Useful

**jockass** · 29-05-2009, 13:23

So, tell us why more about why the French in Morocco and Algeria resisted their 'liberators' when they landed in North Africa? And how we can be sure that they wouldnt have used the fleet Britain attacked at Mers-el-Kebir to sink the Operation Torch flotillas? As it was the French Navy there fought the allies. Luckily they didnt have these battleships or it could have been a disaster, or not even attempted in the first place. It would be easy to say that if Mers-el-Kebir hadnt happened then the French forces there would have welcomed the allies with open arms. But nobody can know that for sure and it didnt play out like that. The reality was, as you have said yourself there was a massive split in opinion in France prior to D-Day. You can't put all of that attitude down to Mers-el-Kebir because as I have said a number of times then before the attack then the attitude was already there which is why the attack had to go ahead. Everybody would have prefered the alternative I am sure, though its outside of all of our powers of speculation to know exactly what any of the decision makers on either side really thought.

**seaweed** · 29-05-2009, 13:26

Madagascar was taken on 5th May 1942 to stop the Japanese getting it - that is to say before the battles of Coral Sea (7 May) and Midway (5 June) removed that as a practical Japanese ambition; if the Japanese had thrust further west across the Indian Ocean it is unlikely we could have inhibited them. Thus, a military necessity (as were our takeovers of Iceland and the Azores, although these were bloodless).

De G was 'sidelined' on secret matters because he and his people had already demonstrated before the Dakar op that they had no idea of secrecy and security, and we could not allow their negligence to compromise one of the most vital operations of the war. the dakar op was totally blown to the point that ships wntering Freetown were met byu a bod in a boat holding up a sign with 'FUK DAKAR' on it. Also, De G's people totally misled us about the loyalties of the Vichy Fr in Dakar. the truth was that the 'uncommitted mass' clearly lacked all moral feelings about th ewar and were perfectly happy to remain under German subjugation. UNLIKE US. It's called cowardice.

**jockass** · 29-05-2009, 13:28

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Originally Posted by jockass

Fantassin you still havent answered or addressed or acknowledged a number of my questions aimed directly at you and are coming out with so much self contradictory nonsense now its unbelievable but you dont seem to realise the thrust of our argument. I had to do a double-take to make sure I hadnt misread you.

Thats because he is dealing with a dozen bleating cretins, some of whom do not even bother to read answers to questions they raise.

Oh welcome back Professor Bravo_Bravo with your infininate wisdom and a chest full of medals

I have been reading very carefully thankyou very much and am interested to learn from Fantassins perspective. Just was a little frustrated that he seems to be avoiding certain aspects of the debate, which thankfully his last post started to address. I dont think we need any help from you though. Bore off.

**Bravo_Bravo** · 29-05-2009, 13:36

Originally Posted by seaweed

the truth was that the 'uncommitted mass' clearly lacked all moral feelings about th ewar and were perfectly happy to remain under German subjugation. UNLIKE US. It's called cowardice.

Third time I've posted this, now. It would be nice of people took the time actually to read the thread before enganging OUTRAGE LOOK AT ME! gear.

The Nazis installed a regime of horrific cruelty. They'd deport and murder at will; slave labour was common and their Armed Force where the best in the world. They'd kicked our arrses all the way to Dunkirk, remember?

For acts of Resistance, reprisals where hideous. Take a couple of minutes and Google "Ourador" to get an idea. The Nazis did conquer British soil - the Channel Islands - and to the best of my knowledge we just rolled over. So you are wrong here, and presumably you feel our actions then where not "cowardice" but a sensible acceptance of a fete accompli.

Would the UK, in all honesty, have behaved in any other manner should we have been invaded? The BEF where destroyed, we would have resorted to LDV armbands and pitchforks against the best Armed Forces in the world. They'd breezed through every other European country they fancied, and the only reason they did not invade in 1939 was the lack of an amphibious capability.

**Bravo_Bravo** · 29-05-2009, 13:38

Originally Posted by jockass

Oh welcome back Professor Bravo_Bravo with your infininate wisdom

Not infinite, just more than you.

Bore off.

I suppose it beats ansering the question, I suppose.

Ta guelle, salop.

**jagman** · 29-05-2009, 13:48

Originally Posted by jockass

So, tell us why more about why the French in Morocco and Algeria resisted their 'liberators' when they landed in North Africa? And how we can be sure that they wouldnt have used the fleet Britain attacked at Mers-el-Kebir to sink the Operation Torch flotillas? As it was the French Navy there fought the allies. Luckily they didnt have these battleships or it could have been a disaster, or not even attempted in the first place. It would be easy to say that if Mers-el-Kebir hadnt happened then the French forces there would have welcomed the allies with open arms. But nobody can know that for sure and it didnt play out like that. The reality was, as you have said yourself there was a massive split in opinion in France prior to D-Day. You can't put all of that attitude down to Mers-el-Kebir because as I have said a number of times then before the attack then the attitude was already there which is why the attack had to go ahead. Everybody would have prefered the alternative I am sure, though its outside of all of our powers of speculation to know exactly what any of the decision makers on either side really thought.

My bold
The Jean Bart was used against the allies during Operation Torch at Casablanca whilst under the control of Vichy France.
At this point Jean Bart was not fully operational (infact not even complete)and had been spirited to North Africa ahead of the German advance into France. Jean Bart spent the following two years at Casablanca and was only actually completed post war.
Jean Bart was damaged during Operation Torch and after the event
Richelieu was also under the control of Vichy forces in North Africa but only had 3 of the 8 13inch guns functionable, a previous RN FAA attack had left her with srious mechanical damage and she was only capable of moving herself in an emergency and with very limited performance.

Both Richelieu and Jean Bart did fight against the allies under the control of Vichy but the perfromance of both ships was severely limited, Jean Bart because it was not actually finished and Richeliue because of damage caused by the Royal Navy.
Strasbourg and Dunkerque with both in Toulon duing Operation Torch and played no part in that.
Strasbourg was refloated after the Toulon scuttling and taken over by the Italians (who surrendered before they could repair and make use of her) and was then returned to the Vichy French.
Dunkerque was disamred and in drydock in Toulon when the French fleet was scuttled there, her Captain ensured scuttling charges destroyed the ship and set fire to the wreckage to preven her use by Germany

It is reasonably safe to say that had the Royal Navy not made efforts to hamper the use of all four of these battleships then they would have been effective against the Allies, three of the four were very powerful ships, the fourth would have been had she been finished.
All four played a limited part partly due to the action of the Royal Navy and partly due to their crews scutling tow of them in Toulon.

**jockass** · 29-05-2009, 13:48

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Originally Posted by seaweed

the truth was that the 'uncommitted mass' clearly lacked all moral feelings about th ewar and were perfectly happy to remain under German subjugation. UNLIKE US. It's called cowardice.

Third time I've posted this, now. It would be nice of people took the time actually to read the thread before enganging OUTRAGE LOOK AT ME! gear.

The Nazis installed a regime of horrific cruelty. They'd deport and murder at will; slave labour was common and their Armed Force where the best in the world. They'd kicked our arrses all the way to Dunkirk, remember?

For acts of Resistance, reprisals where hideous. Take a couple of minutes and Google "Ourador" to get an idea. The Nazis did conquer British soil - the Channel Islands - and to the best of my knowledge we just rolled over. So you are wrong here, and presumably you feel our actions then where not "cowardice" but a sensible acceptance of a fete accompli.

Would the UK, in all honesty, have behaved in any other manner should we have been invaded? The BEF where destroyed, we would have resorted to LDV armbands and pitchforks against the best Armed Forces in the world. They'd breezed through every other European country they fancied, and the only reason they did not invade in 1939 was the lack of an amphibious capability.

Well obviously the trick is to fight beforehand not afterwards isnt it? Thats why we took the precaution of building up a dominant navy over the past couple of centuries. Prevention is better than cure. And why we indentified that we should put some effort into controlling the skies over the channel and southern england once France fell. If the Air Force and the Navy had proved not up to the job then yes, its entirely possible that the British population would have had to roll over to a large extent. Reconquest by Canada, Australia and New Zealand wasnt really an option. I suspect thats why the people of the time took the whole think pretty seriously as there were no more shining knights on the horizon if the Germans got ashore in strength. The people of Britain couldnt take any chances, hence the unfortunate decision to remove the threat of French ships falling into Axis hands and any chance of losing control of the sealanes.
Fighting dirty? Maybe, but the stakes were high.
Necessary? I think so. But thank god we will never find out what would have happened if we didnt.
Glad you are not in charge of anything important? Yes