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.
Ill-advised in that the “need” for “Operation Catapult” was borne out of panic which in turn created a sense of immediate threat where one actually did not exist. It was also a decision prompted solely by the concerns of politicians, primarily Churchill and his War Cabinet, who felt that some major public demonstration of Britain’s will to stand against German aggression needed to take place. Military officials, including Vice Admiral James Somerville, who commanded “Force H” which attacked the French, and Vice Admiral Andrew Cunningham, the Mediterranean fleet commander, strongly recommended against the operation for fear of what it might do to British/French relations, which at that point in the war were of critical importance. But Churchill’s need to appear decisive, coupled with a healthy dose of paranoia, won out over his commander’s objections.
There were really no hard facts to justify Britain taking such extreme action. From the start, the British convinced themselves the Germans viewed the French fleet as a great prize they had to have. Yet the terms of the German/French armistice, which the British had been apprised of, made it quite clear the ships would remain under French control as long as they stayed in French ports, were disarmed, and the French played no further role in the war between Germany and Britain. Petain negotiated a concession in the armistice which allowed for the French ships to be disarmed in the North African ports. This is one reason why the vessels of the French Atlantic Fleet came to be at Mers el Kebir once the armistice was signed. The other was to put the ships out of Germany’s reach should she decide to renege on the armistice. If the Germans had wanted the ships as badly as Churchill thought, they simply would have taken them or demanded they be turned over in return for granting an armistice. Since we know they did neither, it seems safe to say the Germans had no interest in these ships other than to get them out of the way, especially given the fact that Germany didn’t have large numbers of spare sailors around to man the ships in the first place.
In addition, Admiral Francois Darlan had communicated to Churchill personally that French naval vessels would never be allowed to fall into German hands. Darlan had issued orders to all commanders that if the Germans attempted to seize any French ship, it was to be scuttled immediately. When “Force H” arrived off Mers el Kebir, the commander of the French fleet, Admiral Marcel Gensoul sent a message to Admiral Somerville, reiterating what Darlan had said to Churchill, and affirming that he was prepared to carry out those orders. This message was passed back to Churchill, but apparently he simply refused to take Gensoul at his word. Interestingly, when the Germans moved into the Unoccupied Zone in November 1942 and seized the port of Toulon, what remained of the French fleet was immediately scuttled, just as Admiral Darlan had promised Churchill two years earlier.
It seems odd that such a heavy handed approach was taken with regards to the French fleet at Mers el Kebir. Rather than attempt to enter into negotiations as equals or allies, the French were approached as enemies and asked to make a decision literally at gunpoint. This doesn’t make sense, especially given the events that had recently transpired. France was a country still suffering the fresh sting of defeat. One fifth of the country was occupied by Germany and the French were desperate to hold on to what remained. And along came the British, virtually ordering France to surrender or destroy one of the few truly valuable military assets she had left. Had the roles been reversed, I think it very unlikely the British would have complied with such a demand, so why it was believed the French would respond in anything but negative terms is hard to fathom. Also, no state of war existed between Vichy France and Britain in July of 1940, and in fact still did not at the time of the Torch landings in November 1942. Marshal Petain had made a point of advising the British that Vichy France was now neutral. Churchill chose to ignore this. To his mind, Vichy France and Germany were now allies, and any day, one of the following three “nightmare” scenarios would take place: Germany would seize or be given the French fleet for their own use, Vichy France would combine their fleet with that of Italy and sweep the British from the Mediterranean, or Vichy would send the fleet back into the Atlantic to assist Germany in defeating Britain. The first scenario was possible but unlikely, and the latter two were just the products of Churchill’s overactive imagination.
To sum up, Churchill and his government had the information they needed to make a better choice. Instead, they launched an attack against an ally based on erroneous assumptions made about Germany’s intentions without thought to the long term consequences of such an act. Churchill got his political victory and won the confidence of the British people, but lost the trust and goodwill of the French in the process. Rather than try to salvage what had been squandered, the British compounded the damage by going after Dakar, Syria, Lebanon, and Madagascar, leaving the French to conclude that Britain was using the war with Germany as a pretext to destroy the French Empire. All of this pushed Vichy France closer to Germany and made it nearly impossible for De Gaulle to recruit men to the ranks of the Free French for the next two years.
When put in the context of Britain having no other allies to speak of in the summer of 1940, saying the decision to execute “Operation Catapult” was ill advised actually seems a bit of an understatement.
A well reasoned and thought out post, thanks for responding.
There are some points I would raise, not as a challenge but just to put a different spin on it.
As you rightly said at the time we stood alone with no friends - 70 years of hindsight comes strongly in to play with your reply. When you're in a tough situation you sometimes have to make tough choices. Churchill winning the trust of the British people (and raising eyebrows in the States) may well have been worth alienating the Vichy French (who as you point out were not our allies so what did we lose from alienating them?).
Would Britain have made the same choice if the role was reversed? I #think# (but who could know?) that whilst their was some part of the British Empire still free that the fight would go on.
Who could know Hitler's/Germany's intentions towards the French fleet? We know where trusting the Nazis got Neville Chamberlain. Re the later scuttling of ships - who could know at the time it would happen?
As to the action preventing De Gaulle from recruiting for two years, I'm not sure where the loss in this is to be honest.
In the end I don't think the proffered choices were unreasonable - join us and continue the fight, inter the ships in a neutral port or scuttle them. With typical arrogance and hatred of perfidious Albion the French refused. I don't believe that Britain lost anything by the action but it certainly made a statement of intent that few could ignore.
Interesting discussion.
Can't rep you as I need to spread some love around first but take this as virtual +1 - even though I don't agree with your position
A lot of the people we fought in N Africa were actually Algerians, Morocans, Foreign legion etc. They were not ethnic french.
Officially, there is no "ethnic french" in France. And even in those times, a lot of foreign migrants were established in France since many generations, essentially from Europe (Italy, Germany, Belgium, Poland, Spain, Russia...). This removes nothing of course of their merit.
The British did the right thing. It was painful, but they had to do it.
Maybe in an a comfortable armchair, in front of a PC screen or a TV, we can say that. But with members of our family in the massacre (or just us), points of view would be probably different.
Officially, there is no "ethnic french" in France. And even in those times, a lot of foreign migrants were established in France since many generations, essentially from Europe (Italy, Germany, Belgium, Poland, Spain, Russia...). This removes nothing of course of their merit.
----
Yes, even the most glorious characters of French history are not ethnic French, take for example the great Louis de Funes, he's Spanish.
Yes, even the most glorious characters of French history are not ethnic French, take for example the great Louis de Funes, he's Spanish.
France was probably the most immigrated to European country prior to WWII. Paris was the place to be. Lots of Spanish immigrated to France following the decline of Spain into mediocrity during the 1600's.
I don't know who the heck Louis de Funes is, not so sure if "great" should be put in front of his name, I don't think he's well known outside of the Spanish/French speaking word. Looking at his wikipedia, it says he was born in France to Spanish parents, he's French. Lot's of French people are born to Spanish immigrants.
Maybe in an a comfortable armchair, in front of a PC screen or a TV, we can say that. But with members of our family in the massacre (or just us), points of view would be probably different.
I agree. In my opinion the event is perhaps among the most treacherous pages in British military history (and theres alot of pages there)! If you're allies with someone, you don't attack them. At least TRY To work out a deal first. These are people who have lost millions of people towards your allied cause over decades, and then they are backstabbed when put in a predicament and the subject of jokes for the next century. If the French are *******, the British are backstabbers. Not saying either one is, but that should be the logic.
I don't know who the heck Louis de Funes is, not so sure if "great" should be put in front of his name, I don't think he's well known outside of the Spanish/French speaking word.
According to the wiki, Louis de Funes had a great carrier in almost all the world except the anglophone one. This could explain it.
Napoleon is another example, he was Corsican ... not French. However Corsica is a department of France so I am not sure if he was technically considered a foreigner.
I agree. In my opinion the event is perhaps among the most treacherous pages in British military history (and theres alot of pages there)! If you're allies with someone, you don't attack them. At least TRY To work out a deal first. These are people who have lost millions of people towards your allied cause over decades, and then they are backstabbed when put in a predicament and the subject of jokes for the next century. If the French are *******, the British are backstabbers. Not saying either one is, but that should be the logic.
I can't agree. The French didn't even commit their full air force (though they sure wanted the British to do so), wouldn't fight for their capital, and then made a separate peace. They could have sailed their fleet to British ports to fight on, or into neutral ports. Instead they permitted the sordid Vichy regime to come into existence. Not all French people, of course, but their government. The British could not risk what might happen with the French fleet, so they gave it an ultimatum, then blasted it.
I am the least Francophobic American I know, but the French could simply have refused to leave the war. Instead, they decided they were beaten, and refused to put their remaining warmaking ability someplace safe. It got hammered. If I were Churchill I'd have done exactly the same thing. I wouldn't be happy about having to, but we should also remember what it felt like to be in British shoes in summer 1940. Britain was fighting for its very existence.
I agree. In my opinion the event is perhaps among the most treacherous pages in British military history (and theres alot of pages there)! If you're allies with someone, you don't attack them. At least TRY To work out a deal first. These are people who have lost millions of people towards your allied cause over decades, and then they are backstabbed when put in a predicament and the subject of jokes for the next century. If the French are *******, the British are backstabbers. Not saying either one is, but that should be the logic.
LOL - and I suppose that in the short US military history or the French military history there is only honour and glory?
Vichy France was not our ally. They had surrendered to the Germans. They had an asset that might have made the British position even harder had it fallen in to German hands.
Try and work out a deal? Well that sounds kind of nice but in reallity it was war and time was passing. As for backstabbing I don't see where that comes in to it. The Vichy French were given the options up front - join us, inter the ships, scuttle them or be sunk. You can hardly say it was backstabbing when options were spelled out. Perhaps Darlan and his Vichy masters thought that it was an empty threat, that Churchill didn't have the balls to carry it out. What would the Germans and the rest of the world have thought if he hadn't?
"These are people who have lost millions of people towards your allied cause over decades". My Allied cause? Not sure what you mean but for most of the last 1000 years France has been the enemy of England and we have usually been on opposite sides of particular causes (like the most recent venture in to Iraq where we supported our American allies and the French decided not to).
Finally, my reply to Tony and the rest of my input into this thread is not and will not be about French bashing. I have not accused the French of being ''*******'' or made jokes about them. A statement was made that sinking the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir was ill-advised. I disagree and think that it is very easy to sit at home behind a computer screen (to use Pteranodon's statement that you agree with) and 70 years later try to put your comfortable modern spin past events.
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.
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.
