A bit more than a "friendly fire" incident. There were 1295 french killed and it's a failure. The main goal was to destroy the Dunkerque and the Strasbourg light battleships. The Strasbourg was able to leave and go to Toulon. The Dunkerque was hit seriously 3 days after because an old amiral made the mistake to send a non-crypted radio message saying he wasn't heavily damaged, but after some repairs, it was able to go to Toulon. There were also 5 modern contre-torpilleurs (big destroyers) of 6 who escaped. The english destroyed 1 pre-WW1 battleship and damaged an other one, but both of these ships hadn't a big value.

If there was an award for You Tube channel of the year this one should be in the running. It's so refreshing to see images that accurately reflect the subject matter and this video is a case in point. The use of participants' accounts is wonderful too - and they are often so matter-of-fact about the events they found themselves involved in. Superb work!

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

High praise indeed. Thanks very much.

@silverado0938

6 ай бұрын

Was going to say the same thing but I’ll just second what you said.

Cut to the chase, it was either you are for us, or against us.

@thecursed01

8 ай бұрын

Wasn't even that. It was a lying arrogant french admiral nazi lover who wanted to fight. 2 of the options he was given were in line with his orders and the armistice. But he lied to his superiors and told the only options were scuttle or be attacked. Or was it join or be destroyed? But he was also given the option to sail to the usa or a French territory in the Caribbean

Historic film of HMS Hood show what a fine looking ship she was

The one good thing was that it showed the rest of the world ( ie the USA) that we weren’t messing about in our defiance of hitler. It was a tragedy and a lot of cobblers is said with hindsight’s benefits. Perhaps instead of blaming the British and we brits feeling very bad about it we should blame the French for not doing the right thing. Of course, the French should have really joined the RN, if we’re talking hindsight. The Germans couldn’t be trusted, they’d proved that. The French were busy blaming the brits for the loss of their country to hitler such was their shame and this was compounded by the age old hate of their old enemy. Gods sake!, why didn’t they just join us!! Awful business. Plenty did!, why not them?

@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623

Жыл бұрын

The French were trying very hard to keep the half of their country that wasn't under Nazi occupation from getting occupied too. And it wasn't that at the time it seemed to EVERYONE that Germany had won the war. France was defeated, the British army was defeated, it no longer had an army worth it's name at the time. And that the UK was soon going to be either next or at the very least sue for peace. It is hindsight talking that the French Navy should have joined with the British to continue a war which seemed lost. I'm from the Netherlands and we had at the time a political movement that emerged that wanted to reach a political accommodation with the Germans, and out of a population of 8 mln, 1,5 mln joined that movement. Now the main objective seems to have been to keep the party of Quislings, the NSB, from becoming the German's favorite local henchmen, but it was born from the idea that Germany had won the war so making the best out of a bad situation was the motto of the day. And interestingly a lot of post-war politicians had been part of this national movement. Which was outlawed by the Germans in 1941 in favor of the NSB, so it was for naught anyway. As for the French navy, in the end, when Germany did occupy Vichy France in 1942, did scuttle its own ships rather then see them fall into German hands. So also with hindsight, Mers El Kebir was for nothing and did little but create bad blood between the UK and France.

@Pfsif

Жыл бұрын

Very good, blame the victims.

@californiadreamin8423

Жыл бұрын

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 You mean Petain and Darlan threw in the towel and couldn’t be trusted.

@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623

Жыл бұрын

@@californiadreamin8423 Everybody threw in the towel in 1940. Even many in the UK were willing to throw in the towel. It's hindsight talking that they shouldn't have thrown in the towel because Germany lost the war.

@californiadreamin8423

Жыл бұрын

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Yes , even Holland threw in the towel , and more ….

Such a brilliant concept. I truly look forward to these. The fact that it was a terrible incident is conveyed well.

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. It's good to hear others find the same enjoyment I get out of making them.

Fantastic production again. I appreciate all the effort you put into making these.

Love to see you are still producing content, as you've always got interesting things to offer. Please keep up the great work!

Honestly boggles my mind the French fleet didn't join forces with the Royal navy , could of made a considerable contribution in the war .

Thank you for covering this battle.

I cast my vote for the most important related response to be that of FDR and the Americans who, upon hearing of what the British had done, concluded that the Brits were going to truly be deadly serious about staying in the war, Joseph P Kennedy's opinions being beside the point.

@redskindan78

Жыл бұрын

FDR was under heavy pressure from the "America First" and neutralists, but had decided that Nazi Germany had to be stopped. In 1940, the US had begun to re-arm, but American industry was far from the war-building power of a couple years later. FDR had to wonder if Britain would collapse as the French had done. I think you are right, @thomasjamison2050. This was a sign that the British would not surrender. As well, FDR had several US naval attaches judging the British reaction to the Battle of Britain. By September, FDR had signed the Destroyers for Bases deal, by which the US "traded" fifty older destroyers for the right to develop and defend several British bases. The destroyers had been designed to deliver torpedoes in another Battle of Jutland, so they needed refit before they could be used as anti-submarine convoy escorts, but they came in handy in 1941. More immediately, Britain could redeploy the base-defenders and their weapons. Eventually, the USN sent a taskforce, with US Marines, to defend Iceland, relieving a Canadian division. Hitler jumped up and down, but there was nothing he could do. The neutralists howled at Roosevelt, but he did not care. After the November, 1940, elections, FDR moved the Lend-Lease Act, which passed in early 1941.

@thomasjamison2050

Жыл бұрын

@@redskindan78 Paragraphs are a useful tool to help organize your thoughts.

@michaelpielorz9283

Жыл бұрын

Fanboys nonsense

Another excellent programme! 👍🏻👍🏻👏🏼👏🏼

This was not a friendly fire incident. This was two opposing fleets, one of which was caught in port. The French lack of foresight in case of occupation, forced the only country still actively fighting the Nazis to take preemptive action to ensure the French Navy could / did not be used against it. If the situation had been reversed, the French would have done the EXACTLY THE SAME!

Very many thanks for the superb job Armoured Carriers has done here.

Such a tragedy, yet a strategic necessity. The unwillingness of the French Marine Nationale Admiral to work with Admiral Summerville's French-Speaking Attache (Captain Holland) resulted in the deaths of many sailors. A difficult Chapter in WWII Naval History.

@geordiedog1749

Жыл бұрын

I think it’s very important to remember that it was the French and particularly the admiral who did the wrong thing.

@philipjooste9075

Жыл бұрын

More like the arrogance of Somerville and lack of political astuteness that caused this great tragedy. Compare his actions with those of Cunningham at Alexandria!

@devobronc

Жыл бұрын

@@philipjooste9075 I am afraid most will disagree. Pretending they this was about "French Honour" requires believing in Nazi Promises to the Vichy Government. Ask Stalin about the value of Nazi Treaties & Promises.

@philipjooste9075

Жыл бұрын

@@devobronc I think almost all will agree that it is the outcome that matters - Somerville had one job and he failed where Cunningham succeeded.

@ericmichaud1273

Жыл бұрын

@@philipjooste9075 Somerville had one big job - remove the threat of the French fleet by compromise or crippling. He did his job unfortunately having to go with the ugly option

Well… the Strasbourg fell into the hands of the Italians who salvaged it then the Germans. It was ultimately destroyed by American bombings. Plenty of ships that could have been used by the allies were retained by the Vichy government. They were: the flagship Strasbourg 1ère Division de croiseurs (1st Cruiser Division) Algérie Foch Dupleix 3e Division de croiseurs (3rd Cruiser Division) Marseillaise La Galissonnière 3e Division de contre-torpilleurs (3rd Destroyer Division) Guépard Valmy Cassard 7e Division de contre-torpilleurs (7th Destroyer Division) Vautour Albatros Gerfaut 10e Division de contre-torpilleurs (10th Destroyer Division) L'Indomptable Volta Plus a few WW1 dreadnoughts etc Frankly the French should have joined the allied effort… some did of course and took part notably in the DDay landings. But imagine this. The darkest days of the battle of the Atlantic and Strasbourg, Richelieu and those fast scout cruisers such as Le Terrible, on convoy patrol… yeah a nasty business but the French naval command was to blame. They should have got their ships out asap and organised their participation or not afterwards. Sorry that’s how it is and no hindsight scapegoating is any use at all.

@christianfournier6862

6 ай бұрын

@tubalooney= Absolute falsehood that Strasbourg fell into the hands of the Italians & the Germans. The truth is that she was irretrievably scuttled in Toulon in nov. 1942 together with the rest of the fleet. The promise to the British Gov't never to surrender the Fleet to the Germans had been kept. The error of Churchill in jul. 1940 was to ask for - as the British signalman in the video puts it rightly - for the surrender of a French fleet in (what was then) a French harbour. The fratricidal combat was thus inevitable. The British have been trying for the last 80 years to blame on Gensoul what was actually a Churchill decision against the wishes of his own Admiralty. Sommerville & Gensoul both obeyed orders in that Greek tragedy which has left a black stain on the White Ensign.

A most complex and debatable slice of history pie.

With the change in French government and its decision to go for an armistice, allegedly without consultation or the consent of its then allies, there was no trust at the political level and so the ultimatum was to be given directly to the French naval forces to decide. Continue the fight, Sail to a neutral port and be interned for the duration of the war or be sunk. Serious times require serious actions, and this event was one of them.

@michaelpielorz9283

Жыл бұрын

remembering 2018 we all knew the way the british keep their promises of internment i.e. the new flags have still be made!!

This whole incident is a reminder of the problems that had plagued the French government and military going back to the Franco-Prussian War.

@landsea7332

Жыл бұрын

I haven't studied the 19th or 20th century history of France - do think it necessary to go this far back, or do the issues mainly start after WW I ? It seems after WW I , France was not politically stable and changed governments with the direction of the wind . However, putting things into context , most of Europe was in political turmoil after WW I . People tend to forget there was a great rise in communist parties in 1920's Europe - especially in industrial areas.

@georgewnewman3201

Жыл бұрын

@@landsea7332 Well, yes the WW1-interwar era did a lot to worsen the conditions in France, but this was a nation that was, probably, still struggling to get over the disgrace of its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War when WW1 started. In the Franco-Prussian war the French are defeated by a much weaker German or Prussian force. Check out the Dreyfus affair (1894-1906) and the Souain Corporals Affair 1915 for more information about how the French army was disjointed even before WW1 had ended

Simply superb. 👏👏👏You cant beat first hand testimony and real footage of these historic events. Thank you so much and please bring us more of the same🙏

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

Thanks very much. I'll keep plodding along, pulling together what I can - when I can.

My Grandfather was stationed on one of the French ships when this all went down and his Mother only lived about 3 kilometres away and could hear the firing and explosions when they started, Just worrying the whole time if he would ever return. I wasn't able to learn a great deal more about it as he never really talked much about it and I don't slight him at all..

thanks jamie for that video, it adds nicely to drachs mers el kebir video, listening to it gives another perspective on that whole sad affaire. A french admiral who just cant give up some of his power and the people under his command have to pay for it. The brits had only this choice after all the talks failed. Again a sad situation. A bit like trafalgar - a french admiral choosing personality and vain over duty and costing the french people a lot of men and resources.

@michaelpielorz9283

Жыл бұрын

Utter nonsense ! from a fanboy.

@TomFynn

10 ай бұрын

Villeneuve at Trafalgar did not choose vain and personality over duty. He knew and told his officers what Nelson would do if he ever found the French/Spanish fleet. The French sailors were well motivated and gave their damn best but against a Nelson trained fleet, masters of melee, they did not stand a chance. Villeneuve knew that. And he knew that Napoleon did not have a clue about it. He still chose to do his duty, knowing how it was going to end.

Such a tragedy that it had to happen. The French should have known from previous battles with the English that if they say they are going to shoot you, they will!

@michaelpielorz9283

Жыл бұрын

They will shoot you in the back! nonsense, :act dishonorable and join us, we will "intern" your ships as i happened once in Scapa flow, before you may count to ten "your" ships will be our ships! unfair germans scuttled at "9"

Very interesting film, thank-you. It wasn't friendly fire though; that's something that happens by mistake. It was terribly sad but the RN had no choice. The likelihood is that those ships and men would have sailed under the flag of Vichy France.

One option that was offered and made zero sense to turn down was to sail to the neutral USA and to be interned there until the war was over. The ships would then be returned to France. The whole Vichy French excuse for the fleet's continued existence was that it would remain neutral. The USA would be the perfect place for that if it was their genuine policy. The Nazi's promise to never take them over was as worthless as all Nazi promises were. Also the Vichy French fought long and hard against the Allies in Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Ocean. So there was no choice left but to sink them and the future fighting showed that it probably saved a lot of Allied lives.

@tyranusfan

Жыл бұрын

Some say they fought harder against the US and UK than they did against Germany, especially in North Africa.

@lordkonzilla7890

Жыл бұрын

What are you talking about? The US was never neutral during WW2

@tmorganriley

4 ай бұрын

@@lordkonzilla7890 The USA was neutral (at least officially) for over two years: from Sept 1, 1939 (the invasion of Poland) until the attack of Pearl Harbor (Dec 7, 1941) and declared war the next day (Dec 8, 1941)

It's such a shame that the mighty Richelieu wasn't able to sail under Free French colours sooner, she'd of been the equal or better of any axis ship even before her refit in NYC.

The whole incident proves that it was the right idea to self-scuttle the Hochseeflotte in 1919.

Hood was sunk soon after by BISMARK ,

Maybe the best 37.19 with eyewitness accounts of a well noted WWII battle.

Does anyone know why the crosses were all knocked down in the last clip of the cemetery?

@phaasch

Жыл бұрын

There are pictures of this on the HMS Hood association website, taken in 2005. The graveyard was desecrated, presumably by Algerians still with strong anti-French sentiment. There is a project underway to repatriate the bodies of the 1300 to a purpose-built memorial near Brest. The whole thing is sickening, but, as we all know, colonialism casts a shadow ever darker and deeper with each passing year, however benign it's intentions may have been, although Algeria was one of its bitterest examples.

Were was De Gaulle he hated us and we supported him , but he never forgave us for this and Agencurt ,then they go into Vietnam ( face palm)

Can anyone help please, at 26.00 is that a 15" gun loader doing his job?

....the "honor"of the royal navy............

Nasty business all round

thank you for putting this together, and particularly for finding the one french sailor and including him. I believe that in my rambling through tube of you that I have run across a french documentary from the 1960s-70s that covered the raid from their point of view, but I have been unable to find it. However, Drachinifel put together a pretty decent synopsis 2 or so years ago, the link to which I include below. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y5Wjy5VshqSnf5c.html

What were the names of all the French ships sunk ?

When reading the ultimatum, the inexperienced "Limbic brain thinker" is mesmerizingly drawn to "choice (a)"... *I wonder why?* " ... His Majesty’s Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives; (a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans, (b) Sail with reduced crews *under our control* to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment. If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile. (c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, *then sail them with us with reduced crews* to some French port in the West Indies - Martinique for instance - *where they can be demilitarised to OUR satisfaction,* or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated. If you refuse these fair offers (edit: LOL, a false premise), I must with profound regret, *require you to sink your ships within 6 hours* ..." *Note here: All alternatives would have resulted in the removal of these French naval vessels, meaning that there would be no defense against seaborne elements of a potential future attack, to protect French citizens in Tunesia and Algeria.* London: "Looky here. I have a scrap of paper that says WE have the same enemy, but YOU are going to do most of the dying, and our common best fwiends in Washington DC are totally fine with that." SIR Bolivar: "How honorable of us (ingroup conclusion." *How the mind of a deceiver works:* The deception offered by option (a), sticks out like a sore thumb If chosen, it would mean that France broke the armistice conditions shortly after signing it, meaning that Italy would no longer be bound by these Armistice conditions. Not only Italy of course, but nothing then stopped Germany from occupying ALL of France as a result, leading to more FRENCH bloodshed and destruction of FRENCH property. If the French stuck to the armistice, on the other hand, it would leave roughly 80% of the French navy as deterence in the Med (40% in Oran/40% in Toulon/status quo). If they chose option (a), it would leave only 40% of the French Navy in Toulon, and possibly none, should Germany decide to occupy all of France because it broke the armistice. NO French ships to deter an attack to French North African territory, because they would have nowhere to operate from should Germany occupy all of France, and Italy if struck at Tunesia/Algeria. *Goading Italy into sending her massive Libyan armies westwards to fight France, rather than eastwards to fight GB, towards the Suez Canal, or if both were tried by Italy, then seriously weakening the forces available for attacking Egypt.* Choosing option (a) would have risked that the entire French Navy had no legal basis to operate under (no French based state), becoming fugives, maybe being forced to hope for breakaway French colony as harbor, and if none of the above then to join Great Britain like the Dutch Navy before, because the Empire HAD naval bases, *just what London wanted: the French fleet under British CONTROL, to protect the British Empire "for free."* THE "DIVISION" PER "RULING" OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE Note here that the Dutch government/navy can NOT serve as an example of "honorable solution" for France a few weeks later, since after May 1940, the Netherlands had nothing more to lose in Europe. All its unoccupied territory was far outside of the reach of the Axis powers (Indo-Pacific),an therefore a typical "apples/oranges"-comparrison. *If France chose the same "honorable government-in-exile" solution as Den Hague, as one can be easily misguided into thinking, France would lose even more: potentially French North Africa, to the "hyena Italy" and the total occupation of all her citizens by Germany.* Meanwhile, for all of that, *there was no guarantee that London might not simply make a deal with Berlin herself a few weeks later, in order to save its Empire from collapse,* because a weak London offered the perfect opportunity for an expanded *Axis Berlin-Moscow.* Note here, it was all about the British Empire, while saying "we". *Not a single word is wasted about any contigencies for the protection of French territory or citizens in North Africa,* in the event of an attack by (most likely) Italy, being in the most advantageous location to make use of this stage of "French weakness" to invade Tunesia and Algeria (main attack/land warfare), and use the wide-open ports if the French navy bowed down to British demands, as re-supply and landing points for stores and equipment. The entire purpose of a navy is defense against such forms of enemy naval operations in support of land warfare. *The ultimatum was a cleverly disguised intention to trade the French Navy in for a "promise" of protecting these with the Royal navy, or a combination of ships under British control.* London: YOU shall be given the choice between deception (a) and dishonor (aka the "false dichtomy"). Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall break your armistice agreement, by choosing either deception or dishonor, and continue the Battle of France because it is advantageous to US. Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall continue the Battle of France, with NO visible potential for success, because neither WE or the USA is lifting as much as a finger to help (effective support). YOU shall "extend Germany" for as long as possible, to the LAST FRENCH SOLDIER, and goad Italy into attacking Tunesia/Algeria which is YOUR territory, away from Egypt, which is OUR territory. Paris: Nah, thanks. London: Your citizens in France, and your cities and towns, shall goad Germany into continuing their attack, because you broke the armistice with them ...ahem "voluntarily" (he, he,he) so it's ALL YOUR OWN FAULT if the Germans choose to occupy all of France, just like we successfully implemented in Norway in April ("drawing" the bull, off the matador). Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall bow down to a mere captain, who doesn't even have the slightest POWER OF NEGOTIATION, who will decide the future of your citizens and your navy. Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall sacrifice French cities and towns and French blood, to save OURS, because you were stupid enough to make a treaty with us. Guess what? WE are an island, which we shall largely retreat to, and YOU have a border with our enemy (imbalance in power). Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall bleed MORE so that WE shall bleed less, just like Poland before. Paris: Nah, thanks. London: And the coolest, COOLEST thing all, YOU are not going to complan about all your BLEEDING, because it was avoluntary decision. We had absolutely nothing to do with YOUR choices. France: Yeah, right... London: We have the POWER of the superior mind, because it doesn't matter what WE do, the overwhelming majority of our citizens, in blind trust and incapable of grasping how we tick (strategy), will cheer us along because of our words, and they will do so into their own destruction. Paris: Yeah, I guess I'm fine with that. London: Let me rephrase those famous words for you... YOU shall fight on (faraway) beaches, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. YOU shall fight in the hills in Tunesia or Algeria, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. WE will ensure that the Battle of Britain will start with "a depleted Luftwaffe", and far less firepower, because most of the planes were bombing somewhere else. (Sounds of cheering crowds in the background) Paris: I said, nah thanks... *On the 3rd of July 1940, France finally found out what it had signed up for as mere "entente"-best fwiend in 1904, as "buck catcher" (Prof. John Mearsheimer) for the British Empire.* It went out the "buck catching"-way, same as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway before, and the same way the Ukraine is being "extended today", and will most likely go out the same "buck catching"-way. Obviously, viewed through the lens of systems/strategy (specifically grand strategy), if the "favored nation" os the "buck catcher", it can also be used to goad a rival of the "buck passer" (the greater power in the relationship). The "buck passer/s" can then steer, manage, or moderate the resulting crisis or war. Even Churchill was not convinced that every London lord would be fine with such a mockery of the term "friendship", and prepared two speeches. One defiant, one conciliatory. But he was wrong, and after the bloodbath there was no need to roll out the "conciliation".

Why all the smashed crosses? And what happened to Strasbourg?

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

Vandals smashed the cemetery a few years back. Strasbourg escaped to Toulon, was scuttled to avoid being captured by the Germans, was raised by the Italians, and sunk again by US bombers.

@energyzone242

Жыл бұрын

Yes good point.

The battle of Mers-el-Kebir was caused by French Admiral Gensoul, he was an arrogant SoB who first refused to talk to anyone of lower rank. Then he refused all three of the options, though he lied to Vichy by missing out the option of moving the fleet to the West Indies. Britain should have learned the lesson of WW1, the French were a very poor ally.

@BluePegasus1381

9 ай бұрын

Not only Gensoul, Admiral Darlan is also to blame for this one.

@ralphbernhard1757

7 ай бұрын

When reading the ultimatum, the inexperienced "Limbic brain thinker" is mesmerizingly drawn to "choice (a)"... *I wonder why?* " ... His Majesty’s Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives; (a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans, (b) Sail with reduced crews *under our control* to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment. If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile. (c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, *then sail them with us with reduced crews* to some French port in the West Indies - Martinique for instance - *where they can be demilitarised to OUR satisfaction,* or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated. If you refuse these fair offers (edit: LOL, a false premise), I must with profound regret, *require you to sink your ships within 6 hours* ..." *Note here: All alternatives would have resulted in the removal of these French naval vessels, meaning that there would be no defense against seaborne elements of a potential future attack, to protect French citizens in Tunesia and Algeria.* London: "Looky here. I have a scrap of paper that says WE have the same enemy, but YOU are going to do most of the dying, and our common best fwiends in Washington DC are totally fine with that." SIR Bolivar: "How honorable of us (ingroup conclusion." *How the mind of a deceiver works:* The deception offered by option (a), sticks out like a sore thumb If chosen, it would mean that France broke the armistice conditions shortly after signing it, meaning that Italy would no longer be bound by these Armistice conditions. Not only Italy of course, but nothing then stopped Germany from occupying ALL of France as a result, leading to more FRENCH bloodshed and destruction of FRENCH property. If the French stuck to the armistice, on the other hand, it would leave roughly 80% of the French navy as deterence in the Med (40% in Oran/40% in Toulon/status quo). If they chose option (a), it would leave only 40% of the French Navy in Toulon, and possibly none, should Germany decide to occupy all of France because it broke the armistice. NO French ships to deter an attack to French North African territory, because they would have nowhere to operate from should Germany occupy all of France, and Italy if struck at Tunesia/Algeria. *Goading Italy into sending her massive Libyan armies westwards to fight France, rather than eastwards to fight GB, towards the Suez Canal, or if both were tried by Italy, then seriously weakening the forces available for attacking Egypt.* Choosing option (a) would have risked that the entire French Navy had no legal basis to operate under (no French based state), becoming fugives, maybe being forced to hope for breakaway French colony as harbor, and if none of the above then to join Great Britain like the Dutch Navy before, because the Empire HAD naval bases, *just what London wanted: the French fleet under British CONTROL, to protect the British Empire "for free."* THE "DIVISION" PER "RULING" OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE Note here that the Dutch government/navy can NOT serve as an example of "honorable solution" for France a few weeks later, since after May 1940, the Netherlands had nothing more to lose in Europe. All its unoccupied territory was far outside of the reach of the Axis powers (Indo-Pacific),an therefore a typical "apples/oranges"-comparrison. *If France chose the same "honorable government-in-exile" solution as Den Hague, as one can be easily misguided into thinking, France would lose even more: potentially French North Africa, to the "hyena Italy" and the total occupation of all her citizens by Germany.* Meanwhile, for all of that, *there was no guarantee that London might not simply make a deal with Berlin herself a few weeks later, in order to save its Empire from collapse,* because a weak London offered the perfect opportunity for an expanded *Axis Berlin-Moscow.* Note here, it was all about the British Empire, while saying "we". *Not a single word is wasted about any contigencies for the protection of French territory or citizens in North Africa,* in the event of an attack by (most likely) Italy, being in the most advantageous location to make use of this stage of "French weakness" to invade Tunesia and Algeria (main attack/land warfare), and use the wide-open ports if the French navy bowed down to British demands, as re-supply and landing points for stores and equipment. The entire purpose of a navy is defense against such forms of enemy naval operations in support of land warfare. *The ultimatum was a cleverly disguised intention to trade the French Navy in for a "promise" of protecting these with the Royal navy, or a combination of ships under British control.* London: YOU shall be given the choice between deception (a) and dishonor (aka the "false dichtomy"). Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall break your armistice agreement, by choosing either deception or dishonor, and continue the Battle of France because it is advantageous to US. Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall continue the Battle of France, with NO visible potential for success, because neither WE or the USA is lifting as much as a finger to help (effective support). YOU shall "extend Germany" for as long as possible, to the LAST FRENCH SOLDIER, and goad Italy into attacking Tunesia/Algeria which is YOUR territory, away from Egypt, which is OUR territory. Paris: Nah, thanks. London: Your citizens in France, and your cities and towns, shall goad Germany into continuing their attack, because you broke the armistice with them ...ahem "voluntarily" (he, he,he) so it's ALL YOUR OWN FAULT if the Germans choose to occupy all of France, just like we successfully implemented in Norway in April ("drawing" the bull, off the matador). Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall bow down to a mere captain, who doesn't even have the slightest POWER OF NEGOTIATION, who will decide the future of your citizens and your navy. Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall sacrifice French cities and towns and French blood, to save OURS, because you were stupid enough to make a treaty with us. Guess what? WE are an island, which we shall largely retreat to, and YOU have a border with our enemy (imbalance in power). Paris: Nah, thanks. London: YOU shall bleed MORE so that WE shall bleed less, just like Poland before. Paris: Nah, thanks. London: And the coolest, COOLEST thing all, YOU are not going to complan about all your BLEEDING, because it was avoluntary decision. We had absolutely nothing to do with YOUR choices. France: Yeah, right... London: We have the POWER of the superior mind, because it doesn't matter what WE do, the overwhelming majority of our citizens, in blind trust and incapable of grasping how we tick (strategy), will cheer us along because of our words, and they will do so into their own destruction. Paris: Yeah, I guess I'm fine with that. London: Let me rephrase those famous words for you... YOU shall fight on (faraway) beaches, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. YOU shall fight in the hills in Tunesia or Algeria, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. WE will ensure that the Battle of Britain will start with "a depleted Luftwaffe", and far less firepower, because most of the planes were bombing somewhere else. (Sounds of cheering crowds in the background) Paris: I said, nah thanks... *On the 3rd of July 1940, France finally found out what it had signed up for as mere "entente"-best fwiend in 1904, as "buck catcher" (Prof. John Mearsheimer) for the British Empire.* It went out the "buck catching"-way, same as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway before, and the same way the Ukraine is being "extended today", and will most likely go out the same "buck catching"-way. Obviously, viewed through the lens of systems/strategy (specifically grand strategy), if the "favored nation" os the "buck catcher", it can also be used to goad a rival of the "buck passer" (the greater power in the relationship). The "buck passer/s" can then steer, manage, or moderate the resulting crisis or war. Even Churchill was not convinced that every London lord would be fine with such a mockery of the term "friendship", and prepared two speeches. One defiant, one conciliatory. But he was wrong, and after the bloodbath there was no need to roll out the "conciliation".

@billballbuster7186

7 ай бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 You almost write a book and say nothing lol. The British would not tolerate the ships being were the Germans could seize them, simple as that.

@ralphbernhard1757

7 ай бұрын

@@billballbuster7186 Isn't the intended British strategy clear?

@billballbuster7186

7 ай бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 Your interpretation you mean.

very unfortunate-a real tragedy-was it french pride that caused it?

@geordiedog1749

Жыл бұрын

Ultimately I think it was. When considering this episode I often wonder if those who harshly criticised its expedition would also have harshly criticised those same people if they’d left the French fleet alone and it had ended up killing allies later.

@MsZeeZed

Жыл бұрын

The French Admiral Gensoul who was in command in the port, was initially annoyed that the British messager was just a ship captain and wouldn’t deal with him, but as was an excellent French speaker he did succeed in starting this very complex negotiation. As time ticked down (the British had granted an extension) talks were conducted sincerely on both sides, but were ultimately fruitless. Churchill refused further extension beyond daylight. Most blame the Chief of the French Navy Admiral Darlan. Previously Darlan had assured Churchill that no French ship would fall into German hands and Churchill saw him as a future leader of the Free-French. However, in early July Darlan issued orders on the fate of the French fleet open to interpretation and then went on leave with orders not to contact him during the Mers-el-Kébir attack. Afterward Darlan officially became part of Vichy government, so his intention seems to have been to side with the Axis, but his orders would have allowed the French fleet to sail to French territory in the Caribbean, which the British would have allowed and to protect the peace of the Pan-American Treaty zone the USA Navy would likely have interned them in that region. Gensoul never stated he had this option or said why it was never mentioned in the negotiation with the British. Its easy to blame Admiral Darlan as he was assassinated in Algeria by a French officer after he changed sides again following the Allied invasion of North Africa, so his thoughts on these events were not told post war. That said he had a reputation for sharp politicking and saying whatever most benefitted Darlan.

@Pfsif

Жыл бұрын

British hubris.

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

One of the reasons I like doing these videos is it often captures a hint of what the feelings, emotions and understandings were at the time the events took place. The Armistice would have been an enormous shock - both to the French forces as well as the British. The implications would not have been realised. The French government was in disarray. Lines of communication were broken or uncertain ... People were left to act on their own accord, based on their own judgement. That's when true character tends to come to the fore ...

@phaasch

Жыл бұрын

@@ArmouredCarriers A case in point being the French sailor who says here that "...we just wanted to fight the Germans". Except that at that moment, they no longer had a country to fight for. It was a stateless navy, and that comment seems to illustrate a sense of unreality which must have existed in the minds of the French people at that point in time.

The French had 1,200 plus dead, the British 2 aircrew with 5 aircraft shot down by French fighters/AA.

you know where you are if Britain is your enemyFrance had to learn it the hard way since 1940,and Madagascar wasn`t attacked by germans! or Penguins

@tubalooney

11 ай бұрын

Yes but Madagascar was run by a pro Pétain regime and the Allies couldn’t afford Alan Axis base there. Especially long range Japanese submarines. Couldn’t trust the De Gaulle and the free French to do it. Their total lack of discretion meant for a lot of the war they couldn’t be trusted with any secret plans. Philippe Kieffer being amongst the notable exceptions.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

7 ай бұрын

Yes the British occupied Madagascar to prevent the collaborationalist Vichy regime from permitting Madagascar to be used as an Axis base in the Indian Ocean in much the same way as the Vichy regime allowed the Japanese to occupy French Indo-China in 1940. The primary reason the Germans allowed the existence of the rump Vichy regime was to prevent the seccesion of French colonies across the Indian ocean and SE Asia to the allies.

You are forgiven. Just you. (I see you do follow up on threats!)

About nearly 2000 sailors killed without defending themselves... This was a big mistake...and not needed at all,because in November 1942,when nazis invaded the non occupied zone,the French fleet sabotaged all her vessels in Toulon.

@dovetonsturdee7033

Жыл бұрын

You don't perhaps consider that the war situation in November 1942 had changed beyond all recognition from that of July, 1940?

@TomFynn

10 ай бұрын

In war, waiting and see is the worst option ever. The time for action is now, based on the situation at hand.

The massacre on defenceless frenchmen had been fully justified in North Atlantic at 24 May 1941

@offshoretomorrow3346

Жыл бұрын

"Defenceless"? They were in battleships! And given several hours' warning!

the attack on Mers el Khebir will remain the biggest indelible stain on the British flag...after so many years of war against the French, did we know them so badly?...moreover it was not a battle but an assassination, a cowardly execution.

@offshoretomorrow3346

Жыл бұрын

No grounds for suspecting they might collaborate with N*zis then? Which they did!

@TomFynn

10 ай бұрын

Bollocks. They were given a choice. They did not listen. Case closed.

@gandigooglegandigoogle7202

10 ай бұрын

@@TomFynn .....so because you give your allies a choice they are obliged to accept it? it's called an ultimatum, it's not a choice! moreover the french had given their word that they would scuttle the fleet at the slightest risk...which they did, by the way, for the Toulon fleet after Mers El KJhebir !.... Moreover, the fighting ships that managed to escape from Mers El Khebir never fell into German hands... which proves, once again, that this was not a necessity. ! In addition, there were other pathetic events, for example, the French submarine Surcouf, which had voluntarily gone into exile in a British port, was treacherously stormed by force, and there too there were deaths on the French side! and there were many examples like that.... which proves that the "choices" offered were only excuses. It's the worst indelible stain on the flag.....what a shame.

@TomFynn

10 ай бұрын

@@gandigooglegandigoogle7202They were given a choice. Just not choices they liked, but as the French put it so eloquently "c'est la guerre" "the french had given their word" And that's the problem, right there. As for the Surcouf, let me guess, they went to Plymouth and after the armistice in France still tried to play their own game. Much like the Fleet at Mers el-Kebir.

@gandigooglegandigoogle7202

10 ай бұрын

@@TomFynn ......but what are you talking about? after the armistice, many French colonial territories remained under the command of general de Gaulle's "free France" government. so what they had left should have been confiscated? but in what kind of world do you live ? and whatever they might do, they wouldn't have attacked the allies...for what reason? the government of Free France being in exile in England! if tomorrow a war broke out with the Chinese and they came to invade England, would you accept that the rest of the fleet which was able to escape and take refuge in France be confiscated by the French for their national use only? ....it's just absurd dude. yes "c'est la guerre"...but war doesn't have to be absurd when it can be avoided. And concerning the given word, if you don't trust don't go to war as an ally then....do it alone! When you go to war alongside an ally, certain things are irrevocable, it's a commitment, after Mers El Khebir, the French were so shocked that some people called for the alliance to be turned against England and war to be declared against England....the French government refused categorically, some things simply can not be done!

This was a massive British war crime and the following events of the war proves it. In fact the French kept their promise to not let their fleet fall into German hands. Furthermore they even scuttled their ships in Toulon when the German army approached in 1942. But neither Churchill nor Somerville believed their promise and therefore hundreds of French sailors were killed. For what? For nothing! It makes me sick to hear all of those British witnesses only looking at their own side without realizing what the general situation really was. But if it comes to British interests that country doesn´t care for treaties or conventions.

@landsea7332

Жыл бұрын

Recall when Paul Reynaud first came to office , one of his first acts was to sign an agreement with Chamberlain that neither France - nor Britain would seek terms without mutual consent . Petain and Darlan broke that agreement and agreed the ships would remain under German guard . Then they began to form the Vichy Government , who collaborated with the Nazi's . So Darlan's promise was worthless - as were Hitler's terms the ships would remain under German guard . Hand the French fleet fallen into the hands of the Kreigsmarine , Britain would have been cut off of most of its oil , and the war would have been over. Think about how silly it would be for any political leader to put the fate of his entire country into the hands of a promise . Especially one coming an admiral who was becoming a collaborator . .

@anonymusum

Жыл бұрын

@@landsea7332 Yes, I already know all of these old narratives. But: Like I wrote - the French Navy kept it´s promise and moreso even scuttled their ships in Toulon. So in the end it was more like a question whether Churchill would trust the French or not. Additionally - and that´s my personal opinion - I think that Churchill wanted to boost the morale of the Royal Navy and the entire nation. That was his primary goal - unfortunately he achieved it over the graves of 1300 French sailors. Even Somerville wrote that he felt ashamed by this operation. Furthermore you have to ask yourself if this slaughter had a decisive impact? No, it had not. One old battleship was sunk but Strassbourg, Dunkerque and Commandant Teste could return to active duty after repairs. Moreso the whole operation caused a justified hatred for the British among the French.

@landsea7332

Жыл бұрын

@@anonymusum - The Petain government broke the signed declaration made by Paul Reynaud and Chamberlain. It was Darlan who made the promise who made the promise about the fleet - not the French Navy - and they weren't the French Navy they were transitioning into the Vichy Navy . Even if Darlan intended to keep his promise , he could have been over ruled by Petain . ... and Pierre Laval was not just a collaborator, he was a fascist . Putting it another way , would you trust the entire fate of France on a promise made by an admiral of another country ? " Churchill wanted to boost the morale of the Royal Navy and the entire nation " what total non sense . Why do make things up like this ? Admiral Somerville and sailors of the Royal Navy objected to this act and felt ashamed by it . On another issue , its unfortunate that Paul Reynaud didn't move to Britain and become the leader of the Free French - I think this is one of the great regrets of his life . .

@anonymusum

Жыл бұрын

@@landsea7332 You gotta understand that France was in a shambles at that time. The only force that was kinda intact and unbeaten was the navy. And Darlan´s promise was honest - no matter what Vichy was deciding. - But there still is the other aspect: What changed after Mers-el-Kebir? Nothing! One old, pretty useless battleshiip was sunk but the status quo remained. The whole operation failed but caused 1300 murdered French sailors.

@EddieBeaumontThomas

Жыл бұрын

@@anonymusum Hindsight's a wonderful thing. So what that the French later in the war scuppered their ships in Toulouse. At the time of Mers-el-Kebir that wasn't gauranteed - primarily due to the formation of the Vichy government - and would have been a complete dereliction of duty to assume as such. Ultimately, the outcome of Mers-el-Kebir was entirely in the French Navy's hands; they or rather their Admiral, chose their own fate.