Re: French at Oran
- From: aminyard@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:55:06 -0600
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:09:38 -0000, "Peter McLelland"
<peter.mclelland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:1135166236.788335.69430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Peter McLelland wrote:
>> > "Drazen Kramaric" <draxNEVOLIMSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:8drgq1ddmakcv5nft3vg59lt47t42udtge@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > > On 9 Dec 2005 15:58:34 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
>> > > <jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >I think it is not so much the Germans taking over the ships but the
>> > > >pro-Axis French command, Darlan and Weygand for example, being
>> > > >convinced that the Axis could not lose and they should join the
>> > > >inevitable winner.
>> > >
>> > > What was so pro-Axis in Darlan's and Weygand's behaviour as of June
>> > > 1940? That they recognised that war, as far as France was concerned,
>> > > was lost? Why should France risk everything to help British fight a
>> > > war when these same British withheld significant forces from the
>> > > actual struggle only few weeks ago?
>> >
>> > The peace treaty between France and Hitler effectively made Vichy France
>a
>> > vassal state of Germany thus the French Navy was ultimately at the
>disposal
>> > of the Germans.
>> > >
>> > > >Sir Dudley North visited Gensoul in Oran and got the statement that
>he
>> > > >would never turn his ships over to the British. So long as there was
>a
>> > > >properly constituted French Government it was his duty to obey it.
>> > > >He gave his word of honor that no ship would be turned over intact to
>> > > >the Germans or Italians. At Casablanca and Dakar there was a similar
>> > sentiment.
>> > > >
>> > > >The inability of the French officers to decide which way to jump led
>> > > >them to being sunk.
>> > >
>> > > No, it was the stuborness of the naval rank amateur Churchill that
>> > > forced otherwise unwilling Royal Navy admirals to undertake the
>> > > disgusting operation of firing on French.
>> > >
>> > Churchill was no naval amateur having spent some years at the Admiralty
>> > during his career and having been tutored extensively by the likes of
>Fisher
>> > in all matters naval. He knew all to well as did the commanders of the
>fleet
>> > that if even part of the French battle fleet fell into German hands the
>> > naval balance of power would change dramatically. Yes the navy did not
>like
>> > bombarding the French Fleet, but they realised it was a necessary act in
>the
>> > circumstances.
>> >
>> >
>> > Peter
>>
>> Which brings up an actual naval question: What is the story on the
>> Georges Leygues? I am reading John Monsarrat's Angels on the Yardarm
>> and at one point the GL is tied up near them in Philadelphia. He
>> describes it as escaping German control but I googled a statement that
>> the GL with two other cruisers engaged in a battle with the Australia
>> near Dakar. Sounds like a movie to me.
>>
>Whilst initially loyal to Vichy it appears that the ship transferred itself
>to the FF Navy after the Torch landings in North Africa and fought for the
>Allies for the rest of the war. As time passes the apparent winner changes.
>
>Peter
>
As do French loyalties and morals.
Al Minyard
Guns don't kill people.
Husbands that come home early kill people !!
.
- References:
- Re: Midway strategy?
- From: John Lansford
- Re: Midway strategy?
- From: Jack Linthicum
- French at Oran
- From: Drazen Kramaric
- Re: French at Oran
- From: Peter McLelland
- Re: French at Oran
- From: Jack Linthicum
- Re: French at Oran
- From: Peter McLelland
- Re: Midway strategy?
- Prev by Date: Re: Eisenhower & MacArthur
- Next by Date: Re: USTAFISH missing?
- Previous by thread: Re: French at Oran
- Next by thread: Re: French at Oran
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading