Now here's a subject that the more I read about, the more inclined I am to feel sympathy for, as well as admire their obvious bravery at times.
The French Navy, as you know, maintained a perilous independence after the fall of France.
Bound by Treaty to an occupier to protect France's overseas colonies, committed to obeying the Vichy government, secretly ordered not to let its ships fall into either German or Allied hands, and under fairly frequent Allied attack--can you think of a service more a victim of politics beyond its control?
The French Navy ultimately fought the British at Mers El Kebir and at Dakar and actively opposed "Operation Torch".
Was this attempt at steering a middle course in France's best interests?
Was it in the Navy's best interests?
Did ranking French naval officers suffer persecution or prosecution in their country after the War?
Cheers,
David
The "Vichy" French Navy
-
David C. Clarke
- In memoriam
- Posts: 11368
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 18:17
- Location: U.S. of A.
The French navy was no more opposed to Torch than Darlan, eventually, supported it, no doubt due to the US involvement. This makes the SIS an unlikely place to put the blame for his untimely death - who knows, he could well have become a more popular rallying figure than de Gaulle ever was... 8)
Darlan's hostility to the British was closely connected to Mers-el-Kebir. The internment of the French fleet was done infinitely more elegantly at Alexandria, where the ships were peacefully disarmed and the crews' wages henceforth paid by the British.
Darlan's hostility to the British was closely connected to Mers-el-Kebir. The internment of the French fleet was done infinitely more elegantly at Alexandria, where the ships were peacefully disarmed and the crews' wages henceforth paid by the British.
In fairness, what to do for the British? Standing all alone at that time, naval superiority was the only British asset. Seeing the Vichy fleet defect to the Axis must have been a true nightmare scenario. They had to play hardball, only the admirals at Alexandria were more patient in working out a solution, and plainly ignored a 'hurry-on' wire from the Admiralty at a critical time.
If (if) Britain had ordered an assassination, wouldn't it probably have been done by the Special Operations Executive, rather than the SIS? The SIS very much sticks to gathering intelligence. If he was an Admiral, then surely he could have been considered a military target? Hence, would this act have been murder if it had been carried out by British operatives (SOE or otherwise)?varjag wrote:As is well known, Adm. Darlan was assassinated. (murdered by British SIS?)
Zygmunt
Probably the SOE had much more experience in wet work than the more traditionally-minded SIS, so if the British for some reason had found it prudent to murder Darlan, they would likely have given the job to the SOE.Zygmunt wrote:If (if) Britain had ordered an assassination, wouldn't it probably have been done by the Special Operations Executive, rather than the SIS? The SIS very much sticks to gathering intelligence. If he was an Admiral, then surely he could have been considered a military target? Hence, would this act have been murder if it had been carried out by British operatives (SOE or otherwise)?varjag wrote:As is well known, Adm. Darlan was assassinated. (murdered by British SIS?)
Zygmunt
However, the SOE is an unlikely candidate for Darlan's assassin. He was fiercely anti-British, but not anti-allied, and not very pro-Axis either. He had ok'ed Torch when he was murdered. Discontent Vichy pro-German elements or, rather more speculatively, Free French, are much more likely culprits as far as I can see...
I did see a BBC documentry on the SOE a while ago, and the Darlan assassination did come up.[="Shrek]
However, the SOE is an unlikely candidate for Darlan's assassin. He was fiercely anti-British, but not anti-allied, and not very pro-Axis either. He had ok'ed Torch when he was murdered. Discontent Vichy pro-German elements or, rather more speculatively, Free French, are much more likely culprits as far as I can see...
He was killed by a rogue* cell of 'free french' agents( they interviewed one of the French members of the cell in the film)
They acted because Darlan was in their eyes nothing more than a French Nazi and the Allies were going to let him get away with his crimes because they were attempting to work with him.
He had taken a lead in persecuting 'free French' agents operating within Vichy, leading to the deaths of a number of their fellow agents, and he had
also been in the forefront of the anti-sematic (jewish) laws passed in Vichy France , which eventually lead to the deaths of thousands of jewish people.
* The Frenchman interviewed claimed that the SOE gave no orders to kill Darlan, it was their decision alone
Well, killing him would have been very counterproductive to Allied goals at that time just on the eve of Torch. Things went well anyway of course, and practical concerns prevailed as they usually do.
Darlan's assassination was more of a Vichy vs. Free French conflict than it was a case of Allied vs. Vichy. In any event, there was not any great interest in finding the real culprits. The assassin was caught and executed in great haste.
Darlan's assassination was more of a Vichy vs. Free French conflict than it was a case of Allied vs. Vichy. In any event, there was not any great interest in finding the real culprits. The assassin was caught and executed in great haste.