France accuses UK military of war crimes.

[CirrusF]

So apologies to Cirrus if I go with my dad's opinion and not his.

Ah yes, the old adage that if you were there, and saw a tiny snapshot of an entire strategic battle, you know far more about what happened than any number of historians who have put together a picture through meticulous study of written records and interviewing many eye-witness accounts....

That reminds me. One of my father's favourite recollections concerned some Vichy French battlewagons lying in Oran harbour. When invited by the allies to come out of their hideyhole and help us defeat the axis lot, they showed their true colours and refused.
So the Royal Navy sank em!

There is actually a rather interesting story about how miscommunication lead to that disaster, which killed around 1000 French matelots and is still regarded in France as a gross betrayal by Britain. In fact the French had little choice but to keep their ships in Oran as they had no fuel and would have been sunk by the Germans immediately if they were to leave, and they also realised that they risked being sunk by the RN if they allowed their vessels to fall under control of the Germans. They therefore signed a compromise deal with the Germans - they would be allowed to keep their ships in Oran harbour, under French flag, they would not attempt to leave, and in return the Germans would not attack them. An agreement was signed to this effect with the Germans, and a copy was sent to London. Unfortunately, the Admiralty mis-translated the French verb "controller" to mean "control", and they thought the truce allowed the Germans to control the fleet. In fact, "controller" means to check, and it just meant that the Germans would check that the fleet did not leave Oran. The rest is history...

[Al R]

In fact the French had little choice but to keep their ships in Oran as they had no fuel and would have been sunk by the Germans immediately if they were to leave, and they also realised that they risked being sunk by the RN if they allowed their vessels to fall under control of the Germans. They therefore signed a compromise deal with the Germans - they would be allowed to keep their ships in Oran harbour, under French flag, they would not attempt to leave, and in return the Germans would not attack them.

Surely it would have been better to have been sunk by the occupying enemy trying to leave in order to deny access to the harbour, or to have scuttled to prevent access to the harbour? Talk of a compromise deal to keep their warships all shiny and tied up, instead of being used somehow in order to achieve some sort of strategic aim is completely bizarre. What are they for, if not to do their part in some way?

I'm quite laissez faire about the whole business of Frog bashing (although I do resent the way French seems to creep into our language) but with respect, what you have posted adds to any doubts I might have about French competence and motivation. The British were surely right not to have trusted the word of the Germans, and the decision to attack the ships was surely, the correct military one.

[Wensleydale]

So why did the RN sink the French ships in Oran, but accepted the neutrality of the French ships in Alexandria? Answer - the intransigence of the French Commander at Oran who followed the Vichy line.

For full versin read "Sailor's Oddysey", Adm Cunningham's autobiography. It contains details on all of the decisions at the time and a necessary read if you are to understand the Mediterranean War 1940-43.

[Warmtoast]

Baron Rouge

You are just convenientely forgetting the main thing : the result of that war because if the English won some battles , in the end they were booted out of France.

You're right of course, but on the way Edward III taught the French and much of the rest of Europe of a new way to fight a war. As Ian Mortimer writes in his very readable book "The Perfect King - The Life of Edward III" (pages 396 - 397).

Whether we like it or not, Edward III was to warfare what Mozart was to music. He found a new way of doing things, and it proved as good as or better than almost everything that had gone before. Until the battle of Crecy on 26 August 1346 international conflicts were not won or lost by firepower alone, they were won by feudal armies of expensively armoured knights. On that day all this changed. Groups of English peasants and yeomen’s sons came to be the breakers of the most heavily armoured noblemen. But more than that, Edward’s stroke of genius was to take the tactic of projectile warfare -which his commanders had discovered at Dupplin Moor and which he had used at Halidon Hill - and to combine it with the chevauchée: the twenty-mile-wide front destroying everything in its path as it progressed through enemy territory. Sufficient destruction forced the enemy to attack, and any enemy advancing on a well-ordered army capable of projectile warfare - whether equipped with longbows or guns - was almost certain to be torn to pieces in the crossfire. Such methods gave Edward the confidence to march across France and win his war of rivalry with Philip de Valois. It was the most effective military strategy of the middle ages, which proved just as decisive when employed by Henry V at Agincourt in 1415. When guns replaced longbows as the weapon of choice, it was not Edward’s strategy which was outdated, only the means of putting it into action.

Also in the book is a long and detailed eight-page account of Crecy, the origins of the battle, the battle itself and the aftermath which put my views of 14th Century warfare into a new and interesting context.

[Al R]

Wensleydale: So why did the RN sink the French ships in Oran, but accepted the neutrality of the French ships in Alexandria? Answer - the intransigence of the French Commander at Oran who followed the Vichy line.

Interesting.

That in itself would have been grounds for the British to attack. Why on earth would they have trusted any agreement brokered locally with the Germans, if the promise of neutrality was going to be ignored by the capitulating Vichy Forces later anyway?

[ProM]

Baron Rouge

yes, you did kick us out of France by various means. And you did win some battles against us. So why not concentrate on those victories than (have your historians) talk rubbish about crecy, agincourt etc?

I am not one that thinks that the French have had no military victories, but the French tend to re-inforce this myth by continuing to have a chip on their shoulder about battles where they lost to the English/British. Indeed the only reaosn the joke is perpetuated at all is because the French react so strongly to it.

I knew a senior French naval officer who believed very strongly that the French navy was hampered to this day by the legacy of Trafalgar. Stop looking for excuses for failures in the past for your own sakes.

[Nigd3]

What an entertaining thread.

Never before have I seen what I thought was a light hearted poke at the French, turn into such a "My dad's bigger than your dad"........"he started it" playground hissy fit.

Inhumane actions always have been and always will be a part of war.

You guys need to get out a bit more often.

[CirrusF]

Inhumane actions always have been and always will be a part of war.

Which is why we should never attempt to hide the inhumanity of war under the carpet.

If a democracy is made aware of all the facts and consequences of going to war, yet still chooses to go to war because it is the lesser of two evils, then so be it. But that can only be the case if the populace is fully aware of the true reasons of going to war, and is fully aware of the inhumanity of the consequences of wars.

One of the great advances of the internet is that it is very hard to censor the reality of war, and so diminishes the tendency to glorify war. But still our mainstream media shies away from showing what really happens in war.

If you can find it, try to watch the Al Jazeera film of the British bombardment of Basra in 2003. Shamefully, our own mainstream media did not broadcast it.

[Jackonicko]

Cirrus F

"In fact the French had little choice but to keep their ships in Oran as they had no fuel and would have been sunk by the Germans immediately if they were to leave...."

Not quite. When attacked by the RN, some of the French ships did leave, and none were engaged by the Germans.

In fact, Somerville bent over backwards to give the French fleet alternatives to being sunk by the RN. His communique read:

"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 unless 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 the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German hands."

The French have only themselves to blame for the destruction of their fleet and the deaths of so many of their young men.

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

"Why don't you bugger off to a nursery to suck a tit, rather than hang around on a war forum? War is hell. Dad didn't jack in his day trade as a travelling salesman to incinerate German babies. He joined the 8th Army to get the Fascists out of Europe. Perhaps he shouldn't have bothered, then you can be polite to your Jew-free, Gypsey-free masters."



I was trying to compose a reply based on historical facts, the rules of Total Warfare, the limitations of strategic bombing and the lack of precision weaponry and the requirement to attack Nazi Germany by any means necessary.

But by thunder, your answer tops anything what I could writ

Perfect

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

Alternatively, the presence of those ships was a direct threat to the RN and a threat to the continuation of the war against Nazi Germany, so we sank them.

Good decision, recognised as such.

[dakkg651]

All this reminds me of the Trafalgar celebrations when a French dignatory and his wife were been shown around HMS Victory by a young RN Lt.

Wife. Are these some of the cannonballs that were actually used during the battle?

Lt. No Maam. Your navy has still got those.

Priceless!

[Baron rouge]

dear Warmtoast,

reference your complaints of French atrocities what about the glorious British Empire ?

The lieutenant-governor of Bengal, Sir Richard Temple, was sent south as plenipotentiary Famine Delegate by Lytton to clamp down on the "out of control" expenditures that threatened the financing of the planned invasion of Afghanistan. ¡* In a lightning tour of the famished countryside of the eastern Deccan, Temple purged a half million people from relief work and forced Madras to follow Bombay's precedent of requiring starving applicants to travel to dormitory camps outside their locality for coolie labor on railroad and canal projects. ¡* In a self-proclaimed Benthamite "experiment" that eerily prefigured later Nazi research on minimal human subsistence diets in concentration camps, Temple cut rations for male coolies, whom he compared to "a school full of refractory children," down to one pound of rice per diem despite medical testimony that the ryots ¨ "once strapping fine fellows" ¨ were now "little more than animated skeletons ... utterly unfit for any work." ¡* The "Temple wage," as it became known, provided less sustenance for hard labor than the diet inside the infamous Buchenwald concentration camp and less than half of the modern caloric standard recommended for adult males by the Indian government.

[Wensleydale]

BR,

Indeed we did have a glorious empire - I believe that it was started by kicking a certain nation's butt out of India (Clive) and Canada (Wolfe).

Ah those green eyes of jealosy.

W

[hulahoop7]

War Crimes

On boasting rights, the French could point out that Agincourt - although a notable victory - was just one battle in a hundred years of war - which the French finally won. For two countries to go at it for 100 years, says a lot about the martial spirit of both.

On WW2, I don’t think the French can question British motives – I doubt most do. We may have left, but we paid heavily in blood and treasure to return and hand them their country back. Even the arch awkward squad De Gaulle recognised this. His radio broadcast to France on D Day is particularly poignant.

On Dresden – area bombing was a blunt tool – but it was all we had at the time. I think this quote sums it up perfectly:

“All sides bombed each other's cities during the war. Half a million Soviet citizens, for example, died from German bombing during the invasion and occupation of Russia. That's roughly equivalent to the number of German citizens who died from Allied raids. But the Allied bombing campaign was attached to military operations and ceased as soon as military operations ceased. But the Holocaust and the murder of all those millions would not have ceased if the Germans had won the war. Bombing is ruthless war making, but to use the word Holocaust to describe ruthless war making is to confuse two entirely different things.”

[Warmtoast]

Baron rouge

reference your complaints of French atrocities what about the glorious British Empire ?

I’ve not claimed that we (the English) are the only chivalrous nation and that we have not been guilty of atrocities of our own. In my post number 74 above I pointed out the use of the misericordias by the English to despatch the enemy wounded as they lay helpless on the battlefield at Crecy. I also mentioned the butchery by the redcoats of the wounded Jacobites at Culloden in 1746 — there are many other examples. The Mau Mau troubles in Kenya in the 1950’s comes to mind. We did terrible things there which is probably why the National Archives at Kew still keep closed (not for public viewing) many files concerned with the Mau Mau uprising, which under the thirty-year rule would have been released to public scrutiny way back in the 1980’s.

Warfare is a messy, horrible business and was especially so in medieval times. Wounded were left where they fell on the battlefield. The victors plundered the wounded, sparing only those that seemed worth a ransom, the remainder were despatched with a blow to the head, a bayonet through the guts, or a stiletto through the eye into the brain. Then there were no stretcher bearers to take you away to hospital to dress your wounds and make you better.

Atrocities by the victors against the losers have been part of warfare since time began regardless of nationality.

We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted and how they solved their problems, but at the end of the day and after all these years does it really matter who won and who lost and who did what to whom and why? - it's no more than historical water under the bridge.

[chiglet]

I've been to France many times, and like and admire the people. If anyone cares to go to St Maire Eglise, [shown in the film "The Longest Day"] they [the visitor] will find a fresh, clean parachute ...with paratrouper hanging from the church Steeple.
Having just watched the "Pipes" clip, two things stand out...
1, Is the drunken..[happy] Froggie, the same actor who plays the Marie of St Maire Eglise?
2, I see that the Horsa glider had "C2" roundels on the upper wing. I would have though that type "B" would have been correct...
watp,iktch
Still doesn't stop me takink ze Mick though

[Strangelove PhD]

Mother of Invention

On July 25, 1909 a pilot named Louis Bleriot flew across the English Channel from France.
The French aviation pioneer, in his modified type XI monoplane, took off from Les Baraques, near Calais, at 4.41 am and landed at 5.I7am in Northfall Meadow, near Dover.
On July 26, 1909 - Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim an engineer at Vickers began development on the anti-aircraft gun.

[GreenKnight121]

Originally Posted by ”Warmtoast”

France-UK rivalry goes back centuries. But perhaps things are changing, witness President Sarkozy's comments during his visit earlier this year when he acknowledged that the UK had twice come to the aid of France, and the French would not forget that.

In the early 1930s, American humorist Will Rogers had a line he used frequently at public performances:
“The only way the French would hate us more than they do now, is if we help them out of another war”.

He was more prophet than jokester on this one.

To say ”the UK had twice come to the aid of France, and the French would not forget that” may not be a favorable thing.

Originally Posted by ”Wensleydale”

So why did the RN sink the French ships in Oran, but accepted the neutrality of the French ships in Alexandria? Answer - the intransigence of the French Commander at Oran who followed the Vichy line.

Well, Oran was in Vichy (German-influenced France) control, while Alexandria was a British-controlled port, with RN ships as well. Thus, the French ships in Alexandria were following option B pretty closely (except for the crews being allowed to stay aboard their ships).
(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.

[goneeast]

Wensleydale

Perhaps a glimpse into "total warfare" Medieval style can be understood by reading accounts of the Battle of Towton on Palm Sunday 1461, between Henry Beauforts Lancastrian army and a Yorkist Army commanded by Edward IV. Estimates of casualties range up to 35000 dead on the field (in one day) mostly killed after a rout.

To put it into context that was 1% of Englands population at the time. I did a dig of a burial pit when at University and most of the dead were killed by war hammer blows to the back of the head ( either ridden down by mounted knights or dispatched post battle). Contemporary accounts gave details that rivers ran red with blood 30 miles from the battlefield.

The reason that the death toll was so high was that both sides agreed that no quarter be given, a similar agreement was in place at Agincourt according to many writers..

Incidentally, most French dead at Agincourt were probably killed in a crush, caused by reargaurds pushing into a bottleneck under fire. Plus fallen men unable to get up from sodden ground in full armour.