Greatest aviation related Blunders of WWII

[Balljoint]

France, during 1939/40 would seem to be a divided nation. While there was tepid support for the government, there was good deal of vigor amongst the right and left factions. With the Ribbentrop Pact extant, the communists were advised from Moscow to support the Nazis. However, after Barbarossa the factions cleaved and demonstrated bravery and resolve, if not judgment, in fighting for their separate causes.

The Charlemange SS Regiment was among the bravest of the brave fighting on the EF. And the Marquis and other French Resistance groups were also determined and effective against their occupiers.

With such varied positions, and in view of the Vichy perfidy, viewing the French as hostile until proven safe was only prudent.

 

[rank amateur]

QUOTE=stona;910411]It has got nothing to do with what you,I,or any individual Frenchman would have done. It's about the politics and diplomacy of the Vichy government. It was that government which actively resisted many allied diplomatic and military operations. It argued that this was in the interests of France but all to often these Vichy French interests coincided with German ones.

To think that the French sailors on those ships would not have fought us,just as their brethren in North Africa and other areas did,is naive.

The invasion of North Africa was not a surprise to the Vichy French forces there. Diplomatic moves had been going on for months beforehand in an effort to prevent the landings being opposed. Ultimately they were successful. Resistance was short lived and minimal,there was,nonetheless,some.

I speak French fluently and have lived and worked in the country for several years of my life,anti -French I most certainly am not. I am anti -the rewriting of history to assuage the feelings of a nation which had to endure a very,very difficult period of its long history at this time.

Cheers
Steve[/QUOTE

I'm sorry Steve? I reacted to your "It was only very late in the war that a clear majority of the French decided to back the allies,it had become obvious who was going to win".
If you are talking about the majority you are talking about the all the individual Franchmen not about the politicians with their own opportunistic little reasons.
Furthermore France had surrenderd so according to international laws, those sailers not resisting the allies, would have constitute to treason.
The distinction between right and wrong is not so clear as certain postwar resistance heroes would like to make us believe. There's a universe of grey between the black and white

BTW it never crossed my mind that you could be anti - French. I myself am not particularly pleased with some of the blatant anti France sentiments I sometimes encounter here. Just don't see the use.


Chrzzzzz

 

[buffnut453]

Furthermore France had surrenderd so according to international laws, those sailers not resisting the allies, would have constitute to treason.

Is that correct? It was my understanding that Vichy France was established as a non-occupied, self-governing region. To that end, it was for the Vichy Government to decide who to fight and who not to fight - and we clearly know the answer to that question, just as we clearly know that the Vichy government ordered the deportation of Jews to death camps before the Nazis even asked them to. Yes, there are shades of grey but sometimes they are introduced when decisions ought, morally, to be black and white.

As regards the British decision to attack the fleet at Oran, I'm afraid it makes operational and strategic sense. Europe had fallen and Britain was facing Germany and Italy alone. At that stage, it was unknown how long the Vichy government would last nor how closely aligned it would be with Berlin. Italy clearly had designs on portions of Africa, and the role of the French colonies in that continent was undoubtedly a cause for concern to London. It was equally clear that trouble was brewing in the Mediterranean which was, after all, Italy's back yard. The French fleet simply could not be allowed to remain because it could so easily have become a potent threat in the Mediterranean or elsewhere.

It must also be borne in mind that London was not aware of some details that Darlan had negotiated with the Germans (although, as noted by others, Hitler had a pretty poor track record as regards keeping his promises of friendship). Finally, Admiral Gensoul refused any of the options laid down by the British and even refused to speak to the RN Captain designated to negotiate. Of greater significance, he only informed Darlan that the British had demanded surrender of the French fleet - he failed to mention the other options that were put on the table. Oran was entirely inglorious but it was necessary. Undoubtedly it could have been avoided but the actions of Gensoul effectively ended any such rosy outcomes.

 

[nuuumannn]

Regarding the invasion of North Africa by the Allies (Torch), Vichy operated warships did go into action against the invasion fleet; the destroyers Brestois, Boulonnais, Fougueux and Frondeur were sunk on 8 November 1942 by US ships.

The British did not commit their full strength to the battle and withdrew after Dunkirk, France kept on fighting so they did have a reason to feel deserted.

France (as a whole, although there were pockets of resistance) did not keep fighting; by Dunkirk the French leaders realised that it was too late. There was nothing that Britain could have done to change what happened, even with full resources, and you are naive to think that this might have changed things, or that Britain could or should actually commit that much to a lost cause, considering that at the time the British believed that their own survival was at stake. That was the crux of the matter. That's why (C-in-C Fighter Command) Dowding composed the letter requesting that '...not one more Hurricane..." go to France because he feared it would denude his home based squadrons to a dangerous level if/when Britain was attacked - which, we all know is what happened.

Most ships have close range and couldn't be used as raiders.

The heavy cruiser Hipper did not have a great range, yet it was successfully used as a commerce raider, although it was not ideally suited for the role.

Old battleships were really obsolete with poor guns, armor and fire control.

Dunkerque, Strasbourg and Richelieu were not old ships! In fact they would have been a welcome addition to any modern battlefleet. As we know, the latter was sent to the USA for refit.

Submarines were by far inferior to U-boats.

Based on what? The German subs were no better than foreign ones; the secret to their success in WW2 was their application.

Destroyers were poor escorts with weak AA and ASW armament.

The Germans had a desperate shortage of destroyers after Norway, where its fleet size of about 22 ships had been reduced by half. If they could have been used, they would have. Also, we know that the Vichy forces would most certainly have used these ships against the Allies given the opportunity.

 

[parsifal]

Whatever the intentions of the vichy regime, and the frenchmen that administered it, the peace treaty had the effect of delivering all of the resources of france to the germans, to be used by them as and when they pleased. If anyone had been betrayed, it was the allies as the terms of the armistice signed by the anglophobic Vichyites was extremely disturbing

Specifically article III of the armistice contained the following provisions

"In all areas of France, the German Reich is to exercise all the rights of an occupying power. The French government promises to facilitate by all possible means the regulations relative to the exercise of this right, and to carry out these regulations with the participation of the French administration. The French government will immediately order all the French authorities and administrative and military servicesto follow the regulations of the German military authorities and to collaborate with the latter in an obedient and co-operative manner".

This meant that under the terms of the treaty, the Germans could have at any time demanded the handover of the french fleet. This is unequivocal....you judge a nation by the terms of its existence, and the vichy regime was there for one purpose....to serve and meet the needs of the Nazis. It existed to subvert the democratic ideals of the third republic and to promote the ideas and aspirations of nazi Germany.

That the Allies exercised such restraint on Vichy as to give them the opportunity to surrender or rejoin the fight on the allied side was done out of respect of the french nation as a former allied nation, that had shed blood in the name of freedom. But the regime was unquestionably an enemy of the british after the formation of Vichy, moreover the persons at the head of the new rump state were unquestionably pro German and anti british in attitude, and from a british perspective, not to be trusted.

Laval makes a good case study to gauge the reliability of the new regime

"When Laval was included in Pétain's cabinet as minister of state, he began the work for which he would be remembered: the emulation of the totalitarian regime of Germany, the taking up of the cause of fascism, the destruction of democracy, and the dismantling of the Third Republic."

Laval understood collaboration more or less in the same sense as Pétain. For both, to collaborate meant to give up the maximum support for the nazi regime, short of active participation in the war. however with the progress of time Laval became more and more wedded to the idea of active participation on the side of the nazis. Laval, as vichy's foreign minister in 1940, , was in constant touch with the German authorities, to and constantly attempted to shift the ground in favour of more overt support for the german wear effort. This drew more attention to him for the british and in my opinion heavily influenced Churchills decision at Mers el Kebir. His style made him appear as "the agent of collaboration"; he was "the Germans' man".

The meetings between Pétain and Adolf Hitler, and between Laval and Hitler, are often used as showing the collaboration of the French leaders and the Nazis. Hitler wanted France to declare war on the British, and the French wanted improved relations with her conqueror. Neither happened. However virtually the only concession the French obtained was the so-called 'Berlin protocol' of 16 November, which provided release of certain categories of French prisoners of war. However, on his own intiative laval supported the raising of military volunteer forces and militias to support the germans and fight for them. This too was duly noted in whitehall

In November, Laval made a number of pro-German actions on his own, without consulting with his colleagues. The most notorious examples concerned turning over to the Germans the RTB Bor copper mines and the Belgian gold reserves. His post-war justification, apart from a denial that he acted unilaterally, was that the French were powerless to prevent the Germans from gaining something they were clearly so eager to obtain.

Laval was dismiossed 13 December 1940, but this did not end his influence or progerman activities.

Lavals subsequent return to office in 1942, and his positions held in the post December 1942 government show an ever increasing willigness to get into bed with the germans. He was responsible for signing the death warrants of many jews living in France, forced over 500000 slave workers to be deported to germany from France, issued instructions after D-Day to the french people not to co-operate with the allies.
And laval is really a moderate of the Vichy regime. It was a thoroughly anglophobic regieme, with many of its members hell bent on supporting the germans as far as was possible

In my mind the British actions are completely reasonable and justifiable. And it is the vichy government who did the betraying, not the other way round. Their behaviour saw them abandon the principals of democracy, of the the rule of lawa, in the end, they even abandoned their own people. Arguing that the british were somehow unreasonable in treating these people as enemies of Britiain beggars comon sense in my opinion.

Vichy, and that includes the french Navy, got what they deserved in my opinion

 

[Francis marliere]

Why would the Kriegsmarine have to operate or maintain these vessels?
As far as anyone knew at the time the French Navy would have operated them for the germans. the Vichy regime was effectively an ally of Germany (despite all the small print) and those ships would have made a big difference to the balance of naval forces in the Mediterranean.

Steeve, the French decision to surrender was not easy to take. A lot of militaries, and especially in the navy who was not defeat and wanted to fight, did want to continue the fight from North Africa. There is no possibility that the French fleet fights for Germany.

We British remember the resistance put up by Governor General Armand Léon Annet and his forces on Madagascar in 1942 only too well. Operation "Torch" was not initially unopposed either. Vichy French Forces frequently demonstrated that didn't know whose side they were on and we weren't going to mess about taking a chance that could endanger our position in the Mediterranean.

What you say looks IMHO a bit anachronic and does not reflect the mindest of the time. France and Britain were at the time colonial powers. They were allied during the 2 world wars but before each war, they were in competition and jaleous of their own colonial empire. French thought at the time that the 'perfidious Albion' would take any opportunity to seize some colonies. Look at the strange and cold relationships between the French governor of New Caledonia and COMSOPAC in 1942. It is incredible now but at the time, D'Argenlieu's priority was to protect NC from US egemony rather than japanese conquest.

As for "abandoning the French" in the Battle of France you need to look at the numbers. France was considered the pre-eminent military power on mainland Europe in 1939/40. The number of British Forces in Europe at the time is tiny compared to the French. The Germans defeated both,but it was primarily a defeat for the French.

Steeve, I never said - and don't believe - that Britain abandoned France. Once the front was broken, there was nothing that could be done and it's a good thing that BEF withdraw and saved whatever could be saved (including thousand of French soldiers at Dunkirk).


Best,

Francis

 

[Francis marliere]

This I doubt as althought the ships were scuttled the shore facilities were untouched and I see no reason why that would change.

When the fleet was scuttled in toulon, the German were in sight and there was no time to damage the port. If Germany tries to size the fleet during the battle of France, there would be more time to damage the bases.

That I agree but it is quite possible that enought French seaman would have continued the fight for the Germans. There were French units in the German army and I see as an extension of that.

The French who fought with the SS were not part of French army. There were civilian volunteers making a crusade against communism. That's quite different from French ships operating for Germany.

Best,

Francis

 

[Francis marliere]

As regards the British decision to attack the fleet at Oran, I'm afraid it makes operational and strategic sense.

According to most historian and Royal Navy officers (including Somerville) the attack on Mers-el Kebir (and later against Madagascar) made no operational sense. Churchill wanted a victory to boost British morale and show his resolution. Wether it makes strategic sense or not, I don't know ...

 

[Francis marliere]

The heavy cruiser Hipper did not have a great range, yet it was successfully used as a commerce raider, although it was not ideally suited for the role.

yes and it was not very succesfull ... Please note that French navy didn't rate very high his own heavy cruisers (except Algerie) at the point that a conversion of the elder ones in carrier was considered at a time.

Dunkerque, Strasbourg and Richelieu were not old ships! In fact they would have been a welcome addition to any modern battlefleet. As we know, the latter was sent to the USA for refit.

I meant old battleships, not new ones : Bretagne, Provence, Lorraine, Courbet, Paris. Sorry if I was not clear, my English is not good.

Based on what? The German subs were no better than foreign ones; the secret to their success in WW2 was their application.

Well, the german subs were good and the French ones were not. I don't have any documentation at hand and writes from memory, but I recall that French subs were unreliable, didn't have good batteres and had stability problem : they often surfaced after launching torpedoes (they could not counter ballast quickly enough).[/QUOTE]

Best,

Francis

 

[Glider]

When the fleet was scuttled in toulon, the German were in sight and there was no time to damage the port. If Germany tries to size the fleet during the battle of France, there would be more time to damage the bases.

That I agree with but it depends when they tried to seize the ships.

The French who fought with the SS were not part of French army. There were civilian volunteers making a crusade against communism. That's quite different from French ships operating for Germany.

Possibly but there is no denying I am afraid that there were French people who fought for the Germans in the German army, not just in the SS. There were a lot of collaborators who fought against the french resistance and the Vichy forces who fought against the allies.
It isn't a large step to go from fighting in the German Army to assisting the Germany Navy.

I should add that this isn't having a go at the French people, we in the UK had a number of people who supported the German ideals pre war and had we been invaded I doubt that we would have been any different

 

[rank amateur]

Is that correct? It was my understanding that Vichy France was established as a non-occupied, self-governing region. To that end, it was for the Vichy Government to decide who to fight and who not to fight - and we clearly know the answer to that question, just as we clearly know that the Vichy government ordered the deportation of Jews to death camps before the Nazis even asked them to. Yes, there are shades of grey but sometimes they are introduced when decisions ought, morally, to be black and white. QUOTE]

Yip that is correct. Part of the 2nd Versailles treaty came a whole set of new rules and believe me Vichy was no longer a sovereign state and therefore could not independly decide who to fight.

 

[buffnut453]

But they could choose not to fight. Sorry to keep banging on about this but I strongly urge a read of "Seduced by Hitler: the Choices of a Nation and the Ethics of Survival" by Adam LeBor and Roger Boyes. While focussing on Germany, it also examines the roles played by neutral and occupied countries. To summarise, even if you claim to be neutral, if you are supporting/helping a regime (including through trade) as evil as the Nazi one then you're plainly on the wrong side of the moral argument. That question equally applies to military leaders at locations around the French empire, and down to the individual soldier. I would have thought the French people would have wanted the entirety of their nation liberated from Nazi rule as rapidly as possible and yet, instead, we have Vichy forces fighting against the Allies. It's all very ugly history.

 

[rank amateur]

But they could choose not to fight. Sorry to keep banging on about this but I strongly urge a read of "Seduced by Hitler: the Choices of a Nation and the Ethics of Survival" by Adam LeBor and Roger Boyes. While focussing on Germany, it also examines the roles played by neutral and occupied countries. To summarise, even if you claim to be neutral, if you are supporting/helping a regime (including through trade) as evil as the Nazi one then you're plainly on the wrong side of the moral argument. That question equally applies to military leaders at locations around the French empire, and down to the individual soldier. I would have thought the French people would have wanted the entirety of their nation liberated from Nazi rule as rapidly as possible and yet, instead, we have Vichy forces fighting against the Allies. It's all very ugly history.

Maybe that is the problem, knowledge about the evil Nazi state was not verry common, certainly not in 1940. I think the USSR was seen as a much bigger threat to society. And once you have chosen to follow a certain path it is verry hard to change your ways even in the light of strong arguments to do so.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

According to most historian and Royal Navy officers (including Somerville) the attack on Mers-el Kebir (and later against Madagascar) made no operational sense. Churchill wanted a victory to boost British morale and show his resolution. Wether it makes strategic sense or not, I don't know ...

Which is the sort of nonsensical tripe, that we get from those desperate to show Churchill as some malign malevolence; nobody ever explains how, if Churchill wanted this mythical victory (how, incidentally, can destroying the assets of a former ally be called a "victory?",) he ordered Cunningham and Somerville to give the French four options:- 1/. continue to fight against the enemy; 2/. sail to a British port, where they would be interned, and the crews repatriated to France; 3/. sail to a French port in the West Indies where the ships could be demilitarised and perhaps entrusted to United States care; 4/. scuttle the ships. Cunningham managed to introduce some flexibility into the orders, and drew up an acceptable solution in Alexandria; Somerville tried, for nearly a whole day, to get a similar agreement, but was ordered (by the Admiralty) to settle the matter before dark; the rest is history.

 

[riacrato]

That I agree with but it depends when they tried to seize the ships.


Possibly but there is no denying I am afraid that there were French people who fought for the Germans in the German army, not just in the SS. There were a lot of collaborators who fought against the french resistance and the Vichy forces who fought against the allies.
It isn't a large step to go from fighting in the German Army to assisting the Germany Navy.

I should add that this isn't having a go at the French people, we in the UK had a number of people who supported the German ideals pre war and had we been invaded I doubt that we would have been any different

Sorry Glider, but I think that is a very weak argument and borderline an insult to the French even if not intended. There were collaboratuers in every single of the occupied countries, for a varying amount of reason. And yes, there were even British SS volunteers, a very small number, but still. It is something that comes very naturally with occupation.

 

[stona]

There's a tendency here to be a bit unfair to the French. Don't forget that per capita the nation that provided the most volunteers to the SS was the Netherlands a nation which also produced a very effective resistance.
Francis is quite correct to point out that the French volunteers were proportionately few and were indeed on an anti communist crusade.
France too produced an effective resistance and of course many Frenchmen fought with the allies under the Free French banner. Remember also how the French people suffered at German hands. The anniversary of the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane was only a couple of weeks ago.

This does not alter the fact that it was the intransigence of the French leadership that forced the hand of the Royal Navy at Oran. It was also a demonstration by the British,particularly to those across the Atlantic,that we were determined to fight on and were prepared to do whatever that took,however unpalatable that might be.
Firing on the ships and men of an erstwhile ally cannot have been an easy thing to do.It needed to be done and so it was.

Cheers
Steve

 

[FLYBOYJ]

From Wiki

An estimated 360,000 non-German volunteers and conscripts served in the Waffen-SS

Albania: 6,500 in the 21st SS Division
Belgium: 13,000 Flemish in the 5th SS Div., 27th SS Div.
Belgium: 6,000 Walloons 5th SS Div., 28th SS Div.
British Commonwealth (English): 100 in the Britisches Freikorps
Bulgaria: 700 in the Bulgarisches Reg.
Croatia (includes Bosnian Muslims): 20,000 in the 7th SS Div., 13th SS Handschar Div., 23rd SS Div.
Denmark: 6,000 in Frikorps Danmark, 11th SS Div.
Estonia: 30,000 in the 20th SS Div.
Finland: 1,500 in a Volunteer Battalion.
France: 9,000 in the 33rd SS Div.
Georgia: 3,000 in the SS-Waffengruppe Georgien
Hungary: 40,000 in the 25th SS Div., 26th SS Div. and 33rd SS Div.
India: 2,500 in the Indisches Freiwilligen Infanterie Regiment 950 or "Tiger Legion"
Italy: 10,000 in the 29th SS Div.
Latvia: 60,000 in the Latvian Legion.
Netherlands: 25,000 in the 23rd SS Div., 34th SS Div.
Norway: 6,000 in the 5th SS Div., 6th SS Div., 11th SS Div.
Portuguese Volunteers attached, mainly, to the Spanish Blue Division (250th Infantry Division)
Russian (Belarusian): 15,000 29th SS Div., 30th SS Div.
Russian (Cossack): 40,000 in the 1st Cossack Div.
Russian (Turkic): 10,000 in Osttürkische SS, Tatarische SS
Romania: 6,000 in Waffen-Grenadierregiment der SS (1st Romanian)
Serbia: 15,000 in Volunteer Corps
Spain: 18,000 in the Blue Division and in the later stages of the war (namely the Battle of Berlin) in two separated companies - Spanische-Freiwilligen-Kompanie der SS 101 and SS 102.
Sweden, Switzerland and Luxemburg: 3,000 5th SS Div., 11th SS Div.
Ukraine: 20,000 in the 14th SS Div.

 

[Glider]

Sorry Glider, but I think that is a very weak argument and borderline an insult to the French even if not intended. There were collaboratuers in every single of the occupied countries, for a varying amount of reason. And yes, there were even British SS volunteers, a very small number, but still. It is something that comes very naturally with occupation.

We will have to agree to disagree. French collaboators in particular the Milice Francais were a serious danger to the Resistance. Before this it was known as the Service d'ordre légionnaire during Vichy. There were French Units in the German Army as well as the SS Units and the French Navy did fight against the allies.

I do repeat that I do not believe that the UK would have behaved differently had we been invaded. The vast majority would not have joined but some would and this is not a slight on the French.

I will send you a PM on the other aspect

 

[oldcrowcv63]

From Wiki: An estimated 360,000 non-German volunteers and conscripts served in the Waffen-SS

Really interesting stats FJ. I was in Luxembourg last summer visiting some WWII sites. Visiting the Battle of the Bulge and Patton Museum (He's a local hero there having liberated the small country three times) it became apparent that Locals considered as ethnic Germans were conscripted into the Wehrmacht. They were evidently not at all happy about it in general, and apparently some, upon their return from duty, participated with other locals in a resistence effort that played a role in the December 1944 German Ardennes offensive. I was surprised to find that Patton's grave is in Luxembourg in the 3rd army cemetery.

 

[stona]

I do repeat that I do not believe that the UK would have behaved differently had we been invaded. The vast majority would not have joined but some would and this is not a slight on the French.

We'll never know what choices individuals may have made. Is a wholesale grocer who sell his vegetables to the occupation forces a collaborator or just a business man trying to stay in business and provide for his family? If that same grocer provided a safe house for the Resistance in his premises he is suddenly transformed into a hero of the Resistance! Difficult choices had to be made,not by the body politic but individual citizens. This debate has agonised the French for two generations and descends into some very grey areas.

I recall an interview with a member of the Dutch Resistance. He said that at some time after the German occupation a census was carried out. One of the questions was something like "Do you have any Jewish Grand parents?". Most Dutch people would simply and honestly tick the "No" box. His point was that by innocently doing something as simple as that they were inadvertantly contributing to the annihilation of European Jewry in the holocaust. Harsh,but he has a point.
Since then I have never answered a question asking me my ethnic background on any form.

Unlike any other occupied nation,including Germany,Britain had plans in place to carry on fighting both at home and from overseas. The organisation,weapons caches,communications etc were in place before the supposedly expected invasion.Who knows what would actually have happened. We know with hindsight that the invasion of the British Isles was never going to happen but most (there are some senior exceptions) seem to have accepted it as possible at the time.
We had time to plan it,unlike nations on the European mainland who never expected to be over run in a matter of weeks, and accepted invasion as a possibility. Germany never organised anything like it (the "Werewolf" project amounted to b*gger all) because they had never officially entertained the possibility of defeat.

Cheers
Steve