Posted on 11/27/2017 3:51:18 PM PST by Bull Snipe
The French Navy followed the orders of the Vichy Government. Not enough fuel to get to North Africa, let alone the UK, the Vichy government assented to that demand by the Germans.
>The French fought damned hard in WWI and lost far more than the Brits. They fought hard in WWII and lost. Under captivity they behaved about the way we would expect the British to. Some were heroes, some were not.
The French fought like crap in WW2. They gave up, ran away, their officers shat their britches and fled. The British had to lock them in cellars to prevent them from surrendering towns the right from under the British troops defending them.
Read “Inside the Nazi War Machine” by Bevin Alexander to get a feel for how well the French fought. It’s not pretty.
That’s November 27th 1942, Paris fell to the Germans in 1940.
Yes, during WWII, the French successfully defended Dakar against a French invasion.
They lost to the British in Syria, the Germans in France, the US in North Africa, and the Thais in Cambodia. Almost forgot the Italian victory in Southern France.
>Dunkirk was a strategic retreat. No surrender there.
Dunkirk was an act of survival for the UK. If the Nazis had captured the BEF there the war would have been over.
>Singapore was indefensible without adequate air and naval support. In neither case was Britain defending its home turf.
UK forces screwed the pooch there. Japanese troops went overland without supplies to attack the city in the rear. However, it shouldn’t have worked. The Japanese force was a 1/4 the UK force and the city was heavily fortified. All they had to do was put a minor resistance and the Japanese army would have had to withdraw. But as typical in WW2 UK commanders were awful and turned what should have been an easy victory into a defeat.
“3 battleships, 3 heavy cruiser, 4 light cruisers, 15 destroyers and 12 submarines” would have doubled the German Navy - may have been enough to enable them to cross the channel.
So who was the master tactician that didn’t move them from May 1940 to the time the Vichy government was set up?
If this were Norway, his name would be Quisling. Not sure who the French version was.
The French Quisling was Marshal Petain.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marshal-petain-becomes-premier-of-occupied-france
Baloney, typical pro England propaganda. The bottom line is the British fled the battlefield leaving the northern French point completely exposed. Notice how the British surrender’s are always classified as a brilliant tactical decisions?. As for Singapore being indefensible can anyone imagine a Japanese force surrendering to a British force 1/3 their size?
France simply suffered a military defeat that was inescapable. Britain would’ve suffered exactly the same outcome if not for the channel. And the collaboration would’ve been about the same, based upon the behavior of numerous British aristocracy members, including royalty.
It’s just as legitimate to call the Brits tea drinking surrender monkeys as it ever is to slander of the French. The fact is it’s kind of childish to point out surrenders in the face of absolute defeat and destruction as some kind of moral failing. Numerous Union and Confederate soldiers, nazi soldiers, US forces on Bataan, Brits, Russians and many others have surrendered when it was impossible to change the outcome.
The next war in Europe will be a Civil war, Euros against Muzzies. It will be very bloody not like 1492 in Spain when they somewhat peacefully were expelled.
The French equivalent to Quisling was Marshal of France Philippe Petain. The Vichy Govt. was established shortly after the surrender to the Germans. The Vichy Govt. retained control over 2/3rds of France. The warships at Toulon were in French controlled territory. There was no reason for them to leave. The Senior officers of the French Navy remained loyal to the Vichy Regime.
Maybe after the RAF was destroyed too.
Unfortunately, this possibility was foreclosed because French sentiment at the time remained agitated by the July 1940 British naval attack on French naval vessels in port at Mers-el-Kébir in Algeria. Some 1,297 French servicemen were killed, a French battleship was sunk, and five other ships damaged.
This surprise attack was controversial because Britain and France had been allies and were not at war. The result was bitterness toward Britain by many in the French Navy. This is said to have killed tentative covert plans to put the French fleet in British hands. With that in mind, the scuttling of the French fleet was the best that could be expected.
Bravo to the French sailors for scuttling those craft, to keep them out of German hands. Capturing those vessels would have been far cheaper than having to build a fleet, a feat the Third Reich never managed (not surface vessels anyway). In 1940, Churchill had taken the measure of sinking another French fleet in port in Algeria. Thanks Bull Snipe.
Very well said, although the British surrender of Singapore was an embarrassment and that was said at the time as well. France had suffered much worse in the first WW, since so much of the western front fighting was on French soil, and they were outmaneuvered, outclassed, and just lacked a basic will to fight during the closing days of that four week German offensive. Had Hitler not lost his nerve (as he so often did, and generally right at the worst time) and had German forces close the bag at Dunkirk, the entire outcome would have been, shall we say, quite different. The North Africa campaign would have gone differently, and ended much sooner, and to Germany's benefit, that's just for starters.
The Germans salvaged heavy guns from one of the scuttled French battleships and installed them onshore near Toulon harbor.
My father remembers watching the USS Nevada fire broadsides in a duel with these German guns.
Following the German surrender, General Devers, commander of the 6th Army Group, began a letter to General Lattre de Tassigny, commander of the French First Army, by writing "We have fought together these past months, often against the Germans..."
Exactly. By the time the Japanese reached Singapore their army was in bad shape, exhausted, hungry and sick. There is a wierd myth that the Japanese were natural jungle fighters but this is completely untrue.
Historically the French since the defeat of Napoleon I have suffered primarily from poor leadership both politically & militarily (and poor equipment!). Individually from the mid/junior officer to common soldier the French have shown great bravery and in WWI crazy bravery. To label the French as surrender monkeys is historically inaccurate.
France has a naval history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
