Hey! The Internet is on Computers these days!

[Simon Fox]

Joel,

Your account of the Syrian campaign is at odds with what I have read of it. Certainly the 5th Indian Brigade bore a considerable burden IIRC. The coastal route was undoubtedly the best defended and the most defensible terrain. I will have to read up a bit more to discuss your post in detail, I will also provide a bibliography. Undoubtedly some components of the 1st FF may have fought well but the impressions I have from my reading are that their allies soon learned not to rely on them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So it seems that the Free French "bloody pathetic" performance in this campaign was matched and beaten by others, who had interest to cover their tracks...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A laughable concept. It hardly seems likely that private soldiers, NCOs and junior officers would express their opinions for such Machiavellian reasons. Especially since they were justifiably proud of their own performance.

Here's a better explanation for "bloody pathetic": an understandable reluctance to fight ones own countrymen, many colonial troops of limited quality, poor leadership, inadequate training, quality of the opposition vis a vis themselves.... etc etc

IMO the casualty level is far to non-specific to be a proper indicator of performance.

[Major Tom]

From my understanding, the Australians faced the larger units, 2 of the Vichy Divisions, but, these weren't the best units. There were units from the Foreign Legion on both sides of the conflict, and these took it really hard on eachother. And yes, casualties do aid in the determination of unit quality. The fact that the Free French suffered so many casualties (KIA and Wounded, not POW and AWOL) and remained such a cohesive force requires credit being sent to them. The 7th Australian Division was a great unit, but, was fairly green at the time.

French Colonial troops fought better than history has recorded. Especially after 1942, when the majority of troops in the French Army were from North Africa, they were considered an elite shock force. They had the same reputation in WWI.

[Joel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

The coastal route was undoubtedly the best defended and the most defensible terrain.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen the terrain in northern Jordan and the hills around Damascus, and it does look like a good defensive terrain also. Vichyst commander General Dentz had roughly evenly separated his infantry forces between Lebanon and Syria, but most of his mobile reserve force (about 50 tanks and 50 armored cars from 6th and 7th RCA, and several cavalry and motorized squadrons) were south of Damascus.

Please keep in mind also that the 7th Australian division benefited from the support of the Royal Navy (3 cruisers and 6 destroyers) both in gunnery and landings of commandos behind Vichy French lines.

So your "undoubtedly" may be a bit too much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

A laughable concept. It hardly seems likely that private soldiers, NCOs and junior officers would express their opinions for such Machiavellian reasons. Especially since they were justifiably proud of their own performance.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm curious to know how private soldiers, NCOs and junior officers from 7th division could forge an informed opinion about allies fighting some 100 kms away from them, it looks more like rumor at work. By the way, Beyrut was never taken by force, it was occupied after the surrender of Vichist forces who were flanked by forces coming from Damascus. Basically, the 7th division never reached its objective. The breakthrough was made in the Franco-Indian sector, by Indian and Free French forces with the help of one Australian battalion. Follow-on forces (including one Australian Brigade) could then exploit this breakthrough and end the campaign.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Here's a better explanation for "bloody pathetic": an understandable reluctance to fight ones own countrymen, many colonial troops of limited quality, poor leadership, inadequate training, quality of the opposition vis a vis themselves.... etc etc

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So far you just throw imaginary explanations for something that is not proven ("bloody pathetic performance"). Please prove your facts first, then explain why they happened.

But for the sake of debate, let's see your explanations one at a time:

- Reluctance to fight ones own countrymen: before the campaign, every Free French could resign from taking part in it. Very few used this right, mainly in the 13th DBLE (Foreign Legion) where Legionnaires refused to fight their fellows from 6th REI (noticeably the CO colonel Monclar and one Company commander chose not to fight against other Frenchmen). Another example is a soldier from 1st BIM who had his brother on the other side. All this was solved before the start of the campaign. It did affect the Foreign Legion battalion whose engagement was delayed (some days).

It didn't affect at all the colonial troops who couldn't care less who they fought against, and other French units were rather pissed off by the stubborness of the Vichysts.

It can be noted also that this reluctance was a problem also for the Vichysts, since several hundred men escaped from Syria before the campaign to join the Free French.

- Many colonial troops of limited quality: "colonial troops are worth what their leaders are worth", old Army saying that suffers few exceptions. I know of one example of a company of Senegaleses (7th/BM2) fleeing combat after all the officers and NCOs had been incapacited. Maybe this is the source for the rumor you report.

The other side also had many colonial troops (Senegalese, Morrocans, and Tunisians).

- Poor leadership: Where do you get that from? Interestingly, a lot of these leaders were the same who later proved their quality at Bir Hacheim and in the subsequent campaigns the Free French took part in. It must be noted also that all these leaders *volunteered* to serve in the Free French forces and were highly motivated.

- Inadequate training: Once again, where do you get that from, can you elaborate?

- Quality of the opposition vis a vis themselves: IMHO the main quality of the opposition was to have the advantage in numbers, and to have 8 times more tanks and armored cars than the Allied side. Their resolution to fight was courageous but stupid.

- etc etc: OK I concede this one

I'm curious to hear more details from you, especially about where this bad reputation came from.

From the facts I've read, I see nothing to justify the opinion you report.

Sorry for the long post...

Joël

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

French Colonial troops fought better than history has recorded. Especially after 1942, when the majority of troops in the French Army were from North Africa, they were considered an elite shock force. They had the same reputation in WWI.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More than that, according to John Keegan they fought better than most native French troops. For instance, Vietnamese fortress troops on the Maginot Line performed excellently, and only abandoned their positions after the general surrender.

Ethan

------------------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[SS_PanzerLeader]

HEy Major ya gonna ever finish our game we got one turn left

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Major Tom]

Sorry Panzerleader, and all other PBEMers. I haven't abandoned you! I am just dealing with a crappy computer. My brother (The computer wiz) was supposed to come over last Wednesday to fix my computer, but, he is a lazy bastard. It takes me forever to navigate around this BBS, let alone e-mail a 200 kb file. Hopefully the dumbass will get his priorities in gear and fix my damn computer, before I rat out on his ill expendatures of cash money to my parents.

[Simon Fox]

Joel,

You seem to have wasted your time with your detailed discussion of my "imaginary explanations" since you have misconstrued their rationale which was to outline in general possible reasons for such a performance in contrast to your own rather bizarre suggestion.

Rumour may be a better rationale than your first however you contradict yourself by saying the 5th Indian Brigade (inc. the FF) group was supported by an Aust battallion, in fact several Aust units (including part of the 2/11 Bn) operated in support so they were not "100km" away. Even so I am biding my time on the rest of your post, don't want to go off 'half-cocked'

------------------

"Heaven sent and hell bent

Over the mountain tops we go

Just like all the other GI Joes

EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

[Simon Fox]

Sources on the Syrian campaign are hard to gather, still my massive treatise is gathering pace, but its will not be posted until after Easter. As I may include graphics I may have to put it on the Web and post a link. Anyway remember that at this time (1941) the distinction between Syria and Lebanon as distinct entities was not generally made and should not be used ti delineate the deployment of forces. I will post some statistics which might throw light on some earlier posts.

The allied forces employed in Syria until the end of June 1941 totalled:

18,000 Australian

9,000 British

5,000 Free French

2,000 Indian

The Vichy French forces comprised about 35,000 regular troops with a number of other lesser quality units probably about 10,000 of "doubtful value".

The casualties for the campaign:

British&Indian 1,800 (inc. approx 1,200 POW)

Australian 1,600 (killed and wounded only)

Free French 1,300 (inc. approx. 1,100 POW)

Vichy French 3-3,500 killed, wounded & missing. (figures vary slightly)

Source "Greece, Crete, and Syria" Gavin Long

Therefore the 25% figure cited previously for FF casualties was essentially correct but the K&W figure was 200 (4%)