Unsurprisingly, you give a much better explanation of some of the reasons for the decline of French power. D&D. Dilated.
::sighs:: No, just a really, really long day at the office...well, not really an office but...I've said too much! D&D. Get your apostrophes straight!
I haven't been around much lately so I'm not really sure what's got you all hot and bothered. But... DBP comparison: the US didn't suffer anything like DBP IN VIETNAM, much less in Iraq. France's army was not a great army at that time. Comparing DBP to our situation in Iraq is silly. When the insurgents stand and fight then you can talk. Until then please don't compare a classic insurgency with a classic confrontation between front line military troops in which France got a royal ass kicking ala complete surrender. One of greatest armies: Mexico could say they had 'one of the greatest' armies on the planet in the 60's - you know, top 200 easy. So sure, I guess technically France could say they had 'one of' the greatest armies at the time, but that isn't saying much. Comparing France's army in the 50s to the US is just silly, then or now. The US has the greatest military on the planet bar none. France hasn't has anything resembling that since before Napolean's 100 days. All they've done since then is LOSE. They also forget that France had a sizable naval force in North Africa that the British had to blow up because those French would not allow those assets to be used to fight the Nazis.
I think if Germany and Canada were switched geographically, they might be saying the same thing about us. How many countries were mobilizing militarily during the Great Depression?
So you are saying that the correct course of action for naval fleet commanders to disregard direct orders from their legitimate command structure, which tell them to end hostilities and continue to fight if they don't agree with the terms of a peace agreement? Really?
We don't know for sure that would have occurred. You are damning the French, in this instance, cavalierly. The British chose to not take chances. The French Navy in the Eastern Med, at Alexandria, negociated demilitarisation of battleship Lorraine, four cruisers and a number of smaller ships. Other French ships in North Africa were not attacked. To this day, there is controversy about the attack by the British. I'm not saying it might not have needed to be done at some point, had circumstances changed, but the way you describe it simply uses a brush large enough for the street in front of my house, just to slam the French. D&D. Brush Strokes.
I think you misworded this. Did you mean those ships would fight for Germany? If so, that can't really be known. The French fleet was certainly one of the most advanced and did end up getting attacked by just about everyone - British, Germans, Italians, Americans, etc. but even before the British attacked some of the ships had scattered or headed towards the US to be added to the Allied fight, and even the holdouts in Toulon ended up scuttling everything so that Germany and Italy gained nothing. I really don't understand trying to make France a "bad guy" in WWII. They misjudged Germany prior to the war and suffered for it, that is it (and of course the fact that they were beaten by the hated Germans was major major suffering). They suffered occupation and a treaty where neither side trusted the other and then there were other parts that continued to oppose either the treaty or the occupation.
I guess it all depends on how you define 'legitimate command structure.' Are you saying the Free French government structure in exile was NOT legitimate? Really? Not large brush strokes at all, Deckard. Demilitarized or actual combatants matters not. You have one 'command structure' to use Otto's term and another recognized by the rest of the free world. You can't always sit on the fence. Clearly IMO the French commanders did so in this case. You can disagree with my assessment, no problem. But the facts are the facts.
Yeah, I'm craaaazy Hayes. Nice rational response, tiger. Like I said before, not sure where your ad hom's are coming from unless I missed something, but you'll have to do better than that.
The Vishy government was created by the government of the Third Republic. In terms of the command structure of the military, then yes they were the legitimate government. In any case, considering they didn't exist in any real way until like 3 or 4 years later, I think the Free French forces are pretty irrelevant to the discussion.
Yeah yeah. Did - did not. Same thing, right? When you've got a chance to fight AGAINST the nazis and you refuse, that says something. You can't leave them there to find out. Toulon is not what we're talking about - we're talking about North Africa, not southern France. Individual ships might have made individual decisions, but the French admiralty clearly did not come out and join the Allies at that time. Not trying to make France a 'bad guy' necessarily. French forces fought very bravely to hold back the Germans while the British retreated to Dunkirk, for example. However, many actions by this alleged 'great army' don't really fit the bill.
Mmmmm, no. See DeGaulle's famous 'Appeal of June 18th' which was in 1940. While he was tried in absentia for treason by the Vichy government, it would be hard to contend that anyone but the Nazis thought that legitimate. OTOH the Vichy regime enjoyed little claim to legitimacy.
That broadcast was very famous but not very well heard. It is my understanding it is only important from a symbolic view and that very few people actually heard it. I can provide a few French-language sources in this respect. In any case, to argue that the French forces in North Africa were able to listen to the BBC and understand the situation completely strikes me as perhaps not even possible. They were completely isolated from France, much less the Government-in-Exile in London. The Vichy government was created when the elected government gave absolute powers to Marshall Pétain. The Government in Exile was created by a rogue general who ran away after his country was invaded and declared himself the ruler of France. The Pétain government had access to the high command of the French Fleet and all their codebooks. The government and Naval Command who controlled the fleet told that fleet to not fight the Germans. In retrospect, it seems clear that everybody should have known of the Government in Exile etc. etc. The British showed up and said, "Give us your ships or we will sink them all." Your perspective relies too much on the power of hindsight and knowledge of everything that came after.
BTW, the USA, Canada, Australia, and the Soviet Union all had full diplomatic relations with Vichy France at this time. At this time none of them had formal relations with the Government-in-Exile. The attack by the British occured on 22, June, well before the majority of French even knew about the French Government-in-Exile.
None of those countries had entered the war against Nazi Germany at the time, so whoop dee doo (and the USSR had already carved up Poland WITH Germany). The British, OTOH, had already fought FOR France AGAINST Nazi Germany so that should make a little difference. Further the distinction you make about DeGaulle's appeal is wholly misleading. The majority of French may not have heard that actual realtime broadcast but it was widely replayed and became one of the most famous speeches in French history. The Vichy government was no more legitimate than any other coup that manifests itself after a declaration of emergency powers.
Indeed. I really like and admire you, Hayes, but you're simply going "over the Moon" with this one. D&D. Green Cheese.
