U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2019, 08:36 PM
 
805 posts, read 259,606 times
Reputation: 377

Advertisements

i have heard/read that the basic reason the British shot up the french fleet was because of a mistranslated of the french word for "control" in the surrender terms...any additional info?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2019, 04:59 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,782 posts, read 4,036,406 times
Reputation: 7343
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis44102 View Post
i have heard/read that the basic reason the British shot up the french fleet was because of a mistranslated of the french word for "control" in the surrender terms...any additional info?
The decision was made by Churchill, as the French fleet falling in to German hands would have been disastrous for Britain, and would have signifacantly increased German Naval power.

It was carried out for strategic reasons, however it was not something Britain relished doing.

Why Did the Royal Navy Sink the French Fleet in World War II?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2019, 06:48 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
6,312 posts, read 4,197,690 times
Reputation: 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis44102 View Post
i have heard/read that the basic reason the British shot up the french fleet was because of a mistranslated of the french word for "control" in the surrender terms...any additional info?
The Royal Navy presented terms to the French Fleets in North Africa, providing several options and plenty of time to come to a decision.

The French themselves knew that their navy was a considerable asset that could be used by their conquerors (Germany). However they stubbornly refused to surrender their ships, or scuttle them. In the end decisions were made that took any options from the French Navy.

It was a regrettable event, but necessary to secure Naval superiority.

In answer to your question no, there was no mistranslation, the terms were given in the early morning and firing did not start until the evening (the pursuit and engagement of one French Battleship was performed at night). During that time messages had been relayed to the Admiralty in London. It's not as if French is a rare language that few understand like say Navajo.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules Infractions & Deletions Who's the moderator? FAQ What is a "Personal Attack" What is "Trolling" Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 06:40 AM
 
12,003 posts, read 17,530,054 times
Reputation: 6096
I agree with Brave New World and Gungir.

War is an ugly business requiring actions most find revolting but are necessary. Churchill made a very difficult decision and it was the right one. No sane leader would allow those ships to fall into German hands- and they would have fallen into German hands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 06:53 AM
 
Location: London
4,403 posts, read 3,673,491 times
Reputation: 2025
Churchill's Some chicken; some neck speech...
"On top of all this came the great French catastrophe. The French Army collapsed, and the French nation was dashed into utter and, as it has so far proved, irretrievable confusion. The French Government had at their own suggestion solemnly bound themselves with us not to make a separate peace. It was their duty and it was also their interest to go to North Africa, where they would have been at the head of the French Empire. In Africa, with our aid, they would have had overwhelming sea power. They would have had the recognition of the United States, and the use of all the gold they had lodged beyond the seas. If they had done this Italy might have been driven out of the war before the end of 1940, and France would have held her place as a nation in the counsels of the Allies and at the conference table of the victors. But their generals misled them. When I warned them that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken."
Some chicken; ....some neck."
- Winston Churchill
If the French had kept with the British, the Italians would have been thrown out of Africa. The North Africa campaigns would not have happened. The Med would be an allied lake. An invasion of Europe from the Med' would have occurred.

Churchill had no option but to sink the French ships. Also, many French ships in British ports were boarded and seized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 05:55 AM
 
Location: London
4,403 posts, read 3,673,491 times
Reputation: 2025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
The Royal Navy presented terms to the French Fleets in North Africa, providing several options and plenty of time to come to a decision.

The French themselves knew that their navy was a considerable asset that could be used by their conquerors (Germany). However they stubbornly refused to surrender their ships, or scuttle them. In the end decisions were made that took any options from the French Navy.

It was a regrettable event, but necessary to secure Naval superiority.
The British, along with a little aid from the Norwegians, had largely wiped out the German surface fleet in Norway in 1940. To have the Germans acquire a substantial surface fleet overnight could not have been tolerated. Combined with the Italian fleet the Axis would have had a powerful combined navy. All through WW2 Britain controlled the eastern Med. With the French fleet in German hands that may not have been the case.

One of the reasons Franco never entered into the war was that he feared Spanish islands and territory in North Africa & Spain would be occupied by British forces. A large Axis navy may have made him change his mind as it would give Spain protection. Then if the Axis made a concerted effort to seize Gibraltar and succeeded, the Med may have been an Axis lake with free movement of this combined Axis fleet into the Atlantic. Then Hitler's Mesopotamia plan may have been a reality.

Last edited by John-UK; 05-08-2019 at 06:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Tijuana Exurbs
4,009 posts, read 10,464,425 times
Reputation: 4744
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
"and the use of all the gold they had lodged beyond the seas" - Winston Churchill
After WWI, most nations kept a large supply of their gold reserves stored at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. It was a convenient way to make reserve transfers between central banks without shipping from point to point. They literally opened up a cage door in the basement, and a fork lift would move the gold from one country's gold cage to another country's gold cage.

After WWII, when fear of Soviet invasion was high, many European nations kept the entirety of their gold reserves stored in the US.

It was only in the 2000s that some countries began to repatriate their gold reserves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 06:10 PM
 
5,512 posts, read 2,332,683 times
Reputation: 16561
It's important to note that the rest of the French fleet scuttled itself at Toulon when the Germans invaded Vichy France.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2019, 05:37 AM
 
Location: London
4,403 posts, read 3,673,491 times
Reputation: 2025
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
It's important to note that the rest of the French fleet scuttled itself at Toulon when the Germans invaded Vichy France.
Rather than give the ships for allied use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2019, 09:25 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,150 posts, read 9,934,593 times
Reputation: 6434
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Churchill's Some chicken; some neck speech...
"On top of all this came the great French catastrophe. The French Army collapsed, and the French nation was dashed into utter and, as it has so far proved, irretrievable confusion. The French Government had at their own suggestion solemnly bound themselves with us not to make a separate peace. It was their duty and it was also their interest to go to North Africa, where they would have been at the head of the French Empire. In Africa, with our aid, they would have had overwhelming sea power. They would have had the recognition of the United States, and the use of all the gold they had lodged beyond the seas. If they had done this Italy might have been driven out of the war before the end of 1940, and France would have held her place as a nation in the counsels of the Allies and at the conference table of the victors. But their generals misled them. When I warned them that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken."
Some chicken; ....some neck."
- Winston Churchill
If the French had kept with the British, the Italians would have been thrown out of Africa. The North Africa campaigns would not have happened. The Med would be an allied lake. An invasion of Europe from the Med' would have occurred.

Churchill had no option but to sink the French ships. Also, many French ships in British ports were boarded and seized.
Good post. I agree with John here.

What Churchill was saying that after the Germans broke through the Allies lines and beginning to overrun northeastern France, there was still time for the French government to evacuate to French North Africa (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia), along with part of the French army and most of their navy and air force. Once there, the combined British and French forces would have rapidly drove the Italians out of Africa and dominated the Mediterranean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top