Linky
Time to get the JSF up and running?
Printable View
Linky
Time to get the JSF up and running?
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...
This comes but a year after we got rid of our Sea harriers, Wise move MoD! If an Invasion comes, would the US help?
we already have an RAF squadron there, tornado F3s. (",)Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke M
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 ~;)
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.
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?
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?
Two battalions or regiments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianofsmeg16
The french made the Exocet Missiles that sunk the Sheffield and the other one whos name i cant remember.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklan...ch_involvement
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 or here 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.
Don't forget that Britain sold Lynx helicopters to Argentina before the war, although IIRC only 2 were delivered and the rest were embargoed.
We did sink the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in WWII. Britain will go to such lengths to protect herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
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:
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesPanther
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.
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:
Push them one step further and they send in the colonialsas soldiers first, and worse still as tourists later. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
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 .
Well if the US got involved, it would give us the chance to give our F-22s some real combat experience.
Yep - France ranks third in selling weapons to Britain's enemies behind the UK itself and their close ally the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Yep - though French assistance to the UK ensured that we didn't piss them off as much as their noble yet neutral ally America.Quote:
Btw I always wondered this, did the french made missiles that destroyed a couple British navy ships piss the Britians off?
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...
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.
wait theres a South America
Wouldn't mind if they US helped the UK kick the Argentines in the slats if they acted aggresively towards our allies.
:balloon2:
The most likely scenario in the short term, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi
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.
LOL....Hey wait there's a Texas...:laugh4: :laugh4: And it's full of people like STFS...What? OH MY GOD:help: :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Pfft now who needs salvation you gringo AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHAHAH :mellow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I always thought Florida was that...
pfft Floridas Americas wang silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
linkQuote:
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.
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.
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.
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 .
You obviously did click on the link. :)Quote:
Wiki is such a thourough source isn't it
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
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 .
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 .
I believe those resources were put up for tender, rather than just sold off.
As to the French Fleet:
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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 .
Yeah!!!!but they were French!!!! :laugh4: perhaps the First Lord got a bit mixed up :dizzy2:
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.
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.
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 ?????
Well the ships were never used against the British, were they?
In the end nothing else matters.
*cough* 1300 dead French *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
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:
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 .
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?
There is about 600, or just a bit more in an Infantry Battalion in the British ArmyQuote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
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:
But...but Tribesman...these ships of mass destruction were ready to strike Britain in 45 minutes! ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
My, perfid Albion at it's finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rory
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.
HA HA HA the view from the 'other side'.
[/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.
*rewards Wigferth Ironwall the 'Cross of Lorraine' for being the world's greatest anglophone Gaullist*Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
I'm happy to see an Englisman finally agree with Charles the Gaulle:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
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.
Quote:
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'.
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 .
I hope we would; the UK are good allies of ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianofsmeg16
Increasing the garrison on the Island and installing more state of the art Anti Air Equipment would be good also.
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.
I agree that Churchil's actions were often swift and heavy handed, on balance though I'd rather have him than some flaky liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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.
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!Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianofsmeg16
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
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'. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
The English are the spawn of satan.Quote:
It is nice to have such friendly neighbours is it not?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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."
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?
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.
To stop the Soviet Union invading Europe. I guess Britain and the USA never bothered to remove them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kommodus
The Americans are taking the mantle of Trigger happy ally. :laugh4:Quote:
Or ocasionally by accidently sinking the other's battleships.
"You sunk my battleship, yoou craisey Eenglishman."
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 .
Interesting. I remember hearing something recently about a US redeployment plan which included removing some troops and bases from Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesPanther
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.