HA HA HA the view from the 'other side'.
Printable View
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.
That expalins why we're so good at winning.:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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.
Well...I agree with you that if and when the fleet posed a threat to Britain, they should've been destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kommodus
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 .
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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, 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 .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
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 .
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.