Talk:Battle of Dakar

message: Wikivisitor:
Look how old is this article and why nearly empty...?
Maybe Beacause it is a non Allied Victory result. 
Yes iam sure of it... if soo look at Battle of Cisterna or Raid over Scheinfurt, Hurtgen Forest, Operation Goodwood and many others.
Noone want to give a ____ about them.
:What a load of BS. The basic details are there. Some might argue that it's less well-known because the US weren't involved. I would argue that it was a side-show of political importance rather than military. Most of your examples were scarcely shining Alllied successes: Goodwood is described as a German victory, Hurtgen was a poorly run operation. If you (BTW please sign your contributions) want to expand it, go ahead. Just use facts and be open to argument. And don't assume non-existant conspiracies. Folks at 137 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hm......Obious... 

message: Thats the reason this article is neraly empty, only cited in french and some british books. It took me many time to find this article. Try to merge it to some campaign box or secction because the article is alone without any connection to the reader.
PS: You talk BS, Operation Goodwood was an allied strategic failure and a tactical german succes (For the wikipedia).Read the article itself to understand.
:I understood the original point to be that Dakar is inadequately written about (in Wiki?) because it was an Allied (Anglo-French) failure/ defeat. In answer I pointed out that several Allied (incl US) failures/ defeats have been documented in detail and I quoted Goodwood amongst others (your point doesn't rebut this). Other articles without US involvement are also very detailed (Barbarossa, Dunkirk, invasion of Greece). My suggested reason for the slimline reporting of Dakar (and Syria, and others) is that it was a sideshow, without lasting impact and hasn't fired much interest. (The slim reporting of the China campaigns is much worse.) So Wiki waits for someone with an interest to expand it, as with East Africa and others. C'mon, have a go! Don't just complain from the sideline! Register, get a name and join in. Folks at 137 23:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yes because there where no participation of U.S 

message: I have just edited in the most obvious damage to the Richelieu into the text.  At http://www.worldisround.com/articles/16107/photo169.html there is a good picture of a turret totally missing a main gun due to damage from Barham.  I do not know how to record the damage to Richelieu into the summary box at the top right - could someone please do that. I will research more  but I believe Richelieu was resting on the bottom in Dakar. 
I am not sure a "victory" can be assigned to a isolated force remaining isolated and having its ability to conduct offensive actions totally written down and its ability to defend itself, seriously weakened.  
Is their scope for negative outcome for both parties because that it most surely was.    The British & Free French had no need to go back there because there was no effective threat left.  I think that even sounds more like a victory for the Allies, even if the Free French were not welcomed in by their brothers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotoph88 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs improving  

message: I’m sure that the Westernland was Dutch and not Belgian.  In Under Two Flags – The Life of Major General Sir Edward Spears, Max Egremont is specific on this point (page 205).  Google [] refers to a Belgian vessel of the same name, but she was built in 1883 and scrapped in 1912.  Google [] refers to the SS Pennland, but this is also a much older ship which was in service in 1888. Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS Westernland 

message: For those of you not aware, there's an important discussion mentioning this article at Template talk:WW2InfoBox, where input is welcome. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:WW2InfoBox]] 

message: The Battle of Dakar has heavily affected the Hispano-German relations. As his prize for entering the war on the Axis’ side, Franco demanded part of the French Africa. Hitler was not enthusiastic, but at least he seemed ready to consider such a deal. The defence offered by the Vichy forces to the British/de Gaulle assault convinced Hitler that Petain is a trustworthy ally. After the battle the Nazis have concluded that alienating the Vichy France by ceding French Morocco to Spain is not the price worth paying for dragging Franco into the War.
It might be argued that the Battle of Dakar has sealed the fate of Spain. Hitler decided that the Vichy France is more valuable than a Francoist Spain and  the Nazi pressure on Madrid was reduced. As a result, Spain remained neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.145.56 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Dakar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224100000/http://www.naval-history.net:80/WW2194007-2.htm to http://www.naval-history.net/WW2194007-2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Dakar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223143804/http://users.swing.be/navbat/bataille/68.html to http://users.swing.be/navbat/bataille/68.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naval-history.net/WW2194007-2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why for the hell an civilian ship count for military loss ?
Did the ship was converted into a auxiliary cruiser ? Crazy defender 2 (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dannish freighter