Talk:Operation Torch

message: Algiers section really needs edited. It doesn't look right, it doesn't read right. There's too much uninterrupted text and the english isn't exactly perfect. --Gantlord 23:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are way too many galicisms.  I am eliminating the most obvious ones — bad phrasing, excess of commas, lack of capitalisation etc — as well as letting the text flow by eliminating forced brakes or substituting paragraphs for them.
That this was translated from French explains a lot. There are some things very hard to understand. Do the three figures for troops refer to the three landings? Are the ship figures the total? Why is so little written about the Oran landings? Good target for some more research. DJ Clayworth 20:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation from French 

message: Dear Colleagues, Gantlord and Clayworth,
Concerning the galicisms of the Algiers French coup of 1942 paragraph, I am plainly guilty, and should be grateful to the user kind enough to correct my style. I hesitated before to include my complements to that article, but I did it because I estimated in an Encyclopedia, the true was more important than the style. But of course, the style too is very important, and it is why I wrote in the beginning my “Philomax 2” user page: “As a Sorbonne professor, I have a correct competence in History, Politics, and French Public Law... but, unhappily, not in English language. So, I hope some other W. users will not hesitate to ameliorate the style of my texts”.
Philomax 2Philomax 2 5 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)
I've been unable to substantiate what is written about the French coup of 8th November. Other sources simply say that there was an attempted otherthrow of the local government which was put down. In particular I am unable to find any reference that backs up the claim that an entire Army Corps (tens of thousands of soldiers) were neutralised by 400 resistance fighters. Here is the text I removed.
====French Insurgency====
That putsch was one of the most beautiful feats of arms of French resistance, by its circumstances and especially by its effects.  It indeed allowed the success of Torch operation, i.e.  Allied landing in the whole North Africa, whose success, beside the allied victories of El-Alamein and Stalingrad constituted the turning of the war: 
Pursuant to secretly made agreements in Cherchell on 23 October 1942, between Algiers resistance and the combined command, 400 badly armed French civil resistants, the 2/3 of them being jewishes, neutralized, alone, the coastal artillery of Cherchell and the vichyist XIXème army corps of Algiers during about fifteen hours.  To get that result their groups, under the command of José Aboulker (22 years), Henri d'Astier de La Vigerie, and colonel Jousse,  had occupied, during the night from the 7 to 8 November, the majority of the strategic points (General Government, Prefecture, Staff headquarters, barracks, etc.) and arrested most of the vichyist military and civil rulers.  One of their groups, composed with some eldest pupils of the Ben-Aknoun College, and directed by the young non commissioned officer (aspirant) Pauphilet, had succeeded in arresting  General Juin, Chief commandant in North Africa, as well as the collaborationist admiral Darlan, suddenly present in Algiers that night.
Towards 1 hour after midnight the consul Murphy  had gone to the villa des Oliviers to give a message of the president  Roosevelt  with the General Juin, Head commander of French Africa army.  The message of Roosevelt required of the army of Africa to receive the United States forces as friends and to join them, so as to release France from German domination.  But general Juin and later on admiral Darlan refused to receive peacefully American forces.
At the same time, in Sidi-Ferruch, Colonel Baril, one of the rare resistants among the professional officers, had succeeded in occupying the fort with one of its companies, and in neutralizing its artillery batteries, so that the landing allied forces were going to be able to take foot on Sidi-Ferruch beach without any loss.  The other landing  points were the Pointe Pescade, close by Algiers, and the Cape Matifou beaches, on the eastern side of the city. 
Unfortunately, many soldiers of American general Ryder lost their lifes before arriving on shore, as the sea was agitated and the night very black: the pilots of the landing-crafts — which were going to prove reliable later on in Normandy — had not practically get any drive training, for lack of time.  Many landing-crafts charged with heavily equipped soldiers knocked the hulls of the ships, or were badly moored on the landing beaches and then rejected by the sea, on those which followed them.  Also a number of them were turned and run over by the sea with their occupants.  As a result, the surviving soldiers landed in a more reduced number than expected, while the landing-crafts of material were thrown on other beaches than the soldiers charged to use them.
Under these conditions General Ryder, who during hours had not any vehicle, did not dare, despite the requests of the resistance messengers, to walk immediately on Algiers.  And thereafter, when he got under way, he was limited, jointly with its forces landed in the east of the city, to encircle the town by the heights without penetrating there.  Actually, disabled by its losses at sea, he did not manage to admit that a few hundreds of civil volunteers had really been able to seize a city defended by an army corps. 
Around 3 hours A.M., detonations resounded in the port, where two American destroyers had succeeded in being introduced, and in landing on one of the piers a 300 rangers detachment directed by colonel Swenson.  Their goal was to seize the port, to maintain it intact, so that it could immediately be used to land the allied reinforcements.  The artillery of admiralty, by cannonading the allied vessels, awoke anybody in Algiers then.  The seaboard gendarmes of Darlan, after having killed a dozen American soldiers, did not manage to overcome the well armed commandos.  Their attack of the port was only later neutralized by vichyist forces, with the assistance of the armoured tanks of the 5ème Chasseurs.
Later in the morning, Juin and Darlan have been liberated by the mobile guards, and Darlan sent a cable to Vichy, to ask for a bombing by German Luftwaffe of the allied transport vessels in front of Algiers.
Further in the day, Vichy forces spent all the day to besiege the resistant groups one after the other, instead of attack the landing forces on the beaches.  Consequently Ryder, after having encircled Algiers, began to penetrate in the town around 5 o’Clock PM, and allied mortars sent some projectiles on vichyist command in Fort-L’Empereur.
Then Juin and Darlan, overestimating allied forces, decided to surrender, but only for Algiers.
Thus, it was thanks to French resistants, which prevented the vichyist Algiers garrison from being mobilized, that the allied forces could land without meeting resistance, encircle Algiers and obtain the surrendering from that key port the very day. 
DJ Clayworth 02:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer about galicisms

message: That putsch was one of the most beautiful feats of arms of French resistance, by its circumstances and especially by its effects.  It indeed allowed the success of Torch operation, i.e.  Allied landing in the whole North Africa, whose success, beside the allied victories of El-Alamein and Stalingrad constituted the turning of the war: 
Pursuant to secretly made agreements in Cherchell on 23 October 1942, between Algiers resistance and the combined command, 400 badly armed French civil resistants, the 2/3 of them being jewishes, neutralized, alone, the coastal artillery of Cherchell and the vichyist XIXème army corps of Algiers during about fifteen hours.  To get that result their groups, under the command of José Aboulker (22 years), Henri d'Astier de La Vigerie, and colonel Jousse,  had occupied, during the night from the 7 to 8 November, the majority of the strategic points (General Government, Prefecture, Staff headquarters, barracks, etc.) and arrested most of the vichyist military and civil rulers.  One of their groups, composed with some eldest pupils of the Ben-Aknoun College, and directed by the young non commissioned officer (aspirant) Pauphilet, had succeeded in arresting  General Juin, Chief commandant in North Africa, as well as the collaborationist admiral Darlan, suddenly present in Algiers that night.
Towards 1 hour after midnight the consul Murphy  had gone to the villa des Oliviers to give a message of the president  Roosevelt  with the General Juin, Head commander of French Africa army.  The message of Roosevelt required of the army of Africa to receive the United States forces as friends and to join them, so as to release France from German domination.  But general Juin and later on admiral Darlan refused to receive peacefully American forces.
At the same time, in Sidi-Ferruch, Colonel Baril, one of the rare resistants among the professional officers, had succeeded in occupying the fort with one of its companies, and in neutralizing its artillery batteries, so that the landing allied forces were going to be able to take foot on Sidi-Ferruch beach without any loss.  The other landing  points were the Pointe Pescade, close by Algiers, and the Cape Matifou beaches, on the eastern side of the city. 
Unfortunately, many soldiers of American general Ryder lost their lifes before arriving on shore, as the sea was agitated and the night very black: the pilots of the landing-crafts — which were going to prove reliable later on in Normandy — had not practically get any drive training, for lack of time.  Many landing-crafts charged with heavily equipped soldiers knocked the hulls of the ships, or were badly moored on the landing beaches and then rejected by the sea, on those which followed them.  Also a number of them were turned and run over by the sea with their occupants.  As a result, the surviving soldiers landed in a more reduced number than expected, while the landing-crafts of material were thrown on other beaches than the soldiers charged to use them.
Under these conditions General Ryder, who during hours had not any vehicle, did not dare, despite the requests of the resistance messengers, to walk immediately on Algiers.  And thereafter, when he got under way, he was limited, jointly with its forces landed in the east of the city, to encircle the town by the heights without penetrating there.  Actually, disabled by its losses at sea, he did not manage to admit that a few hundreds of civil volunteers had really been able to seize a city defended by an army corps. 
Around 3 hours A.M., detonations resounded in the port, where two American destroyers had succeeded in being introduced, and in landing on one of the piers a 300 rangers detachment directed by colonel Swenson.  Their goal was to seize the port, to maintain it intact, so that it could immediately be used to land the allied reinforcements.  The artillery of admiralty, by cannonading the allied vessels, awoke anybody in Algiers then.  The seaboard gendarmes of Darlan, after having killed a dozen American soldiers, did not manage to overcome the well armed commandos.  Their attack of the port was only later neutralized by vichyist forces, with the assistance of the armoured tanks of the 5ème Chasseurs.
Later in the morning, Juin and Darlan have been liberated by the mobile guards, and Darlan sent a cable to Vichy, to ask for a bombing by German Luftwaffe of the allied transport vessels in front of Algiers.
Further in the day, Vichy forces spent all the day to besiege the resistant groups one after the other, instead of attack the landing forces on the beaches.  Consequently Ryder, after having encircled Algiers, began to penetrate in the town around 5 o’Clock PM, and allied mortars sent some projectiles on vichyist command in Fort-L’Empereur.
Then Juin and Darlan, overestimating allied forces, decided to surrender, but only for Algiers.
Thus, it was thanks to French resistants, which prevented the vichyist Algiers garrison from being mobilized, that the allied forces could land without meeting resistance, encircle Algiers and obtain the surrendering from that key port the very day. 
DJ Clayworth 02:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: French Insurgency

message: Could someone explain why the change from Vichy French to German?  How are we going to use these terms?  My understanding that (for example) the Oran harbor was defended by forces that were under a French flag, spoke French.  While I can understand that calling them "French" forces could be problematic, calling them exclusively German obscures the facts some.  I had thought, when discussing this period, the terms "Vichy French" and "Free French" would be a useful way to distinguish.  I am going to revert the changes, but am open to discussion about it.  John (Jwy) 09:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: German should be reserved for troops fighting under the German flag. Vicy French and Free French are the terms I would use say1988 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. As I understand it all defending forces were French in this battle. I'll actually revert unless someone has done it already. DJ Clayworth 16:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I revertetd last month.  Someone had switched it a couple of times and I wanted to document the reason and hopefully get a consensus about it (which so far looks like we have).  Thanks John (Jwy) 18:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vichy French vs. German

message: The treatment of his relationship with Operation Torch was far too detailed and I have trimmed it down to essentials. Some of that information looks like it should be incorporated into the section on Algiers here:
:Giraud's escape was soon known all over France.  Heinrich Himmler ordered the Gestapo to assassinate him, and Pierre Laval tried to persuade him to return to Germany. Giraud supported Pétain and the Vichy government but refused to cooperate with the Germans.  Consequently he agreed upon an Allied landing in North Africa, but asked to be the Commander of such an operation. Eventually Giraud travelled to Algeria, and on November 7, 1942, the British submarine Seraph took him to meet Dwight Eisenhower in Gibraltar. Eisenhower, giving him the code name King-Pin, asked him to command French troops in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia after Operation Torch, but Giraud was very disappointed not to command the whole operation. He refused to leave immediately to Algiers, where the French resistance was waiting for him, but rather stayed in Gibraltar until the 9th of November.
:The French resistance acted without him: the day after, the 8th of November 1942, at 1 A.M., pursuant to secretly made agreements in Cherchell on October 23, 1942 between the Algiers resistance and General Mark W. Clark of the combined Allied command, 400 badly armed French civil patriots neutralized — alone, by their Putsch of November 8, 1942 — the coastal artillery of Sidi Ferruch and the Vichyist XIXème army Corps of Algiers, in about fifteen hours. To get that result their groups, under the command of José Aboulker, Henri d'Astier de La Vigerie, and Colonel Jousse, took over the majority of the strategic points of Algiers (General Government, Prefecture, Staff headquarters, telephone central, barracks, etc.) during the night and arrested most of the Vichy military and civilian leaders. One of those groups, composed of some youngsters of the Ben-Aknoun College, under the command of the cadet Pauphilet, had succeeded in arresting General Alphonse Juin, chief commander in North Africa, as well as Admiral François Darlan.
:Algiers had been occupied on that first day by Allied forces, thanks to the French resistance. General Clark compelled the Vichy Admiral Darlan and General Juin, after three days of talks and threats, to order the ceasefire to all French military forces. Darlan agreed to end hostilities, on November 10 in Oran and November 11 in Morocco, provided that he remained head of a French administration. For this Darlan was disavowed by Pétain's government and Vichy Southern France was 'invaded' by the German army in Case Anton. The ships that had refused to join the Free French Forces in North Africa were scuttled, without any resistance, on November 27 at Toulon. This action also deprived the Germans of those ships.
:Most French troops in Africa followed Darlan's lead but certain elements joined the German forces in Tunisia.
:In return General Eisenhower, Giraud being absent, agreed with Darlan's self-nomination as the High Commissioner of France for North and West Africa on November 14, a move that enraged Charles de Gaulle. Free French Forces refused to recognize his status as a military governor of French North and West Africa. But de Gaulle was not alone. As Darlan maintained the Nazi-inspired exclusion laws and deported people to Vichyist concentration camps in Southern Algeria, British and American war correspondents informed their countries' publics of the real situation in North Africa. Giraud arrived on the evening of the 9th of November in Algiers, and on the 10th, he agreed to submit himself to Darlan as the French African army commander.
:That situation, qualified by Roosevelt as "military expediencies", could not be accepted by the French resistance.  Consequently, during the afternoon of December 24, 1942, a 22-year-old French patriot, Ferdinand Bonnier de la Chapelle, entered Darlan's headquarters in Algiers and shot him twice. Although de la Chapelle had been a member of the resistance group led by Henri d'Astier, it is believed he was acting as an individual.
I will allow people familiar with this article to decide what needs to be fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text from [[Henri Giraud]] 

message: Are you saying in your summary in the top right that U.S. is a belligerent country? (unsigned by User:71.115.241.207)
:Belligerents just means those countries that are fighting. It doesn't imply that they are agressors. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Our article here covers only the landings themselves, with a duration of a couple of days. However examining some more sources, including Eisenhower's own report, makes it clear that TORCH refers to the entire operation to capture Tunisia from the West, with a duration of months. 
I'm going to try to extend this article by pulling thigs in from other articles - unless anyone thinks we should rename this article to something else. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then it would be become redundant with Tunisia Campaign.  So you might want to think of another approach - like renaming this to something like Operation Torch Landings.  (John User:Jwy talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended duration

message: FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:  . Cla68 (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sources 

message: As far as I can see there were no Free French units involved. There were some resistance fighters and the odd renegade Vichy unit but these were in no way linked to the Free French government in exile. In the following Tunisia Campaign these troops are classified as just "French" to distinguish them from Free French forces fighting with 8th Army. I proposing to change the infobox to reflect this. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free French 

message: This was an attack on French colonial and motherland (northern Algeria) territory. No significant German forces were involved in the operation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.118.173 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: I question deletion of the category: Naval battles involving the United States for this article by User:Kirrages.  Most amphibious invasions are considered naval battles because of the participation of warships to escort the troopships and provide gunfire support during the landings.  As described in this article, French cruisers, destroyers, and submarines sortied from Casablanca to oppose Operation Torch and were destroyed by the United States Navy covering force including the battleship Massachusetts.Thewellman (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of taking this discussion too far afield, that is an intriguing analogy; since air battles are nearly always fought in support of ground or naval forces.  The Battle of Britain and Defense of the Reich are campaigns like the Battle of the Atlantic.  Some articles of the Aerial Battles category describe relatively brief encounters illustrating the importance of aviators having the opportunity (or misfortune) to get a remembered name attached to their piece of the action.  Others, like Gulf War reflect the contributions of aircraft to an armored infantry assault; and that is the analogy to Operation Torch.  Although the ships might not have been there without the soldiers, the soldiers certainly wouldn't have been there without the ships.Thewellman (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but I definitely don't want to get into an extended debate about what philosophically constitutes a sea battle - it's not Wikipedia's style! Let's try another approach. If you asked 100 people who had heard of Operation Torch: "Was it a sea battle?" I would venture that 95 would say "no" so it's common sense not to describe it as such here. Hence my reference to "naval battles and operations" which would make the whole thing moot. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the Naval Battle of Casablanca article to describe the sea battle on the Atlantic coast of Morocco.Thewellman (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Battles Involving the Unites States 

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) 10:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:WW2InfoBox]] 

message: I get the feeling from this rather lengthy document that Operation Gymnast wasn't really the forerunner of Torch because it had comparatively limited objectives whereas Mohican is clearly outlined as a plan to take the whole of French North Africa. Can anyone shed any light on that? Mr impossible (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Mohican 

message: Its rather hard to put this campaign into context with respect to timing relative to the to-and-fro campaigns in Libya,   which strangely gets no mention here at all.Eregli bob (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  relationship to libyan campaigns 

message: The section claiming that the Tuskegee Airmen of the 332nd Fighter Group were involved in Torch is totally false and has been deleted.  The citation for that claim is "Homan and Reilley" but the book is absent from the source list.  I found it on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Tuskegee-Airmen-Story-Lynn-Homan/dp/1589800052.  Apparently it's a children's book.  In any case, the 332nd was not formed until October 1942 (a month before Torch) and the group did not arrive in the Mediterranean Theater until more than a year later.  The original tuskegee unit, the 99th Fighter Squadron, arrived in North Africa in April 1943.
Among other sources, see "Tuskegee Airmen Chronology" by Dr. Daniel Haulman, USAF Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 2012.
≈≈ B Tillman, 27 Oct 12 ≈≈  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btillman (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuskegee Airmen deleted 

message: What book does the "Watson (2007)" inline citation point to? Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 11:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably "Watson, Bruce Allen" as the same type of bare cite is used in Battle of Kasserine Pass and a better cite is used in Italian North Africa. Whether the book in those cites covers the text here I've no idea. Palmeira (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazon preview of the page shows it supports what is written.  Don't know the quality of the source or the importance of the information, but I have copied the cite from Battle of Kassarine Pass to here.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A big question 

message: Weren't the French their own group, and therefore French as used in the original article in the case, "the British-United States invasion of French North Africa" factually incorrect? Honestly, I think it should be fascist North Africa. --174.24.53.158 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Question 

message: This is anecdotal, but readers might find it of interest.
My father was a cabin boy, later a steward, on various British merchant navy ships in the Mediterranean at the time.  He told me of one landing operation, where they carried American troops to somewhere in North Africa. He then told me that "a lot of funny things happened in the war that you don't read about", and that the ship he was on had British troops wearing American army unifom. He didn't know why, and I didn't make the (possible) connection with Torch until many years later.  Of course, if somebody wrote this in a book, it would probably be citable evidence! But until then it remains an anecdote.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.68.54 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Soldiers in American Uniform 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Operation Torch. 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/20050208000842/http://www.usswashington.com/dl08no42c.htm to http://www.usswashington.com/dl08no42c.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050819234512/http://war.megabaze.com/page_html/009-Algerian%20Resistance-1942 to http://war.megabaze.com/page_html/009-Algerian%20Resistance-1942
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503114041/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.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) 06:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding the current disagreement: There is a discussion on the use of decisive victory in infoboxes and article bodies going on at the WikiProject Military History talk page. (Hohum @) 12:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive victory discussion 

message: "The Allies planned an Anglo-American invasion of north-western Africa/Maghreb—Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, territory nominally in the hands of the Vichy French government. With much of North Africa already under Allied control, this would allow the Allies to carry out a pincer operation against Axis forces in North Africa. "
When Operation Torch was being planned, in the summer of 1942,   the Vichy French ( allies of the Germans )  were in control of Morroco, Algeria and Tunisia,   and the German Afrika Korps and Italians controlled all of Libya  and were still threatening Alexandria in Egypt.  The Germans did not lose the initiative until they were beaten at the second battle of el Alamein.   Therefore,  the half of the sentence "With much of North Africa already under allied control,.... " is nonsensical.    The second part of the sentence " would allow the Allie to carry out a pincer movement against Axis forces in North Africa."  is correct, however.Lathamibird (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed as "British forces advancing from Egypt" with link to 2nd El Alamein. RobDuch (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical claim 

message: On the night of 7 November, pro-Allied General Antoine Béthouart attempted a coup d'etat against the French command in Morocco, so that he could surrender to the Allies the next day.
:Do you mean the French commander in Morocco? Béthouart himself was free to surrender any time he wanted. Valetude (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was meant to be surrendering? 

message: Can someone explain why the end date of Torch is given as 16th of November?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:1CF1:1E21:945A:2F4D (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  End date 

message: Just added in North Africa campaign infobox as this is a vital part of the campaign yet the campaignbox for it is not present on the page.Tried doing this with visual editor but ended up with endless duplication so just used source Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added North Africa campaign infobox 

message: “ The French colonies in the area were dominated by the French, formally aligned with Germany but of mixed loyalties”
Excuse me. Algeria was a French colony, pure and simple. So was Morocco, so was Senegal. So was the Ivory Coast. When France itself surrendered to Germany it negotiated  an extremely nuanced understanding. The Atlantic coast and the northern half of country were under German military occupation. The southern half (Vichy) was nominally somewhat autonomous. Nominally, it controlled the French fleet at Toulon. The Allies’ position was that France should avoid attacking them, but when the Eastern Front opened up, the Germans decided to worry about French North Africa and occupied the south of France. The British scuttled the French  Navy.  Vichy was also nominally the colonial administrator of French colonies, then  The German military government. This affected the average Algerian very little, French expatriates somewhat more so. Allies believed the colonized population might rise up. All of this is too much for the lede, so I vote we just say these counties were French colonies. No they were not French; the Berbers had a whole different legal status that the colonizers. Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: correction to the timeline above: the British scuttled the French navy in North Africa after the Armistice. The French sank the remainder of their navy at Toulon after Case Anton. It’s been a year or two since I did a deep dive in this history and the French Constitutions and legal system; but I have studied this and am confident that the important parts of the above are correct. If anyone questions any part of it, please ask, by all means, I am not perfect and I am working on references right now anyway. But. The French were not Germans while they were under German military occupation, not even the French Nazi militia fighters; they could be shanghaied transported to a weapons factory on the Ruhr just like any other French citizen. An Algerian Berber was not French and still less were they German after the Fall of France. They had very few rights under the colonial regime. The Algeria-born European elite also were not exactly French either as I recall. I have not made a special study of the pieds-noir but it seems to me that they did not necessarily for instance have unfettered right to move to France. There was a specific relationship, but it was not the same as citizenship, analogous perhaps to Commonweath citizens and Britain. Elinruby (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text from lede 

message: The refrigerated cargo ship Contessa did play a significant role in the operation by making a run under fire to Port-Lyautey with aviation gasoline and munitions. Recent additions here of a photo of the ship and the Hondouran flag raise the question of the ship and Honduran involvement in Operation Torch. The ship cannot be used to indicate significant involvement.
The ship's ownership and operation for the period is shown in the Maritime Administration Status Card. Contessa was owned by the Standard Fruit and Steamship Company and turned over to the War Shipping Administration (WSA) on May 29, 1942 and placed in operation with Standard Fruit as the WSA agent under a General Agency Agreement. On July 14, 1943, after being chosen for a combat operation supporting the delivery of gasoline and munitions to the captured airfield at Port Lyautey the ship was sub bareboat chartered to the U.S. Army which could crew the vessel with military personnel. The Wiki article linked contains the referenced line: 
:Three days late, with a crew filled out from seaman volunteers from a local Naval brig released from minor offenses, the ship got underway from the Hampton Roads Port of Embarkation in the early hours of 27 October in an unescorted dash across the Atlantic to join the convoy.
The only link to Honduras was the vessel's registry and flag of convenience. Operations and crew were U.S. Army matters for the operation. The ship went on to finish the war under Army in the Southwest Pacific. A number of seized and U.S. company owned ships operating for WSA were for political reasons flagged in Central American countries. The countries generally had little to no role in operations. Palmeira (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship ''Contessa'' and Honduras