Talk:François Darlan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

un français signale une erreur de nom!

le prénom de Darlan est françois ( et non jean-françois)

une autre erreur:

Ferdinand Bonnier de la Chapelle n'était pas un "anti-nazi royaliste", ce qui ne veut rien dire!

On ne sait pas qui était le commanditaire de l'assassinat de de Darlan, peut-être les gaullistes, peut-être des facho-monarchistes qui se sont sentis trahis par le rapprochement entre Darlan et les alliés!!! Le francais qui a ecrit cela et qui reproche l expression anti-nazi fasciste devrait y reflechir a deux fois. Il n y a jamais existe de royaliste fachiste!! La droite legitimiste et orleaniste existent depuis le 19eme siecle et n a jamais ete fonciemenent fachiste.


(translation of above) A frenchman would like to point out an error in a name!

Darlan's first name is francois, (and not jean-francois)

Another error:

Frendinand Bonnier de la Chapelle wasn't an "anti-nazi royalist", which doesn't mean anything in any case!

It isn't know who order the assassination of Darlan, maybe it was the Gaullists, or maybe the monarcho-faschists who felt betrayed by the rapprochement between Darland and the Allies!

(I don't have an opinion on this statement, I gues thought I'd translate it since this is English wikipedia)

"Despite being a real patriot, Giraud was committed to the Vichy regime." is very POV. What is a real patriot? In any case, collaborating with a foreign government isn't seen as being patriotic generally. I am removing the first part, and including that Giraud was commited to the Vichy regime. ==> very poor understanding! There were patriots who always disapproved De Gaulle, there were also resistants who supported Petain's revolution nationale (Charles Maurras) OneWorld22 21:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] REPONSE sur BONNIER de la CHAPELLE

I - On sait que Darlan était un collaborationniste avoué, et qu'il avait signé en 1941 les Protocoles de Paris prévoyant la livraison à l'Ennemi de bases en Syrie (ce qui a été fait immédiatement), à Bizerte et à Dakar, et prévoyant aussi une collaboration militaire avec les Allemands pour reprendre les colonies françaises libres. - On sait aussi qu'étant rentré en guerre, contraint et forcé, aux cotés des alliés, il maintenait en décembre 1942 le Régime de Vichy avec toutes ses lois d'exclusion, y compris le maintien des déportés de Vichy dans les camps du sud-algérien.

II - D'autre part, on sait que: 1°) Bonnier était un engagé du Corps Franc d'Afrique, fondé en fin novembre 1942 par des Français résistants qui ne voulaient pas combattre sous les ordres des officiers vichystes, qui venaient de tirer sur les alliés (et qui, forcés de reprendre la guerre aux cotés des alliés, prétendaient le faire "pour libérer le Maréchal") (sic). 2°) Bonnier a tiré à la courte paille, avec 3 compagnons d'armes qui étaient des résistants connus du 8 novembre 1942, pour désigner lequel d'entre eux tueraient Darlan, et que ces résistants l'ont même conduit en voiture au Palais d'Eté, pour qu'il exécute sa mission.

III - Par conséquent son acte était un acte de résistance, non seulement dans ses intentions, comme il l'a affirmé dans son premier interrogatoire, mais aussi dans les faits, puisque la mort de Darlan a permis la fusion entre Alger et Londres, fusion qui a entrainé le rétablissement de la démocratie en Afrique du nord.

IV - Les accusations de complot monarchiste ou gaulliste ont été inventées par les dirigeants vichystes d'Alger, pour réduire le geste de Bonnier à un crime de basse politique, et pour en rendre de Gaulle responsable.
En effet, la disparition de Darlan a profité avant tout à Giraud, et non au Comte de Paris, ni à de Gaulle. Giraud, en effet, aprés avoir refusé de gracier Bonnier, l'a fait exécuter à la hâte. Giraud a ensuite fait ouvrir une enquête, alors qu'il venait de faire tuer le principal témoin. Il a même fait arrêter les chefs de la résistance, quin'avaient rien à voir dans l'affaire, à l'instigation de son adjoint, le général Bergeret, ministre de Pétain.

V - Bonnier a été réhabilité le 21 décembre 1945, par un arrêt de la Chambre des Révisions de la Cour d'Appel d'Alger, en considération de l'accomplissement de son acte, dans l'intérêt de la libération de la France.

Philomax82.124.140.8 02:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) (de French Wiki.)

The page at Destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir says that several ships were damaged or destroyed

"...with over 2,000 French sailors killed."

This page says that there were "around 1,300 French naval dead". Is there a definitive number? Molinari 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some online sources write "more than 1,000" and others "around 1,300", anyway 2,000 seems wrong to me. Ericd 13:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody please copyedit this page. It looks like an extremely literal translation from French. There are far too many appositions and unwieldy long sentences. Rednaxela 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relations with fascism

Was he a fascist? He had a big connection with Vichy France, so naturally I would assume he was a loyal fascist, and much like Petain, a traitor to the French. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for fouling up my logon, as it may cause some confusion. I am Ranya and Ranya is me, now Caryn96 (hey, I lost my password and my logon....it happens).

I do not see how asserting that Admiral Darlan "had a big connection with Vichy France" advances the discussion on presenting the life and service of Admiral Darlan. Whatever we, as Americans, might like to think to the contrary, the legitimate government of the Third Republic asked for, and agreed to, and Armistice. For a serving officer, such a situation is fraught with choices, none of which are simple or easy. Was it de Gaulle who was acting illegally, when he refused to acknowledge that he was no longer a member of the French Government? By its very nature, an Armistice is an instrument of coersion, as no nation asks for an Armistice if it feels its prospects for recovery are good.

These are hard questions, and simplistic replies couched in vague language do not serve the discussion. What constitutes a "big connection"? How is it helpful to dismiss a man like Darlan, much less Petain, as "a loyal fascist", or to call him a "traitor to the French", merely by "naturally assuming"? Darlan was long a "hard" in the Cabinets of both Daladier and Reynaud. Darlan had ordered the Fleet to African waters in accordance with Reynaud's declared intention to fight on from Africa, and it is hardly surprising that Darlan would feel the ultimatum delivered by HM's Government was shocking and unreasonable---Oran and Dakar are a long way from Metropolitan France, and thus rather difficult for the Germans to "seize". Looking out from France, Darlan may not have seen how the assurance that France would never allow her Navy to be captured intact might compare with her pledged word not to make a separate peace---there were, after all, mitigating circumstances in regard of that event---the French believed they had asked for, and received, a realease by HM's Government from the obligation not to make a separate peace, and that **before** the hair-splitting over "Armistice" vs "Separate Peace".

I do not agree that a "big connection to Vichy" is a sufficient basis for letting the article remain as written. The word "traitor" is a strong word, one permitting of no mitigation. The circumstances of Admiral Darlan's actions do not admit of so stark a judgement in history. Caryn96 (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is poisoned with personal prejudice not supported by the historical records of France, Britain, or the United States, by many of the sources cited, or by other works scholarly or popular. In pursuit of its personal agenda, it permits glaring errors of fact---an example being the idea that it was General Mark Clark and the Resistance that forced Admiral Darlan to order a Cease Fire to end the fighting during Operation Torch. Certain works in the citation do, indeed, contain the inflammatory opinions expressed in this article, but they would not pass through even a cursory examination of the Historical Record or the less-biased sources.

There are so many mis-statements of events, personal opinion passed off as fact, and frankly defamatory comments in this article that I believe the article makes a negative contribution to the goals of Wikipedia.

Admiral François Darlan was a complex man, to be sure, and certainly as much an opportunist as most politicians of any country were then, or are now. But a page on his life is not the place to re-fight the egregious Battle *for* France among the French. It is possible to state what Darlan did without stating personal opinion as fact. It is possible to draw inferences as to *why* he did them from the many sources cited, without attributing to him, or to other Frenchmen, motives that are laden with personal resentment.

This vendetta weakens the work even when it veers towards fact---a "Flag" Officer is a term employed, in France as well as the United Kingdom and the United States (and most other nations as well) for *Naval* Officers; Army Officers of similar rank, such as Henri Gerard, are "General Officers", thus the use of "General" in their official titles.

Many French officers served the French State (L'État Français) after June 22nd 1940 out of a sense of loyalty to France, not because they were collaborators or Nazi sympathizers. To indulge in name-calling is certainly a personal perogative, and one every French citizen has a right to; but to do so in this forum only weakens it's hoped-for reputation.

This article must go, or be filed as an opinion piece. Ranya 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I totally agree with this last point. The person who writes the article seems to understand the France under the second world war in terms of good (resistance) and bad (vichy). Doing so is very prejudicial and you may have trouble understanding many events, e.g. why one of the first thing Germans did when they enter the Zone Libre was to arrest General Weygand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.219.25 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination

I know of several books and documentaries which state that Darlan was actually shot five times, not twice, and later died in hospital. Several of these also quote an associate of La Chapelle, who claims that the assassination was his idea, and that a group of them, all members of Henri d'Astier's resistance group, drew straws on who would do the deed, with La Chapelle obviously drawing the short straw. Unfortunately I don't really know Wiki rules on editting, since it seems that online sources are needed, and I have no idea if any of this information is even online. So if anyone could either make the changes for me, or tell me what to do, I'd appreciate it.

The only sources I can remember off the top of my head are the Allies in War documentary and book, since I only finished reading it yesterday, but I will try to find the other books. I doubt I can find the documentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.178.99 (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darlan could have served his country better then de Gaulle

Had Darlan chosen to lead the French fleet to anywhere and kept his word to Churchill he would have had the 4th most powerful navy at the time and could have drawn on the French gold reserves in the USA. Thus unlike de Gaulle who only had words and some troops from Dunkirk (most of whom went back to France and were jailed by the Germans) he would have been hailed the leader of the free french and had a very valuable asset at would have helped fight the nazis.

reference - "Memoirs of the Second World War" Abridged version (1959) page 328 W. S. Churchill

From a personal point of view Darlan represented many of the reasons France fell so easily and collaborated for so long with the nazis.

I find no issue with the current entry on Darlan.


Matt Milne
ex London
Los Angeles
USA

France did not fall "so easily". It fell quickly and surprisingly, but it fought hard, inflected casualties on the Germans, and British troops did not fare better than their French counterparts. Not to speak of the USA who did not fight at all, and who suffered similar collapse of their front when meeting a comparable configuration in 1994. Rama (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Interesting to compare and contrast "so easily" with "quickly and surprisingly". Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the difference?

Also could you please help me understand who the Americans were fighting in 1994 when their front collapsed?


Matt Milne
ex London
Los Angeles
USA