His was one of my favourite books of 2021. If you have enjoyed this show, please don't forget to click like, leave a comment for other viewers and if you have not done so already please SUSBSCRIBE so you don't miss our next streams. You can also become a member of this channel and support me financially here kzread.info/dron/UC1nmJGHmiKtlkpA6SJMeA.html. Links to any books discussed, WW2TV merchandise, our social media pages and other WW2TV shows to watch can all be found in the full KZread description. Lastly, my own book Angels of Mercy is always available online - more info here www.ddayhistorian.com/angels-of-mercy.html

@johnappleby405

11 ай бұрын

Thanks for drawing attention to this excellent book which unlike many others breaks new ground instead of repeating information on well worn subjects like Midway or Stalingrad. Mr Nieburg is a really clear articulate speaker who communicates equally well on paper! Your channel is one of the best on KZread in my humble opinion

@ManiSRao-bt3xw

8 ай бұрын

​@@johnappleby405is San Jose as😊 as

Neiberg is as good as it gets. Every time he lectures he demonstrates an unmatched knowledge and eloquence.

@pauls1883

2 ай бұрын

Michel Neiberg & Robert Citrino are the Lennon & McCartney of WW2 history. “Next level” ability.

Michael's presentation was excellent. I agree that the US made a knee jerk reaction to back Vichy. This relationship is worthy of further research and study.

I wish Michael was my teacher.. Great presentation , again

Exceptional program in every regard as highlighted already by the prior comments here. Those who attend and have attended Professor Neiberg's lectures at the U.S. Army War College where he is currently the Inaugural Chair of War Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy, are lucky and privileged to have such opportunity to learn from him.

Thanks!

Michael Neiberg is a true intellectual as well as a superb historian. His analyses are creative and often counter to the conventional wisdom but they are always impeccably supported by evidence.

Great show yet again from WW2TV , looking at yet another part of the war that is rarely explored.

Masterful presentation. Enthralling from beginning to end. Thank you! There is so much that we still need to learn.

I've assigned two of Neiberg's books for one of my first year history courses - Dance of the Furies and Fighting the Great War. Both are excellent and well worth reading. I look forward to getting my hands on this new book too.

Riveting. Operation Torch had so many political consequences and it was great to hear them being discussed in this talk. My feeling is that the reason why the US led landings in Casablanca and Oran rather than the British was mainly political. Washington hoped the Vichy French officers and administrators would effectively invite US forces to land, since US and Vichy France had full diplomatic relations (US invading North West Africa, particularly Algeria, would have been deemed to be in breach of international law). It is perhaps worth mentioning that Vichy convicted De Gaulle to death in absentia. The reference to monarchists in Vichy reminds me that Darlan's assassin was a monarchist and the Count of Paris, the royal pretender to the French throne, was in November 1942 living in Spanish Morocco and showed up to press his case with the allies to be restored. Perhaps Mr Woodage, when he gets time, could write the definitive account of France in the Second World War, paying due respect to all perspectives. Another great show. If there were Oscars for 2WW online history programmes, 2WWTV would definitely get at least one.

Love your work 👍

Thank you for your video.

@WW2TV

5 ай бұрын

You are welcome

A Neiberg KZread video I haven't yet seen! His presentations on WW1 & 2 are my favorites on KZread. I just ordered his book on Vichy France and can't wait to crack it!

@WW2TV

11 ай бұрын

Yep he is brilliant, and a great friend too

Excellent presentation. Completely new political insights.

I'm just discovering your channel. Looks like I have hundreds of hours of discussion with historians on WW2 to watch. You have no idea how happy I am to have found your channel!

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Brilliant, and welcome aboard

A great insightful episode again, with a guest historian who really knows his onions.

Thank you for this great show! Michael Neiberg has really become one of my favorite historians.

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

Mine too!

As always, superb content, with published historians bringing their newest thoughts to a subject they are expert on, in real time, and as always wonderfully steered by Mr Woodage, with timely and intelligent interjections. I have been a subscriber for some time, but am a little nervous of joining the real time premier chatstreams due to the remarkable variety of commenters many of whom are superb professionals. I will sometime. I do not want to make a fool of myself, but I have some knowledge of the period. I love this channel.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Thank you Simon, but please do join in the live chat

Currently reading Peter Mangold's "Britain and the Defeated French" which makes it a useful companion to Micheal Neiberg's book. Sadly Peter Mangold died in 2017 so isn't available to appear on WW2TV.

Excellent. Thank you.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

You are welcome!

Truly amazing stream by WW2TV out of everything Vichy France is always missed by historians & for me personally is one of the most interesting parts of ww2 ty ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ plz Paul let’s hear more about Vichy in the future thank you both 👍🏻

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you, I hope you'll watch more of our content

Howdy folks. Outstanding presentation on Vichy France’s relationship with the US. Learned a lot from Prof Nelberg, cleared up issues. Great show.

Jeopardy's best was clueless about Vichy? Had I been on that show, I could have cleaned up!

Excellent. Great guest. Interesting, informative, educational and entertaining. Not much else to say ....well...lets hope Paul Cooke gets Ipswich Town back to the championship...lol...that's from a Boro fan.

1:01:00 that is not a “baseball mixed metaphor,” it was just a bit antiquated but still in common parlance. Before the rule changes in 1900-01, the pitcher pitched from within a defined box, not from a mound and pushing off a rubber.

Excellent video! (I've just discovered this channel.) I've looked through you Playlists - especially looking for analysis of the 1940 campaign in the West. I've read Freiser's 'Blitzkrieg Legend' and found it an eye-opener - just how many things had to go right for the Germans (and wrong for the Allies) for the 'Sickle Cut' to work. Any chance of a video analysing the causes of the fall of France?

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

We will return to the fall of France as a subject again I'm sure

Another book worth reading is “Traditional Enemies” Britain's war with Vichy 1940-1942 by John Grainger.

Interesting that Europe is now perhaps the largest “Freeloader” in military affairs in history. The United States has allowed itself (at the insistence of the Europeans I think) to become everyone’s “French Army and Royal Navy.” The current US military is vastly overstretched, there are no industrial reserves, no clear leadership on how to use it, massive recruiting failures, population weary of way too many wars, complacent and astoundingly underfunded, equipped and motivated Allies…… Excellent presentation, especially if taken as a starting point to examine the possible (or probable?) catastrophe(s) in diplomatic, military and economic affairs if the US is out matched. There is no longer a manufacturing colossus with unlimited resources and unstoppable will available in the West. Interesting.

Michael Neiberg's book is terrific and well worth the read (love how he works in lines from "Casablanca" as chapter titles); I do wish WW2TV would do more on covering the Battle of France in 1940---there are videos on Dunkirk and one on the RAF during the offensive, but I'd love to see more on the breakthrough in the Ardennes and the debacle along the Meuse at the start of "Fall Gelb," plus on the foibles and failings of the French (and Allied) high command during this period. I think the French Resistance gets way too much pub and is basically much ado about nothing, no matter what de Gaulle and others claimed. I really enjoy this channel, and it's great to see Alexandra Churchill having an episode with our host too.

@WW2TV

6 ай бұрын

Hi Fred, there are plenty of subjects I still want to cover, and I guess given time I will get to them. We will hit 1000 videos in less than 4 years in 2024, so no-one can say we are not trying

The book will be available from Amazon on November 26th, just pre-ordered a copy.

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you, yes it's out know in most Countries, I hope you'll watch more of our content

All amazing and well done but the ending so unwelcome to your guest!!!

@WW2TV

11 ай бұрын

What do you mean, unwelcome to my guest? Mike and I are very good friends

The Pitcher's Box is a baseball term although seldom used anymore.

Very interesting. I've looked into the position of the Vichy government before but this provides a level of detail that increases my understanding. One thing that was touched on in this talk that i would like to know more about was that, unless i've misunderstood, the Vichy government and it's later forms considered the French Revolution a mistake and wanted to "roll back" some of it's reforms? Am i correct or have i misinterpretted this? Would like more information either way concerning the Vichy standpont on The Revolution. Thanks WWII TV is like no other channel concerning WWII.

@lllordllloyd

10 ай бұрын

Brief non-expert answer: yes. But it is 'RevolutionS'... including 1830, 1848 and 1871. All were attacks on failing conservative (monarchist, Catholuc church-friendly) governments. Vichy was in some ways the last hurrah of 19th Century French conservatism. But this historical divide remains central to French politics to this day. The right signing on with the Nazis and its attempts to avoid consequences after 1944 are fascinating. De Galle... and Allied opposition to sicialism... gave them a desperately-needed escape route. Interesting to speculate what might have happened without him.

@lllordllloyd

10 ай бұрын

Brief non-expert answer: yes. But it is 'RevolutionS'... including 1830, 1848 and 1871. All were attacks on failing conservative (monarchist, Catholuc church-friendly) governments. Vichy was in some ways the last hurrah of 19th Century French conservatism. But this historical divide remains central to French politics to this day. The right signing on with the Nazis and its attempts to avoid consequences after 1944 are fascinating. De Galle... and Allied opposition to sicialism... gave them a desperately-needed escape route. Interesting to speculate what might have happened without him.

@morningstar9233

10 ай бұрын

@@lllordllloyd Thank you for the extra detail. I can see what you mean and yes it's an interesting period indeed. Sorry for the brevity, but I've got to go. Thanks again

I liked when you pointed out that Michael speaks as well as he writes. Quite often your guests who write excellent works have poor speaking skills. Sometimes its irritating to listen to someone who engages in constant lip smacking and fills every sentence with "Ya knows". It was an eye opener to find that your guests who speak English as a second language speak it better than a lot of us who have it as the first one! I'm a Vietnam vet who did two tours of duty there, and was born three months before D Day, and now that I have leisure time I can catch up on history that I missed. I don't watch war movies, they just make me angry with all of the factual errors and glorifying combat, but having stumbled across your channel I seem to have binge watched everything you've posted!

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

I take your point, but language evolves and people have different styles. lip-smacking and filler words don't bother me at all

War is Hell. If the US hadn’t made the deal with Darlan during Torch, today we’d be wringing our hands over the casualties, French and American, that might have been avoided if we’d made the deal. If you’re in a shooting war and you see a way to win with less shooting, you’ll take it.

Much as I like Michael, he keeps making the mistake of forgetting the Imperial Japanese Navy when he talks of who had the second-largest navy in the world in 1940- 1943. Kido Butai was nothing to scoff at.

fIt might be interesting to write a biography about Maurice Chevalier, who entertained the Vichy troops in World War II and his career continued so this experience didn't effect it.

@WW2TV

11 ай бұрын

Yep, he's an interesting figure and his career carried on regardless of his support for Vichy

Another awareness of Vichy comes from the two movies by Humphrey Bogart: Casablanca and To Have and Have Not.

@WW2TV

10 ай бұрын

Yes, although a rather American view

I would be interested in the perspective of Francois Mitterand.

@Big-guy1981

Жыл бұрын

Are you being sarcastic?

Is American Jeopardy easier than the versions in other countries? 😅

As an American IN 2023...I think Churchill did the exact right thing bombing the French fleet AFTER giving them 3 very reasonable options to avoid it. No way could he take the chance of his greatest asset-the worlds best navy at the time...turning into #2 behind the combined German/French fleet. Which wouldve made an unlikely invasion of Britain in hindsight (very difficult at least)-far more likely, & possible.It wouldve been irresponsible to just take Vicheys word that theyd never turn it over to Germany...that they could even prevent it IF they even really wanted to-which is no guarantee. And at the time,how could anybody percieve Vichy as anything other than a full German puppet? Whether in hindsight that turns out what they were or not. Seems they werent full puppet-but push came to shove-they rounded up their Jews for the Holocaust as 1 example. Even in 2023,unless you know facts I dont-I see nothing that remotely guarantees Germany doesnt get those ships if Churchhill hadnt eliminated them. He did his job to protect Britain...the French officers made their own foolish decision. Though granted Ive seen things that said they all werent aware of the 3 options Churchill gave...some thought the only option was to join the British navy or face destruction. But my understanding is that was cuz 1 of the French diplomats or officials-didnt pass on that part of the ultimatum. Unless I have my facts off on this-& thats possible...that isnt Britains fault...I dont think they even knew that French offical misrepresented the choices. If Im wrong on this-please let me know. But if today,say ISIS took over N Korea(far fetched-I get it-but tough comparison to modern times-but ISIS,& the NAZIS-both extremist,violent,destructive cults))-& instituted some alleged independent govt...are we gonna just take their word that theyll never turn their nukes over to ISIS? Different deal than the French fleet in 1940-I get it. But there are simularities in you could just never take that chance,& nor could Churchill. Ive only watched bout half hr so far-& maybe you answer some of this after that. I will watch the rest,but as of my understandings-if accurate-I think Churchill had no other option. The best of all bad options was the only 1 he could make,& thats what he reluctantly did. The atomic bombings on Japan are similar in my mind-totally justified for many reasons-as awful & regrettable as they were. (probably SAVING millions of Japanese lives,& hundreds of thousands of American lives being justification reason #1)But those were seperate from some of the conventional bombings the western allies conducted in both Europe,& Japan-which DID cross the line,& go too far-my opinion with hindsight. But thats another story for another day.The French outrage is somewhat understandable-but couldnt play any factor in the British PMs decision.

@christianfournier6862

4 ай бұрын

@jasonsmith-pe5py= As a Frenchman in 2023, and in addition one who has much studied the Mers-El-Kébir “Greek tragedy”, I appreciate that you have taken the trouble to write on it a lengthy piece. Your opinion is basically in line with what most - but not all - historians of the Anglosphere (ie. the US, UK and CANZAUS) have written during the last eighty years. “Victori sunt spolia”, and within the spoils lies the ability to write a view of history which, even when flawed, will prevail. I beg to differ on two of your major assertions: - the first assertion is that the French Navy officers and in particular Admiral Marcel Gensoul, the commander of the Force de Raid fleet moored at Mers-El-Kébir, are responsible for the death of 1'300 of their sailors by refusing “foolishly” the “reasonable conditions” transmitted to them by Captain Cedric Holland. This is the most commonly accepted account given in the Anglosphere, but - while it exonerates Churchill - it does not stand a careful scrutiny. As Gertrude Stein would have said: an ultimatum is an ultimatum is a ultimatum. No Admiral of any nation will defer to an ultimatum without an order to do so. On that day of July. 3 1940, both Admirals (Sommerville and Gensoul) were under strict orders, which made the fight unavoidable. They could delay executing these orders but only up to a point. And delay they did, but the day was too short and Churchill's (& Le Luc's) orders were too imperative for a peaceful outcome to be reached. - the second assertion is that Vichy was already (on July. 3 1940) a puppet of Germany and that the Fleet was at great risk of passing under German control. On that July 3rd 1940, there was not yet a Vichy, indeed no government in France! And - if it is quite true that Pétain had sympathy for a form of fascism - he was at that time endeavoring to outfox the Germans. In the video, it is rightly noted that after Mers-El-Kébir some would have had France declare war on Britain, but Pétain refused. It is true however that the Pétain 'outfoxing' attempt failed miserably, and that he later entirely gave-in to Laval and Darlan, who were the real architects of a heightened (& criminal) collaboration with the Nazis. The video makes passing references to Laval and Darlan, but I'm sure that their role in governing France will be highlighted in further conferences by the same speakers. Churchill was obsessed with the menace of the French Fleet passing under German control. This obsession probably came from his monumental disappointment at seeing the French Army (& the BEF for that matter) soundly trounced by the Wehrmacht in May-June '40; this disappointment translated in a momentary distrust of anything French, thus refusing to believe that the standing order to all Captains of the French fleet [that they must never yield their ships to the Germans] would be executed come what may. The problem is that mistrust works both ways! The “Force de Raid” was a significant part but only a part of the French fleet, the bulk of which was in Toulon. And the practical outcome of Mers-El-Kébir has been that more than half of the ”Force de Raid” (the modern capital ship Strasbourg and five of the six heavy destroyers) escaped to Toulon. Only one modern capital ship (Dunkerque), plus two outdated capital ships (Bretagne and Provence) and one heavy destroyer (Mogador) were lost at Mers-El-Kebir - and all of them except Bretagne were later salvaged. The Churchill gambit at Mers-El-Kébir was thus not vindicated by events; it was a decision made out of anger, hastily prepared and half-heartedly executed for a mixed result. Britain had deeply antagonized the French Navy (and generated deep distrust in the French general public of 1940). The only positive outcome for Churchill was to convince Roosevelt (and maybe his own British people) that he would fight ruthlessly to the end! As for the negative consequences, one can list: Dakar (1940); Syria (1941); Madagascar, Casablanca and Algiers (1942); and the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon in Nov. 1942, a fleet which would have been perfectly able to rally the Allied cause if not for the long shadow of Mers-El-Kébir. From a French perspective, the 1'300 dead sailors are a grievous loss, part of the 567'000 French persons who died from WW II. But the lack of trust demonstrated by the British government of July 1940, while understandable up to a point, has taken in the French psyche the form of an utterly unnecessary slight. It does'nt help when peremptory judgements are made on this tragedy of Mers-El-Kébir. By 'peremptory judgements' I'm not referring here to the video, which terms the attack: “probably an unnecessary act”, and which I find very well researched, very factual and interesting. __ .

What do you think of the book ,THE COLLASPE OF THE THIRD REPUBLIC by William L.Shirer and what does your book add to the research Mr. Shirrer did ?

@WW2TV

11 ай бұрын

Two separate subjects surely? Michael Neiberg's book is about the fall of France

@whtalt92

11 ай бұрын

@@WW2TV Closely related. 3rd Republic ended with the granting of full powers to Petain and the adaptation of the constitution that created L' Etat Francais - i.e. Vichy France.

Odd argument to say America hasn't grappled with that part of the war when no Americans defend it or feel strongly about it. Sure plenty of mistakes were made all over the place, but Americans don't follow every campaign or detail of the war. And I've never heard an American say that we did everything right. That part of the war is just not important to most Americans. We didn't like Vichy but weren't concerned about French or European politics. Americans barely have time for their own politics. I think most Americans would easily say that these things were mistakes, but this part of the war is just not that notable to us.

@WW2TV

11 ай бұрын

But, Michael's point is thzt it should have been

Mind, the problem with Vichy is that even the French can't agree on it all. I met a French exchange student, a classic Communiste and all, and when I described the Vichy as Collaborationist, they said, no, it was the "Legal Government of Defeated France," as in a neutral state abiding by the conditions of a compelling peace treaty. He would not call it legitimate because as a Communist, he thought all the French republican governments were inherently illegitimate. He was the most extreme, but not the only French person I have met to express a view that collaboration was not the right term for Vichy.

A nightmare shameful time for France.And the French world.

Did Clark messed up by pushingyowards Rome? Consequences? Thanks,

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Clark's Italian campaign management was really beyond the scope of this specific show, but he will be discussed in the future

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

LIBERATION OF ROME: LANDINGS IN FRANCE HC Deb 06 June 1944 vol 400 cc1207-111207 §The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill) I must apologise to the House for having delayed them, but Questions were gone through rather more rapidly than usual. The House should, I think, take formal cognisance of the liberation of Rome by the Allied Armies under the Command of General Alexander, with General Clark of the United States Service and General Oliver Leese in command of the Fifth and Eighth Armies respectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is a memorable and glorious event, which rewards the intense fighting of the last five months in Italy. The original landing, made on 22nd January at Anzio, has, in the end, borne good fruit. In the first place, Hitler was induced to send to the south of Rome eight or nine divisions which he may well have need of elsewhere. Secondly, these divisions were repulsed, and their teeth broken, by the successful resistance of the Anzio bridgehead forces in the important battle which took place in the middle of February. The losses on both sides were heavy-the Allies losing about 20,000 men, and the Germans about 25,000 men. Thereafter, the Anzio bridgehead was considered by the enemy to be impregnable.

The betrayal of the French soldiers by Truly inept command structure-nothing about the fight with the Italians ,It was that French army allowed Dunkirk Evacuation to happen .Nothing about Churchill of merit( many flights to France to try and keep them in the War) , nothing about second Evacuation of over 150,000 troops ,Nothing about the fact that France could not make a separate peace under the Alliance with Britain .After Britain ,USA Japan- Then Italy With France in Naval Forces size-then Germany a poor last. I will finish there.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

So your criticism is about things not stated in the show? Because of course there are always more things that can be said. The emphasis of this show was on the reaction in the USA,.to cover all the complicated history of 1940 in just an hour would be impossible

France had a not insignificant royalist political faction for a long time after the Bourbons and Napoleon III (wouldn't surprise me if they still do). It doesn't seem surprising me me that a "next best thing" conservative faction could gain power.

I do have a question regarding the idea that the Marine Nationale (MN) was the second strongest Navy in 1940. This just doesn't seem right to me. The US Navy (USN) had 12 super-dreadnaught battleships plus 3-4 more second-line battleships. It had 6 fleet carriers, each and every one of which was of far superior quality to the 1 MN carrier. A quick glance through the 1940 T/O of the USN shows they had more than 30 cruisers, and I didn't even make it all the way down. I am at a loss as to how the MN could be portrayed as stronger than the USN in 1940 given these #'s. The Japanese Navy (IJN) also seems stronger on paper, at least in terms of capital ships. The IJN had 4 fleet carriers and a smattering of light carriers, which puts them far ahead of the MN in the naval aviation dept. The IJN had 6 battleships and 4 battlecruisers to the 5 of the MN. Granted, the MN's were more modern, but they would have been outnumbered. I'm sure Neiberg did his homework and that I'm just missing something, but I can't for the life of me see how anyone could take the threat of a couple Richelieu's with no air cover sailing across the Atlantic to bombard Charleston or something seriously. Is it the threat of MN subs? I could see that being a potential issue, but other than that I'm just not seeing it.

@WW2TV

2 жыл бұрын

So, France had 70 Destroyers and 17 cruisers in 1940

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

Tonnage in 1939 of first rate navies UK USA Japan France Fleets of the interwar to WW2 - 1939-1945 - Naval Encyclopedia page

The American and British paranoia about Vichy globally was proven valid when Vichy was forced to allow Japan to stage their military in Indochina, which from there went on to invade Malaya and Indonesia and the Philippines.

France and WW2 is not talked about in any detail in the ubiquitous narrative on display. That is until now and this book.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Because I live there, it's an important subject for me

So, the cowards who fled France for England returned and put on trial those who stayed and honored the surrender terms with the Germans, agreed upon by the remaining French government.

@WW2TV

7 ай бұрын

Interesting interpretation. Why were they cowards exactly?

We all knew it was pretty Vichy from the start. France didn't fall, it was run by one incompetency after another.

I am over 62 years old, I have been reading about this stuff since I was 10 years old. I never knew that Vichy actually declared war on the UK. It does explain their treatment of UK prisoners, including handing them to the Germans.

@deepcosmiclove

11 ай бұрын

They had some fights but there was never a declaration of war.

@deepcosmiclove

8 ай бұрын

When some Vichy mnisters suggested declaring war on the UK, Petain said "One lost war is enough."

@davewolfy2906

8 ай бұрын

@@deepcosmiclove I have been looking for this declaration of war, cannot find it yet.

@58:52 Mark Clark was a 1st class screw up. De Gaul was a pain in the neck to the USA but he was an amazing politician, a real heir of Napoleon.

the french didnt have a more dangerous fleet then the USA in 1940, not even close

@martinkirk3810

2 жыл бұрын

That depends on the context. If you assume land-based cover, the French navy has capabilities that the US can't match, particularly fast battleships/battlecruisers

@blueboats7530

2 жыл бұрын

If you set aside the majority of the U.S. fleet to cover the Pacific, as was the case, the remainder in the Atlantic is roughly even to the whole of the French fleet, and the U.S had zero modern battleships anywhere.

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

Tonnage in 1939 of first rate navies UK USA Japan France Fleets of the interwar to WW2 - 1939-1945 - Naval Encyclopedia page

@dalerobinson8051

10 ай бұрын

At the time, navies counted battleships. We now know they should have counted carriers.

@ianwalter62

5 ай бұрын

@@martinkirk3810 Eh? Google the keel laying, launch, and commissioning dates of the North Carolina & South Dakota classes. I'm not sure what your projected date is for Vichy France's "Invasion America" scenario, but the USN fast battleships armed with 16"guns, and radar fire control (and we haven't even mentioned the 6 authorised Iowa class BBs), built after the abrogation of London treaty limitations by the Japanese, make all the French ships including the Richelieu (whose immune zone only provided protection from 15" fire from an Italian opponent) obsolete. As said by @dalerobinson8051, this is all a bit of a rabbit hole, because what matters is carriers - and you might watch Drachinifel's discussion of the Bearn, because it really was a dreadful collection of engineering errors and about as useful operationally as an ashtray on a motorbike. I would be interested to see what, if any appreciation of comparative French naval strength, was provided by the USN (Stark, King, Richardson, whomever) to FDR in July/August/September 1940; the Vinson-Trammel acts of 1938, and 1940(1) were already legislated, with 1940(2) in preparation; Dr Neiberg refers, in a slide in the presentation, to what a journalist and a politician said about it; I expect in his book he refers to the professional naval view which the Administration acted on.

Thanks!