>Say you'll defend your ally
>realize you'll have to actually fight
>run away from the continent, leaving your ally to fend for themselves
>proceed to attack your ally to prevent them from retaliating against your perfidy
Why are bongs like this?
have a nice day warrior tard do it now
God bless the Bongs for that.
Showed the World they would gladly put pussy french soldiers to the sword to kill Nazi's. The Cheesemongers had a choice and they picked the wrong the ones.
The British were driven off the continent because the French defense collapsed due to some choices which are borderline sabotage.
The French fleet in Africa was given multiple options which respected their armistice with Germany. Keeping their men and ships safely out of the war. They rejected all of them.
At least the French did hold true to their word and scuttled when the Germans did ultimately try to seize the remainder of the French fleet.
>Get ordered to surrender ships
>Dont
>Get told if you dont you will be sunk
>Make a run for it
>Get sunk
Problem?
>ally shows up
>demands you surrender to them
>surrender to your "ally" that you're not at war with
>tries to order you but they have no authority
>this is considered reasonable
Of the options given was to sail to neutral ports in the US and wait out the war. At that time Vichy France was considered its own state and was not beholden to whatever Germany wanted, if the Vichy government agreed not to fight either side then nobody could be upset. They instead dicked around on the ultimatum, insulted the delegation for not being a high enough rank, and rejected every presented option.
>if the Vichy government agreed not to fight either side then nobody could be upset.
And Mers el Kebir happened and they decided to bomb Gibraltar and help the Germans in retaliation.
The orders from Darlan permitted Gensoul to sail the ships to American ports to avoid either the British or Germans taking them. Gensoul also did not tell his government that one of the offered options was to sail to the French West Indies.
Gensoul instead presented it to his superiors as a binary
>Either fight alongside us or be sunk by us
The entire thing could be called unfair, but that's war. The British were still in it and determined the French force was a risk if it was taken by the Germans.
>in retaliation
Which came first, Mers el Kebir or Fr*nch sucking German dick and actively fighting against the people trying to free their homeland?
You have either one of two choices: Vichy is an illegitimate government, in which case the fucks in Africa were total cowards. Alternatively, Vichy is a legitimate government, in which case they were legitimately allied with Nazi Germany, having flipped sides just like the Italians did.
Either way, Vichy was fair game, so fuck you.
Mers el Kebir
I think the British also offered the French the option of sailing their fleet under escort to the French West Indies where it would be safely out of the reach of the Germans.
>They instead dicked around on the ultimatum, insulted the delegation for not being a high enough rank, and rejected every presented option.
Which was all the more ridiculous when you realise that one of the options was something they had standing orders to do if ever asked to.
the french admiral at mers el kebir literally disobeyed his orders to open fire on the british.
especially not given that the previous agreement was to sail the fleet to britain in the event of french surrender.
for all thefrench talk of perfidious albion the frenchmans solemn oath is honoured only so long as you have him under a gun
>the french admiral at mers el kebir literally disobeyed his orders to open fire on the British
The British fired first and never told them all of the options available such as going to the US
the british message literally listed all 4 options, it was delivered both as a letter and read to admiral gensoul by the officer delivering it.
It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German enemy. We are determined to fight on until the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers, and that our common enemy is Germany. Should we conquer we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;
(a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans.
(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.
If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.
(c) Alternatively, if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans lest they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies—Martinique for instance—where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.
If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.
Finally, failing the above, I have orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German or Italian hands.
The simple fact is the French thought they were switching to the winning side, and wanted to reap benefits from being seen to cooperate well. They scarcely deserved the blood shed to free them.
well no, the french were never worth the effort to kill them or save them, but sadly their liberation was a prerequisite for defeating the germans.
>The simple fact is the French thought they were switching to the winning side
This.
>the british message literally listed all 4 options
They were told to join up or die before being given any options and even then more options were being given to the French, such as refueling and going to the US to wait out the war instead of unstable colonies, which were never actually given to the French at Mers.
Pretty weird how Cunningham managed to do things much more peacefully in Alexandria and was finalizing terms with Godfroy at the exact same time that Somerville decided to slaughter his allies.
It's all meaningless because the UK publicly told everyone they would respect the neutrality and sovereignty of Vichy at the same time they were now demanding it's military to join them or die with Operation Grasp and Catapult. Trying to put a nice spin on it after the fact is absurd.
(cont)
that was a formal diplomatic communication to the french commander at Mers el Kebir and is a matter of historical record.
further the first shots fired were by the french when sceral of their fighters engaged british aircraft which were mining the harbour exit.
mining a harbor is also a hostile act, the brits fired the first shot, the french merely retaliated
Its only hostile if you plan to do something with the fleet you have promised will not sail against the british, if you arent planning to sortie with the fleet then the mines arent a problem, if the french commander had changed his mind and decided to follow his fucking orders the mines could have been removed quickly.
in fact if the french commander had been anything but a honorless dog the mines wouldnt have been a problem.
as always french pride and hurt feelings are the issue.
>in fact if the french commander had been anything but a honorless dog the mines wouldnt have been a problem
this
the fact that Darlan didn't like the idea of being mined in is proof positive that he was contemplating betrayal
>the fact that Darlan didn't like the idea of being mined in is proof positive that he was contemplating betrayal
it wasnt even Darlan it was the french port admiral Gensoul, Darlans orders to him included sailing to the US if that was ever an option, he didnt even tell Darlan it was offered. had the french commander at Mers El Kebir been anything other than a complete asshole the whole tragedy would have been averted and we would be talking about the brave and honourable sailors of the free french navy.
You're actually braindamaged or mentally deranged, or both. Do you even read what you write? Are you stupid? Another nation starts dropping mines in your own territory, you have to retaliate by law, it is a hostile act get that fact through your goddamn skull you imbecile. Each and every single country on the planet has such laws. The british knew this perfectly well and yet they did it anyway, against a country that had concluded the war, they weren't hostile to anyone anymore. They were a neutral country.
The french had a choice, no action was taken until the ultimatum expired, all of the options they rejected were better for them than the one they chose.
>taking any of those options would have never flown with the germans, the other part of this equation. And would have probably been followed by the swift annexation of the Vichy zone and most likely reprisals against the families of those in command.
so effective annexation of france is replaced by actual annexation? honestly it amazes me that anyone in Vichy france thought they were going to last, they were doomed the second the germans had the breathing room, the only longterm hope for french independence lay with the british.
>the only longterm hope for french independence lay with the british.
Britain was inconsequential to WW2 since they ran from every fight that was presented to them and they broke every treaty the had with "their allies", the most important thing England did was lose to French when their certain colonies were revolting.
seething frog gay lmao, go lose another war ugly
What country are you from btw?
still crying THIS hard, lmao
French have more battles won than any other nation in human history.
Didn't you fight for 60 years to be recognised as true French and lost?
>Britain was inconsequential to WW2 since they ran from every fight that was presented to them
which is a really funny way to say provided more than half the manpower, shipping and naval support for operations overlord and husky and about 2 million men in the european theatre alone.
they didnt have the manpower of the americans or germans but punched well above their weight
>which is a really funny way to say provided more than half the manpower, shipping and naval support for operations overlord and husky
>operations launched from British soil
okay
>and about 2 million men in the european theatre alone.
So less than France?
>they didnt have the manpower of the americans or germans but punched well above their weight
Yes, the legendary land forces of Britain that won battles of........................is dunkirk now a win in your deluded mind?
>is dunkirk now a win in your deluded mind?
no but first an second el alamain are, as was the reichswald, Caen, the invasions of italy and france, the burma campaign, etc.
you can meme about dunkirk all you like but if you actually look at that one it was the correct response to the situation, a situation the british were placed in by the french collapse. french resistance outside of the dunkirk pocket was already collapsing when the evacuation began
>resistance outside of the dunkirk pocket was already collapsing
how did they keep up the fight for 4 more weeks then? especially with the much vaunted BEF now being back in britain after their evacuation was covered by french forces
ah ofc, it is the fault of the french that 200 000 Brits surrendered without a fight
>battles against Italians and few Germans with no support, equipment and supplies
good job!
the only british units to surrender in france had expended all of their ammunition before surrendering, and indeed had formed the nucleus of resistance in their sectors. the ones that retreated had been left with a choice of retreat or die by the french battle plan going so badly wrong.
>battles against Italians and few Germans with no support, equipment and supplies
as well as opposed beach landings and river crossings jungle fighting, and clearing a network of entrenched german defenses in what eisenhower described as the bitterest fighting of the war.
If the british army was so much better, why didn't they take the german army on their own then?
they started with a military that doctrinally was outdated and was also smaller proportionately than most.
they did learn pretty fucking quickly though
Bongs punched above their weight (Canadians and Australians, too). This is per comments by American veterans. The worst they had to say about the Brits was that they could be uptight.
Americans despised the French though, and felt pity at how ragged the Soviets were. Americans thought less of the French than they did the Italians or Germans.
IIRC the first soldiers Americans fought during Torch were French.
Which is most ironic because America, unlike Britain, recognized Vichy.
They were confused as fuck about it, too. Did not understand why they didn't simply immediately switch sides.
> smaller proportionately than most.
Quite an understatement.
There was basically no british army that could take on the german army.
There was no american in Europe in 1940.
Irrelevant. The war lasted past 1940, so I'd say their opinion counts. At least more than the opinions of cowards/collaborators.
>Irrelevant. The war lasted past 1940
Not for the french army, which was annihlated by Germany at this point. As to american lectures on courage from accross the pond, they can shove them in the same place as their british cousins.
>Boohoo pls dont obliterate Paris boohoo
Meanwhile
>We dont care how much you bomb London, we will never surrender.
The Germans didn't intend to obliterate Paris in 1940, neither to invade Britain.
Their intentions were irrelevant, if the Fr*nch weren't bloody cowards they would have fought to the last man and Paris would have suffered immensely.
But they surrendered to save their stinky city instead. Cowards is all they are.
>they would have fought to the last man
Something Anglo-saxons never did, nor anyone for that matter. For some reason they expect the rest of the world to die to the last man for them.
Yes they did. In what world could Hitler's word be trusted when he broke every other agreement he made and where it's openly stated that the intention is to break the power of the British Empire. They had detailed plans dating back to the pre-war period about what they planned to do in an occupation of the UK, including summarily executing scout masters and boy scouts over the age of 16. Tell me how do you occupy something without invading it?
I don't say he could be trusted, but what is sure is that France alongside Britain declared war on him and that the french army was then completely obliterated, with no fighting allies left on the continent, no prospect of american intervention nor whatever. When you can't make war, you negotiate.
And he actually offered Britain peace many times.
Plans of an invasion of Britain were just plans. They never recieved a beginning of execution. He was already aiming east,
>"If you invade Poland, who we have a defense pact with we'll be forced to honour the pact and declare war. So please don't do it."
>*invades Poland*
>"Guess we're at war"
>Wtf man? Perfidious angloid and frogs declared war on innocent germans who never did nuffin
The sad thing is that the lies and copes from 4chanmorons and stormfags haven't evolved one bit 20 years. You're still parroting the same old retarded shit you always were.
I don't say that the declaration of war was illegitimate but the means to conduct it were obivously lacking, especially in terms of offensive capability. The governments of France and Britain didn't prepare it seriously.
France had the largest land army and was considered the best in europe at the time.
Its not Britains fault the stupid cunts didnt use radios and still relied on messengers.
The entire invasion and WW2 could have been stopped in its tracks in the Ardennes if it wasnt for the sheer arrogance and utter stupidity of the French generals.
>France had the largest land army and was considered the best in europe at the time.
Mostly because people still lived in 1918.
>Its not Britains fault the stupid cunts didnt use radios and still relied on messengers.
It's Britain's fault she sent a token corps to a war she declared.
>The entire invasion and WW2 could have been stopped in its tracks in the Ardennes if it wasnt for the sheer arrogance and utter stupidity of the French generals.
Alright armchair general, too bad they didn't have you around at that time.
Even if fall gelb failed, the german army was superior to the allies in all respects and the allies had still no offensive capability to penetrate Germany.
In the end it didn't need the combination of the massive armies and industries of the USSR and the US to bring the german army down for no reason. The Germans on land were just superior to everyone else, Brits included.
A token corps is all the british have in terms of available land forces at the start of the war. Their army was designed for two things, rapid interventions against relatively small tribal kingdoms and occupying India. They have a large force in India, but that's 6 months travel time, realistically a year before it can be deployed in Europe. And it's needed in India to continue the occupation of India. The defense of the UK rested logically enough on it's navy, being an island nation.
The assumption was that a small professional army that could be expanded and be the core of a larger army in wartime, but that's not a rapid thing. Again, it's probably at least 6 months and more likely a year before troops raised at the start of the war are available for deployment.
Of all the reasons to try and shit on the bongs, you picked the absolute dumbest.
>Armchair general
Real Dunning-Kruger energy in this post.
>A token corps is all the british have in terms of available land forces at the start of the war. Their army was designed for two things, rapid interventions against relatively small tribal kingdoms and occupying India. They have a large force in India, but that's 6 months travel time, realistically a year before it can be deployed in Europe. And it's needed in India to continue the occupation of India. The defense of the UK rested logically enough on it's navy, being an island nation.
>The assumption was that a small professional army that could be expanded and be the core of a larger army in wartime, but that's not a rapid thing. Again, it's probably at least 6 months and more likely a year before troops raised at the start of the war are available for deployment.
And that's exactly why I said the government of Britain didn't prepare seriously the war. You don't declare a war to beat Germany on land and save Poland if you have no land army.
Same thing of France which was swelling in a pacifist, purely defensive doctrine and hadn't any offensive capacity.
The defeat wasn't due to a mere trick that, advertised, turned the tide of things. It was completely logical and resulted of the superiority of the german army in all domains.
>in all domains.
Not all, the French has been building an impenetrable barrier to prevent German military success; the Maginot Line.
Maginot line is an easy target, but defensive lines have their utilities. The Germans themselves had the Siegfried line which proved effective.
The problem was the defensive doctrine as a whole, its overreliance of the line and the lack of aggressive capabilities.
Everybody knows about the radios lad.
>The radios
Still not what im talking about brainlet.
>Same thing of France which was swelling in a pacifist, purely defensive doctrine and hadn't any offensive capacity.
Absolutely retarded. The Dunning-Kruger continues.
>just attack the Siegfried line even you haven't the armour and guns to do so bro
>just have extrasensory knowledge of fall Gelb bro
>just teleport in Berlin bro
>just win bro
What have I forget there?
>Alright armchair general, too bad they didn't have you around at that time.
Stopped reading here. You dont even know what incident im refering too and the radios were a huge clue.
Tl:dr stick to the youtube comment section
France and Britain didn't want another war, especially France.
>inb4 shouldn't have been so tough with Versailles
Germany got it extremely easy out of WW1 compared to the rest of Central powers, they barely lost any land and didn't even pay their reparations, moreover they took loans from americans banks they defaulted on. France and Britain also had huge war debt to the US they had to pay back.
The other aspect is the failure of the Entente, the british reverted back to their balance of power diplomacy seeing France as just another party to contain and letting them down during the remilitarization of the Rhine, not understanding that demographically and industrially the power ratio had shifted to the east.
The US also completely dropped France, Woodrow Wilson told Clemenceau that they would guarantee french border against german aggression if France let Germany keep both sides of the Rhine. The thing is that months later the US Senate refused to ratify to the treaty.
Clemenceau career was basically over after that and Wilson suffered from a stroke around this time.
The French got off too easy in the war. They rightfully lost Alsace and were so buttmad about that their revanchism dictated French foreign policy for the next 45 years and was the impetus for joining in WWI more than anything. Britain bending over backwards to appease Germany was just the nail in the coffin for France.
Alsace had nothing to do with the causes of WW1. It's Germany that declared war on France, not the other way round, while France was seeking appeasement.
>nothing to do with the causes of WW1
You don't think that France only entered the war because Germany declared on them, and they hadn't been saying what they were going to do prior, do you?
Turns out there were a lot of things going on prior to 1914 when it comes to foreign policy.
>You don't think that France only entered the war because Germany declared on them,
That's indeed what happened. Germany declared war on Russia, France, and violated belgian neutrality, triggering Britain declaration of war, all on their own, to achieve continental hegemony and thus transformed a localized conflict in Yougoslavia into a world war.
Germany was 100% responsible of WW1. The case is more moot for WW2 ironically.
>Germany was 100% responsible of WW1.
That would be Russia.
France lost 1,7 millions people and got around 4 millions crippled out of WW1, a third of a generation of men was wiped and another third came back with missing limbs, faces and other handicap. The entire industrial part of the country (which was in the north and the east) was completely obliterated.
In scale the US (with 4 times the population of France at that time) didn't even lose a fourth of men of these numbers during WW2.
If your country didn't experience total modern warfare on its home soil your people can't even understand the trauma.
A few bombs on London don't even remotely compare to the scale of destruction that happened in France 20 years prior.
Americans fought your war for you. Their opinion counts for more.
Try reading a book.
We were fighting the Nazis alone by ourselves for a long time.
Not really, lol.
Whats the battle of Britain?
Many thanks, but they can still shove their lectures in that place.
>Le english ran away
>Le french surrendered entirely
Just worth bearing in mind when you're reading this divide and conquer propaganda that 120,000 French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk as well, almost all of them on british ships. Furthermore, another 50,000 were evacuated through other ports. By D-Day the Free French Army numbered 500,000.
I dont mind most Fr*nch, its when they start crying about Mers el kebir the gloves come off.
It's most likely not even a french person. It's probably some third worlder or Russian or demoralised yank 4chanmoron trying to provoke an argument for kicks.
ofc it is those damn french surrender monkeys!
When British surrender without doing anything and breaking 20 different treaties along the way and killing your allies people, it is a based and redpilled but when French surrender due to their ally abandoning them, their people deserting because France paid the majority of the cost to win The Great War and their government being incapable to understand that Germans aren't in this for France but the entire Europe, it is cringe and bluepilled!
>When British surrender without doing anything and breaking 20 different treaties along the way and killing your allies people, it is a based and redpilled but when French surrender due to their ally abandoning them, their people deserting because France paid the majority of the cost to win The Great War and their government being incapable to understand that Germans aren't in this for France but the entire Europe, it is cringe and bluepilled!
Treaties! WW1! The Nazis were right!
You are indeed very cringe.
Retard.
>the only longterm hope for french independence lay with the british
they weren't really thinking long term when they entered that railroad carriage. It was take the terms we get and stop out men getting killed and our civilians being bombed.
In the weeks following the surrender france internal politics was a mess by Miers el kabir they didn't have any long term plans. they where still planning to simply survive and figure something out.
And that something was waiting for the war to end, getting as strong as they could in on their reduced territory, building up their colonies more and then hopefully in a generation set things right.
The vichy regime was right about internal squabbling ruining their chances for victory in 1940. Not that they would have presented a better alternative
well then we are in agreement
>surrender to your "ally" that you're not at war with
French arrogance at its peak, those ships were soon to be German. They had the choice, sail to friendly ports or get rekt. They got rekt.
>ignores Toulon where the French sink their own fleet as the Germans arrive
Mers El Kebir is a total english fiasco and those who say otherwise are intellectually dishonest.
Unfortunately, the English couldn't look two years into the future and know the French would actually scuttle their fleet
>any risk of losing the fleet to germany
they were given multiple choices
>surrender
>go to a neutral port
>sink yourself
the french chose the 'raise steam and head for france' which is exactly what the british feared
>the french chose the 'raise steam and head for france' which is exactly what the british feared
The first Marine Nationale ships raised anchor only after they started being fired upon.
>ignores Toulon where the French sink their own fleet as the Germans arrive
I can't believe the British wouldn't take into account something that happened two-and-a-half years after Mers El Kebir
They only did it because Germany was clearly losing by that time lmao.
People are making it seem like the French finally grew balls, but that's not the case
I agree. Does Albion's perfidy know no limit?
These ships wouldn't have been german, they were one of the chips used in the negotiation for France to not be completely occupied during the armistice negotiations. If the germans tried something funny they would have defected or been sabotaged, the fact is that's what the french marine did 2 years later in Toulon when the german violated (as usual) the treaty. The irony is that Darlan ordered the admiral in charge of the fleet of Toulon to defect to the allies but he just sabotaged the ships.
The british slaughtered 1300 french sailors for nothing, worse they helped germans diplomatically. Even Churchill admitted it was a huge fuckup made because the british government was absolutely panicking at this stage of the war.
>talking about growing balls when your army ran away without firing a shot at the germans leaving your allies behind without even trying a counterattack
British are completely delusional about their role in WW2.
>Why doesnt this naval power fight land battles
Are you a retard or a poo?
And why do you think the French were sunk and not, say, the poles?
Because the remainder of the polish fleet was in British ports and they were willing to fight for the British.Are you retarded?
>be coward
>switch sides
>get angry when your former allies sink your ships in self-defense
>collaborate with your new friends for years, even prostituting your wives and daughters to their soldiers
>get liberated by the ally you betrayed and a couple other countries who have no reason to help you except your principles
>lie and claim you fought a mighty resistance against the guys you eagerly collaborated with
>the ally you betrayed and the other countries who fought your war for you politely accept this country and give you your country back for free
>spend the next several decades stabbing them in the back to toady up to the most infamously evil countries this side of the ones you collaborated with
>Say you'll defend your ally
Jesus helps those who help themselves. The French really should have done more to defend their own homeland. I'm glad Richelieu survived though.
Mers-el-Kébir was revenge for the French declaring Paris an open city.
They should have turned Paris in to a kill zone to stall the German army, not sign over the entire nation so not to disturb the Parisian.
Were at any point carrier based Swordfishes used against the IJN?
Yeah, the suffered badly and achieved relatively little
When? I can't really find conclusive info
they ended up not giving the remaining ships to the germans like they said they would
The British were 100% justified. The French gave away half their country including Paris to the Nazis; they'd have to be stupid to think they wouldn't hand over a few warships when pressured.
they'd have to be stupid to think that their ally would hold their northern flank
The French were the ones that failed to hold on the Meuse and then promptly decided the entire war was lost.
the war was lost you stupid fuck, one half of the french army was encircled at maginot line and the rest was being divided by the german tank and motorized divisions after the collapse at meuse river because just like the rest of the world; french thought it'd be another Great War and never invested that much into the concept of mobile warfare as germans did.
>the war was lost
sure, with that attitude
>the war was lost you stupid fuck
The war lasted 5 more years and ended in an Allied victory, anon. The French gave up in a way the Poles, Dutch, Belgians, and so many others didn't.
The war was in fact over on the continent. Britain pretending to continue the fight from its island or a couple governments fled to London don't count as an actual war.
The Reich lost because Hitler had the great idea to betray his alliance with the USSR and sunk his army in Russia.
delusional
Go ahead explain how you beat Germany in 1940-41 with the sole forces of Britain and what was left of the french army.
Just because you gave up so easily doesn't mean everyone else does
>just win bro
France is not Britain, it's can't run away in a island and pretend to fight from there.
>pretend to fight
You're literally retarded.
>France is not Britain, it
gave up easily, yes, we know.
Yeah the british army factually ran away from the continent, at Dunkirk, and nobody saw them back before 44. You may actually wonder if they were ever there given the token corps they sent.
>the british army factually ran away from the continent, at Dunkirk, and nobody saw them back before 44.
Jesus, bro. Read a book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commando_raids_on_the_Atlantic_Wall#List
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy
>You may actually wonder if they were ever there given the token corps they sent.
The British 21st Army Group fighting on the Western front consisted of 1,020,581 officers and men. The British 8th Army fighting in the Italian campaign was 632,980 strong in 1945. This doesn't count the RAF operating in the European Theater.
In short, pull your head out of your frog ass.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commando_raids_on_the_Atlantic_Wall#List
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy
You can just tell he's skimming these articles to find anything he can use to say it "didn't count"
Given the time he's probably at work lol. Doesn't take too much effort to dismiss anything short of a full deployment on the same scale as the BEF as not counting, and anything in Italy as not counting because it's not in France.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commando_raids_on_the_Atlantic_Wall#List
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
Nothing about to seriously engage the german army.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy
Not pertaining to the battle of France and the Americans were already there.
>The British 21st Army Group fighting on the Western front consisted of 1,020,581 officers and men. The British 8th Army fighting in the Italian campaign was 632,980 strong in 1945. This doesn't count the RAF operating in the European Theater.
I'm talking about the BEF in 1940, which at its height counted 400 000 men, barely more than ten percent of all allied forces.
It all left the continent at Dunkirk and never turned back. So shove your lessons up your ass Nigel.
Germany was more advanced than Britain in its nuclear program.
I don't even need to.
>Nothing about to seriously engage the german army
And yet they had more fight in them than the fucking French.
>Not pertaining to the battle of France
Apparently you think "the continent" refers only to France.
>the Americans were already there
So it didn't count?
Well then, by the same logic, the French didn't fight at all; the British were always there and the moment the British left, the French bent like a paid-up whore, spread their cheeks and said "oui Monsieur Adolf, tu es très grand et épais."
>And yet they had more fight in them than the fucking French.
You're not going to pass commando operations as full scale warfare Nigel.
>Apparently you think "the continent" refers only to France.
That's what we're talking about indeed.
>So it didn't count?
No it doesn't, because after Barbarossa and after the Americans were in the situation wasn't the same as in 1940 and British army was carried by the US army.
>Well then, by the same logic, the French didn't fight at all; the British were always there
Always there to run away and hide in their island while preaching continentals to fight to the last man, a classic for two centuries by now.
>You're not going to pass commando operations as full scale warfare Nigel.
Did you miss the fucking part about the invasions of Sicily and Italy?
>Apparently you think "the continent" refers only to France.
>That's what we're talking about indeed.
The goal post is now in Lower Earth Orbit.
>Always there to run away and hide in their island while preaching continentals to fight to the last man, a classic for two centuries by now.
>Muh le perfidious Albion!
You see why I am doubtful of your claim that you're not French.
>Did you miss the fucking part about the invasions of Sicily and Italy?
You have troubles with chronology apparently.
>You see why I am doubtful of your claim that you're not French.
I'm not that other anon.
>You have troubles with chronology apparently.
Did 1943 happen before or after 1944, warriortard?
>I'm not that other anon.
I don't believe you, warriortard.
>Actually, I was only talking about 1940
>Except the part where I talked about 1941-44
C'mon, bro. Think before you type.
>I don't even need to.
You clearly did exactly that.
>Germany was more advanced than Britain in its nuclear program.
Fucking lmao
10 divisions combined with the French 37 or so divisions. They were deployed according to the French plan in response to the leaked Schlieffen plan repeat lost in the aeroplane crash. The French fell for a false piece of intelligence.
So as I say a token expeditionnary corps.
The point is the war was lost.
Would have changed nothing, the colonial army wasn't able to beat the Wehrmacht, even reinforced with what was left of the french army.
>The point is the war was lost.
Yeah, no kidding. They had surrendered.
>just win bro
There weren't allies in 1940, France was alone against Germany (and Italy) after Britain left the fight at Dunkirk.
More like 10% and well below what Britain should have sent for what was after all a conjoint declaration of war on Germany.
>France was alone against Germany (and Italy) after Britain left the fight at Dunkirk
Shame they only lasted 3 weeks without the completely token British forces
The token british force fled because of the defeat, not the other way.
The BEF only retreated because the French forces to their south got fucking gashed.
Exactly as I said. The french army didn't crumble because the BEF left the fight, the BEF left the fight because the french army was being destroyed by the Germans. So stop pretending Britain kept fighting in the continent.
Put your head up Elon's arse, warriorfart
so how does this compare to warrior tarding?
warrior tard would have posted an entire folder of WWII brit gore by now
the brits didn't leave at Duinkerke tough, they stayed on till about the second week of july starting their evacuation on the 15th.
granted after Duinkerke there wasn't much of a BEF a corp at most.
>after Britain left the fight at Dunkirk
Britain was still fighting, just no ground forces in France where they would've been eliminated.
RAF, RN were still at it.
>Would have changed nothing
Yeah because the Allies won anyway.
>20% of divisions in Battle of France = token force
Nice math retard
>gave up easily
the french kept fighting for a full week after the british started to evacuate their troops on the 15th of june
At wich point the battle had become hopeless
not only had the germans beaten them on the field, had they resisted even when all reasonable hope was lost but even when their ally decided to bug out they kept up the fight and allowed them to evacuate.
>At wich point the battle had become hopeless
in French eyes, yes
well considering the brits left the battle field before the french did I'd say the brits thought the battle lost before the frogs
There's no other way to leave a coastal pocket, anon, and the place for a British army to re-equip is in Britain not France.
The British did NOT think the battle lost, not for all the years that they spent fighting, not in May 1940 when Churchill personally flew over to try to convince the French leadership to continue fighting.
the brits started to leave france from the 15th of july. this isn't the Dunkerke evacuation but the second one.
they considered the battle for france lost and over before the french signed the surrender.
But didn't consider the war over.
Problem being for the french, they couldn't hide behind the channel and with most of france occupied by that point and their army broken and the few troops the brits still had on the continent pulling out. They had to face that they had lost.
great now that you acknowledged the Hauge conventions.
care to explain how the bombardment of the fleet at Miers al kabir wasn't a flagrant violation of Vichy neutrality.
You know that thing this tread is about, that thing that came before those two incidents.
Its kind of hard to openly and flagrantly break a countries neutrality and then complain that later on they didn't stick to their neutrality 100 percent.
Also when citing an article, you have to mention the convention it is from there are dozen or so hague conventions.
If you are left wondering how this works. You can't use a later action as justification for an earlier action.
So Vichy france hosting german and italian planes after the brits bombed the fleet at Mier el Kabir doesn't excuse the attack on the fleet.
But the attack on the fleet does excuse the stationing of those planes after the attack as at that point the brits have already violated your neutrality and aggressed against you thus relieving you of your duties of neutrality against them. You know because they bombarded their fleet in port killing over 3k of their service men and some civies.
>their army broken
Yes, we know.
They gave up before the British pulled out.
>when citing an article, you have to mention the convention it is from
Hague Rules of Air Warfare, 1923
>explain how the bombardment of the fleet at Miers al kabir wasn't a flagrant violation of Vichy neutrality
The British were fully prepared to treat the Vichy Government as an enemy, because it acted like an enemy.
Nobody disputes that.
>But the attack on the fleet does excuse the stationing of those planes
No, it doesn't.
That's not still called "neutrality".
YOU are the one trying to pretend the Vichy Government remained neutral, before, during, and subsequent to the event.
I've just shown you that no, they did not.
You're done.
Kick Germany out of Africa, wait for the nuclear program to finish, turn Germany into a glowing crater
>ask small arms industry to make a new .38 sidearm to replace current .455
>Webley makes a perfectly suitable .38 revolver
>instead of contracting them to produce the sidearm, take the design and slightly modify it then produce it at state armories without paying Webley
>When Webley tries to sue dismiss the case out of hand by saying "nuh uh actually we made it first" without argument and pay them half of what the case was worth
>can't produce enough of them during wartime and contract with Webley to make the revolver they initially designed which you stole
pottery
Bongs are so fucking stupid
>Fight two wars against Germany for the grand prize of ruining your empire and becoming a Caliphate
>most popular newborn name in the United """"Kingdom""""" is Muhammad
A-at least we're not speaking German, inshallah
Go back 4chantard
At least we're not speaking Jerman right?
>the grand prize of ruining your empire and becoming a Caliphate
But enough about France.
At least neither France nor the UK are speaking German today. Phew!
remeber to thank the based kgb glowies for the third world decolonization efforts :* nothing personnel
kys shitskin vatmoron
>He thinks Empires are the only way to judge a countries worth
Russia's over that way retard.
>Become caliphate
Leave 4chan it's making you brain addled
The frogs could've sent their fleet literally anywhere that the Germans weren't, and they didn't out of sheer stubborn pride. Their commander even told the British officer that came to warn them to fuck off because he wasn't the guy leading the operation.
You're so fucking dumb
The French at this point were a nazi state. First of all this predates de Gaulle's influence, he was seen by the British who hosted him as a pretender. There was another candidate of rebel leadership named darlan, who intended to continue the war from the African continent using the navy, the navy which was only not German by treaty. Germany was increasingly demanding further collaboration as seen in gnomish statues linked to Pierre Laval and round ups and replacement of the gendarmes with millice and the SS. Additionally franco leadership was under Petain, a man who near all historians doubt was playing the 'double game' of measured collaboration and tolerance of resistance. Instead of this picture he had stood by collaboration at a conference of which I can't quite remember, swearing to uphold collaboration. It was clear that darlan's navy was to be claimed by German in the long term and that darlan did not have the support by the collaborationist and semi fascist France to continue this war. The power struggle of him and de Gaulle for the UN unified resistance and Anglo American support was ongoing and even darlan was politically insecure in the eyes of the allies. I believe 1942 saw heavy industrial collaboration in order to equipt the afrika corps. A final consideration is the exchange rate of Frank's to marks was extortionate and essentially had the French paying for their own occupation. They did not how the power or resources to use this navy. Consider Also the influence of the pre war 'leagues' that were highly significant in interwar politics although not to nazism or fascism but conservative values were politically dominant, 'normalisation' of labour around 1936 reversed key liberal labour policy.
A key argument is one of 'blocs' I think put forward by Petain was essentially to prepare good terms with the Germans as it was seen they would win the war, as seen in the early war up until the failures in the east and the desert war.
French pride as other anon noted is also quite key, the French navy was something of pride in a similar vein to the British and this idea of making agreement with Germany without violence is different to surrendering, a key argument is that while the French generals and politicians had lost the land war by sheer retardation. Weygand didn't have a telephone in his hq, no massed armour regiments, no radio in tanks, the slow reaction to sedan, miscalculation on the effect of the Belgian neutrality, failure to prepare an adequate modern air force early war (see labour reforms of matignon)
The colonial initiative of de Gaulle to continue the war from the colonies as well as darlan's refusal to give up command of his ships were both held as bargaining chips within the collaboration equation, the colonial was overcome by German operations in Syria where french airfields were used and the naval of course by the British.
The other partial bargaining chip used was the French police and gnomish statues, there were cases where during criminal roundups the police of France would offer communists in the place of suspects of rebellion. gnomish roundups by police with SS co operation were also used to carry favour and it seems the threat of a continuation of conflict was to force Germany's hand while they were present.
These indicate the frogs had no desire to continue the war on their own, they were used only to soften the occupation.
Lastly, previous to mers el Kebir, just as the airstrips in Syria submarine bases were shared by the French with Germany in dakur
The evidence points towards a clear lack of decisive leadership and desire to fight. The French navy also was disarmed and somewhat naked. If they had moved to fight they'd likely be smoked by the germans anyway, better to remove a risk of the ships being used all together
Hope I haven't messed up any dates the essay I wrote here was a while off.
Look at Jillian Jackson, the dark years for a pretty good history
People here mentioned darlan as something of an allied figurehead. This is not the case, he was staunchly anti British for one and it was far more naval tradition and pride that explains his action of defiance to the German instead of the allied sympathies.
Oh and while the Brits had de Gaulle (somewhat unhappily) the Americans had their own candidate for leadership of the resistance and this this power struggle can be extended to de Gaulle, the American choice and to some extent darlan who had the opportunity but little motivation.
I'm sure killing 3,000 of your allies is worth it, especially when Bongs never told them they could leave and go to US ports.
They did, Gensoul was just a retard that singlehandedly lost 3000+ french lives due to retarded pride.
Also OP is a DnC shill
>Vichy France.
>Allies.
The French fast battleships and the destroyers would have been a nice prize for the Germans.
Would have greatly bolstered their commerce raiding force and the kriegsmarine generally.
Shout out to kevin passmore
And oh also as a final final point, scrapping the French is a national past time of the Brits, it is simply unavoidable
The option of sending them to other french ports was a non option. Those were under much more unstable and more resistance sympathetic leadership. For this see the speeches by de Gaulle about I am France and his demands for the war to be continued out of the colonies. This then means the sending of ships to distant french ports is a non option and non neutral.
Going to Martinique would have neutralized them; they could not have been rearmed there under Uncle Sam's umbrella.
>get an ultimatum
>be a gay
>suffer the consequences
>give up on defending your homeland
>beg others to fight for you while not lifting a finger yourself
>ally with the enemy
>refuse to surrender or stay neutral
>fight against the former allies
>get bombed
>WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS REEE
Thread is flooded by bongs throwing all kinds of excuses for what was pure murder of innocent men. No honor. Pathetic.
Go away, Petain
Lay of the dick sucking pierre. Your mouth’s so full of cock your brain ain’t getting the oxygen it needs
Is this .... a Nazi sympathiser, with no counter argument whatsoever
>Have no orders about Allies
>Help the Nazis
>Be given a direct order to join the Allies
>Sink their own ships rather than help
We know which side they were really on
>Royal navy
>US navy
>IJN
>Marine Nationale
>Regia Marina
>Kriegsmarine
Ranking of Major navies in 1939, what do you guys think?
>Kreigsmemerine
Shittiest navy of the war hands down
Imagine loosing one of your newest ships to a fucking Norwegian pensioner with Austro-Hungarian torpedoes
Also losing half your destroyers in the first 6 months of the war and never recovering.
It still boggles me how they saw at the atrocious casualties of the navy at Norway and then immediately be like, yeah invading Britain, no problemo.
>navies in 1939
RN
USN
IJN
RM
MN
KM
In 1939 the RN still had a bigger and more modern fleet, OVERALL, despite its capital ships being outdated.
The USN would very rapidly overtake them especially after RN attrition, but not yet.
The IJN's weakness is in its cruiser and destroyer force, which are pretty meh and small.
The Italians and French might tie, I dunno. Personally I think the Italian heavy cruisers give them the edge. I might be wrong.
The Kriegsmarine let's face performed extremely badly, other than its Uboats.
>In 1939 the RN still had a bigger and more modern fleet, OVERALL, despite its capital ships being outdated.
Means nothing when carrier aircraft sunk all of your capitol ships
>The IJN's weakness is in its cruiser and destroyer force, which are pretty meh and small.
Again doesn’t matter when the IJN can just use their carrier aircraft to sink capital ships I.e Prince of Whales
prince of wales was sunk by land based bombers
Point still stands by the advent of the carrier, having any surface vessels patrolling waters without having aircraft to provide CAP is just offering target practice for carrier aircraft
The RN had as many carriers as the USN in 1939.
POW and Repulse's sortie was a gamble; the ships weren't meant to attack without carrier support, but the carrier had to be repaired and was delayed. The admiral then thought he would at the very worst trade two capital ships for the IJN invasion fleet, but didn't manage to intercept the invasion fleet, and then got wiped by Jap aircraft.
In hindsight the juice was not worth the squeeze, but what if two battleships had managed to wreck the Jap transports with several battalions of infantry in them before succumbing? The RN had already paid a higher price for lesser gains by this, and gladly.
The problem with the RN carriers is that they didn’t have their own air arms like the US and IJN did, so where the US navy and IJN picked the aircraft they want, the RN carriers were given hand me downs that were inferior to US and IJN carrier strike aircraft
>Again doesn’t matter when the IJN can just use their carrier aircraft to sink capital ships I.e Prince of Whales
Weak destoyer/cruiser forces are one of many reasons japan lost the carrier war.
In this case, combined with bad radar. So they didn't have enough smaller ships, and the ones they did have were pushed too far out from the carriers to provide an aa screen.
>IJN
>US Navy
>Kriegsmarinne (in terms of their u-boat fleet not surface fleet)
>Royal Navy
>others
>your government is conquered and collapses after botching the national defense so hard it nearly drags britain down with it
>refuse to put your ships in a place where the germans won't immediately try to seize them even though there's no reason not to
>force the british into an engagement out of nothing beyond sheer autism
"Hey if you don't stop trying to hand the guy i'm fist-fighting a knife, i'm gonna kick your ass, go watch from the sidelines"
>wtf hon hon hon he kicked my ass and threw my knife away
>your government is conquered and collapses after botching the national defense so hard it nearly drags britain down with it
Churchill flew to France to meet the French leadership. Every suggestion he made was shot down. He observed that they gave few orders and spent their time wringing their hands and clutching their pearls mainly. He asked them to fight - they refused. He asked them to run away and fight - preposterous. He watched them order de Gaulle's arrest when he began socking away troops and equipment for the long haul.
THEN THEY ASKED HIM TO COMMIT THE LAST HURRICANES.
He said no.
About the only honourable thing the French did in 1940 was assist the BEF in evacuating.
the pride and arrogance of the french is directly responsible for basically every ill they suffer historically. A nation that cannot bear to admit it is not a hegemon anymore
Your whole pitiful "Kingdom" is the size of one state. And Churchill is responsible for this.
>Reynaud and Spears argued, the former calling for more British air support, the latter, exasperated, asking, "Why don't you import Finns and Spaniards to show the people how to resist an invader?"
damn son, is Spears one of us? that was PrepHole worthy
>the only honourable thing the French did was to protect the British when they were running away
Got it Nigel
>La Guerre goes badly
>Things are definitely non-hon-hon
>Switch sides
>Former ally attacks you
>Le_surpris_pikachu_visage.jpg
>Perfidious Albion!
>Seethe
>Leaders of Allied governments-in-exile in London: list of kings, queens, presidents, prime ministers
>Leader (picrel) of the French government-in-exile: one deputy cabinet minister appointed twenty days before France surrendered to Germany.
to the annons posting that the fleet at Mier Al kabier where up for grabs for the germans.
where were the germans that would be grabbing the fleet?
they where on the other side of the Mediterranean sea. A sea the germans have no fleet in. A sea they would have to establish an airbridge over to get to the french fleet, then storm the harbor and take the fleet without it sailing or scuttling.
The frogs kept their fleet there because the germans couldn't get to it there and told the bongs as such.
They kept it there as their assurance that their neutrality would be respected , if the germs invade us again we sail for Britain.
It was their last shred of dignity they could hold on to.
And the n their former allies sailed up to them and told them to "lol go where we tell you or we sink you".
And this isn't the first time this played out as such.
The brits did the same at Copenhagen and it ended the same way. The bong officers got courses about Copenhagen during their education, they knew what they where asking and what the most likely reaction would be.
If you support the bongs in what they do you are in effect supporting gun grabbers grabbing guns under the pretense of "but he could use it to go nuts and one karen complained about him"
that's it it wasn't the british fleet and the frogs had the right to keep it where they wanted it.
And someone saying that you should surrender your fleet or that it should be kept somewhere else is pure gungrabber restricting access to your firearms or taking them away.
Which of course fits with the brits and their colonies all having shit gun laws with constant treats of even more gungrabbing.
>Vichy
>neutral
pull the other one, it's got bells on
Vichy wasn't part of the axis
deal with it
france had to take what it could get in 1940 but it's government while rightwing and authoritarian would control full autonomy over their area of control. Keep the germans out of it and not send any of their men to go fight on the east front unlike the spanish.
All of this after the brits bombarded their fleet and they would have had every excuse to switch fully to the axis if they wanted to
>Vichy wasn't part of the axis
just like Italy "wasn't" part of the Allies
>they would have had every excuse to switch fully to the axis if they wanted to
They fucking DID, you empty-headed twit
Helped the Germs crush the Maquisards, built weapons and fortifications, and oh yeah, fucking FOUGHT THE ALLIES all over Africa
You have one of three choices:
1) Vichy was occupied and forced to do this shit - then why didn't the African French go straight over to the Allies and start fighting to free their homeland, cowardly or compromised?
2) Vichy was NOT occupied, NOT forced, and was fully in control of themselves - then they're fucking Axis and needed to be fought and captured
3) Vichy was neutral - but did they act like a neutral? There are strict rules governing wartime neutrality. Just ask Argentina.
>just like Italy "wasn't" part of the Allies
are you referring to the post 1944 flip Italians?
>Helped the Germs crush the Maquisards, built weapons and fortifications, and oh yeah, fucking FOUGHT THE ALLIES all over Africa
did vichy troops engage resistance troops outside of vichy france? no
If the swedes were having internal issues and had to take action would that have meant they weren't neutral
built forts and weapons, you mean the factories in occupied france and the Atlantic wall in occupied france
they fought in africa AFTER operation touch invaded their african holdings.
or does your definition of neutrality means "do everything you can to fuck the germans outside of declaring war and then let us invade you and not fight back"
3) yes
go read what neutrality actually entails and then come back and explain to me when and how they breached their neutrality as defined by international law and bye what ever the fuck you think it means.
>outside of vichy france?
why is that relevant?
>you mean the factories in occupied france and the Atlantic wall in occupied france
Vichy built nothing at all in their own territory for German use amirite
they didn't give Germany any resources at all amirite
>they fought in africa AFTER operation torch
they fought in West Africa and in the Middle East BEFORE Operation Torch
fuck, Vichy French troops were attacking Cairo while the British were holding off Rommel
YOU tell me how "neutral" that is
>did vichy troops engage resistance troops outside of vichy france?
The paramilitary Vichy forces did. The police Special Brigades, the Mobile Reserve Groups, and the Milice all operated in the German-occupied parts of France.
>then why didn't the African French go straight over to the Allies
Hell, why did the 100,000 French soldiers who were taken to Britain as part of the Dunkirk Evacuation stay to liberate their homes from the Nazis? Only 3,000 of them joined De Gaulle's Free French forces.
because those men got sent back to france.
The only french tat stayed from Dunkirk where those the injured or sick to send back into the fight.
>they didn't give Germany any resources at all amirite
so america wasn't a neutral country because they supplied the brits?
so where the swedes, swiss, dutch in WWI or any other nation that continued to trade with any of the belligerent nations?
>they fought in West Africa and in the Middle East BEFORE Operation Torch
source
>Vichy French troops were attacking Cairo
what the fuck are you smoking and can I have some?
here is the wiki page on it, I'd tell you to read the Hague conventions but I think you'd benefit from the readers digest version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country
>because those men got sent back to france.
>The only french tat stayed from Dunkirk where those the injured or sick to send back into the fight.
So the British wouldn't let French volunteers fight for their side and De Gaulle's forces consisted entirely of those soldiers too badly injured to take a ferry ride across the Channel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#Equatorial_and_West_Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#Syria_and_Madagascar
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#Equatorial_and_West_Africa
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#Syria_and_Madagascar
those are two invasions of a neutral countries territory
Art. 10. The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act.
ague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, U.S.T.S. 540, 2 A.J.I.L. Supp. 117, entered into force January 26, 1910.
>neutral country
>hosting German and Italian bombers
those weren't a breach of the Hagues definition of neutrality. The only definition of neutrality that is relevant when it comes to war and international law.
And mind you this was after the attack at Miers al Kabir when the brits openly bombarded and sank the fleet of this neutral country.
You can't just sink their fleet, invade their colonies, bomb them a few times for good measure, prop up a rival regime and then go cry about a couple of planes being a breach of neutrality.
If Vichy france wanted to be an active part of the axis they had several good justifications in the breaching of their neutrality by the brits at that point. But they decided to try and stick to neutrality.
>those weren't a breach of the Hagues definition of neutrality
Why lie?
ARTICLE XL
Belligerent military aircraft are forbidden to enter the jurisdiction of a neutral State.
ARTICLE XLII
A neutral government must use the means at its disposal to prevent the entry within its jurisdiction of belligerent military aircraft and to compel them to alight if they have entered such jurisdiction.
A neutral government shall use the means at its disposal to intern any belligerent military aircraft which is within its jurisdiction after having alighted for any reason whatsoever, together with its crew and the passengers, if any.
>Why lie?
I this point, I think his grandfather must have been a collaborator. It's the only explanation for why he's going so far out of his way to justify the Vichy regime.
He's an arrogant nationalist who will not accept any fault accruing to his country whatsoever, so he puts down other countries and engages in these tortured circumlocutions in order to make others appear worse than his and explain away his country's shortcomings.
It's extra stupid because he could just blame everything on traitors and collaborators and say Free France was the only legitimate representative of the French people.
He'd have to admit that a large proportion of 1940s French were in fact collaborators, and not the "tiny minority" that they've always claimed. Nor can he even admit that the Germans and the Vichy Government compelled them at gunpoint, which is true to an extent, because he has to try and save face and pretend that Vichy remained "totally free and able to defend itself from the Germs, yo, we just CHOSE not to because LE HONNEUR".
Hence the whole "we wuz kangz stabbed in the back" charade.
I'm not french tough
there was a lot of collaboration in france, a lot after you know the brits attack their fleet and bombed a few civilian centers by mistake.
you know shit that might piss people of against their former ally
>I'm not french
so you're either slav, pajeet or armatard
ik ben nog erger, een belg
bong logic
>we left because the battle was lost and you fought on for one more week and that means they gave up before we did
>clutched pearls for one more week
FTFY
>I'm not french tough
X to doubt.
So you agree that after Mers al Kabir, Vichy France (inb4 it was their fault, they dindu nuffin) was openly and unequivocally not a neutral country. In which case, the British actions in Syria and other places later in the war were completely justified.
>X
It's probably armatard
only one PrepHole regular resorts to this Nigel nonsense when pushed into a corner
Yeah, "Nigel" is a dead giveaway. Did we ever figure out why his mental illness centers on the British?
No idea
We did figure out he's a fat Floridan gay who huffs farts
And also tweeted "Notice me senpai" at Elon Musk.
>armatard
so anyone that thinks that the brits did anything wrong ever is now armatard
why do you let that sperg live rent free in your heads?
the brits aren't angels or devils, they are just more arrogant than the frogs
> agree that after Mers al Kabir, Vichy France (inb4 it was their fault, they dindu nuffin) was openly and unequivocally not a neutral country. In which case, the British actions in Syria and other places later in the war were completely justified
if you are willing to cede that the brits did in fact violate Vichy France’s neutrality at Miers el Kabir and so much so that to anyone it would be reasonable to assume there was a state between them from that point on.
Well you just admitted that the brits violated Vichy neutrality by attacking them at Miers el Kebir.
There is nothing else to discuss.
bris beak the neutrality of the Vichy regime, the Vichy regime is now free to host as many germans and Italians as it wants to let them attack the brits. The brits have no reason to get angry for any hostile actions the frogs take because they chose to make them a belligerent state. Any attempts by the frogs to not get further dragged into the war is just on their part because the brits consider them to be fully committed. Which is why in turn they left a lot of Vichy France overseas territories completely alone, some like the French possessions in the Caribbean where with Vichy until the germans invaded Vichy.
Vichy Frances position in WWII is more complicated than them being a sneaky member of axis or a fully neutral entity. They tried to stay as neutral as they could because they knew that they couldn’t defend their over seas territories and that the men in control of them could join de Gaulle.
The german annexation is the best case for their neutrality, if they had cast their lot in with the axis there wouldn't have been a reason for it.
>so anyone that thinks that the brits did anything wrong ever is now armatard
No, but you specifically are warriortard.
>Vichy Frances position in WWII is more complicated
It's not.
They were a collaborationist Government and the Allied attacks on them from Mers El Kebir onward were fully justified.
That is all.
>everything is black and white. My side is always in the right!
whatever makes you sleep at night man
France got off super easy for effectively joining the axis powers. It was primarily the French who threw the Battle of France and when the Brits tried to carry on against Germany, France did everything in its power to make things difficult for the remaining allies.
>the Brits tried to carry on against Germany,
By running away in Britain, a sound british tactic for british heroes.
Retreating is better than surrendering (or worse, open collaboration like France). Britain would blunt the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, steamroll the Italians in Africa, and would play a decisive role fighting the Axis at sea .
>Retreating is better than surrendering (or worse, open collaboration like France)
Yes when you have that option but don't make it sound like it's a victory or equate it with fighting. Nobody wins wars by evacuation.
France hadn't that possibility, as I said initially before bongs ITT chimped out.
>France hadn't that possibility
Given that WW2 was won eventually despite French collaboration, it is evident that it is in fact possible.
>don't make it sound like it's a victory
Who won WW2 again?
>or equate it with fighting. Nobody wins wars by evacuation
Not One Step Back is for suicidal retards, anon-kun
>Nobody wins wars by evacuation.
Never-the-less, they won the war.
>Given that WW2 was won eventually despite French collaboration, it is evident that it is in fact possible.
Yeah if you were able to foresee the clash between Germany and the USSR and American intervention.
>Who won WW2 again?
The USSR and America.
>Not One Step Back is for suicidal retards, anon-kun
Indeed.
>Never-the-less, they won the war.
Yes France technically won the war too, but the difference between winning and winning technically is why Britain is no more en empire.
>Nobody wins wars by evacuation.
Nobody wins wars by first surrendering and then collaborating with the enemy.
>The 100,000 French infantry from Dunkirk go to Algeria instead
>Maybe another 100,000 more (to be most conservative) via transport ships
>The entire remaining French Navy goes over to the Allies
>Pilots fly hundreds of aircraft to Algeria
>French leadership refuse to surrender, call on occupied France to resist however possible
How much easier WW2 would have been.
>hey Piere go fight the germs from the other side of the med, don't care about the germs will do to your wife and kids. Just go dick around with us.
It's more of a surprise how many people took up arms against the germans than those that didn't.
Well, that is why we honour those countries which put up a strong resistance despite these risks.
and of all the continental European countries, france put op the most.
Lol nope
which one put up more fight before or after it surrendered?
the poles got over run faster and had less troops in exile.
>less
More, actually.
Initially De Gaulle had less than 30,000 troops.
By 1943 the Free French numbered roughly 80,000 (French estimate).
The Polish forces fighting in France in 1940 numbered an estimated 80,000.
>so america wasn't a neutral country because they supplied the brits?
Yes and everyone knew it
They sold weapons to the Brits and Chinese, and ceased sales to the Germans and Japs
>so where the swedes, swiss, dutch in WWI or any other nation that continued to trade with any of the belligerent nations?
Check again whose side the Dutch was on, dipshit
Also Vichy France outright GAVE shit to the Germans
>source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gabon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%E2%80%93Lebanon_campaign
>Yes and everyone knew it
no, the americans at this point where officially declaring their neutrality.
>Check again whose side the Dutch was on, dipshit
WWI annon, learn to read
your sources are two invasion of a neutral country see
>>not send any of their men to go fight on the east front unlike the spanish.
>Légion des volontaires français contre le bolchévisme
>Französische S.S. Freiwilligen Sturmbrigade
Belligerent armies may not recruit neutral citizens, but they may go abroad to enlist.
Hague Convention, §5 Art.4,5,6
the Spanish recalled their nationals from the the eastern front. Which implies that they where still under the control of the Spanish state.
by all acounts the french ss where purely under german control and didn't stop fighting for them once the germans invaded Vichy france. If they where under the control of Vichy france or sent by them why would they have kept on fighting until the fall off the Reichstag?
Also the belgians had more ss volunteers than the french had while being several times smaller population wise.
The Vichy regime offered an alternative for french men that would have otherwise gone to the ss. And in doing so kept them out of the war until they where first invaded by the allies and then the germans.
>Belligerent armies may not recruit neutral citizens
Then I guess the French troops on the Eastern Front were all willing volunteers. Either that or Vichy France wasn't neutral.
yes, they where volunteers.
Just like the belgian, dutch, danish, Norwegian ect ss volunteers
because the fighting in France didn't stop with Dunkirk it went on for about a month after that.
and at that point the allies didn't consider the battle for france lost or over.
The brits also sent other formations to fight in france after Dunkirk.
those are by all accounts police or paramilitary internal security organisations.
From the french at that point the war had become a civil war as well. You had two regimes claiming to be the legitimate government of France. One in exile and one controlling only parts of france.
The subject of this french internal war is very interesting but would take a long time to get into.
The short of it is that those organisations where made to fight people and organisations that the Vichy regime considered to be rebels.
The whole debacle resulted in dead frogs and reinforced the well-earned image of perfidious Albion. I say the rest of the world won this one.
Elon Musk is not going to let you smell his farts, warriortard.
I'm going to shove my ugly head up Elon Musks sweaty arsehole and lick it clean, what are you going to do about it?
Fucking do it warriortard and I'll let you say whatever you like about the warrior
You have to get a good lick in though, I want actual oral penetration, not just the attempt
>Surrender your ships to the bongs
>Surrender your ships to the krauts
>Sail to a US port and may or may not get seized anyways
>Sail to a french territory port and may or may not have to soon fight japs and a revolt
tbh all the options were shit shouldve bombed the british then scuttled the ships.
>all the options were shit
Yeah but some were definitely less shit than others. America was “ neutral” at this time and probably wouldn’t have seized the French ships. Germany on the other hand would have DEFINITELY used the French fleet. No matter the optics of operation catapult this is something Britain simply couldn’t risk happening.
Why is sending your ships to your ally to continue the fight a bad option
theyre bongs? nuff said
Catapult was fucking retarded and any bong defending it with today insight is even more... However this doesn't excuse or justify collaboration unlike the outright Vichy apologist in this thread want to believe.
Northern Africa would still have been lost before the American lend lease tho.
>Catapult was fucking retarded
Given the levels of collaboration you yourself acknowledge, it was better than the alternative.
It's not like NOT doing it would have made the French suddenly decide to come over, so there's really no downside.
have you considered that attacking the french fleet while at port. Just a few weeks after you swore to go down fighting with them. Might have just potentially pushed a lot of french into the arms of the germans or at least made them not want to take action against them.
>Given the levels of collaboration you yourself acknowledge
Most of the collaboration was from the police forces and the administration, not the army or the navy that was at best stuck in Algeria or at worst in a German POW camp
>so there's really no downside
>Give the Vichy gov munition in it's propaganda campaign
>Antagonize future potential defector to FLF and especially future and current FFNF member
>Taint relation with other Liberation movement as well
yea sure "no downside"
>Most of the collaboration was from the police forces and the administration, not the army or the navy
Irrelevant, because the administration commands the military.
Regardless what the army and navy felt, Darlan and Dentz (and their supporters) in effect commanded them to collaborate.
they commanded them to collaborate in what?
the Vichy army and navy never launched any attacks on the allies and they didn't get sent to the east front
they just sat there until someone attacked them
>commanded them to collaborate in
allowing German and Italian aircraft to base in Syria, violating neutrality.
Did any Frenchman disobey their commander and shoot them down? Nope.
so they did nothing and that is the best you got?
you kill 3k of their comrades in arms and they don't shoot at the people that killed your comrades so they must have been evil collaborators before you killed 3k of their countrymen
Yep
The common soldier is not to blame for any of this
The fault has always been with the French leadership
>because the administration commands the military
And who will command it once said administration fall?
>in effect commanded them to collaborate
Collaborate by doing what? Sure Vichy collaboration is undeniable but what did the navy and army did to warrant Catapult? (and still defending it in this day and age)
>what did the navy and army did to warrant Catapult
Are we talking about the leaders or the ordinary crew here? Because the Vichy apologists ITT are beginning to split even more hairs now as they continue to attempt to salvage this debacle
The common soldier had little choice, although they could theoretically have resigned or mutinied
The leaders didn't affirm their neutrality when contacted by the Allies or outright hosted German and Italian aircraft, simple as
>The leaders didn't affirm their neutrality when contacted by the Allies or outright hosted German and Italian aircraft, simple as
you don't have to affirm you neutrality every time someone asks you
the stationing of planes where after the attack
really bringing up those planes just shows that you fail to grasp the chronological order of things and probably have issues understanding cause and effect relationships
it's just as stupid as bringing up the times the brongs and americans bombed french civies as a good reason to not surrender their fleet
It's not cause and effect; Vichy sympathies amongst the French leadership were well known and Darlan couldn't be trusted at all. Frankly, he was probably more of a climber than a committed Vichyist, but that doesn't change the fact that he sold his honour as a fighting commander for political power under the Vichy government. So your portrait that the French Vichy commanders fought because of some misguided sense of honour is completely erroneous. Furthermore, it's remarkable that they felt this so-called outrage towards being attacked by the British and Free French, but so much less outrage towards the Germans who occupied their homeland.
Remarkable, and convenient.
It is very convenient to ignore that the germans had a knife to the neck of the Vichy french all that time. They could and in the end would march cross the border and take over. And the french forces where to few and under equipped to put up much of a fight, but they scuttled their fleet.
It is very convenient for us now never having had to deal with being defeated and occupied to demand nothing but the best of human morality from them.
it is very convenient for us to ignore that being attacked by people you fought two wars alongside might cut deeper than the attack by the people you were raised to hate. You expect the germans to attack you but for an ally, a friend to do that
even the brits at that time knew that the fleet would be next to useless to the germans without their French crews and suppliers.
And that even if the frogs would have gone full in with the germans their fleets wouldn’t have been able to work together very well.
A not insignificant part of the motivation for the demands and final attack was that the brits needed to make clear that they would continue the fight if they wanted to get more aid from the americans.
taking any of those options would have never flown with the germans, the other part of this equation. And would have probably been followed by the swift annexation of the Vichy zone and most likely reprisals against the families of those in command.
German response to the fleet sailing to any but an axis port would have led to more deaths than those 3k dead.
no annon mining a port is a hostile act. You are taking military action within the territorial waters of another country with the express intention of limiting his military options and hopefully sinking his ships.
it’s like me taking a big shit on your car only for me to mock you when you get angry because “if you had honor you wouldn’t want to drive away”
>but they scuttled their fleet
rather than even think of fighting against the enemy they "hated" so much
>It is very convenient for us now never having had to deal with being defeated and occupied to demand nothing but the best
oh no, nobody demands the French do anything but admit to being defeatist
my nation was conquered in WW2, and I freely admit we had no choice but to surrender. what we DIDN'T do was actually fight the Allies; what we DIDN'T do was pretend that we are a great nation who put up a fierce resistance against the "hated" enemy; what we DIDN'T do was resent the Allies for liberating us, yes even when they had to shell and bomb our towns. because we didn't talk a bigger game than we actually played, unlike the French.
>being attacked by people you fought two wars alongside might cut deeper than the attack by the people you were raised to hate. You expect the germans to attack you but for an ally, a friend to do that
So because of that you fought harder against said "friend" than you did against the enemy you "hated" oh so very much.
>my nation was conquered in WW2, and I freely admit we had no choice but to surrender. what we DIDN'T do was actually fight the Allies; what we DIDN'T do was pretend that we are a great nation who put up a fierce resistance against the "hated" enemy; what we DIDN'T do was resent the Allies for liberating us,
Literally all memes.
Mine was also occupied
every country the germans invaded on the content before the ussr folded in a few weeks, the french fought the longest.
they weren't defeatist, the were defeated.
they had lost just like every other country germany had attack until then.
and the French didn't go out and fight against the allies, they sat in their colonial holding. And if the allies showed up they fought back.
but yes the french are arrogant bastards, not just to other countries but even amongst them selves. parisians refer to all the rest of france as the provinces and if you are born a provincial you are seen in some way as being lesser, a hidden shame for anyone that moves to paris or the wider Ille de France.
Vichy france never undertook, to my knowledge any offensives against the brits.
once again they sat around like a bunch of npc mobs waiting to be attacked and then fighting back and often only in a limited token fashion.
>what we DIDN'T do was actually fight the Allies
The only time it append was during picrel and the French quickly joined the Allied (thus the low casualty on both side compared to the size of the operation)
>we DIDN'T do was pretend that we are a great nation who put up a fierce resistance against the "hated" enemy
Propaganda after the liberation of France to enroll more troops and "clean up" the remaining Vichy sympathizer
>what we DIDN'T do was resent the Allies for liberating us
what?
>So because of that you fought harder against said "friend" than you did against the enemy you "hated" oh so very much
yea I'm sure the Germans suffered less casualty than the Allied during Torch... fucking retard
At the time of the operation, Catapult was meant to deny Germany the French fleet
A reasonable task but with the huge political drawback of attacking a former allied nation
This failed as only a minimal amount of the fleet was destroyed/captured/switched side and made FFL effort to convince Vichy troop to defect more difficult
Even more now with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the French fleet wasn't hand over and even when Case Anton append, it was scuttled
Now, Vichy traitor will go on how they where thus justified in collaborating with the enemy plundering and occupying their land because "muh anglo", while bongoid will claim they did nothing wrong because "muh plane"
>with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the French fleet wasn't hand over and even when Case Anton append, it was scuttled
rather than join the Allies in the fight against the Germans, EVEN WHEN THEY WERE DIRECTLY ORDERED TO DO SO
They would rather sink their own ships with their own hands than join the Allies.
No, there are no excuses that the Vichy "could" have joined the Free French "if only" yadda yadda; they initially didn't join the Free French, they resisted joining the Free French when aked, eventually they scuttled their ships rather than join the Free French; they were completely and utterly obstructionist at best. One way or another, whether by British or French bombs, those ships were going to the bottom of the sea.
>Just leave the port under-crewed while fighting the Germans
See global rule 2
>can't think of combining crews to at least save half the fleet while scuttling the rest
Every excuse not to fight.
>Kid think you can prepare to leave port while under fire by some angry kraut
Some small ships did leave and joined the FFNF but scuttle was the right choice, quick, easy and effective
>you can't prepare to leave port while under fire by some angry kraut
Not with the prevailing French attitude, no.
>200 posts of bongs defending attacking their allies and legitimately believing they dindunuffin
>200 posts of cowardly frenchmen defending capitulating to Germany so thoroughly that they had to be forced at gunpoint to go save their homeland
>just run away like us Britoids
>just give up, don't contemplate regrouping
>just hide in an island like us
>Non! Nous prefer to stay at home completely disarmed and wait for le Yankees and Rosbif.
>Non! Nous prefer to stay at home completely disarmed and wait for le Yankees
Nice description of british strategy
French military actions 1941 - 1945?
On ally side, being carried by the US in Italy, Provence and Germany, so not that different from Britain's.
That's literally Churchill's plan, barricade Britain and cry to Americans so they come to save the day.
There's not a single way Britain could have beaten Germany on its own. At least he was less disillusional than Britishers ITT
Cry to Churchill, he was the one who came up with the idea that real France was De Gaulle and his friends.
DeGaulle was a pompous liar, but useful in that he hated communists. That was important.
That why he included them in the various résistance organisations and in political representations. Not that he could do without them given the USSR was doing most of the fighting against the German.
>what is the African campaign
A sideshow.
>Possibly not. But the fact remains that the British continued fighting whereas the French gave up.
They quitted all fighting in the continent, where it mattered, where the real german power was. Nobody was destroying the Reich by rear fighting in colonial sideshows.
None of them having any capacity to beat Germany anyway. They were honourable, but honourable talkers.
>A sideshow
Nonetheless it is not merely Britain. You lose.
>They quitted all fighting in the continent, where it mattered, where the real german power was
In order to regroup, rearm, and return.
>Nobody was destroying the Reich by rear fighting in colonial sideshows
You think so because you think like a child and are unable to grasp just how much war output the British Empire produced.
If the Japanese hadn't entered the war the edge was still with the British.
>Nonetheless it is not merely Britain. You lose.
Ok.
>In order to regroup, rearm, and return.
Strange way to spell "wait for the Americans"
>You think so because you think like a child and are unable to grasp just how much war output the British Empire produced.
If the Japanese hadn't entered the war the edge was still with the British.
This apparently gigantic war ouput, until the Americans came in, consisted on land in a token expeditionnary force that ran away at Dunkirk and some colonial forces badly mauled by a tiny german Afrikakorps in Libya. Please explain to me how they were supposed to conquer Berlin on their own.
>until the Americans came in
We're talking about a hypothetical what-if no Americans, no Soviets, no Japs, remember?
Total British Empire war output, even net of lend-lease, outstripped Germany's.
bong out put was bigger or german output was bigger depending on how you count things
do you take it per total airframe or per type of airframe, what about what performance they had.
Does a sub count equally as a battleship as "a boat". ect
but even then the brits weren't in a position to launch an offensive against the continent for years to come.
And hat hitler kept his alliance with the soviet for decades
the brits won the war for the allies in that they kept it going when there wasn't anyone else and had they sought terms the germans would have been free to go all in in the east.
>what about what performance they had
British ships and aircraft were excellent.
British tanks were not as good, but then less development was prioritised here because of the availability of US Lee/Grants and Shermans.
British small arms and artillery were generally good enough.
>even then the brits weren't in a position to launch an offensive against the continent for years to come
Certainly.
But they could and would keep up the fight.
>British small arms and artillery were generally good enough.
I'm sure bolt-action rifles in 1944 were "excellent" lol
well they were better than the standard issue rifles of their enemies and the soviets, only the americans had a better standard issue infantry rifle, and the bren gun was excellent as well.
as for artillery the 2pounder 6pounder and 17pounder were great AT guns in their eras, the 25lbr gun-howitzer was arguably the best field gun of the war and the 3.7 inch was a excellent AA gun, significantly better in the AA role than the german 88mm
>barricade Britain
what is the African campaign
>There's not a single way Britain could have beaten Germany on its own
Possibly not. But the fact remains that the British continued fighting whereas the French gave up.
You forgot in your Brit-hating frenzy that this thread is not about the British; it is about the French.
>Cry to Churchill, he was the one who came up with the idea that real France was De Gaulle and his friends.
well he was the closest thing to a frenchman with honor. sadly the closest thing to honor in a frenchman is a sense of wounded pride. Still better than a vichy lapdog though
>There's not a single way Britain could have beaten Germany on its own
Not quite true, theres pretty good odds of berlin and Hamburg disappearing under mushroom clouds by 1947-48
No way a besieged Britain could have completed a nuclear program. It needed the gigantic american machine for that. Best propspect would have been an internal collapse of the third Reich, and that was far from given.
they did it in a few years and with a peacetime budget after the americans betrayed them post war, doing it with a wartime budget would have taken longer than the manhattan project, but the british were well beyond the theoretical stages by 1942
Do you pull these playground insults because you have the mental age of a child, warriorfart?
Where did they learn that?
The brits have no honour.
I'd rather fight my enemy blind than with britain as my ally watching my back.
>french flag on bri'ish planes
more proofs of the perfidious albion's war crime
>kicked out of France because of France's outdated tactics
>France surrenders
>Order them to surrender their ships or they'll be sunk to prevent capture by the Germans
>*retarded French noises*
>262 replies
>56 posters
>Blatant divide and conquer propaganda
Jesus Christ this is pathetic even by the usual standards of turd world 4chan discord raiders.
Britain did nothing wrong you retard.
The British Empire. Whatever happened there
Bongs are also the reason why italy didn't join the allies
fuck anglos
Italy did you retard
They kicked the living shit out of them in Afrika and sank the entire italian fleet. Who gives a fuck about Italy.
t.kraut
THE CONFERENCE WAS THE MONTOIRE CONFERENCE
PETAIN IS QUOTED SAYING HE IS COMMITED TO COLLABORATION