Wow, what a clusterfuck. It really couldn't have gone much worse.

Watched it, liked it, went back just to leave this comment. Fantastic work! Your quality is far above your subscriber count, and I look forward to watching more of your videos.

@ForgottenBattles

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you :) Have you watched all of our videos yet?

@slimpickens32

5 жыл бұрын

Not yet, but I will be watching them all for sure! I'd previously only heard the "proof of Britain's resolve" explanation, minus almost all the context and skipping over the consequences.

@DankstaTV

5 жыл бұрын

I went to high school with both of the Chick brothers! I also made one of them hate Diplomacy!

The title of this video became the unofficial motto of the History channel after one of their producers watched this video, realizing that some nobody on KZread has provided more insightful and accurate commentary in 20 minutes than their studio has in 20 years. Next time on Forgotten Battles: how the ancient Egyptians fought aliens or some shit

Great video. Keep up the good work! Just joined Patreon.

Fantastic work by author

Angleterre......perfidious as always.

@wackadakka3134

3 жыл бұрын

France .... cowardly defeatists

@wackadakka3134

2 жыл бұрын

@@Moroes11 read about the Jews the French rounded up to be murdered

@wackadakka3134

2 жыл бұрын

@@Moroes11 nah ....not France , France dont have history ....

@bouchacourtthierry8506

2 жыл бұрын

This is War ... English were Always like that ...and dominate main World.

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

@@wackadakka3134 That never happened.

man Churchill wasn't a better diplomat than the rat in stronghold crusader

@rikkijohnston2432

4 жыл бұрын

Bad loser LOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEERRRRRRRR

@everynamewastakenomg

2 жыл бұрын

Only a fool negotiates with the Nazis. Chamberlain's appeasement showed that you could not trust a single treaty or thing they said.

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

@@everynamewastakenomg Churchill fully supported "appeasement" until 5 October 1938.

The French would have scuttled their fleet, as they did in 1942. Churchill's unnecessary war crime only encouraged people in France to support the Vichy regime when it was later created. Recruitment for the Free France movement plummeted.

They were given 5 options. Join the war effort as the Polish, Norwegian, Sweden and Danish navies did, sail to British ports to wait out the war, sail to the US to wait out the war, sail to French ports in the Pacific, scuttle the fleet, or be attacked. Gensoul left only the final option to the British fleet.

@rosesprog1722

3 жыл бұрын

The French had an armistice to respect, they said theu would fight, Hitler expected disarmament, Britain had no rights of possession on those ships and no right to kill 1000 French sailors simply because Churchill wanted to impress someone, that was a war crime and he should have been court martialed for that. Once again he showed he had no respect for human life and blood on his hands, lots of it, without him the war would have ended much sooner and millions of lives would have been saved. medium.com/@write_12958/the-crimes-of-winston-churchill-c5e3ecb229b3

@acester86

3 жыл бұрын

@@rosesprog1722 that's not what Gensoul was telling the Germans. Gensoul was lying to somebody and the British couldn't gamble on a unreliable commander. Gensoul got his men killed.

@rosesprog1722

3 жыл бұрын

@@acester86 They could have waited a day or two more to find a solution, a thousand lives were certainly worth it.

@johnjohns9501

3 жыл бұрын

@@acester86 Right again,, Gensoul was a liar and his ego cost his men thier lives

@johnjohns9501

3 жыл бұрын

well said and he truth,,,Gensoul and Darlan were both liars to us British and left us no other option,,,

Fun fact: Vichy France gave itself the motto "Travail, Famille, Patrie" Work, Family, Fatherland. The French were OK with Famille and Patrie. Only when the Nazis demanded French workers for Travail, did the numbers of La Resistance take off.

This video, reflecting the viewpoint of an American historian, appears to a Frenchman like myself as quite balanced in the description of the tragic events before, during and after Mers-El-Kébir. It comes in stark contrast with the video made by British naval historian ‘Drachinifel’ which is definitely supportive of Churchill’s decisions. The following is a Comment prepared for the Drachinifel video, which I believe could be of use to viewers of the present video - with which I am globally in agreement (with a few variations). I hope the details provided hereunder will prove useful. ----- [Comment Part One=] (Nb : due to length, Comment Part II is in “Reply”) The way that French nationals intervene in this discussion proves that Mers-El-Kébir is still, in 2023, an open wound in French minds. In my view, there are ten important factors to take into acount about Mers-El-Kébir: -1°- The French fleet was caught unaware. There were planes available for early warning reconnoissance, but no flights were programmed because of the Armistice restrictive clauses. In addition, fuel had to be saved since no resupply of the fuel reserves was possible. -2°- The mooring of the fleet stern to the offshore-quay was not favorable at all for firing the heavy guns, but most useful for a quick departure. This was demonstrated by the escape of half of the fleet under fire. -3°- The political situation in France was in total flux. Armistice had been signed on 22 june ‘40, but it was only on 10 july ‘40 that Pétain was to be handed full powers by the National Assembly. On July 3 ‘40, date of the attack, the only authority Adm. Gensoul could have reported to was the Navy's HQ under Darlan, Admiral of the Fleet. The standing orders of Adm. Darlan were clear: stay neutral, do not let your ships seized by any power whatsoever and if necessary scuttle them. It must be kept in mind that the M.N. (French Navy) was the only card left to restrain - sort of - the Germans. M.N. was also the sole means of communications with “the Empire” (ie. the colonies): an essential asset! This is where making a distinction about following orders ‘by the book’ or ‘by the spirit’ would go awry: In such an institution particularly respectful of legality as the Marine Nationale, the ‘spirit’ of those troubled days was to act ‘by the book’, considering that the M.N. was an essential asset for the Government to play its (feeble) hand against the Germans, and that in consequence the M.N. had to follow orders at all costs as the sole truly operative institution remaining in France. During the standoff at Mers-El- Kébir, Adm. Gensoul, did get into communication with the Navy's HQ, which confirmed Darlan's standing orders. -4°- A comparison of the M.N. ‘follow orders’ attitude against that of the Polish, Norwegian, Belgian and Dutch Navies would be disingenuous, since these four countries were entirely occupied by the Germans and their legitimate governments were all in exile in England. By defecting to the UK, these four Navies were actually following their Governments! Such was not the case of France, since the Armistice had left half of France unoccupied, and a Government was being established, soon to be legitimized by a vote of the National Assembly. In the temporary governmental void, legitimacy was resting in the French Admiralty. -5°- Churchill - in my opinion - was certainly aware of the orders of Darlan to scuttle the fleet in last resort. Even if Darlan had not directly communicated these orders to Churchill, the British had the French code and such an order to hundreds of vessels could not have remained hidden to UK decipherers or intelligence agents. But Churchill chose to disregard the ‘scuttling if and when’ orders. It is clear from the record that his aim was immediate incorporation of the French fleet into the R.N. or else immediate destruction. I doubt Churchill was preoccupied with the ‘legality’ of his decision, and an argument made in support of such ‘legality’ would appear quite disingenuous. Churchill's intent is emphasized by his separate order to search and destroy the small French fleet which was then headed for the Martinique with the gold bullions of Banque de France. If Roosevelt himself had not pleaded with Churchill to recall the R.N. squadron, this fleet and the gold would have been sunk too. So much for the “West Indies” option. The “X Force” agreement in Alexandria is not relevant here. This agreement did result from a ‘force majeure’ situation: the French fleet was anchored at the far end of the harbour, with no way to leave without running a gamut from the R.N. vessels. Cool heads prevailed and saved the French vessels in Alexandria for later action within the Allied forces. But, contrary to some comments made about this video, the “X Force” was not incorporated in the Royal Navy. -6°- The rank of Capt. Holland, in my opinion, played no part in the refusal of Adm. Gensoul to discuss the ultimatum. An encounter between Captain Holland and Gensoul's Chief of Staff was perfectly sufficient for what there was to exchange: Ultimatums are not known as good openings for negotiations! The mere fact that an ultimatum was addressed to a force able to fight, a force upon clear orders from Adm. Darlan not to surrender, was enough for it to be rejected. In addition Gensoul was promised support by HQ (Adm. Le Luc) during the 3d of july: support from a fleet dispatched from Toulon and from Algiers. Advised that help was on the way and with orders to fight, Gensoul had no other option. Actually it was the British - having decoded Le Luc's message - who decided to stop the standstill and open fire before the rescue fleet could arrive. To blame Gensoul is a gross misplacement of responsibility. Adm. Gensoul did obey Adm. Darlan's orders, period. My father-in-law, who served aboard “Dunkerque” during the days of Mers-El-Kébir, had no admiration for Gensoul; same with several historians who have described Gensoul’s temperament as unduly harsh. But - whatever his personality - I cannot imagine Adm. Gensoul acting another way, considering the situation he was confronted with. The French Navy did not think otherwise: after Mers-El-Kébir, Gensoul was named Inspector General of the Navy; he left active service in october 1942. And by the way, Capt. Holland is on record as having said at the end of the Mers-El-Kébir negotiation that if he were in Gensoul’s shoes he would not have acted in another manner. …. (ctd in a “Reply” to this Comment, titled “Part II”) ….

@christianfournier6862

11 ай бұрын

[Comment Part Two=] -7°- Vindicating Adm. Gensoul’s decision is the fact that at Mers-El-Kébir half of the French fleet escaped: Moored in Mers El Kébir at the start of the attack were two old battleships, two modern battle-cruisers (actually small fast battleships, which had entered service in 1937 and 1939), and six modern ‘contre-torpilleurs’ (ie. large destroyers). The seaplane-tender “Commandant Teste”, which later rallied Toulon, was not involved in the fight. Of this fleet, the battle-cruiser “Strasbourg” and five of the six destroyers did escape to Toulon. As for the casualties: -“Mogador”, the first in line of the six destroyers, was hit in the pass out of the harbour by a 15” shell on her aft, where mines were stored, and was disabled (with 40 dead). -“Bretagne” (a 1913 Dreadnought-era battleship, which had been refurbished in the interwar years but whose armor plating was no match for 15” shells) was hit four times, took fire, had to flood the ammunition holds, and soon capsized with 997 dead. -“Provence” (sistership of “Provence”) was hit several times (with 8 dead) after firing ten salvoes and had to be run aground to avoid sinking. Due to her age, she was not considered a priority - neither by the British during the second attack (on July 6) nor by the French during later salvage operations. Of the battle-cruisers: -“Dunkerque”, the flagship, was not as nimble as her sistership “Strasbourg” in cutting her mooring - maybe due to the presence of Adm. Gensoul on board having a restraining influence on her Captain. She was hit four times on July 3, lost her electrical power and had to be run aground. The second (July 6) attack caused the explosion of 14 antisubmarine grenades aboard “Estérel“, a patrol vessel which was moored alongside, an explosion which damaged “Dunkerque” almost beyond repair although she later could limp to Toulon. The two attacks caused her 225 deaths. She was the greatest loss from these attacks in terms of naval assets. In conclusion “Bretagne“ and “Provence”, the two Dreadnought-era battleships, were swiftly disabled on July 3 - with dramatic loss of life (1’005 dead). Apart from them, the casualties are one modern battle-cruiser and one modern destroyer (with 265 dead); while one modern battle-cruiser and five modern destroyers did escape to Toulon with minimal damage (and 5 dead). The fact is that - by any count - more than half of the fleet escaped. And this is, in my view, proof that the decision of Gensoul to fight can in no way be termed as suicidal. -8°- The 1'295 dead sailors at Mer-El- Kebir were to weigh heavily in the change of attitude within the French Navy (save for a tiny group, the Free-French sailors) to an anti-British stance during the war. There was a sense of utter treachery after the harmonious cooperation between the two Navies, starting from the Crimean War and flourishing during WW I & during WW II (up to Dunkirk). Priority given to British soldiers during Dunkirk had created tensions but had not broken the Alliance. So Mers-El-Kébir (and Catapult in general) came as a complete surprise to the French. -9°- One cannot help thinking that Churchill had other objectives than his stated aim: preventing the Marine Nationale to fall into Axis hands - a very unlikely fate that the officers and men of the M.N. would never have allowed, as later events have demonstrated. Besides, as indicated above, Churchill was only half successful in this first objective: half of the French fleet of Mers -El-Kébir escaped! The second objective was to bolster the resolve of the British public by a ‘coup d'éclat’; In this, Churchill succeeded. And the third, perhaps the most important objective, was to convince the world - and Roosevelt in particular - that the UK was ready for anything in its war against the Axis powers; In this, Churchill succeeded. -10°- After the war, Churchill wrote that Mers-El-Kébir had been a tragic mistake of the UK government (ie. himself) arising from misunderstandings. I do not think there were major misunderstandings, and I do not even know if it was a mistake; but the Allies certainly paid a price for Mers-El- Kébir: The propaganda value for the Axis powers towards ordinary Frenchmen was immense. And the fact that airplanes were sent for a second attack (6 july ‘40) to ‘finish-off’ the battleship “Dunkerque“ was seen all over France as an additional proof of the British mercilessly spearing a downfallen ally. The Anglo-French fighting in Dakar (Sept. 23 ‘40), in Syria (June 8 ‘41), in Madagascar (May 5 ‘42); the French resistance against the “Torch” US & UK landing in North Africa (Nov. 8 ‘42), and the (Nov. 27 ‘42) scuttling of the Marine Nationale fleet in Toulon instead of sailing for Allied North-African ports: All these events happened under the long shadow of Mers-El-Kébir. Mers-El-Kébir has entered the French psyche as an unnecessary treason, and this idea is here to stay. ----- Now, just for fun, let us imagine an uchronic past! The air battle over Britain has been lost and operation Seelöwe has been a smashing success. Britain is now under the German boot, and the only thing left upright is its Empire with the Royal Navy as the sole link with the mother country. There is an Admiral (say Adm. Cunningham in Alexandria) who wants to continue fighting at all costs. He looks around: The US are a bleak prospect, since now that Britain is out Roosevelt will shift his priorities towards the coming war with Japan; The Dominions do not pack enough punch; and all the other countries are neutral or subjected. After careful analysis, Cunningham concludes that the only country to which his fleet could be useful against Germany is the USSR, evidently the next goal of Hitler's ambitions. Now, how would the defection of Cunningham's fleet to a yet neutral country (USSR) have been accepted by the belaguered British public, let alone the Admiralty and the Government? The US had refused ratification of the Versailles Treaty, leaving France in the lurch with no viable foreign policy for the twenty interwar years. And In 1940 the US were still staunch isolationists. Why on earth would Gensoul have been justified for defecting to the USA against orders? To be interned, with a fairly good chance of his fleet remaining useless for the rest of the war? Who could then have predicted that Hitler would declare war to the USA on the morrow of Pearl Harbor? Rallying Toulon in defiance of the UK fleet was a much better option for Adm. Gensoul and his “Force de Raid” fleet in the circumstances of 1940. Another option would have been sailing to Dakar under British escort; but this seems to have been neither offered nor discussed. The real choice open to Gensoul was to defect to the Free French and continue fighting with the UK, instead of remaining bound by the Armistice clauses. Individual Frenchmen could make such a decision, and a number did in 1940; but when your country entrusts you with a fleet, you have a duty to obey orders (if these are not crazy or criminal). It is as simple as that, even in complex situations such as Mers-El-Kébir. In 1940 during Catapult, not even Admiral Godfroy in Alexandria - in spite of his Anglophilia (he was the widower of an Englishwoman of whom he had two children) - did take the decision to join the R.N.: his fleet stood in limbo, moored in the harbour, from Jul. 4 ‘40 to May 30 ‘43 - when it cast off for Algiers to place itself under the orders of the Provisional Government of Free France. As Commander of the “Force de Raid”, Gensoul could not disobey orders: He should not be sought as scapegoat for this disastrous affair! -- -

@TomFynn

10 ай бұрын

It ll came down to if Churchill thought the French could be trusted. The answer was no. So Gensoul was told to shit or get off the fence. And for his ego he did neither.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

8 ай бұрын

@@christianfournier6862 You yourself clearly state that Gensoul had been ordered by Darlan to : "not let your ships (be) seized by any power whatsoever and if necessary scuttle them". The British ultimatum handed to Gensoul by Holland after its three honourable options equally clearly stated : "If you refuse these fair offers, I must, with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours." Which is completely in accord with what Darlan ordered. The 3 options given to Gensoul even included one that in NO way could be construed as "being seized", That being the option to sail to French Martinique with French crews. So why did the French fleet raise steam and prepare to leave port without stating their intention? The fact of the matter is with this particular tragic episode is that France had already succumbed to nazi tyranny. The Vichy government was entirely a German puppet that existed for only two reasons. To act as a national French "rump" to prevent the seccession of the French colonies to a foreign power (possibly Britain or the US), and to remove the need for the French Navy to completely quit the French mainland and sail away out of the hands of the nazis. The Franco-German armistice signed at Compiègne on the 22nd June 1940 even contained a clause (no.8) that EXPLICITLY demanded the return of all major units of the French Navy to the French mainland. While the clause also gave a "sombre declaration" that the nazis "would not use" the French Navy, history had already demonstrated many times over that nazi "sombre declarations" were as valuable as used toilet paper. Britain and its people had been left fighting alone in Europe. We bent over backwards to politely request the French to withdraw their navy from out of the reach of the nazis & Italians, to do so was of the UTMOST primary concern to the UK. It was SOLELY because of one pompous, self important third rate French admiral (Gensoul) who stupidly overplayed his part of the decision making process, instead of acting as the mere conduit to Darlan that he should have played, and who took it upon himself to piss about in a moment of the DIREST urgency that the lives of those French sailors was cut so cruelly short. To suggest otherwise is to say that Britain should have DIRECTLY endangered its own ENTIRE population & indeed its ENTIRE future existence for the sake of one stupid petulant little Frenchman's hubris.

@christianfournier6862

8 ай бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684= I usually never answer vehement texts with capitals (which denote more feeling than reasoning), but I'll make an exception. You may have not read enough history books about Mers El Kébir. Your question: “why did the French fleet raise steam and prepare to leave port without stating their intention?" is absolutely out of place: Confronting a fleet harboring obvious intentions of sinking his own fleet if he doesn't obey an ultimatum, any fleet commander will raise steam as his first reaction. But the orders of Gensoul to ship Captains were absolutely strict: Do not cut your moorings and sail unless I order so, or unless the British shells start raining over our fleet. Gensoul was following his own Admiralty's orders, but he remained hopeful until the fateful end that an acceptable solution could be found. Alas, the British Admiralty's orders (ie. Churchill's) and the French Admiralty's orders (ie. Le Luc's) were too strict - and Sommerville & Gensoul were not Cunningham & Godefroy who calmly chose to bend them in Alexandria. Gensoul is a convenient scapegoat for jingoïstic Englishmen who will conveniently prefer to ignore that the occurrence of the battle of Mers El Kébir is due solely to the iron will of Winston Churchill, alone and against a strong reluctance of the British Admiralty and of the officers on the spot, Sommerville and Holland included. I have made a ten point comment of Drachinifel's KZread video titled "Mers-El-Kébir - Tragédie à grande échelle". I have reproduced this comment in the present video; you may read it if you wish. Indeed Mers-El-Kébir has been a tragedy on a grand scale of Greek proportions, and as such careening towards an inevitable fate. Suffice to say that after the war Churchill has stated in his memoirs that Mers El Kébir had been a mistake; and to say further that the French fleet in Toulon would most probably have rejoined the Allied fleets on November 27 1942 instead of scuttling itself, were it not for Mers-El-Kébir. The French have forgiven Churchill - indeed there is a statue of him on the Paris Champs Élysées - but the 1'300 sailors who met their death during the fight will not be forgotten for centuries. Peace to them and to Adm. Gensoul, so unfairly treated by “Anglo” historians eager to erase the stain on the White Ensign (actually a stain on Churchill's image in history). Holland, during the day of July 3d 1940, has summed it all: « If I were in his place, I'd do the same ». __ .

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

8 ай бұрын

@@christianfournier6862 Why are you talking about "capitals" and vehement texts? A perfectly reasoned response from myself with NO profanities and a small number of individual words capitalised for correct emphasis. Whats your problem? Lets use an illustration. If you were confronted by an armed assailant who orders you NOT to attempt to flee but to comply with one of their options (one of which was to go to a place of absolute safety for yourself, that being French Martinique) but instead you then attempt to flee, you're going to get blown away. All of your bluster will not hide the fact that Gensoul had EVERY reason to relate ALL the options given to him onwards to Darlan, so why did he choose not to? Answer me that? Why did he choose to NOT pass on the full text of the ultimatum to Darlan, and instead present the situation as one of "join us or die"? He ALONE caused an unnecessary tragedy out of an unfortunate drama. Forget all your smokescreen. The FULL fault lay with Gensoul. If he had acted like a diplomatic and capable senior officer instead of a petulant inadequate excuse of a man then all those French lives would have been saved.

They could have left port and gone to America or helped in the war effort

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

France was neutral.

the Hood stripped her turbines chasing down the Strasbourg

Hey guys, watch the Netflix world war 2 documentary called WW2 in Colour(New), near the end of the series, they show how the French took revenge against the British over this. They did the exact same thing in reverse when the British tried to land in North Africa(which was protected by the French), they destroyed their fleet, and then told them "This is for what you did to us at Mers el Kébir". After scoring 1 - 1, the French were told to stop attacking the British and work along with them. But now I understand why there is no love at Brexit from the French towards Britain. It explains it all as they see Brexit as a second stab in the back from Britain(friends today, enemies tomorrow). Add this to the latest Australian Submarine deal that the British helped stop on the Australian soil(the biggest arms deal in French history) against the French this year.....disaster for neighbouring relations between Britain and France. I think Boris is screwing it up big time as Britain must be a good friend of France to sell products to the EU. If the French refuse Britain, the entire EU will be with them as Germany and France control the EU(ratio/number of votes per country size).

Dowding told Churchill to keep 52 squadrons in England at all costs. Churchill mixed it up and set it to 25, was willing to send the rest to France. Churchill admitted a number of times in his life that he was mystified by sums. see page 193 in "The Narrow Margin - The Battle Of Britain And The Rise Of Airpower" LCC 61-15451 (1961) by Derek Wood & Derek Dempster?

Thank you for restoring some truth about this. Unfortunately the damage is done and for a long time: the French Navy has never forgiven this tragedy. The British justify themselves by referring to "pragmatism". On the French side (my side) we are sentimentalists and this attack is considered to this day as a war crime. Although it's neither the first nor the last backstabbing from the British, this one is the icing on the cake, 1 month after 30,000 French soldiers sacrificed themselves to protect the flight of the British forces in Dunkirk! Don't be surprised that there were not many sailors joining the Free French Forces. As they say: with allies like this, we don't need ennemies. On another hand I do think that there is more frenchphobia in GB (and it's consequence: constant French bashing) than anglophobia in France. It's a pity since (in general) French people are willing to become friends with the British but we must face facts: it's not mutual. Even recently, we have seen B. Johnson being publicly so happy because the French have been pushed aside by the Americans in Australia about a submarine contract (already signed btw), and arguing that this would boost an "anglo-saxon alliance" ... At least we know what we are dealing with. So I'm afraid we will never be friends. Not our fault.

@edi8872

2 жыл бұрын

well it wouldn’t have happened if the french commander wasn’t arrogant, the french commander in alexandria just handed his ships to the british

@luissalazar6960

2 жыл бұрын

The Poles felt the same when they were abandoned by the British and French in the hands of the Soviets.

@patolt1628

2 жыл бұрын

@@luissalazar6960 I understand what you mean but it's not completely true: the Czech yes, were definitely abandonned through the Munich agreement by the French and the British, no doubt about that, but not the Poles. Technically speaking it's even the opposite since the attack on Poland (September 1st, 1939) triggered the declaration of war on Germany by France and the UK by September 3rd. Obviously it was too late but the Poles were not "abandonned", moreover they were attacked not only by the Germans but also by the Soviets! What could have then been done? French and British forces should have just invaded and defeated Germany immediately (and fast) and then contained the Soviets if necessary, to have a chance to save Poland. A piece of cake ... Keep in mind that even after the fall of Poland, nothing moved on the Western front until May 1940 for many reasons which had nothing to do with the Poles but can explain why the Western powers were not able to protect Poland except in trying to deter the Germans in declaring war but this didn't work obviously. In the end France paid the price of its huge strategic mistake, being invaded and occupied as well. The British, for their part, fled away from Dunkirk and, as they were an island, they could buy some time and call the US for help ... and Mer-el-Kebir was part of the plan showing to Roosevelt that they were still to be considered seriously. Indeed, for the Americans, the UK was lost and about to fall, a matter of weeks, which was not that far from the truth since a majority in the British parliament was ready to negociate with "Herr Hitler". Churchill saved Britain, nobody else, but he needed a significant event to show his determination and it worked. Killing 1300 French sailors on the way, not a big deal ... a side effect, "nothing personal" as they say.

@luissalazar6960

2 жыл бұрын

@@patolt1628 Why France and England never declared the war to URSS?. I think both countries were too scare of URSS.

@patolt1628

2 жыл бұрын

@@luissalazar6960 My dear Luiz, I presume you are a young person since you are a little lacking in the WWII area ...Why should they have done that? Let me explain: The political regime initiated by the Bolshevik revolution was not really compatible with the Western democracies, you are right ... but: 1- The fact that you don't like a political regime in a foreign country doesn't imply that you are entitled to declare war on that country. Keep in mind that if you don't like the communists (for example), they don't like you either so that everybody would be at war against everybody all the time ... 2- It's true that attacking the Soviet Union would have been scary, to say the least, but this was not the reason to not declare war on the USSR. Do you really think it would have been possible while we were not even able to protect ourselves from the German attack? Of course not, taking into account that you have to crush Germany before reaching the Soviet border. Good luck! Moreover the USSR didn't attack the West so under what pretext we would have been allowed to go at war with them? 3- By end of June 1940 everything was over on the French front and the armistice was signed, so attacking the USSR was not really on the agenda ... On the British side, while they were healing their wounds and waiting eagerly for a US support, they were facing the German bombings preparing for an invasion. They were in the middle of the Battle of England (roughly from July to October 1940) and I'm afraid they had more important things to deal with than thinking about declaring war on the USSR. 4- From June 22nd, 1941 (begining of Operation Barbarossa), the USSR was attacked by Germany. From that moment the Soviets not only were not possible ennemies anymore but they even became allies and as such, received later on American supplies (airplanes, trucks, food, whatsoever). Keep in mind that the Cold War you are probably referring to, started only at the very end of WWII (end of 1945 until 1991) and is another story. 5- In April 1949, following the shock created by the Korean War, the Western powers decided to create NATO and this took effect during the Soviet blocade of Berlin. In 1954, following the creation of a West-German Army being part of NATO, the Soviets reacted in creating the Warsaw Pact. In this sensitive context, France and the UK being NATO members were ready to fight the Soviet Union if necessary. I mean the Soviet Union composed of 15 Republics, not the Russians as such. There were no problem with that at the time, even for the French. I have to explain this point: 6- In the last 200 years, Russia has never been a "natural" ennemy to France, there is even a quite strong emotional relationship between the French and the Russians, independently of the regimes. Note that they have forgiven the fact that the French Army, the most powerful army at the time, had attacked Russia and burnt Moscow in 1812. 7- During WWI, the Russians (the Tsar, not the Soviets) had promised to open a front on the East, if necessary, to relieve the Western Front. As the situation was not going very well on the Western front, the French requested a little help and the Russians kept their promise. In the end, as they were not well prepared for this war, they sacrificed themselves. It worked but it was a disaster for Russia and led somehow to speed up the process ending in the Revolution ... In France we never forgot that they kept their promise. 8- During WWII, France (the Free French obviously) was the only belligerent Western army to send troops in Russia. In fact a Free French Air Force squadron was sent overthere to fight side by side with the Soviets. Militarily speaking it was nothing, but it has been perceived as a powerful symbol. The squadron was called Normandie and has been famous there. It has been awarded the name Niemen in 1944 after the battle on the Niemen river, so that it is known as "Normandie-Niemen". At the end of the war, 3 of the pilots even became "Heroes of the Soviet Union" and the squadron has been allowed to get back to France with their aircrafts (Yak 3) as a present from the Soviet Union to France. Even today this squadron is celebrated in Russia, all those who have fallen are buried in Moscow, their tombs are flowered regularly by Russian citizens (kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y6mulbKwl93Teto.html&ab_channel=aldjiaz) and all the children in elementary schools are taught about this story. We did so little for them but they never forgot and it really means a lot for us. 9-The Normandie-Niemen legend had also tremendous political consequences: if France was represented at the Nazi surrender in 1945 and later on had a part of Germany under its control, it was not only "by chance", knowing that Roosevelt hated the French (I don't know why and he probably didn't know himself either but it's a fact) and Churchill had lost a big part of his influence at the end of the war ... 10- For the record, the Normandie-Niemen squadron still exists, it is located in Mont-de-Marsan (SW France) and flies the Rafale. Hard to imagine this squadron fighting the Russians in the frame of the current Ukrainian fool's game ... For fun, if you have never seen a Rafale fighter with the red star: kzread.info/dash/bejne/e5Nn0ZmFcZOtptI.html&ab_channel=RAFALETIGRE1 and their story (in English): kzread.info/dash/bejne/qXZ-ybVuna7fZMo.html&ab_channel=ILoveDocs OK now you know almost everything about why we didn't declare war on the USSR ... Regards

As a Brit and believer in the great Winston, I do not fell ashamed. After the collapse of France and the creation of Vichy France he gave Vichy France the choice,- sail for any British port, of scuttle their ships, or sail for a neutral (American) port. They did none of these. That is why they were destroyed by the RN. Churchill was right.

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

Vichy France did not exist. The US was not neutral.

You know that you have left a bit of facts behind? Great video ,well enjoyed 👍

I’m sorry but I can’t agree with you views on this. You don’t look at what each side knew at the time. The British where reading all communications from Gensoul and from previous actions and the fact he was outright lying knew that he couldn’t be trusted. Added to that the hours wasted at the start off the day with Gensouls refusal to speakers to captain Holland because he thought his rank was to lowly for an audience with him. The arrogance of Gensoul and the shear dereliction of duty cost the French sailors their lives. There where many way Gensoul could have abided to british demands and kept the agreement with Germany in tact. For me he is the single biggest failure in the whole debacle. I really feel you paint a favourable picture of him that day when he was anything but.

@Tricerius

4 жыл бұрын

It's true they were intercepting the communications. I don't think that it's fair to write off Gensoul just being an arrogant prick over Holland. A Captain has basically no negotiating power of his own (he'd have needed to run it back to the Admiral anyways), and there was really nothing preventing Somerville from going with a translator (...Holland himself, if nothing else) to do the negotiations himself. So, while Gensoul's stint of sending a Lieutenant as a response didn't help matters (not to mention him not mentioning the W. Indies possibility to his government), it's obvious that the British also didn't do their earnest to negotiate. And whatever they did do, basically boiled down to them being unwilling to part with the ultimatum they presented, and trying to argue that Gensoul should've gone to the U.S. as was permitted to him by Darlan under special circumstances (basically, if under threat of a foe). There really wasn't a way for him to comply to the British demands and the Armistice conditions simultaneously. The circumstance permitted was obviously in the event of a German or Italian violation of the treaty, which isn't minor. There's no reason to keep abiding to a treaty voided by the other signatory/ies. There's still a point to doing so if the aggressor is someone else. Sending the ships to the U.S. would have not been a viable option, contrary to popular belief. It's "neutrality" was only a presumed one (given Cash and Carry [yes, selling materiel to one party is not being neutral in a conflict, especially when it's state approved], and Roosevelt's pushes for increased involvement in the war), so the Germans would not have held their breath about the U.S. not redirecting the ships to Britain (after all, Destroyers for Bases happened later on). The W. Indies approach would've basically meant splitting the fleet (Gibraltar is a thing), and essentially losing it's utility (as it was to be disarmed there). These didn't serve the purpose that these vessels ostensibly had, which was one of safeguarding colonial interests. And the French also had a lot more colonial interests in Africa than W Indies. Oh, and this is nothing to say about the implications of giving up your naval assets to a foreign entity without firing a single shot, irrespective of compliance or not with the Armistice. Stuff like this would've, for one thing, torpedoed Vichy legitimacy (especially in contrast with de Gaulle's rivalling faction), in what basically was the first major foreign affairs event for the cabinet. It also, quite honestly, boggles my mind that people think that it's somehow acceptable to agree to effectively lose control/possession of your naval assets (as all the terms basically entailed), when the entirety of this event was spawned by the British wanting to preserve their naval assets and bring concerned about those vessels falling into Axis hands. You simply cannot pretend that the British were right on their desires, while the French were wrong on their intent on retaining their navy.

@damedusa5107

4 жыл бұрын

Tanker'schreck again you aren’t acknowledging that the British knew he was lying about things. Could the British risk that navy being handed to Germany? Because they had no guarantees that this wouldn’t happen. So they where in an impossible position. Something had to be done. Wether diplomatic or militarily. His actions that day do not reflect well on him. He was presented an opportunity to at least discuss options and express the difficulty’s he was facing. But chose to treat Britain as an enemy. You also make assumptions on wether the USA would have handed the ships over. You don’t know that so really can’t be factored in. Don’t get me wrong I really like the video and enjoyed watching it but disagree on some of the angles. And in this setting it’s far to limited to discuss it all.

@Tricerius

4 жыл бұрын

@@damedusa5107 "again you aren’t acknowledging that the British knew he was lying about things" Uhm, I did? I mean, the comms were tapped, so they could read what was being sent versus what he was telling them, which included the omission of the W. Indies choice (which I outright mentioned). The point of my reply was to present a French perspective (which most people seemingly fail to factor in when talking about this attack), and why they behaved the way they did. From a purely strategic and interest-driven PoV, I don't (entirely) blame the British for their actioning; I simply find it disingenuous not to acknowledge these same interests and considerations for the French side. "His actions that day do not reflect well on him." He could've certainly done better, agreed. But again, he's not the only one who was responsible for how things played out that day. "He was presented an opportunity to at least discuss options and express the difficulty’s he was facing." Which he did, when he argued the ramifications of these actions in regards to the Armistice. These were of no concern for the British which, fair enough. But that goes both ways. "But chose to treat Britain as an enemy." The British chose to deliver a flowery written ultimatum which, if not complied with, would've resulted in violence. Anyone threatening you with violence is a potential foe. As such, meeting threat of force with threat of force is to be expected (which they fully did expect, by the way). And as elaborated in the video, officers within the Royal Navy knew very well that a demand made with the threat of force would antagonize the French and potentially even lead to them attacking. Which is exactly what happened when it was attempted. Again, could have Gensoul reacted better than fucking about sending a Lieutenant and whatnot? Yes. But such an acknowledgement by RN officers is enough evidence that the French reaction was simply that, a reaction provoked by the demands and methodology employed by the British. They knew what was going to happen going in, the British Government (for whichever reasons, valid or not, you may ascribe) didn't care, and the results are laid bare for us to analyze. As such, the French simply can't be faulted (at least not solely/entirely) for their response. Especially when, again, much of this could've probably been deescalated if Somerville had simply had the idea to meet with him in person; especially given that Gensoul was apparently fluent in English, and didn't need to have a translator to talk with Somerville. "You also make assumptions on wether the USA would have handed the ships over. You don’t know that so really can’t be factored in." I don't make an assumption on whether it would've happened or not. For the simple reason that the U.S., did, in fact, proceed to supply ships of their own to the British later that year (under the Destroyers for Bases agreement). There was nothing stopping them from seizing these vessels, and either selling them to the british, or drawing a similar agreement. Would this have alienated the Vichy regime? Obviously. Would've it mattered, especially after this regime gave up their ships willingly under threat? Not really. Bent over once, is bound to bend over again. And even if it weren't to have happened, this doesn't change the other points I made about the diplomatic and political ramifications of such a surrender, and the German perspective of such. Which is an important consideration; after all, Mers-el-Kebir happened because of what the British *assumed* were the German intents, rather than their actual intents (namely, Hitler preferring the fleet and colonies remaining under French control as to guarantee assets being neutralized, rather than trying to risk winning big just for these same assets to flip into Allied control). "Don’t get me wrong I really like the video and enjoyed watching it but disagree on some of the angles. And in this setting it’s far to limited to discuss it all." Compared to Drach's video, it's definitely less complete than that one in regards to the battle itself and the assessments limited to it. However, it does a far better job at covering the consequences which followed this event, and trying to cover the French perspective on the matter (while not excusing their faults). Drach's video, while very complete on the British PoV, essentially boils down to "The United Kingdom had her interests and presented a fair set of alternatives to the French fleet, and the attack had to be sadly carried out because the French Admiral was an incompetent, pride ridden fool who failed his men". Which is hilariously bullshit, whether intentional or not, and especially in light of what this video presented (Gensoul knowing English and obviating the need of sending Holland under the pretense of him being fluent in French, the RN Officership knowing how this was going to turn out, etc). So yes, while FB is clearly not perfect on his elaboration (such as mis-speaking a couple of times, for one thing), I can appreciate him trying to present a more balanced outlook on the matter.

@damedusa5107

4 жыл бұрын

Tanker'schreck not once have I laid this all at the french’s door. So I agree somewhat with some of your reasoning. I do disagree with your reasoning that Britain knew what would happen (in-fact pushed for that response) they in my mind clearly did not want to alienate other French vessels and colony’s. But either way. Thanks for your well thought out reply. Like I said, there are many points you made I actually agree with.

@johnjohns9501

3 жыл бұрын

The arrogance of Gensoul and his lies left the British no choice but to open fire.Gensoul in his opinion felt he was way more important than his men and the lives sadly lost is his fault

You stated at 6.10 "Hitler did not want the French fleet, seeing it was more trouble than it was worth". What evidence do you have for this brash statement?? This so called documentary is very flawed. The title is a red flag for viewers seeking balanced research and reason!

@TomFynn

10 ай бұрын

Historically, the French Fleet always was more trouble than it was worth. Ask Napoleon.

There was a great chance that the French Navy could have been seized by the Nazis

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

No.

@chrislambert9435

Ай бұрын

@@MarkHarrison733 Yes , and if the British could seize French ships then surely the Germans could also

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

@@chrislambert9435 The French had already confirmed they would scuttle their fleet, as they did in 1942.

@chrislambert9435

Ай бұрын

@@MarkHarrison733 For sure, but the word of Admiral Darlan was not reliable

@le_souverainiste_francais7420

Ай бұрын

Darlan gave secerts orders to scutling right after the armistice. We scutling in 1942 at Toulon. If the Germans or the Italians would have take the north africa, we would have fight or scutling.

*The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.* The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually protected *in* Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. [Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power] For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... Therefore, totally destroying a continental power or dissing it, was neither wise nor in GB 's interests. Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). *France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.* Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to "balance" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. *And down went the British Empire too...game over...*

Vichy France sided witb the Nazis. Gensoul had an obligation to preserve his men and fleet... he failed he should have surrendered to the brits or allowed them to escort his fleet to the usa, which was on offer. The Vichy regime was a shame and disgrace.

@johnjohns9501

3 жыл бұрын

yes the Vichy France was a total disgrace and the British was left no other option after Gensouls lies but to open fire

@everynamewastakenomg

2 жыл бұрын

@Pepe there was no such thing as a neutral Nazi puppet. The Vichy France government was French fascists. Don't fool yourself.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

@Normand Lots of comments here accusing the French of being pompous or arrogant in their refusal to deal with a "mere captain". Imagine a reversal of the situation: say (after a hypothetical invasion of GB) it was about the future of Gibraltar, and the French had sent an ultimatum that British ships leave immediately, disarm or blow themselves up, and a French admiral had sent a captain "to negotiate"... Oh..."the outrage"...lol Right or wrong? Easy. Refer to your bibles. Do not judge, if not "in the shoes" of others.

@ianjones1034

8 ай бұрын

The naval battle of Casablanca was a series of naval engagements in 1942 between the United States Navy and the Vichy controlled French navy during operation Torch . If one considers the French were under Vichy orders to resist any attempt to seize French territory or equipment for use against Germany ,then it might be concluded that the actions of the Royal Navy were just justified

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

@@ianjones1034 The Vichy regime was not created until a week after Churchill's unnecessary war crime.

Nice vid tho I disagree with the rather pro-French summing up. Persinally I think Churchill made the right call - too big a risk to trust to fate that the French fleet wouldn't end up in German hands. The French were given a number of alternatives including internment of the fleet in the USA. An option the French admiral didn't even tell his own government. The French also tried stalling in order to send reinforcements but the British got wind of it and so opened fire. See Drachinfels vid on this subject.

@andrewlucia865

11 ай бұрын

@@Saffi____The scuttling of French ships in 1942 does not prove GB's concerns were null, since the German's did manage to secure several of the ships (none of the big ones, but still). Had Germany played their cards right, the French would have been powerless to stop them, especially if they hadn't waited two years and did it in 1940. The risk was very real. And proud or not, the fact of the matter was that they surrendering. Not only had France capitulated rather easily (they easily could have set up a government in exile like most other occupied nations had), the fleet at Alexandria also decided to disarm and remain there for the rest of the war. A peaceful resolution was absolutely possible, but Gensoul scuttled it. No matter how proud a nation, that is not an excuse for getting people killed because of that pride.

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

@@andrewlucia865 France did establish a government-in-exile.

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

France was neutral. The US was already at war with Germany.

@andrewlucia865

Ай бұрын

​@@MarkHarrison733 Free France was a small breakaway under De Gaulle at this point, and unlike the other Governments-in-exile at the time, didn't command the loyalty of the majority of their country's military. Despite the fact that they easily could have, France's forces largley decided not to continue the fight and went along with the capitulation. I probably could have worded this point a bit better, but the existence of the Free French doesn't change this. Compared to what they could have been had the government not capitulated like they did; the force was a very minor one.

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

@@andrewlucia865 France should have joined the Axis.

LETS HAVE A DECENT TITLE FOR THIS ARTICLE, .............. "ROYAL NAVY PREVENTS NAZI GERMANY GAINING NEW BATTLESHIPS"

Gallipoli was messed up by the British Army not Churchill.

@Saffi____

Жыл бұрын

It was Churchill's plan and he was the one who pushed it forward despite the numerous warnings of his compatriots. He also wanted to continue despite the heavy losses until the order of retreat was given. The blame is on Churchill.

Lots of comments here accusing the French of being pompous or arrogant in their refusal to deal with a "mere captain". Imagine a reversal of the situation: say (after a hypothetical invasion of GB) it was about the future of Gibraltar, and the French had sent an ultimatum that British ships leave immediately, disarm or blow themselves up, and a French admiral had sent a captain "to negotiate"... Oh..."the outrage"...lol Right or wrong? Easy. Refer to your bibles. Do not judge, if not "in the shoes" of others.

@goxokogoxoki6734

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree

Absolutely despicable to attack the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir when neither country was at war with each other, resulting in the death and maiming of close to two thousand French sailors: in his post-war apologism, Churchill called it the “toughest decision of his life” - even as he had shown that ultimately French didn't matter to him. On June 11th 1940, Churchill flew to the Château du Muguet, near Orleans. Churchill said that the French should consider "guerrilla warfare". French leadership replied that it would mean total destruction for the country. Churchill then said the French should defend Paris, like Clemenceau did in the First World War. To this he Churchill was retort that in those days there was a strategic reserve of sixty divisions; now, there was none. Having the French civilian population hastily armed with Paris and metropolitan France destroyed in the ensuing fighting wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the Battle of France from which the British had already evacuated themselves at Dunkirk. Churchill’s mindset showed that he didn't care if the entirety of France got razed to the ground, as long as they take some Germans with them. Churchill’s mindset for France was that of Hitler in the final months of the war; to send the poorly equipped civilian population into a hopeless fight.

@vonVince

3 жыл бұрын

Well said, Niko.

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Churchill would've loved to "fight to the last Frenchman", whilst withholding fighter planes, and fresh divisions in England. They would pay the price for Mers later. *The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.* The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually protected *in* Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. [Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power] For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... Therefore, totally destroying a continental power or dissing it, was neither wise nor in GB 's interests. Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). *France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.* Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to "balance" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. *And down went the British Empire too...game over...*

@HarryFlashmanVC

3 жыл бұрын

Revisionist nonsense formed with 20/20 hindsight . Try some objectivity someday!

@HarryFlashmanVC

3 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 absolute utter bullshit

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

@@HarryFlashmanVC In which way?

Churchill didn't order the attack on the French fleet in order to impress the Americans; he did it in order to relieve the Roosevelt administration of the minor panic that set in among many of its members after France fell. In short, political considerations impelled Churchill's action. Military reasons had practically no bearing on operation Catapult, because the French vessels in question were no threat to the British, for logistical reasons alone- not to mention that they would first have to miracle their way past Gibraltar before possibly posing some threat to Britain. While Churchill's action may be understandable in retrospect, the fact still remains that French Admiral Gensoul was in no way responsible. Any responsible American or British flag officer- if under instructions from their superiors to retain independence of action- would have acted as Gensoul did. Admirals of the world's major naval powers do not accept orders- much less ultimatums- from allied nations which contradict their own existing orders.

@rosesprog1722

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, I heard that the British came in in a very arrogant manner, totally inappropriate for such an operation and considering Churchill's personality, lack of experience in marine ethics,, in combat creativity and his general disrespect for all human life but his own, it becomes rather tempting to lay the blame on his unpleasant flabby self.

6:10 "Hitler did not want the French fleet". Please avail yourself of the terms of the Franco-German armistice signed at Compiegne on 22nd June 1940. Clause 8 EXPLICITLY ordered the return of ALL major units of the French Navy to return to the French mainland. How does that constitute "not wanting the French Navy"?

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

France was neutral.

The Brits gave them 5 options. Normally in an ultimatum you get 2. Do as we say or die! Also remember the French allied themselfs with Germans in Vichy. Also rounded up and handed over there Jewish citizens to the Gestapo and the SS . French arrogance caused the deaths of French sailors. 5 options remember .. it was tragic and very sad but those ships could not fall into German hands and could not trust the Vichy to do the right thing.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

The "prove we were going to fight"-narrative is another attempt at misleading history. London had a proven track record and history of being a "turncoat" who'd *"hop over here, hop over there (aka "loyalties")* for short-term gain, all under the guise of "balancing powers". "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost *an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side,* opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] A "turncoat" screaming "turncoat" is Tu Quoque... If anybody had to fear that London would suddenly "hop onto" Berlin to balance out the remaining rest of the major powers of the world (USA plus SU), then that had more to do with London, not the French...

@Cap-hornier

Жыл бұрын

Option "USA and west indies" was not real (DO you really think Churchill would have let them go when he orderded the Dorestshire to ram the Richelieu if he intend to go to the Indies?)

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

90% of French Jews survived World War II thanks to Laval. The French had confirmed they would scuttle their fleet, as they did in 1942. The Vichy regime was created after Churchill's unnecessary war crime.

Easy to forget that France collapsed spectacularly, along with rest of Europe. In July 1940 Britain was truly alone and, after the appalling vichy France set up that should still embarrass every French man, ruthlessness was order of the day. France had done very poorly against Germany. The mass retreats and surrendering shook the Brits who'd only wasted British lives and materiel in 1940 trying to prop up a poorly led, low morale embarrassment. The thought of Germany getting her hands on that fleet was a war changer and had to be acted upon. Ridiculous to ignore its tbreat when in 1940 GB was very much alone and reliant on naval power and fascists seemed to be wanting an Vichy/axis tie up. By 1942 it was clear Germany was eating a giant shit sandwich in Russia which would lose the war. Vichy attitudes changed, they want to back the eventual winner so using the scuttling of 42 is something you'd only use if you're looking from far away and losing the perspectives of the time. As for multitudes of perfidious albion comments I shake my head. The cost of WW1 changed the Nation, beating Germany in WW2 effectively bankrupted the country, lost all its naval bases abroad and left the country still on food rations into the 50's! Helluva price and one France wouldn't pay to save itself. British losses freeing France dwarf French losses when they had to protect themselves, their country, their freedom. Says it all really😉😜

@acester86

3 жыл бұрын

Not to mention the left out option given to Gensoul, to sail to French ports in the Pacific.

@johnjohns9501

3 жыл бұрын

well said,,,

@acester86

2 жыл бұрын

@Pepe are French ships so poorly built that they can't sail on open oceans?

@soapmaker2263

Жыл бұрын

The truth is no Briton was in any danger until the British goverment declared war on Germany and sent Britons to die. They ignored dozens of peace offers, choosing instead total war with Germany. How courageous and patriotic of them to volunteer millions of lives and the loss of the empire! ...and for what? So committed to fulfilling the objectives of their banking masters was the British government, that they were even willing to slaughter men who just days before were their allies. The only way to justify the actions of the allies is to propagandize the whole war as a holy crusade against a cartoonish villain. And you swallowed the evil Germany narrative hook, line and sinker. No cost is too high when you're fighting the devil himself. The irony is any British freedoms you speak of were actually lost as a direct result of German defeat in the war.

the argument often used by stubborn brits to justify this action, being that the french fleet would fall into axis hands, is thoroughly destroyed by the actions of the french fleet in toulon in 1942. face it this was as gratuitous as gratuitous gets and nothing justifies this including the "miscommunication" that happened that day

@acester86

3 жыл бұрын

This was 90% on the French admiral. French arrogance sank those ships. The French admiral owed it to his men to attempt to negotiate a peaceful end to the situation, he chose the attack.

@wackadakka3134

3 жыл бұрын

fool . that was 2 years later when the French could clearly SEE who the real enemy was, in 1940 they actually wanted to side with Hitler, it only took TWO YEARS for them to see the Nazis were bad .lol

@andrewlucia865

11 ай бұрын

The only reason the scuttling at Toulon even worked was because Germany made a half-assed attempt at the spur of the moment. Had they played their cards correctly, the French wouldn't have been able to do anything.

Very informative, thanks. However, after listening to how pro nazi, anti-british and arrogant the french leaders were it's bizarre how you could come to the conclusion that the attack on french ships was the wrong decision. Obviously sitting safely at your desk in 2018 you can't REALLY comprehend how Britain was fighting for it's survival and could not risk the ships being used against it. It's very easy to say take the chance when there is no fear or consequences in it for you. Perhaps we would need to imagine our loved ones were in mortal danger and we could either rely on people who don't like us, or do something ourselves to remove the danger.

Darlin still held a grudge, because one of his ancestors had been killed at Trafalgar? 😂

Well, possibly the worst Video out there on this Naval Action. As so often an American perspective lacking in a real understanding of the War in Europe. No wonder this Channel has so subscribers.

just an indelible shame, a stain on the British flag....

@dovetonsturdee7033

Жыл бұрын

You mean by not surrendering after France had?

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

@@dovetonsturdee7033 France never surrendered. The UK surrendered to Communism in 1939.

The French scuttled in 1942, after the Nazis had started to lose, in 1940 the vichy government were happy to treat with the Nazis, and Darlan (who had joined the vichy cabinet) had changed his tune to the brits each week destroying their trust in him, so their scuttling in 42 is not proof of how it would have played out in 40-41

The French commander, out of sheer arrogance (well, he was French), refused to choose sides. In a war, if you do not choose sides, you make yourself a target. That is the point of a war. Except, perhaps, the Swiss, who happily took money from all sides. If there is anyone who needs to feel ashamed, it is the French commander.

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

France was neutral.

@TomFynn

Ай бұрын

@@MarkHarrison733 When you have been overrun by Nazi-Germany, you are no longer "neutral".

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

@@TomFynn France had left the war on 25 June 1940. France should never have invaded Germany in 1939.

WHY SHOULD WE BE ?

@olivierlefebvre319

4 жыл бұрын

Mr Black Cat because 1297 french sailors who were happy to continue the fight along the english: died...

@gruguntermench6097

4 жыл бұрын

Because your mom gay

@johnjohns9501

3 жыл бұрын

Gensoul should be ashamed not the British

@johnjohns9501

3 жыл бұрын

@@olivierlefebvre319 yes the french sailors wanted to come and fight but the arrogant Gensoul is to blame

@johnjohns9501

3 жыл бұрын

@TheSatanicTicTac what hapened at Dunirk has nothing to do with it

The French flag should be white

@wackadakka3134

3 жыл бұрын

not really , they generally just change it to whichever nation is invading them

@ryanside9117

2 жыл бұрын

@Pepe you're emotional which is understandable but not necessary

@goxokogoxoki6734

Жыл бұрын

It was once - the color of the King, and of death in many cultures. Please do not insult those who fought and fell, if you have a doubt, check the number of French casualties in a few months only in 1940, and tell me what gives you the right to dishonor their memories. Fallen are fallen, those who fought are not necessarily here to defend themselves against your irony. Please leave them alone if you don’t respect them.

@ryanside9117

Жыл бұрын

@@goxokogoxoki6734 you're right I'm wrong. I wasn't thinking of it that way

@MarkHarrison733

Ай бұрын

@@ryanside9117 France should never have invaded Germany in 1939.

The British should not and do not feel ashamed of the sinking of the French fleet, the French and esspecially Gensoul and Darlan should feel ashamed and are to blame for the loss of nearly 1300 lives. We the British could not risk our freedom and our empire on the word of admiral Darlin who had proved to be a liar and could not be trusted.

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

*The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.* The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually protected *in* Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. [Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power] For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... Therefore, totally destroying a continental power or dissing it, was neither wise nor in GB 's interests. Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). *France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.* Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to "balance" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. *And down went the British Empire too...game over...*

@BadPractices

3 жыл бұрын

The fact that the British “should not and do not” feel ashamed for the killings, following the French army and naval contributions to the evacuations of Dunkirk, says a lot about the British. None of it good

@rosesprog1722

3 жыл бұрын

You the British could have waited a day or two more looking for a solution to the crisis, 1300 lives were certainly worth it but as usual Churchill killed first and thought afterwards.

@johnjohns9501

3 жыл бұрын

@@rosesprog1722 Darlan had already lied to us he British and had agreed to hand the fleet over to Hitler after the agreement with the Vichy and Hitler,,as usual the French turned out very unreliable and lied to us so no Churchill was 100% right to order the destruction of the French fleet. Tell my why could they not do as other countries who had fallen to the Germans and come along side us and fight the Germans at sea?

@rosesprog1722

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnjohns9501 They didn't fight with the Germans, they kept the fleet in a port, I don't remember the name and later, when they heard that the Germans were coming they sank all the ships like they said they would, I don't understand your point.