid Britain, while hoping the French lines would hold long enough for the Americans to arrive.

In 1940, I too would've recalled the British Expeditionary Force from France and Belgium upon the first shot fired and sod everybody else. Then I would dig myself in, praising myself for my early realisation of the threat that mechanised Blitzkrieg warfare poses, and for having dug the North Sea in the 1930's to protect myself from it. Next I too would sit around in my basement a bit, have myself a cup of tea, listen to some pomp speeches on the radio, while battery upon battery of anti-aircraft guns make short notice of a few half-hearted German aerial raids.
Next, I would accomplish, er, absolutely nothing whatsoever and wait 'till the Americans bail me out. Oh, but I would plead them time and again to avoid facing the Germans in any open major battle. That I would gladly leave to the Russians.

[InsaneApache]

HA HA HA the view from the 'other side'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[/B]
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So it was a ballsup but that doesn't matter , and the ships were not used by the axis , but that doesn't matter as they were not going to be used .
Though of course the french government did use them against the British , and launched retaliatary attacks on the British fleet in Gibralter .

So Wigferth , as of course the French ships in Africa did not constitute the whole fleet , then could you tell me , of all the rest of the ships that the French had , how many exactly joined the axis , or were handed over to the axis ?
Was it lots of them ? was it a few of them ? .....Or was it none of them ?
So they launched an unprovoked attack , on forces they were not at war with , to stop an occurance that wasn't going to happen anyway .
But hey that doesn't matter does it .[/QUOTE]

1. Where was the ballsup? I will grant it was heavy handed.

2. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have, twnety-twenty hindsight does not dam those who were not allowed the luxury. In 1940 the French capitulated to the Germans, since there were Vichey troops in Africa fighting for Germany, halfheartedly, why couldn't the ships have been used against the Allies?

Saying "well they weren't used so blowing them up was wrong," doesn't wash. How were the British to know they wouldn't be used against them. Given that the British captured or sunk a fair number of French ships the point is a little weak to begin with, you can't use what you don't have and that was Churchil's thinking.

Oh, by the by, are you aware of the number of times the Germans broke the rules of war?

3. The French ships could have surrendered, 1,300 lives were lost because they didn't.

4. Louis VI the Fat. The Germans were within about two weeks of winning the Air War when they began the Blitz, my Grandfather was ADGB and he was hit several times by German bombers doing anti battery runs.

Of course there was bloody battle to take Paris, wasn't there? What? There wasn't?

Oh, I suppose we didn't execute a fighting retreat while outnumbered, and undersupplied and we didn't allow thousands of French to escape while we did it. Oh and we didn't do any fighting al all in North Africa or Asia.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The armistice was a surrender by the French which made them subject to the Germans and was a joke.

The Vichey Government was a puppet.


The first alternative should have been acceptable:

sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans and Italians.

Note: With us, not under us. It leaves plenty of wigle room and given tha that French troops fought under Allied Command I don't see why French ships shouldn't. At any rate the Admiral chose to report to the puppet government in France, not the Free French.

The French had become a Vassel State, if that.*rewards Wigferth Ironwall the 'Cross of Lorraine' for being the world's greatest anglophone Gaullist*

I'm happy to see an Englisman finally agree with Charles the Gaulle:


De Gaulle served as a liaison with the British government, and with Churchill carved a project of political union between France and the United Kingdom on the morning of 16 June in London. The project would have resulted in effect in the merger of France and the United Kingdom into a single country, with a single government and a single army, for the duration of the war. This project was a desperate last minute effort to try to strengthen the resolve of those members of the French government who were in favor of continuing the war.

That same day he took the most important decision in his life and in the modern history of France: he would refuse the humiliation of a French surrender and instead rebel against the apparently legal (but illegitimate in his eyes) government of Pétain, returning to London and calling for the continuation of war.

De Gaulle decided to reject French capitulation and to set about building a movement which would appeal to overseas French, opponents of a separate arrangement with Germany.Alas, much as you and I agree with de Gaulle that Vichy was a vassal state and that the -legitimate, if perhaps not legal- representatives of France were the Free French, Britain would have little, the US none of it.

Both initially recognised Vichy. The US, careful not to upset Hitler, granted Vichy full diplomatic recognition all the way until the end of 1942. Both disdained the free French. De Gaulle had to form an army of French volunteers around him in cooperation with Anglo-American allies who recognised a Vichy regime that had sentenced him to death.

Perhaps somewhat unnoticed by the outside world, to some extent, the second world war and Vichy were a civil war for France. This civil war can be seen as the continuation of a fracture that divided French society since the 19th century or even the French Revolution, illustrated by events such as the Dreyfus Affair and the riots in the 1930s.
The Vichy regime could be installed so quickly, because there was, admittedly, no shortage of reactionary elements within France.

Until june 1940, French democratic powers prevailed. After the collapse, the rats took over. This shame is entirely French. However, ever since the defeat of France, the UK and America always had a choice in which French to back. They showed poor judgement, at least initially.


President Roosevelt continued to cultivate Vichy and promoted General Henri Giraud as a preferable alternative to de Gaulle, despite the poor performance of Vichy forces in North Africa—Admiral François Darlan had landed in Algiers the day before Operation Torch with the XIXth vichyst Army Corps, only to be neutralised within 15 hours by a 400-strong French resistance force. Nonetheless, Admiral Darlan was accepted by Roosevelt and Churchill as the French leader in North Africa, rather than de Gaulle.

After Darlan signed an armistice with the Allies and took power in North Africa, Germany violated the 1940 armistice and invaded Vichy France on 10 November 1942 (operation code-named Case Anton).

Even though he was now in the Allied camp, Darlan maintained the repressive Vichy system in North Africa, including the maintenance of concentration camps in southern Algeria. He was killed on December 24, 1942 by the young patriot Bonnier de La Chapelle, with the real power devolving into the hands of Laval. Darlan was then replaced by Giraud who maintained the Vichy regime for months, until the unification of French fighting forces and territories by the Comité français de Libération nationale, and the taking of power by de Gaulle, who re-established democracy. The Roosevelt administration was notably cool, if not hostile to de Gaulle


It was not a given fact that the fleet at Mers-el-Kebir would not join with Britain. If it showed signs of joining the German side, then Britain was entirely justified in sinking it. But Churchill acted to quickly. There was a huge potential of democratically inclined Frenchmen -a majority- to work with. All the way until the end of WWII, with the Anglo-Americans wanting to put liberated France under a military government, this was hardly recognised.

De Gaulle, universally recognised within France as the leader of democratic France, is still scoffed at in the English-speaking world. Churchill may have been right when he said that 'of all the crosses I have had to bear during this war, the heaviest has been the Cross of Lorraine (de Gaulle's symbol of Free France)'. De Gaulle on the other hand, learned in these war years what has become the adage of Gaullist foreign policy ever since: 'France has no friends. She has interests'.

[Tribesman]

1. Where was the ballsup?
Where would you like to start ? with the mistranslation , the failure of the command structure , the commencement of offensive actions while negotiations were still going on , sending a junior officer to negotiate , no co-ordination between the military and the politicians ?
the list just goes on and on.....

2. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have, twnety-twenty hindsight does not dam those who were not allowed the luxury. In 1940 the French capitulated to the Germans, since there were Vichey troops in Africa fighting for Germany, halfheartedly, why couldn't the ships have been used against the Allies?

Errrr.. forget about hindsight , perhaps you might want to check your sight entirely , where were the Vichy troops fighting for the Germans ?
Why couldn't the Ships have been used , errrr.... because the French were under orders to scuttle them if the Axis tried to take control of them .:idea2:
Hey , just like they did when the Germans did try and tke control of them in Toulon .
And guess what , the British admiralty had experienced only 20 years before what a surrendered fleet can do to itself .

The French ships could have surrendered, 1,300 lives were lost because they didn't.


No , the lives were lost because Britiain chose to attack the ships of a country that it was not at war with .

[Ice]

But would the US give its support? last time they didnt do much overtly did they?

I hope we would; the UK are good allies of ours.

Increasing the garrison on the Island and installing more state of the art Anti Air Equipment would be good also.

[aw89]

I wish I could say that Norway would send (The little we could offer anyway) forces to help.
1 elite battalion and around 10 f-16s ready for immediate deployment if i'm not mistaken.
But we won't unless there is a large threat and all of NATO reacts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It was not a given fact that the fleet at Mers-el-Kebir would not join with Britain. If it showed signs of joining the German side, then Britain was entirely justified in sinking it. But Churchill acted to quickly. There was a huge potential of democratically inclined Frenchmen -a majority- to work with. All the way until the end of WWII, with the Anglo-Americans wanting to put liberated France under a military government, this was hardly recognised.

I agree that Churchil's actions were often swift and heavy handed, on balance though I'd rather have him than some flaky liberal.

As to the lack of recognition of Free France, IMO big mistake. The Vichy were cowards, it has to be said though that Americans and English are not inclined, historically, to like the French. I expect there was a perverse form of racism at work there, de Gaulle was the Frenchman in England so he got the stick. Early in the war the Britian was still considering peace with Hitler, though Churchil probably wasn't and the government's attitude probably has something to do with the shenanigans as well.

[Incongruous]

But, in all fairness, If I were the UK, I would've done the same.
I too would've realised that, unlike the first, winning this world war would require a bigger display of military prowess from Britain than shipping Canadians, Indians and Kiwi's to Flanders to die in their droves for splendid Britain, while hoping the French lines would hold long enough for the Americans to arrive.

Oh yeah my two great granfathers just sat fifty miles behind the Trenches and did nothing, must have been two giant larks that killed them then. GIT!

[Soulforged]

Las Islas Malvinas son inglesas

P.S Not meant to offend you soulforged, or any others that truly believe the falklands are Agrentinian. We all have our views and, even though mine may differ from yours, I respect that.Not at all, I've always said that morally it's better for the british to have them. Personally I don't see a point in any centralized government in "owning" any piece of land, remember anarchy everyone. What I did always is discuss the facts and how the legal issue is resolved, that's all, if it's about moral possition I'll stand with free determination.

[Slyspy]

Well the French were going to hand that Fleet over to the Germans when they could have agreed to be under British command and keep fighting.
Since when ?
The French were under the orders of their government and the terms of the armistice .
None of the British demands were acceptable and Britain knew they were unacceptable .
Oh , and in case you missed it the French scuttled their fleet when the Germans did try and take it .
So where do you get the idea that they were going to hand the fleet over to the Germans ?

Edit to add ..
As has been said the French lost the fleet as it decided to go German. Yup, we will attack our enemies, especially when the neutral fleet decided this.

Oh dear , another one .

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? At the time that fleet was considered a clear and present danger, though the RN had no wish to destroy it. The French were offered any number of ways out, some of which appear to have satisfied their standing orders yet they chose not to take them. Of course diplomacy between the two allies was already strained as France surrendered. As with the fall of France in general the situation which led to the sinking of the Atlantic fleet was primarily the result of weak, prideful and hidebound leadership on the French side. That fleet should have already been at sea before the surrender was signed. The actual sinking was the result of strong, prideful and headstrong leadership from Churchill, whose military schemes were never that wise.

PS
Louis nice summary of the BEF and the Battle of Britain there! Maybe even more of an exaggeration than my description of the French leadership lol. It is nice to have such friendly neighbours is it not?

[Papewaio]

Personally I don't see a point in any centralized government in "owning" any piece of land, remember anarchy everyone. What I did always is discuss the facts and how the legal issue is resolved, that's all, if it's about moral possition I'll stand with free determination.

Anarchy results in an environment that favours cults of personality, strongarm tactics, fundamentalist viewpoints not reason, law and science... why they desire to wind back 50,000 years plus of social gain?

[Soulforged]

Anarchy results in an environment that favours cults of personality, strongarm tactics, fundamentalist viewpoints not reason, law and science... why they desire to wind back 50,000 years plus of social gain?It was just an expression, not an intention of creating a side debate here that was already disussed and that nobody accepted no matter the reasons posted, I will not, for that matter, repeat myself. We've to differenciate the emotional value of a word of the literal one, anarchy is not the same as chaos, in fact it's a derivation of socialism.

[Papewaio]

Anyhow I think I will use my new pet response for views on the too hard basket that involve territorial land claims.

Give it to the Israelis :gah:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis nice summary of the BEF and the Battle of Britain there! Maybe even more of an exaggeration than my description of the French leadership lol.Nah, I had to exaggerate a bit for the sake of getting a point across. You on the other hand are of course spot on with your 'weak, prideful and hidebound leadership on the French side'. ~;)



It is nice to have such friendly neighbours is it not?The English are the spawn of satan.


But imagine the bore the past 1000 years would've been without each other! ~:cheers:

[Kanamori]

I think that the 'special relationship' is really between the English and the Frenchies. They're just really good friends, where one enjoys insulting outright, and the other returns it with a total lack of acknowledging the other.


Love is a crazy thing.:balloon2:

Edit: Or ocasionally by accidently sinking the other's battleships.

"You sunk my battleship, yoou craisey Eenglishman."

[Kommodus]

As a latecomer to this thread I think I'll post on-topic:

I had no idea about the 1982 conflict or the fears of a renewed battle for the Falklands. But I think this time, with Bush in office, British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lovable-but-paranoid Chavez backing Argentina, that the US would quickly come to Britain's aid if Argentina tries anything.

One question, though, after reading the article: why are there 20,000 British troops in Germany?

[Duke Malcolm]

To make sure the Germans don't start another War...

We just can't trust them after the first two...

Also, there are 10,000 or somesuch number on Cyprus. Not actually in Cyprus like UN folks, since the British bases there are British Sovereign territory, and have an HM Governor and everything.

[ShadesPanther]

One question, though, after reading the article: why are there 20,000 British troops in Germany?

To stop the Soviet Union invading Europe. I guess Britain and the USA never bothered to remove them.



Or ocasionally by accidently sinking the other's battleships.

"You sunk my battleship, yoou craisey Eenglishman."

The Americans are taking the mantle of Trigger happy ally. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?
Nothing to do with hindsight Slyspy , it is about two people claiming something that has absolutely no basis in fact .

[Kommodus]

To stop the Soviet Union invading Europe. I guess Britain and the USA never bothered to remove them.

Interesting. I remember hearing something recently about a US redeployment plan which included removing some troops and bases from Germany.

Anyway, it seems as though some of those 20,000 could be redeployed if necessary. WWII ended a long time ago, the "Soviet Union" no longer exists, and even old Russia isn't being particularly belligerent on that front. :-) I mean, according to the article there are only 8,000 in Iraq and 3,000 in Afghanistan - significant to be sure, but not vast numbers.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The English are the spawn of satan.

That expalins why we're so good at winning.:2thumbsup:

Seriously though, Churchil was made for war and at war he was good. In general his plans were sound and in this case he was basically right, he saw a potential threat and neutralised it.

Yes he was swift but as Master Tzu said, "The one thing in war you cannot replace is time."

Tribesman: Not only are you very much in a minorety position but you are facing an Anglo-French Alliance.

When a Frenchman and an Englishman agree on something it has to be true.

As to the troops in Germany, well we keep closing bases here so they have to go somewhere. Until recently there were also German Panzers in Wales. I don't know if there are any Germans left in Britain.

The Americans never get involved unless it affects them directly and never will. The British on the other hand are in the unhealthy habit of over-supporting their Allies.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Tribesman: Not only are you very much in a minorety position but you are facing an Anglo-French Alliance.

When a Frenchman and an Englishman agree on something it has to be true.Well...I agree with you that if and when the fleet posed a threat to Britain, they should've been destroyed.
However, I agree with Tribesman that these ships did not yet pose a clear and present danger.

The problem of course lays the 'if and when'. That Churchill saw a potential threat is not sufficient. 'Potential' is not good enough to kill 1300 French sailors. 'Master Tzu said, "The one thing in war you cannot replace is time". Probably, but Master LouiSun Tze Fat says that the one other thing in war you cannot replace is human lives.

Britains options were not yet exhausted.
The reactions of French crews and admirals varied greatly - some sailed to Britain, some joined the free French, some placed themselves under Vichy command. All of these scenario's were yet possible.

Alas, perhaps these are the wisest and true-est words on this matter:

War is never a pleasant or honourable business. Things are done for a reason. Unfortunately they didn't have the benefit of hindsight. I'm glad it wasn't my call.

[Marcellus]

One question, though, after reading the article: why are there 20,000 British troops in Germany?

Originally they were there in case of an invasion by the USSR. Although British Forces Germany has been much reduced since the end of the cold war, there is still a very significant presence there, due to the strategically useful location, the large area for training, and the large amount of money they contribute towards the German economy due to the number of local civilians they employ.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman: Not only are you very much in a minorety position but you are facing an Anglo-French Alliance.

How is it a minority position ?
Find any statement from those involved in the operation that don't describe it a a balls up , even Churchill himself .
Or for the claims of hindsight why not look at the records from the planning and the events leading up to the action and all the objections that were recorded .
Or as for the events themselves look the correspondance between the fleets and their respective governments .


So what you mean is that on this games forum it is a minority position , , well I am used to that , but you cannot alter the fact that your initial statement on the subject has absolutely no basis in fact , followed later by another statement entirely deviod of fact .

So I will stick with the minotity position thank you , as all the factual evidence supports it .:2thumbsup:

Oh , Churchills plans were generally sound ?????
I wonder what the cabinet had to say about that , or the military command , or even his personal secratary .
But hey , don't let facts get in your way .
The old pisshead certainly made some good speeches though , he did have some good basic thoughts (plans , especially good ones were not his forte at all) , and he was right about the Russians .

[yesdachi]

I think the US would be there in a heartbeat! any chance we get to kick the crud out of a loud mouth dictator like him we would take it. the only thing is that the conflict cant take more than a month tops, after that the Shehans start coming out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well...I agree with you that if and when the fleet posed a threat to Britain, they should've been destroyed.
However, I agree with Tribesman that these ships did not yet pose a clear and present danger.

The problem of course lays the 'if and when'. That Churchill saw a potential threat is not sufficient. 'Potential' is not good enough to kill 1300 French sailors. 'Master Tzu said, "The one thing in war you cannot replace is time". Probably, but Master LouiSun Tze Fat says that the one other thing in war you cannot replace is human lives.

Britains options were not yet exhausted.
The reactions of French crews and admirals varied greatly - some sailed to Britain, some joined the free French, some placed themselves under Vichy command. All of these scenario's were yet possible.

Alas, perhaps these are the wisest and true-est words on this matter:

Granted Churchil was a ruthless bastard, but he calculated that he had to eliminate the risk before it materalised, which is another pillar of the Art of War.

The real question is the weighting, Churchil deemed the risk to English servicemen and civilians sufficiant for a thousand Frenchmen to die. You might weight the risk as less and have waited longer. Ultimately you would have had to make a similar decision.

It is clear that the intention was to present the French commander with options which removed his ships from Combat or brought them under Allied control before he decided what he was going to do.

Leaving it until the French commander had decided to join Vichy France would have left the RN with "Surrender or die" as a negotiating position which would definately have resulted in bloodshed.

The fact is that had the French Admiral said, "Yes, we will fight with you against tyranny," everyone would have said what a good idea it was to offer them the option.

Tribesman, no. In war even men can be replaced. This was a military decision, if you cannot argue from a military standpoint don't even bother. There can not be humanitairian considerations in open warfare, which, by the way, has nothing to do with post-Industrial warfare.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman, no. In war even men can be replaced. This was a military decision, if you cannot argue from a military standpoint don't even bother.
Errrrr.....Wigferth , all the military commanders said it was a balls up , thats a military standpoint on it .
Even now you cannot even use facts to back up your position on this can you .....Leaving it until the French commander had decided to join Vichy France would have left the RN with "Surrender or die" as a negotiating position which would definately have resulted in bloodshed.
....The fleet was the French fleet the commander was the French comander , they were under the French government , that government was the Vichy government !!! They didn't decide to join anything .

[econ21]

[B]Why couldn't the Ships have been used , errrr.... because the French were under orders to scuttle them if the Axis tried to take control of them.

I don't know if it was a ballsup - given how proficiently the British were performing in the war up to that point, it's certainly a possibility.

But I don't see a problem with the action in principle. The balance of forces in the Med was extremely precarious. The French fleet joining the Italians could have swung things.

There was no assurance that the Vichy government would not at a future date change it's mind and become an active member of the Axis - they were essentially a puppet regime (and proved to be rather a nasty one in regards to complying to some other Nazi demands).

And even if Vichy held out, the Germans were rather good at carrying out coups de main - taking fortresses by surprise, overrunning whole countries in weeks that had resisted for years in previous wars, later rescuing Mussolini etc. They were at the height of their power, whereas the capacity of the French armed forces to resist them was at its nadir.

If I were in Churchill's shoes, I would have made every effort to get the fleet to join the British or be scuttled. But if they had refused, I would have approved the action. It's rather like a scorched earth policy - regrettable, but if you are being beaten and fighting for survival, it may be necessary.

[Tribesman]

Simon , I agree basically , though it is was a ballsup in every aspect on a political and military level . The issue I have was not the original post which broached the subject , as it is spot on .

We did sink the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in WWII. Britain will go to such lengths to protect herself.

But then you have people writing stuff that is not true to try and justify the action , like ; the fleet joined the germans .... false , the fleet were going to join the germans ....false , the Vichy French were fighting in Africa for the Germans ....false , the fleet joined the French ....false .
That is just rubbish .

Something had to be done , yes , but the actions that were taken in this instance were just about the worse possible choice of the options available . The fallout from the action was instant and very long lasting , and it ended up costing a hell of a lot more lives than those of the French sailors in harbour that day .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tribesman, you have yet to actually provide testimonies from these commanders that is was a "balls up" and if you do I would bet they saw it as an operational one rather than a strategic one.

Also:

"But then you have people writing stuff that is not true to try and justify the action , like ; the fleet joined the germans .... false."

No one said they joined the Germans, just that they could.


"the fleet were going to join the germans ....false"

Hindsight, you don't know if someone is going to do something until they do.


"the Vichy French were fighting in Africa for the Germans"

I misposke but there was a short battle between Vichy Troops and the Big Red One when they landed in North Africa, IIRC. Then the Vichy troops went Rebel.

"....The fleet was the French fleet the commander was the French comander , they were under the French government , that government was the Vichy government !!! They didn't decide to join anything ."

As Louis said, the issue was unclear, he could have gone Vichy or Free French.

To be honest I see nothing backing up your arguement at all.

[Tribesman]

No one said they joined the Germans, just that they could.

Really , whats this then.....

As has been said the French lost the fleet as it decided to go German.


I misposke but there was a short battle between Vichy Troops and the Big Red One when they landed in North Africa, IIRC. Then the Vichy troops went Rebel.


Oh dear , you are lacking in knowledge of actions between the vichy and the Allies it seems , would you like some more examples , I have mentioned one already , and as you seem to think it was only an operational error rather than a strategic one would you care to hazard a guess at one of the next actions where the fallout from the action at Mers-el-kebir had strategic implications (apart from the fact that it was also an operational ballsup) .


To be honest I see nothing backing up your arguement at all.
Well perhaps you might try reading a book , WWII for beginers might be an idea to start with .:idea2:


As Louis said, the issue was unclear, he could have gone Vichy or Free French.

They didn't join anything , they were French , it was the French fleet and the government was the french government .:wall: What free french , who was their leader , where was their government ? Are you getting your dates mixed up ?

Tribesman, you have yet to actually provide testimonies from these commanders that is was a "balls up" and if you do I would bet they saw it as an operational one rather than a strategic one.

Well Wiggy , I think you would lose your bet very quickly , would you like a full reading list ? A selection of memoirs , some official transcripts perhaps ?what about some biographies , autobiographies , complete histories , histories specifically concerning this event ????? Pick your poison , you may not like swallowing it though . :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Less talk more sources.

"They didn't join anything , they were French , it was the French fleet and the government was the french government . What free french , who was their leader , where was their government ? Are you getting your dates mixed up ?"

Confusion of terms, it is clear from the message sent ot the French commander that even the British understood the situation, i.e. not everyone was going to capitulate, and they didn't.

Try replacing "Free French" with "free French." Does the concept make sense now.

It was said during the war, by Churchil IIRC, that even if Britain fell her army, navy and Empire would fight on. Clearly the same was expected of the French.

Let us assume for a moment that nothing is done. France has just surrendered and signed an armistice, a puppet government is bowing to the Germans and French ships are at sea. Suppose the Germans strong-arm France into fighting for them, the way they have everyone else, the French Fleet masses and shifts the balance in the Med, worse it masses and blockades the Channel.

Britain is sunk, and that is what Churchil wanted to avoid.

[Tribesman]

Try replacing "Free French" with "free French." Does the concept make sense now.

Ah , I see now , you mean after De Gaulle had made his speech on the BBC, but before he was court martialed for treason and a long time before Churchill (against cabinet objections) decided that de Gaulle was the leader of france and he would call them a government in exile .

Suppose the Germans strong-arm France into fighting for them, the way they have everyone else,
Errrr....who else exactly ? The Poles ? Danes ? Norewegians ? Dutch ? Belgians ? Who ????

Let us assume for a moment that nothing is done. France has just surrendered and signed an armistice, a puppet government is bowing to the Germans and French ships are at sea.
Now that is interesting , the French at sea . :inquisitive:
You are aware of the proposals put forward by the admiralty to Churchill , and pushed very strongly by Cunningham and Somervile about having the French at sea ?
It takes away the complications that arose from the demands for "surrender" being made on French territory , it was those demands , backed by the threats that caused the whole problem .
Plus consider the sinking of the French ship by the P-class submarine after the incident at Mers el Kebir , the British apologised to the Vichy government over that , another balls up you see , the submarine didn't get the orders not to sink French ships at sea .

Less talk more sources.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Wigferth , I rarely post links , didn't you know .
The challenge is for you to find anything , absolutely anything , that I have posted on this subject that is not factually accurate .
I offered to provide a book list , try anything on Force H or HMS Hood they cover it very well , or you could try Churchills own history books on WWII , straight from the old drunkards mouth so to speak .
An interesting parallel subject would be the Battle of Copenhagen , a completely diferent time period , and that time the French were the enemy , but the neutralisation of a possible maritime threat is the same scanario .

[Louis VI the Fat]

About the date of the establishment of the Free French (http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=369):

On 28 June 1940, Churchill acknowledged de Gaulle as leader of the Free French. De Gaulle organised the armed forces that were to become the Forces Françaises Libres (FFL) or Free French Forces. Under an agreement drawn up by an eminent lawyer, René Cassin, and recognised by the British on 7 August, the FFL were to be considered not as a foreign legion within the British armed forces but as an independent national force. Though still few in number, the French forces now had official status and growing numbers of men and women rallied to the cause in Britain and throughout the Empire. The unfortunate affair of the British bombing of the French fleet at Mers El Kébir on 4 July 1940, however, caused the number of recruits to slump.

[Tribesman]

About the date of the establishment of the Free French:

Interesting Louis , Churchill reconised De Gaulle from June , Britain recognised the forces from August . And no one recognised the government in exile until September .
Soooo , about the estabishment of the Free French ?
The fleet was not offered the chance to join the free French Government , it didn't exist , it was not offered the chance to join Free French forces , they didn't exist , it was offered the chance to join Britains forces .

[Slyspy]

About the date of the establishment of the Free French:

Interesting Louis , Churchill reconised De Gaulle from June , Britain recognised the forces from August . And no one recognised the government in exile until September .
Soooo , about the estabishment of the Free French ?
The fleet was not offered the chance to join the free French Government , it didn't exist , it was not offered the chance to join Free French forces , they didn't exist , it was offered the chance to join Britains forces .

It was also given a chance to demobilise in a French colonial or American port. They made their choice. Their politicians were cowards and their leaders fools. The smaller fleet in Alexandria was wiser, choosing to stand down and eventually join the Free French IIRC.

[Tribesman]

It was also given a chance to demobilise in a French colonial or American port
It was being demobilised in a french colonial port (though of course they didn't regard Algeria as a colony) .
A result of the action was that ships went back to be demobilised in French Metropolitan ports , until the French sank them as they said they would when Germany broke the armistice terms 2 years later .

The smaller fleet in Alexandria was wiser, choosing to stand down and eventually join the Free French IIRC.
Would you care to hazard a guess at how many in Alex joined de Gaulle ? Or how many of those in British ports ?
But those are entirely different situations , as they were not French ports .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The challenge is for you to find anything , absolutely anything , that I have posted on this subject that is not factually accurate .
I offered to provide a book list , try anything on Force H or HMS Hood they cover it very well , or you could try Churchills own history books on WWII , straight from the old drunkards mouth so to speak .
An interesting parallel subject would be the Battle of Copenhagen , a completely diferent time period , and that time the French were the enemy , but the neutralisation of a possible maritime threat is the same scanario .


Astonishing, you expect me to work to disprove you when you lack proof. Provide your sources and I will provide counter sources, that is how an acedemic debate works.

"Errrr....who else exactly ? The Poles ? Danes ? Norewegians ? Dutch ? Belgians ? Who ????"

The Poles, Chezchs, Austrians, I'm not sure about the Norwegians but there might have been a few drafted. On D-Day there were Polish troops with their sergants pointing guns at them so they would fight, and this is well documented, from Polish sources.

As Louis has demostrated De Gaulle was already recognized by Churchil and recruites were flooding in. So its not like the French Admiral would be the one making the big leap.

"Let us assume for a moment that nothing is done. France has just surrendered and signed an armistice, a puppet government is bowing to the Germans and French ships are at sea."

Care to respond to the relevant part of this.

Oh, I am aware of the Campaign against Denmark, that was premature but the difference was that Denmark still had an Army, which was guarding the border against the French, ironically.

[Tribesman]

As Louis has demostrated De Gaulle was already recognized by Churchil and recruites were flooding in. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
oh stop it hurts :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Flooding in :laugh4: :laugh4:
Errrr....Would you care to hazard a guess at how many in Alex joined de Gaulle ? Or how many of those in British ports ?

Come on as you have reliable sources Wigferth can you tell me how many of the 15,000+French sailors in British ports "flooded" to de Gaulle .
Was it thousands , that would be a fair proportion wouldn't it , hey a thousand would be a substancial downpour , 200 is a trickle .
And in case you missed it Churchil recognised de Gaulle , the British Government didn't , was Churchill a dictator so that only his opinion mattered and not that of his government .
Provide your sources and I will provide counter sources, that is how an acedemic debate works.

No wiggy I state facts and if you can show that what I write is not factual then that is debate , so far you have been very light on anything factual at all .

The Poles, Chezchs, Austrians, I'm not sure about the Norwegians but there might have been a few drafted. On D-Day there were Polish troops with their sergants pointing guns at them so they would fight, and this is well documented, from Polish sources.

Now that isn't even worth a reply , can you guess why ?

Oh, I am aware of the Campaign against Denmark, that was premature but the difference was that Denmark still had an Army, which was guarding the border against the French, ironically.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Where do you dream this up from ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find it interesting you find mockery neccessary.


As Louis has demostrated De Gaulle was already recognized by Churchil and recruites were flooding in. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
oh stop it hurts :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Flooding in :laugh4: :laugh4:
Errrr....[I]Would you care to hazard a guess at how many in Alex joined de Gaulle ? Or how many of those in British ports ?

"Despite repeated broadcasts, by the end of July that year, only 7,000 people had volunteered to join the Free French forces. The Free French Navy had fifty ships and some 3,700 men operating as an auxiliary force to the British Royal Navy."

Not bad considering Mers El Kébir, without Mers El Kébir it probably would have been much higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_French


And in case you missed it Churchil recognised de Gaulle , the British Government didn't , was Churchill a dictator so that only his opinion mattered and not that of his government.

Yes, in a lot of ways, that would be how he blocked some of the Cabinet from preventing De Gaulle's speech.


Provide your sources and I will provide counter sources, that is how an acedemic debate works.

No wiggy I state facts and if you can show that what I write is not factual then that is debate , so far you have been very light on anything factual at all .

Without sources you have no facts, now I'm only doing a little work and proving you wrong is pretty easy.


The Poles, Chezchs, Austrians, I'm not sure about the Norwegians but there might have been a few drafted. On D-Day there were Polish troops with their sergants pointing guns at them so they would fight, and this is well documented, from Polish sources.

Now that isn't even worth a reply , can you guess why ?

So around a third of Polish forces weren't deserters from the German army?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_WWII


Oh, I am aware of the Campaign against Denmark, that was premature but the difference was that Denmark still had an Army, which was guarding the border against the French, ironically.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Where do you dream this up from ?

The Battle of Copehagen was in 1807, it lasted about 20 days and was essentially a blockade of Copehagen and a demand that she surrender her fleet. When the Danish refused the city was bombarded with incendury weapons. At the same time the "Battle of the Clogs" (Køge) saw the defeat of a Danish militia Force by British troops, including one of the first significant uses of the 95th Green Jackets.

The reason for the action was a fear that either Denmark would capitulate to Napoleon or that Napoleon would invade and sieze the fleet. The threat of invasion meant that the Danish Crown Prince and the regular army were on the border with French (Holstien) and therefore unavailable to fight British troops under (the future) Wellington.

The action was premature because it initiated a state of War and because the French were preparing to attack, at which time the British could have come to the aid of the Danish. In the end the action resulted in the destruction of the Fleet, the Danish going over to the French and also led to the eventual dismembering of the country.

Now, my point was that the fundamental difference was that Denmark was still and independant soverign nation at this time with no foreign forces in ocupation.

Or were you thinking of the 1801 battle.

[Tribesman]

So around a third of Polish forces weren't deserters from the German army?

Did the Polish armed forces join the Germans ? No , neither did the French armed forces .

Not bad considering Mers El Kébir, without Mers El Kébir it probably would have been much higher.

Flooding in ? how many of French the sailors in Alexandia and British ports joined De Gaulle ?
Or for that matter , could you enlighten me as to how many French troops went to Britain during Dynamo , how many of them flooded to de Gaulle ?

Yes, in a lot of ways, that would be how he blocked some of the Cabinet from preventing De Gaulle's speech.

So the British government is irrelevant and it is only Churchill that matters ????
If the British government does not recognise the the government of De Gaulle then there is no government of de Gaulle .

The Battle of Copehagen was in 1807, it lasted about 20 days and was essentially a blockade of Copehagen and a demand that she surrender her fleet.
Oh I see , I thought you were talking about the Germans invasion .

Without sources you have no facts, now I'm only doing a little work and proving you wrong is pretty easy.

So far you have managed to prove absolutely nothing that I have written is false Wiggy . Congratulations .
Keep it up .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did the Polish armed forces join the Germans ? No , neither did the French armed forces.

That does not stop the Germans from appropriating the the ships, or the Vichy turning them over. It was a real danger in 1940 that would have had catastrophic results. Also, the Polish never capitulated to the Germans.


Flooding in ? how many of French the sailors in Alexandia and British ports joined De Gaulle ?
Or for that matter , could you enlighten me as to how many French troops went to Britain during Dynamo , how many of them flooded to de Gaulle ?

Around 10,000 men in a month and a half isn't too bad, considering the political fallout from Mers El Kebir. I'd be willing to bet that most came from before that.


So the British government is irrelevant and it is only Churchill that matters ????
If the British government does not recognise the the government of De Gaulle then there is no government of de Gaulle .

Official recognition or not De Gaulle's speeches and the fact that the FF were forming should have been evidence enough that there was more than one option. Oh, and No, the British Government's recognition was not a prerequisite fro the existance of the FF.


Oh I see , I thought you were talking about the Germans invasion .

I was responding to your point.


So far you have managed to prove absolutely nothing that I have written is false Wiggy . Congratulations .
Keep it up .

Well I've shown there was a French resistance force forming in early july and it had a recognised leader.

All this is going round in circles anyway.

This is the situation in June-July 1940.

1. France has surrendered, effectively and a puppet regime has been installed.

2. De Gaulle has escaped, with others, and is forming the Free French.

3. Exactly what is going to happen the French forces left in France is unclear, bear in mind Vichy is a puppet goverment and might decided to totally support Germany, hell they'd get to have a go at the British.

4. The French Fleet is dispersed and no-one really knows whether they'll keeping fighting or follow the Vichy government.

5. If the ships in the French Fleet were to come under Axis control they would allow Hitler to blockade the channel and would put him a long way towards sufficiant naval power for invasion.

6. Churchil decides that this is the greatest risk and hte ships MUST NOT fall into Axis hands. Rather ely on French bravery, they've already surrendered, Churchil decided that the problem must be dealt with as-soon-as.

7. Hence Operation Catapult. The ideal objective is to keep the French fighting, the worst case is the fleet falling into Axis hands.

8. The destruction of the ships at Mers El Kebir ensures they will not fall into Axis hands. That said the ideal situation was for the French to join the Allies.

[Tribesman]

:help: Hey Wiggy, howz it going ?
Would youlike a drunken arse to rip your position apart ? or wil youwiat fora semi-sober one ?
So far youhaveprovided aabso;ue craparticle fromWiki, whucxh if I may say so contrdicts the kriegsmarine records very severely , the fact tat it also contradicts both the British Nay reports , and those of the French Navy is I sppose irrelevant .
Quote all th sources you like , Imwill write stuf taken from the primary ources thatshow that you is talking crap .
I don;t have to provide links to state facts , facts are facts .
If you, would like some links then I cn provide somem that say that most of the casualties were infact sailors from the Kriewgsmarine, but you know that is bulshit ,, yet it is her emin this thread (though noit as funny as the one that claims that te majorit of the ctrews in Alex were Hriefsmarine,


Damn , maybr tomorrow:help: After some:coffeenews:

[Tribesman]

Wow , s cup of tea and a quick delve throughthe music boxes can clarify things .
Wiggy you is talking crap, from point 1~8 .
Talking of which , #8 ? Isn't that a case of Arthur ????

Poor old Arthur Foxache .:shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tribe'

I think many of his points had some strength to them (1, 5, 6). The French enjoying the chance for a swipe at the Brits is not accurate at all of course.

Britain was, collectively, scared spitless of invasion at that point as their field forces had bollocks for equipment and their air forces had proven so ineffective in France. They, especially Winnie, felt the Navy was their only line of defense.

Remember, too, that Winnie was very new to the top job at this point. He was experienced in the cabinet, but mostly at the Admiralty -- having a somewhat parochial view emphasizing naval concerns would have been understandable at this juncture.

Winnie may have blown the call on this one (I think it was a bad decision, but then again so was Gallipoli, Winnie wasn't perfect), but times of great fear and the immediate aftermath of defeat rarely lend themselves to the best decision-making.

[Tribesman]

I think many of his points had some strength to them (1, 5, 6).
1. France has surrendered, effectively and a puppet regime has been installed.

Who installed the French government ? ....the French government .
Who regognised this government ? everyone .
Who installed the FF government ?....no one , at the time it didn't exist .
Who recognised the FF forces ? no one .

The ships were French ships , the port was french territory .

If the risk over possesion of the French fleet was so great then why was no action taken against Toulon or Marsaille ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think many of his points had some strength to them (1, 5, 6).
1. France has surrendered, effectively and a puppet regime has been installed.

Who installed the French government ? ....the French government .
Who regognised this government ? everyone .
Who installed the FF government ?....no one , at the time it didn't exist .
Who recognised the FF forces ? no one .

The ships were French ships , the port was french territory .

If the risk over possesion of the French fleet was so great then why was no action taken against Toulon or Marsaille ?

Legallity is not legitimacy, the point of a puppet regime is that its sort of hard to see the strings.

Mers El Kebir was not an issolated incident, was it? Taking French Ships in French ports wasn't really practicable.

Operation Catapult was intended to remove the ships from play and leave them either under allied control or at the bottom of the sea. At this point in the war the fleet represents a crucial strategic resource.

If you want to say I'm conradicting sources then you have to provide them or indicate where I can get hold of them, otherwise I can't answer you, which is then the same as you having no sources.

Oh, and Wiki follows everythign else that is easily accessable in the public domain.

Show me where I'm wrong.

[Tribesman]

Mers El Kebir was not an issolated incident, was it?

No , not an isolated incident , they tried at Dakar and failed , they were going to try in the Carribean but American pressure stopped the attack at the last minute .
They didn't try anything at all against the far Eastern Fleet , which is really surprising if they considered the French fleet such a threat .

Taking French Ships in French ports wasn't really practicable.

As Mers-el-Kebir shows , it was a French port wasn't it , so was Dakar , so was Algiers (but they didn't attempt that one) .
The Germans also discovered the problem of trying to take French ships in a French port didn't they , they had even worse results than the British .
What is surprising though is that the British didn't try and stop French ships leaving Nova Scotia .

Show me where I'm wrong.
Well ....8. The destruction of the ships at Mers El Kebir ensures they will not fall into Axis hands. That said the ideal situation was for the French to join the Allies.........Operation Catapult was intended to remove the ships from play and leave them either under allied control or at the bottom of the sea. At this point in the war the fleet represents a crucial strategic resource.

As I said before it was a stategic balls up as well as an operational one . It didn't get the French ships to join the British and it didn't sink them . Instead it made them move closer to where the Axis forces were and made the French navy very hostile to Britain . The ships were not removed from the equation until the French sank them .
The operation sank a battleship that was obsolescant when it was launched , and was prctically useless decades later , and a light vessel that was sunk because the Pandora didn't recieve her orders not to sink it .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just so we're talking the same language here:

Strategic: Removing the French ships from play.

Operational: Mers El Kebir action.

Tactical: Sinking a ship.

When I said French ports I meant in France, sorry.

As to a strategic ballsup, well what about the ships in British ports that were siezed?

As to an Operational Ballsup, IIRC there were two Battleships and seven Destroyers, of which four destroyers and one Battleship escaped.

[Tribesman]

Strategic: Removing the French ships from play.

It didn't remove them , it sank one museum piece . a ballsup .

Operational: Mers El Kebir action.

A balls up , it didn't achieve its objectives .

Tactical: Sinking a ship.

See above .

As to a strategic ballsup, well what about the ships in British ports that were siezed?

Well thats different , its easy to sieze a ship in one of your own harbours , as you control the habour , the ships in it and the defenses around it . Which is why it is so strange that they let the ships leave Nova Scotia .

As to an Operational Ballsup, IIRC there were two Battleships and seven Destroyers, of which four destroyers and one Battleship escaped.
Two old Battleships , two new battle cruisers , 6 destroyers and various smaller vessels .
One old slow battleship was destroyed .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was just defining Strategic, Operational etc, some people have funny definitions.

"Well thats different , its easy to sieze a ship in one of your own harbours , as you control the habour , the ships in it and the defenses around it . Which is why it is so strange that they let the ships leave Nova Scotia ."

Still part of the operation, the successful part. Mers El Kebir was an Operational Ballsup but the Strategic issue was the fleet en masse.

"Two old Battleships , two new battle cruisers , 6 destroyers and various smaller vessels .
One old slow battleship was destroyed ."

I stand corrected but sinking any Battleship is a good thing, they were still using WWII battleships in Desert Storm, everybody loves the 12" guns.

[Strike For The South]

Im sick of the Falklands all it is, is the argentian goverment taking there peoples minds off of how crapy there lives actually are. A war with britan and Argentina wouldnt be a war it would be a trianing excersie...and Britan would win...bad....really bad......like really bad...like in 10 mintues....Soulforged would have to stay at my house...I get top bunk...He has to cook...and do my spainish homework

[Tribesman]

I stand corrected but sinking any Battleship is a good thing, they were still using WWII battleships in Desert Storm, everybody loves the 12" guns.Ummm , right OK , how big were the guns ?~;)
But would you comapare one of the last classes of battleship to be built , that has undergone numerous upgrades , entire remodelling , refits and many modernisation programs to a ship that was out of date when it was constructed and was long overdue at the scrapheap ?

Mers El Kebir was an Operational Ballsup but the Strategic issue was the fleet en masse.

And not only did it fail to get the fleet en masse it failed to get the modern ships in the fleet .