Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 November 30

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 30

Some questions on WWII

Hello all! I was just curious about how many ships the Nazis had in the a three week period after the fall of France that could support troops. I had heard somewhere that that three week period was when the Royal Navy was not able to put forth enough ships to stop an invasion, and I was curious to see how many troops could arrive in England using what ships they had. Or if all of that was... counterfactual.

Thanks!

Aqua817 (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I rather doubt the Royal Navy was unable to defend against an invasion at any point. (There's also the little matter of the Royal Air Force.) AFAIK, the fighting in France didn't cause anything even remotely approaching crippling naval losses. If they had, they certainly wouldn't have been made up in three weeks. Also, you can't just throw together an amphibious assault on the spur of the moment. The Germans didn't have much, if anything, in the way of naval assault transports. They had to spend a lot longer(?) than a few weeks just gathering together inadequate civilian barges from all over the place in preparation for Operation Sea Lion. That doesn't even address the logistics problems. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Operation Sea Lion states:

Even if the Royal Navy had been neutralised, the chances of a successful amphibious invasion across the Channel were remote. The Germans had no specialised landing craft, and would have had to rely primarily on river barges to lift troops and supplies for the landing. This would have limited the quantity of artillery and tanks that could be transported and restricted operations to times of good weather. The barges were not designed for use in open sea and, even in almost perfect conditions, they would have been slow and vulnerable to attack. There were also not enough barges to transport the first invasion wave nor the following waves with their equipment.

Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ROYAL NAVY SHIPS, JUNE 1940: NORE COMMAND shows that the RN had at Immingham three Town-class cruisers, among the most modern and powerful ships of their type afloat, together with two anti-aircraft cruisers and two older light cruisers, plus a great mass of minesweepers. At Harwich there were 4 destroyer flotillas with about 30 destroyers in all, although a number of those were undergoing repairs after the various evacuations. Also dozens of sloops, anti-submarine trawlers, minesweepers and patrol boats. At Chatham and Sheerness there was another modern cruiser and an older light cruiser with more destroyers and smaller vessels. At Dover there was another destroyer flotilla. At PORTSMOUTH COMMAND there was a battleship, two destroyer flotillas and a submarine flotilla. At WESTERN APPROACHES COMMAND in Devonport there was an aircraft carrier, more cruisers and three destroyer flotillas. ALL of these forces were within 12 hours' steaming of the invasion beaches and the Kriegsmarine had no battleships or cruisers in commission after the Norway Campaign and precious few destroyers. And in case you think that the RN could be stopped by air power alone, consider that in the Dunkirk Evacuation, they had operated about 50 destroyers over almost a week under constant air attack, for the loss of six of them. Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

♫ "Three monkeys up a stick..."

I suspect that you meant if France's fleet was joined with the German fleet they would have had enough. In theory this may be true, however, the French fleet never fell into German hands, for two reasons. The first is that, despite the surrender, captains aboard French ships were not about to hand them over to their enemy. They would scuttle them before that happened. The second was that the British Navy would sink them before they allowed them to be turned over. Unfortunately, there was an incident where the French didn't scuttle them quickly enough and the British were afraid the Germans might get some ships, so they were, in fact, sunk by the British Navy (Attack on Mers-el-Kébir). There was a later incident where German forces tried to board a French ship in port, and it was scuttled. StuRat (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• On the "French fleet never fell into German hands", that's not strictly true. German ally Vichy France did have a fleet which did engage with Allied forces during WWII. One I can remember off hand was the engagement between the USS Massachusetts (BB-59) and the French battleship Jean Bart (1940) during Operation Torch. Much of operation torch involved naval engagements between allied ships and Vichy French ships. --Jayron32 13:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• OK, let me alter my statement: "The small portion of the French fleet which fell into German hands was insufficient to give Germany enough ships, along with it's own, to achieve naval superiority over Allied naval forces". StuRat (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The French did not scuttle their own ships, quickly or not, at Mers-el-Kébir; in fact, the battle took place, inter alia because they refused to do so. The British Navy is commonly known as the Royal Navy. There was a - largely - successful scuttling of the French fleet later in the war at Toulon (Scuttling of the French fleet in Toulon). There was never any chance during the war that a combined German and French fleet would 'achieve naval superiority over Allied naval forces'. 5.80.70.207 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say they scuttled the ships then, I said it was "a later incident", for which you've now provided the link. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The French Navy in Operation Torch weren't acting as allies of Germany, they were defending French territory under the orders of the French government, which was neutral by treaty. The Allies were hoping that the French colonial authorities would defy their government and not oppose the landing, but the necessary political manoeuvrings were badly botched. Eventually, Admiral Darlan was persuaded to go over to the Allied cause and espouse the Free French movement rather than the Vichy regime, which to be fair, was actually the constitutional government of France at that time. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, and the current constitutional government of China actually resides in Taipei. In circumstances such as those legalistic constitutional issues become somewhat moot. If you were a French general at the time I'm sure you would have based your decision as to who to go with on who you thought was going to win, not on complicated legal arguments. At most, if you didn't feel much of a gambler, you might have gone with Vichy by default but only because you might have thought it was the safest way to cover your ass whatever the hell happened afterwards, as in case the Allies won you could always explain that blah blah blah (your career though was likely to be over) whereas if the Germans won and you had gone with de Gaulle you'd be in real trouble. The legal discussion though is great fun to watch and still animates French hearts as this colorful discussion on the French WP can testify. Contact Basemetal here 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Which French do you mean? Do you mean Vichy France or do you mean Free France? There were two French states at the time, the collaborationist government of Vichy France aligned with the Axis, and the DeGaulle-led Free France, aligned with the Allies. If you're saying that Vichy France was NOT aligned with the Axis powers, you're going to have to rewrite, like, every history book ever written. --Jayron32 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Alan will have a much more comprehensive answer, but, no, Vichy France was not one of the Axis powers - it was not a signatory to the Tripartite Pact, it was officially neutral under the Armistice of 22 June 1940, and, although German troops were allowed freedom of action throughout mainland France, Pétain never led any French troops against the Allies. Tevildo (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm sure all of the Vichy French troops who fought in the Battle of Dakar defending against the Allied invasion thereof would have been quite surprised to learn that. Pétain never personally led any French troops into battle, but no head of state did for quite a long time before WWII. --Jayron32 21:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Defending" being the operative word. Vichy troops also defended their territory against Axis forces during the Japanese invasion of French Indochina. Does this make them aligned with the Allies? Tevildo (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Vichy forces were in a rather difficult position, since they were bound by oath to support the Republic and its properly appointed government, which had lawfully entered into an armistice agreement with Germany. The worst excesses of the Nazis were not yet manifest, the chances of a British victory looked extremely remote and there seemed every possibility that with adherence to the terms of the armistice, the Occupied Zone could eventually be returned to French control. I have every admiration for French people like René Mouchotte who escaped to join the Free French forces, but they knew that they were committing an act of desertion and mutiny. I wonder how each of us would have acted in the same circumstances without the benefit of hindsight. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Boston Fish Pier, Boston Fish Wharf

I notice that Commons has three images (really three variants of one image) in Commons:Category:Fish Wharf, Boston, and has hundreds of (mostly poorly categorized) images whose descriptions make mention of "Boston Fish Pier". Before I make a new category for the latter: does someone who knows Boston history know, are the "Fish Wharf" and the "Fish Pier" distinct structures, or is the former just an old name for the latter? Or are the three that refer to the "Fish Wharf" just badly named, possibly coming from a wrong usage in a common source? - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a pier labeled the Boston Fish Pier. A wharf is typically a collection of piers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a good question, but hard to answer. The key question is, when were those three pictures (that picture) taken? The BPL doesn't narrow it down to more than "1850 - 1929 (approximate)"[1].

The current Boston Fish Pier, the one that everyone knows (and that I suspect all the rest of those uncategorized pictures are of) was built in 1914[2]. And it appears to have always been called the "Boston Fish Pier".

That old picture looks really old; it could easily be 19th century, meaning it's merely of some old wharf in Boston where fish were being unloaded, not the central Fish Pier built in 1914.

On the other hand, we can't read too much into the "Pier" vs. "Wharf" distinction: we're calling the old picture "Wharf" only because that's what one person originally penciled on the back of one copy of it (and has been dutifully propagated by librarians ever since).

It would be good if we could identify the building in the background of the old image, but there's really no detail. The only distinguishing feature is the cupola, which I don't recognize, which the current fish pier buildings don't have, and which this 1927 engraving of the fish pier doesn't show, either. (But the building and cupola in the picture could also be on an unrelated neighboring pier.)

I suspect we'll never know. Unless someone can positively put a date of 1914 or newer on the old picture(s), I think I would be inclined to create a new Commons:Category:Fish Pier, Boston containing everything that definitely pertains to the current fish pier, and then add the older Commons:Category:Fish Wharf, Boston to the Pier category with a note that the connection is tenuous. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Metropolitan France

The article Metropolitan France claims, without citation, that French Algeria was part of Metropolitan France prior to independence. However the latter article claims that French Algeria had a status comparable to some regions that are now Overseas regions. Could someone provide a clear reference for this? Hack (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See Category:Former departments of France in Algeria, and other articles about French Algeria. Part of French Algeria (the Mediterranean Coast) was organized into Departments with equal representation in the French legislature as any other French Department. The interior part of Algeria was not organized into departments. See also fr:Département français d'Algérie, the article at French Wikipedia, which covers some of this as well. --Jayron32 13:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure about a "clear" reference, as the whole thing seems to be fiendishly complicated, as although there was early representation in the French National Assembly for some Algerian departments, there was none for others and regulations enfranchised Jews but not Muslims and so forth. The best I could find is: "The Constitution of 1958 recognized that all people born in Algeria were French citizens (Article 75) and announced the end of all territorial distinctions - either in law or regulations - between the now fifteen departments of Algeria and the Sahara and the ninety metropolitan departments." Lorcin, Patricia M E, Algeria & France, 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, Syracuse University Press, ISBN 0-8156-3074-3 (p. 151). Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To rephrase my original question, was French Algeria part of Metropolitan France or did it have an equivalent status? Hack (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That depends on how you define Metropolitan France. Under many definitions, Metropolitan France is JUST L'hexagone, that is Mainland European France (and often Corsica). However, under the law, there was no distinction, legally, between Algeria and L'hexagone, so those territories were fully equivalent to any part of it. Metropolitan France is a somewhat imprecise term. Metropolitan France is most commonly used in the way that the "Contiguous United States" is used; that is it excludes Alaska and Hawaii, even though legally, there is no distinction between those to states and the "Lower 48". Think of Algeria during that time period as being like Alaska and Hawaii. It was not European France, but during the third and fourth Republics, there was no legal distinction between European and African departments. --Jayron32 16:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Last formal declaration of war

On August 8, 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Has any nation formally declared war after August 8, 1945?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WP article Declaration of war might be worth looking at. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That article has a section Declared wars since 1945 with a column saying declaration of war or existence of a state of war but looking at the various articles, there certainly was the commencement of hostilities in each instance, but so far I have been unable to find a formal declaration of war. The United States formally declared war on Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in June, 1942, and that is last time by the U.S., with less formal authorizations since then.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The only instance I can find is the Arab countries declaring war on Israel at the start of the Six Day War (1967) (see [3] and [4]) - Lindert (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Specialist help may be available at WikiProject_Military history -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities gives ultimatums equal standing with declarations of war. George W. Bush issued an ultimatum regarding Iraq in 2003. Gabbe (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Squirrels have recently declared war on Christmas lights. Whether squirrels are a nation, or whether this is a continuation of the long-running War on Christmas is anyone's guess. In darker news, Lindsey Graham has said he'll declare old-school war on ISIS, if elected. Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes are down for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, though that article isn't clear about why. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought Saddam Hussein had declared war on the United States in the First Gulf War. But I haven't been able to find a confirming reference. --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sudan formally declared war on South Sudan on 11 April 2012, during the Heglig Crisis; this is the last declaration of war between two internationally-recognised states. (If you accept unrecognised states, some Middle Eastern countries have formally declared themselves in a state of war with ISIS.) ‑ Iridescent 23:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The UN Charter has pretty much made it illegal as a matter of international law for UN member states to declare war on each other, so the only (valid) declarations of war you will get would be one involving a non-UN member state. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)