Talk:François Darlan

message: un français signale une erreur de nom!
le prénom de Darlan est françois ( et non jean-françois)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.160.198 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (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. OneWorld22 21:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments in 2004 

message: 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.219.25 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions in 2007 

message: 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. OneWorld22 21:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''(translation of above)'' 

message: ===REPONSE sur BONNIER de la CHAPELLE===
I - On sait que Darlan était un collaborateur d'Etat et qu'il avait signé en 1941 les Protocoles de Paris prévoyant l'utilisation par les Allemands de bases aériennes en Syrie,du port de Bizerte pour ravitailler Rommel et d'installations pour sous-marins à Dakar.
-Ces accords ne furent jamais appliqués d'une part suite à l'opposition du général WEYGAND,alors Haut Commissaire en Afrique du Nord Française(AFN),d'autre part faute que les contreparties politiques  allemandes  se concrétisent.
- On sait aussi qu'étant rentré en guerre,  il maintenait en décembre 1942 le Régime de Vichy avec toutes ses lois ainsi que 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.<Br/> 
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)
replies: text: "...with over 2,000 French sailors killed."
This page says that there were "around 1,300 French naval dead".  Is there a definitive number? DefiMolinari 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments in 2005

message: I - On sait que Darlan était un collaborateur d'Etat et qu'il avait signé en 1941 les Protocoles de Paris prévoyant l'utilisation par les Allemands de bases aériennes en Syrie,du port de Bizerte pour ravitailler Rommel et d'installations pour sous-marins à Dakar.
-Ces accords ne furent jamais appliqués d'une part suite à l'opposition du général WEYGAND,alors Haut Commissaire en Afrique du Nord Française(AFN),d'autre part faute que les contreparties politiques  allemandes  se concrétisent.
- On sait aussi qu'étant rentré en guerre,  il maintenait en décembre 1942 le Régime de Vichy avec toutes ses lois ainsi que 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.<Br/> 
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)
replies: text: "...with over 2,000 French sailors killed."
This page says that there were "around 1,300 French naval dead".  Is there a definitive number? DefiMolinari 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: REPONSE sur BONNIER de la CHAPELLE

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments in 2006

message: 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)
replies: text: You assume that the Vichy government was fascist. It was not. It was the government of unoccupied France, and no more. That it had authoritarian tendencies was no surprise; so do most governments in wartime.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with fascism 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments in 2007

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assassination 

message: "There are serious doubts on the fact that de La Chapelle acted alone, it seems that a SOE involvement was likely, as British historian David Raynolds writes in his book: "In Command of History" noting that Sir Stewart Menzies, the chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) who rarely left London during the war, was in Algiers in those days."
OK to me that statement is biased and uses weasel words. "it seems that" if you can quote an author ( who has no proof ) it adds up to nothing more than gossip and original research. British involvement is "not proved" because : 1. the fact that a senior agent was present ( if true ) proves nothing he could have been there for the negotiations, 2. wartime dirty operations were mostly carried out by SOE, not MI6 and 3. he was useful to the Allies alive, but possibly a threat to De Gaulle. if anything he could have been murdered by de Gaulle who was angry at his power and controlled the resistance. 91.128.113.19 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  assassination 2 

message: A quick note about sources: there is no bar to citing actual published sources in a wikipedia article---in fact, the best ones have many sources, not all of which agree. Citations are especially important for viewpoints which are poorly supported by the historical record, or which are exceptionally congenial to conspiracy theories.
Almost without exception, politicians and military officers write memoir, not history; while an argument may be made that even historians often fail to write history, the historian at least must face peer review and provide sources, even if those sources have been "interpreted" in an unorthodox manner. Winston Churchill was a great man, perhaps the greatest man of the 20th Century, certainly one of the greatest Britons of any century. He was a brilliant and interesting writer, but he was first and foremost a politician, and his works on the Great War and the Second World War are colored by his role in both conflicts, and the natural tendency of great men to wish they could recast or pass over their own all-too-human mistakes.
Using Churchill's works as a source for perspective on Admiral Darlan's life is certainly appropriate. Drawing an inference from them which is insupportable in respect of the writings themselves, much less wholly without substantiation in any extent historical documentation, is another thing entirely.
I know of no promise given to the Prime Minister of Great Britain by the Admiral Darlan as the Minister of Marine in the last governments of the Third Republic, other than the assurance that, in the event the Germans attempted to take over the French Fleet by force or coercion, the fleet would be scuttled. Admiral Darlan's assurance was kept in November of 1942, when the Fleet at Toulon was scuttled upon the German activation of Anton.
Admiral Darlan was not the Premier of France, nor its President, at the time of the Battle Of France in May and June 1940, nor at the time the Armistice was effected in July 1940. Admiral Darlan was therefore in no position to make "promises" to the PM of HM's government regarding the conduct of the government of the Third Republic. The records of cabinet meetings between May and July of that terrible year make clear that Admiral Darlan, as Navy Minister, was prepared to fight outside of Metropolitan France. Only at the end, when Reynaud was wavering and the softs were positioning Pétain to form a new government, did Darlan begin hedging.
Nothing was "wrong" with France that had not been "wrong" twenty-five years before. Nor was Great Britain any more committed to the war than was France, until Winston Churchill became PM in May, even as the German armored columns were slashing into France. The act which solidified Churchill's stance, which gained his government the irreplaceable support of the USA, also turned many Frenchmen against Great Britain; the act against French Fleet units which ultimately led to Mers-el-Kebir. That event is signal in any understanding of Admiral Darlan, and to brush over it with a few words about "promises" while tossing about "Nazi", "Collaborator", and "Fascist" in the hope of silencing actual discussion does no good for any viewpoint on Admiral Darlan.
Worse, bringing other wars and combat actions into the discussion diverts attention from a critical review of Admiral Darlan's life, career, and actions. American, French, and British interventions in situations where no compelling national interest is clearly at stake is in no way comparable to the struggle between France and Germany in the first half of the twentieth century. Let us remain focused on the facts and actions of Admiral Darlan's life.
Caryn96 (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can gather, César Campinchi was Minister of Marine in the Daladier and Reynaud governments. john k (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, Memoir, and Citing One's Sources 

message: article says when Paris fell, Darlan stayed loyal to the premier Petain and was rewarded by keeping post as minister.  List of posts held shows Darlan becoming minister on June 16 ie day the Reynaud ministry fell and some time after Paris fell, but above post talks about Darlan as Navy Minister in the Reynaud government.  Something doesn't quite tie up there (and 'stayed loyal' might seem a bit POV n'est ce pas ?).  (Martin Gilbert's Churchill biography has Darlan making promises as an officer & a gentleman, not as a minister & a politician, with half the problem being that when he became a minister it was felt to make his assurances less reliable).Rjccumbria (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can gather, César Campinchi was Minister of Marine in the Daladier and Reynaud governments. john k (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did he become a minister ?

message: Is it correct to call the Vichy government pro-Nazi? Was it any more pro-Nazi than the government of occupied Denmark, for instance?Royalcourtier (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase actually used is 'pro-German', not 'pro-Nazi' (there is a difference).  Doubtless "Vichy" contained (or at least was served by) many inherently decent people who had thought in 1940 that their duty was to France, not to the cause for which France had gone to war, but that doesn't justify getting too revisionist about the regime. Prominent members of Vichy , such as Laval were fascistic and pro-German and willingly collaborationist so yes, Vichy was more pro-Nazi, more pro-German, than the Danish government.Rjccumbria (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vichy Pro Nazi? 

message: There is a contradiction between writing that "It was said that "no tears were shed" by the British over his death", and the suggestion that Churchill was aggrieved by his death. Churchill's views are not likely to have been unique to him.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that there is a significant difference between 'being aggrieved by' somebody's death and 'grieving over' it, or at least enough of one for there to be no contradiction; the circumstances of his death may be objected to without implying that the fact that he is dead is to be regretted. Rjccumbria (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No tears over death 

message: note that "resistance" here means Vichy military fighting back when Allied forces landed in Algeria, and the there is mention of  unconnected  anti-Vichy combatants, presumably Algerian. That group should be named and if possible the wording should be changed here to "defensive fire" or any other wording but  "resistance". Elinruby (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darlan deal