Mers-el-Kebir - Tragedy on a Grand Scale
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Today we look at the facts and thinking behind the attack on Mers-el-Kebir, with my own take on roles a responsibilities.
Comments and Discussion welcome.
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshi...
Want a medal? - www.etsy.com/u...
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel
Drydock Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A :)
May I suggest the series on strikes known as the "Bombardment of Ancona" on the 23rd of May, 1915 to be included on "THE" list?
As a French man, the way you present this contrevertial event is really appreciated. You seem to take care to read the facts from a neutral perspective.
I fully understand why the Royal Navy attacked in such a way and I fully blame French command for this. Once defeat was near they should have sailed all ships and crews, with full loads of fuel, munition, equipment out of France and all the way to the US.
French Merchent fleet should have sailed witn full cargos of equipment and goods to Britain to help them sustain themselves in the months to come.
National pride in France suffered greatly from this defeat and a greater commitment from France - before its fall - to help the UK stay in the fight would have helped us keep our honor even if the land campaign was a resounding defeat
I saw the intro for this video, why when a battleship fires some debris came out from the turret ??
@@nitsu2947 That debris is probably the remains of the silk bag of the propellant charges.
Thanks for covering this. I hope one day the 1941 Bombardment of Genoa gets the same treatment.
"Armed with nothing but a cake and 27 candles."
Awh. 😞
Right in the feels dude. Can you imagine having to shoot at someone you were supposed to be at a party with?
Yeah a high capacity assault cake. No cake should be able to hold that many candles. 5 candles is more than enough. Wee need to ban these dangerous weapons of birthday festivities. Think of the kids! But in all honesty I was so releaved to hear that that particular situation was resolved peacefully. Having to fire on the men who were just prior gathered to wish you a happy birthday would have been awful. I don't know if i could have followed those orders.
That's a goddamn heartbreaker.
To look back with a piece of your birth cake in your mouth to your ships 15 inch guns pointed at you ! Dont screw up ! Talk about looking down the barrel .
I'm glad I'm not alone in having my heart sink at hearing that, I'm glad it worked out so well.
In his book “The Second World War: Their Finest Hour” Winston Churchill indulged in a bit of “what if”:
How vain are human calculations of self-interest! Rarely has there been a more convincing example. Admiral Darlan had but to sail in any one of his ships to any port outside France to become the master of all French interest beyond German control. He would not have come like General de Gaulle with only an unconquerable heart and a few kindred spirits. He would have carried with him outside the German reach the fourth Navy in the world, whose officers and men were personally devoted to him. Acting thus, Darlan would have become the chief of the French Resistance with a mighty weapon in his hand. British and American dockyards and arsenals would have been at his disposal for the maintenance of his fleet. The French gold reserve in the United States would have assured him, once recognised, of ample resource. The whole French Empire would have rallied to him. Nothing could have prevented him from being the Liberator of France. The fame and power which he so ardently desired were in his grasp. Instead, he went forward through two years of worrying and ignominious office to a violent death, a dishonoured grave, and a name long to be execrated by the French Navy and the nation he had hitherto served so well.
Winston was brutal, but on a point.
"How vain are human calculations of self-interest!"
spoken well for a man who was a whore to finance and global banking power so that he could buy nice cigars, live the high life and thus have the "honored grave" in the multicultural era, despite his hatred for the indians who ironically won the war for him (enlisted in ridiculous number to get away from the India that the UK was starving to death), despite his support for gassing "inferior tribes", despite taking a course of action that let half of Europe fall to communism. Well, his grave isn't very "honored" now; it's rightfully sitting in a box in some British square, and the inheritors of the British isles will melt this f#ckwits statue down and use it to make a mosque dome, if anything. The man who sold the world.
Winston also had to prove to President Roosevelt that he (Britain) would do whatever had to be done. I've always had mixed feelings about this, as many people do, but Churchill was begging the US for support, and Roosevelt was dealing with the Isolationist sentiment which constituted a huge segment of the population and Congress. It was high risk, and there really wasn't a happy outcome. Britain couldn't take the risk, and Roosevelt needed proof that Britain really had the backbone to what had to be done.
Well, that is what separates men with spine, and sheeple.
A great many of the tragedies in this world happen because when a man is tested between making that deadly choice between greatness and cowardice, too many cannot step off the path of the easy and compliant.
Well said, all.
DOUGout
A nice touch at the end to give a few moments silence to honour the loss of the sailors.
Joe how are you doing where is peter
@@hoangho6781 I'm ok, I think Bonnie wants to kill me though. I haven't seen Peter since he went skydiving.
I heard he went to China after the skydiving trip haven’t heard him since
Sure does a lot of good for everyone decades after the crime.
Like the tooth
36:05 "The British were coming" given the naval history between the British and the French.
That's not exactly the kinda of news a French Admiral wants to hear.
The only nation more fearful to hear that would be the Spanish, maybe that's why they stayed out of it, they knew what would happen
@@leodesalis5915 ye probably lol
@@leodesalis5915 I get the deep History between the French and British... but don't forget that it had sort of be "reset" during WWI when both fought as allies... mostly on French soil... also against the Germans. The actual LIVING memory at the time (personal experiences, as opposed to knowledge gained from History books) was of France and GB being allies.
@@Nyet-Zdyes Yeah of course but in England it's always been a joke to hate on the French no matter what happens it's the same as the Americans, people like Churchill and Monty that summed up the stereotypical opinion of our allies
@@Nyet-Zdyes and no matter how far you go back everyone in British history had one reason or another to dislike the French or at least have something to rag on then about
Could not agree more. Plenty of blame to go around, but Admiral Gensoul shoulders the most as 1) he was the leader on the spot (the buck stops there), and 2) his conduct in placing his personal pride, with his perceived affront at the rank of the British emissary (and it's not like the British sent a mere lieutenant or some such), above his obligation to his fleet/men is unconscionable and indefensible.
One would have to think how Admiral Gensoul's own Captains thought of the snub to their rank. They are the officers an Admiral directly commands and he goes all, men of your rank are not worthy to smell my bad breath. Opposite of leadership.
@@dreamingflurry2729 History has to be seen in the context of the time. The French at the time were no colony being treated like dirt but an ally and a major power.
Your non sequitur about treatment of others by the British through the context of French colonialism is pretty silly. Nobody just jumps up and says "Hey we want to ruled and controlled by some foreign nation, turn us into a colony!"
Finally British propaganda. War. And? So?
Considering Germany's track record at the moment made the British look like saints.
@@dreamingflurry2729 Really ? In a war that truly can be described as being between good and evil, you do not fight cleanly. You fight to win. Your opinion is both sanctimonious and bigoted. I suppose a little crypto fascist like you would have preferred Hitler to have won.
You either on are side or with Hitler? There's no neutral or gray area to hide your fleet there Vichy!
@@dreamingflurry2729 not because they might turn into enemies, but that the enemy you were fighting together might seize valuable assets if those assets aren't moved completely out of reach. What, you're going to trust Hitler when he says he doesn't want your ships? Can we even count the times that Hitler said, "Just give me this, I dont want anything else" and a month later he's making more demands? Hm, Rhineland, rearmament, ships over 10,000 tons, Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslovakia, Poland ... Now we're supposed to trust that Hitler won't decide he needs those ships and just come take them? Or trust that the new French government, which just broke its promise not to seek a separate peace, will scuttle the ships before the Germans can seize them?
However distasteful the final outcome, the British did what was necessary at the time given their decision to continue resisting Hitler. If Gensoul had just accepted one of the options offered by the British, an option Darlan had already approved of (relocation to French colonies in the Americas), then those thousand or so French sailors would have lived to join the Free French in 1942.
Imagine celebrating your birthday with sind french officers and then getting the order to blow up the guys who just gifted you a nice cake.
War is hell. Cake or no cake.
'these are times that try men's souls'
the Cake is a Lie, sorry someone had to, i'll get my coat.
To be fair the French should of seen this coming. They were rolled by the Germans and thought they could wait it out in the middle of the Allies and Axis. Those ships should've been long gone by the time France surrendered.
Bad behaviour among the French - and cake...seem inextricably linked somehow.
Cunningham managed to talk the French admiral in Alexandria into giving up his ships peacefully, and he was pretty annoyed at the pressure Churchill laid on to open fire.
This is one of the reasons why, regardless of his reputation, I've always held Churchill in low regard.
Sir Andrew Cunningham was one of the Navy’s most notable commanders of WW2, and any future capital ships the Navy builds would be fully justified if his name was given to one of them. Possibly with an HMS Jellicoe in the same class.
It helps that you have an overwhelmingly superior force at hand and the enemy has no chance to win or escape (as was the case in Alexandria). The significantly more powerful French force in Oran (both in absolute and relative terms - compared to the threatening RN force) did have a chance (and a sizeable portion of it did escape)
Having a month with them in your own port under your guns is not the same.
@@RedXlV And the fact that he encouraged other war-crimes (fire-bombing cities with now outlawed phosphorus-bombs! Churchill was a man of action, a true bulldog, but he was also a criminal IMHO! Killing civilians (directly, if they are collateral damage it is bad enough!) is a no go in war and everybody who does it should be executed IMHO!)
even with all the history between Great Britain and France, this was still heart breaking to listen to. Nothing would have made me more proud as a Brit than to have heard a new twist to the battle of the denmark straights, of Hood, Prince of Wales and french battleships working together to sink bismark. 🇬🇧🇨🇵 God bless all involved in this tragedy.
@Gordon Freeman the British 🇬🇧 couldn't afford those French vessels to fall into German and Italian hands. Simple .
@Gordon Freeman I did I was basically agreeing with u . Relax have a cookie.. bhehehhe
AMEN.
Almost every British veteran of WW2 that cared enough to write author Nicholas Pringle ,said they regretted having fought in WW2 , and given the chance to go back would not have fought , their letters were compiled in " the unknown warriors" by Nicholas Pringle
@Gordon Freeman what you remarked is so true. Of course the French weren’t going to let the brits tell them what to do and they fought the land campaign very badly. Britain just couldn’t take a chance of that navy falling to the nazis
Gensoul's performance here reminds me of the quote from Hunt for Red October when the Konovalov's torps homed in onto itself- "You arrogant ass, you've killed us"
BEST COMMENT AWARD!
Yeah, and if he had followed the brits conditions the same would have happened, except with the civilian population falling entirely under occupation.
Gensoul had no choice.
@@lsq7833 What's even more frightening is the French Admiral going on vacation at the beginning of World War II what the heck is that all about?
@@lsq7833 The civilian population *did* fall under occupation, first of the fascist puppet regime aligned with the Nazis, later to the fascist Axis powers themselves.
+1 Like, I remember that quote!
This is my favorite 'weird war tale' of ww2. Your voice is perfect for this stuff. Great job with everything.
Churchill could not trust Britain's future to the promises of one French Admiral no matter how good that person's intentions.
@TheSatanicTicTac you think that truth matter to anglo-american
@TheSatanicTicTac I see your point but the royal navy didn't have a crystal ball
@TheSatanicTicTac exactly everyone from the top brass to the able seaman must of felt a huge sense of shame.
@TheSatanicTicTac France had been ordered by the Axis to render control of their fleet over to the Germans and Italians--the British had reasons to doubt Britain's very survival if the Axis then did what they had done repeatedly and readily many times over recent years: blatantly betray their international agreements for the sake of conquest and opportunism.
So the British ultimatum was absolutely necessary--either Darlan violates the Axis orders of the armistice by not giving his fleet over to German control, or he violates the Axis orders of the armistice. Simply keeping the ships for themselves, in their own control, was not an option unless they became a free navy and continued to fight the Axis.
And the British gave them a whole slew of options, which was entirely reasonable. Remember, they had both the option to just scuttle their ships (which basically satisfies the letter of the armistice, since the ships were going to be supposedly "disarmed" anyway), or to sail them to a neutral nation's ports for the duration of the war (which also basically satisfies the armistice, since a neutral nation is not going to let them be used in the war lest its own neutrality be compromised. And Gensoul rejected the very basis of being an officer--to either make decisions when presented with a situation in which a decision must be made, or to consort with their superiors to get THEM to make a decision based on all the information you could give them. Gensoul both refused to make a decision and actively decided to not give absolutely critical information to his superiors when he was asking for THEM to make a decision for him (despite already having pre-existing orders from his superior officer that laid out what he was to do if his fleet was threatened with seizure or an ultimatum).
The British did NOT want to open fire on the French ships. The French gave them no choice BUT to open fire. Because you can't bet your nation's very existence on a bunch of sailors and officers managing to scuttle their ships no matter what despite orders from the Axis (to which their leadership had agreed to) saying otherwise.
@@russty81ify In fact Somerville's orders began "You are charged with carrying out perhaps the most disagreeable orders that any of His Majesty's admirals have been given ...."
I don’t see the controversy. The Poles refused to surrender in any official capacity, evacuated their Navy and fought on with the Allies until Germany's surrender. The French created a collaborationist regime instead of evacuating their naval assets. They were fair game however slight the possibility of their ships ending up in German hands.
Exactly...I think many modern day people especially casual historians or the general public fail to realise that compared to the polish government in exile the French government in exile was basically pointless having no military assets and only finances stored in the US.
Looking back vichy France was the "legitimate" France at the time....afterall they held the control over the military and the land...where as free France had a bank account and thats about it.
While we view modern day free France, the 4th Republic as part of the allies...because they were....vichy France must be viewed as a separate entity and they were firmly part of the axis. Even if it was through a mixture of threat, coertion and the French far right getting the power given to them by the nazis. They were still the axis....if there is anyone to feel sorry for its enlisted and lower officer personnel who ended up going from serving democratic France to a nazi puppet....and they had very little option but to go with it or risk being sent to.slave labour camps or killed....poor souls
Lies upon lies. Vichy was a neutral state, the attack on Mers-El-Kébir is what gave them the perfect excuse to collaborate with the Axis. Even though in 1942 when Germany annexed what remained of France, on direct order of Admiral Darlan, they destroyed what was remaining of their navy to prevent it of being captured by the Germans.
@@anaon7025 I think your point is that the French were not monolithic in WWII. The collaborationists got an excuse while others, like Darlan, tried to walk the tense middle road of preserving what their nation had without it being destroyed by either side in the war (which failed, by such a time you can't fence sit and they should have did what the Poles and others did despite the cost to their nation that they left behind).
There is more there too. The Resistance and its infinitely numerous factions wound up fighting one another more than they did the Nazi's or Vichy.
@@anaon7025 Neutral state my arse. You deported Jews and fought the Allies in Operation Torch. The Poles had huge moral high ground over French actions.
@@PolakInHolland Absolutely mad how the French narrative is still so much that they did a great job in WW2. Such a bad look to not admit to faults or mistakes.
See how they dealt with getting caught doing state terrorism in New Zealand in the 80's. Such noble behaviour en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
Interesting that Admiral Gensoul apparently never talked about it, even though he lived another 30+ years.
Are there any contemporaneous French records available?
Narrative in postwar France, (up to today, but more forcefully in the early days) was staunchly De Gaullist, with the man himself actually either ruling or being a major influence in the country. No wonder Gensoul kept quiet on the subject.
He probably never talked about since in hindsight he realized what an absolute idiot he was. And he was again too prideful to admit it. Maybe talking about it is like talking to a captain??
Nobody ever sent an Admiral to interview him.
I laughed a little too hard at that!
@@rogerwilco2 Underrated comment.
It wasn't mentioned or isn't much acknowledged but the attack also cemented other Allied and neutral opinions (especially the USA) that the UK was going to continue fighting the war in mid-1940.
_DK_ - it also had a sequel in the Invasion of Madagascar.
The allies were concerned that the Japanese would use it to cut off India - a genuine fear - meaning that it had to be taken from the Vichy regime. The USA was deliberately kept out of the invasion so that the British would take the propaganda hit, keeping the Americans’ image as a “clean” peacemaker
Again, more casualties were caused on the Allies by the French than upon the Axis...
That claim is repeated on and on by the British propaganda trying to both overestimate its achievements and importance in WW2 as well as justify this action of outright agression. Drachinifel at least didn't buy it (he mentions that consideration being of secondary importance at best to the British decision makers at the time).
@@VersusARCH If Britain didn't hold out the war in Western Europe would've been over and America would've just been in the Pacific. How supportive of Russia would America have been if It was just Hitler and Stalin fighting it out in Eastern Europe.I understand the hard feelings on this topic but this is on the Vichy and Free French governments for not seeing them ships as a future headache and having them leave when the Free French government did.
@@robert48044 Germany would have still attacked the USSR and everything would have ended more or less the same (UK would reenter the war as France did).
I come to opinion why European forces were defeated by German Nationalist. . They became to liberal pacifist as they are today . To hear The French President this year say liberalism is the only way . Haaaaahaaaaaa! The reports from the Germans that most there weapons were found only dropped once and most of there weapons were abandon leads to the liberal policy of putting weak leberalist in charge.
Gensoul sounds like, as they say, "le huge prick"
Le Très huge prick
Le Très Grande Prick.
"le flacid prick"
Le gros traître.
Le grand con
I have seen several docs about this event and this vid is easily the best. From the info, to the personal view really comes together quite well! Great job
Gensoul was clearly in the wrong refusing to talk to a captain, but on the second attempt where he actually met Holland they probably should have actually sent Somerville along side Holland in an attempt to appease the bastard. If he’s such an egomaniac maybe Somerville showing up would have buttered him up.
In those days I wonder how in touch he was with what had been going on. Its bad enough there would be no TV in those days but on board ship there would have been no newspapers, no cinema news and possibly no news radio when not in port and perhaps no contact with civilians. He would doubtless have been getting military news and orders. The political situation and the subjugation that the vichy treaty meant might not have sunk in. he could have been thinking he was head of a fleet for a politically viable and independent part of France so business as usual - so what if we lost a bit of the north, why should i betray France and hand over to a foreign power and upset the apple cart.
@@redf7209 there definitely were tvs in those days
@@bluebird1046 pretty sure he couldnt watch cnn. The British experimental TV service was suspended for the war.. Tv transmitter towers were not widespread either. I don't think the French had one at all and if they did I'd bet the war they didnt have any on their ships
Absolutely. People like that are very easy to manipulate; all you have to do is flatter them. The method of getting your way with a narcissist is to pretend to be as much in love with them as they are with themselves (Mr Trump anyone?).
I'm in agreement with Croweater, if Admiral Somerville had negotiated directly with Admiral Gensoul and took Captain Holland as his interpreter with the written terms things might have gone very differently. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. A lot of the French military leadership also hated the British and regarded them as willing to fight to the last drop of French blood. After the sinking any stray French warship would have a tough choice on their hands but the intact French navy falling into German and Italian hands would probably meant an axis victory and a stronger, better equipped and earlier invasion of Russia, Hitlers real goal and they might have taken Moscow and knocked Russia out of the war. I can see why Churchill gave that order.
Very interesting breakdown and analysis. I learned a lot new about the Mers-el-Kebir incident here. Excellent video, Drachinifel.
Thoroughly enjoyed listening to this very concise take on this tragic event. It deserves to be seen many more people. Thank You
This is one of your finest videos. Thankyou for doing it, it is admirable the effort you put in to make sure that fact is the basis for logic. It is such a tragedy which us Brits aren't proud of and for that reason aren't taught about, when it is exactly these type of lessons which everyone needs to be aware of to learn from.
12:03-12:12 A Empire Strikes back reference!? lol " I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." LMAO
I'm an American so take this as you will but as I look back at history there seems to be a lot of miscommunication where the French are involved. I suspect there are subtleties of their culture that we still don't understand. Seemingly inexplicable decisions made time and again. Rather interesting.
@@IcyTorment you are biased. clearly you have adopted moral standards of the brits and brutish Americans. Which are double faced. A smiling face to the front a beautiful facade but at the back holding a knife and the tail of a snake. Dishonorable war mongering and immoral culture that pretends to be virtuous whilst breaking all of their own morals constantly, though carefully veiled by well crafted indoctrination lies and propaganda. Just look at all the atrocities caused by them. They aren't good people. Sure they are genetically and culturally the most similar to myself, but just like most others, they aren't good people. They aren't good at all, everything is shades of grey and the allies both now and then were far far far in the darkest corner together with Germany and many others. Humans are often quite immoral and disgusting as a collective society. Yet they can't see it because they are blind to their own faults.
@naurius there really were options that did not require the French to give up their ships. In fact, most options did not require this.
@David Wilhelm- the French navy, during the generation that these Admirals were from, was chaotic and nonsensical in hindsight, but that's hindsight. This man had the chance to continue the fight in one way or another, but chose to soothe his pride at his men's expense. That's not subtlety, it's narcissism.
@@nocensorship8092 what does that even mean? There's lots of allusion, lots of words, but no substance. It's nonsense if there are no details. If there are details, then you'll find that most, if not all, military powers have their atrocities and their benevolence. It's because they're run by humans, which have these same moments, and rely on the strict application of orders.
@nocensorship8092 clearly, you've adopted the self-centered superiority complex of... whatever you are.
As you can see, Darland was trying to hide aspects of the armassist from the British. Gensoul was trying to lie about the options given to the French fleet.
To put a blanket statement that the Americans and the British are British and have no morals yes unfounded and quite frankly prejudiced. I could say the same for you because you actually sound like a Muslim.
Americans and British and westerners at least take action. When it comes to muslims they just talk in circles and never come to an agreement and then you wonder why you're so fractured.
The passion you bring for your condemnation upon Admiral Gensoul is a thing of beauty to hear.
Gensoul was only a honest militaryman who obeyed the orders of the legal government. France, at that time, was neutralized by the armistice treaty., that Pétain never broke, and never had the intention to break. Mers-el-Kébir was in fact nothing but an unuseful crime and felony, and in more, a military failure, since the french fleet was only temporarily a bit lessened by the loss of an old dreanought and other more little ships; the four modern line battleships stayed untouched, except the Dunkerque who was later rather quickly repaired.
@@felix25ize You get nowhere appealing to me to remember Marshall Pétain's honorable nature: je me souviens le Vel d'Hiv. (If you're going to use latter events to justify your position, that opens the field for me to do the same.)
As for Gensoul's supposed honesty - his inability to fully appraise the authorities back home that he was trying to appeal to for a decision is not what I'd describe as the act of an honest man. I'm just a former blue shirt scum, but if I ever bungled a sitrep as badly has Admiral Gensoul failed in his communications to the Vichy government I'd have lost my rating and likely faced time in Leavenworth
@@OtakuLoki Pétain later engaged in collaboration, the nazi pistol aiming his temple, and becoming older ; but never to the point of engaging his fleet and army besides the nazis; and Mers -el-Kébir showed him ( and also to the french population) what kind of allies were the englishes , and that was quite something as a reason for his later attitude ( and the attentism of most of the french population ). With such friends, you do not need ennemies ... De Gaulle, at his burial, even brought him justice, which was impossible in the political climate of the immediate afterwar, when he only had as reasonnable option to change his death condemnation into prison ...
@John Higgins Especially if those arguments are here to drown the fish by defending an undefendable crime...
@John Higgins Neither do I
A comprehensive and insightful look at tragic events. My thoughts on this are more clear with the behind the scenes descriptions that you have related. Fascinating video. My thanks!👏🤨
Gensoul witheld the most viable option of sailing for the French west indes. He effectively lied and bears most responsibility for the outcome. The French needed to keep their fleet intact without handing it over to the axis. The fleet was virtually the last bargaining chip that the French had. The threat of handing these ships over to the British was sufficient to keep the Germans out of the South of France. Relocating to the French West indes could have kept the ships out of both British and German hands.
Could that have put the ships in danger of being take. By the Japanese? I don’t know the answer, just asking the question.
@@pathutchison9866 This was 1940. The Japanese were not in the war yet. This would have moved the ships to the other side of the atlantic, close to the USA. Apart from a couple of submarine journeys, the Japanese never visited the Atlantic.
@Michael The best option was for them to move to a french west indian port. They would have remained out of reach of the Germans and Italians and served as a bargaining chip for the Vichy government. I doubt that the german u boats would have been too much trouble for them. They could have sailed out of the danger zone in convoy at 22 knots.
PS. For his arrogance, Gensoul denied a part of this bargaining power by loosing ships, he let his sailors down, he lied about his options, all for the sake of his pride. The French should have shot him.
@Michael He could not turn the fleet over to the british because its mere presence was keeping the germans out of the south of france. As for submarines, wolf pack tactics had nt been developed yet and the type 7C was only good for about 7 knots submerged and about 14 knots on the surface. The only subs on the area were french.
"....pray they don't alter it any further..."
Only a fool trusted Darth Schickelgruber twice
Thank you Drachinifel. It is excellent explanation of this historical episode. Excellent analysis.
The best analysis of the situation I have ever seen. The sad thing is indeed the tragedy of war in that people die for various reasons and those that fail to justify their deaths and those that try to.
I don't think Admiral Gensoul actually cared so much about the fact that the British had sent a captain to negotiate with him. I fully believe he made a fuss about it to buy his fleet time to come up to steam and to see if the British were actually serious.
In my opinion, Admiral Gensoul wasn't entirely unjustified in refusing to hand over his fleet or scuttle it in harbor. In hindsight, his best options were to join with the Royal Navy or scuttle them, but he did not have the gift of hindsight. As you had mentioned, many observers on both sides thought the Brits were mere weeks away from brokering a peace with Germany. Mers-el-Kebir was the first test of the Vichy government's legitimacy, and just surrendering the ships would have dire consequences for the French afterwards both for the sailors, for the Vichy government, and for the fleet as a whole. From the French perspective, the Vichy government was France's best bet at resuming a "normal" life with some degree of autonomy. Granted, they couldn't really trust the Germans, but what choice did they really have? If they opposed the Germans and the Brits did seek a separate peace, then they'd be subjugated in whole, like the Poles. There's no telling what would happen to the families of the sailors and officers. The Vichy government would seem weak and unwilling to back German interests (remember, the Vichy government staying neutral also served Axis interests, as its fleet wouldn't fall into British hands, and the French colonies in North Africa wouldn't have to be occupied by Axis troops). If this is the case, Vichy France becomes a liability the Germans would be unlikely to put up with. There is some degree of validity behind this, as when the Vichy troops in North Africa put up only a token resistance against the Allies in Operation Torch, the Germans invaded Vichy France and tried to take the ships at anchor in Toulon.
Granted, I'm not slamming the British, either. They had no reason to trust the Germans would keep to their word, and so long as the French fleet existed, they would always pose a threat to the Royal Navy. Both sides did the best they could in a really bad situation. As unfortunate as it was that so many French sailors had to lose their lives and see all those ships sent to the bottom, the deed had to be done one way or another.
This ignores the same option that Gensoul ignored, the ability to remove the threat by relocating to French colonies in the Americas.
@@kemarisite In effect, that would show the world that the Vichy government was weak and lacked a will of its own. Again, this was the *very first* serious test of the Vichy government's legitimacy.
I'm not just pulling this from my ass, either. Mers-el-Kebir would lead to most French colonies remaining loyal to the Vichy government rather than de Gaulle, with events like the Battle of Dakar (with the imcomplete French battleship Richelieu opening fire on the Royal Navy force rather than scuttling), the Battle of Madagascar, and the initial fighting between Vichy French and Allied troops during Operation Torch.
@@507764CAT the very first test for the new government, and yet the fleet in Alexandria agreed to be interned. Somehow, I'm not buying the significance you're giving it.
@@kemarisite The fleet in Alexandria and the fleet in Plymouth and Portsmouth were all in British ports and not really subject to the will of the Vichy government. Nobody (including the Axis) expected the French ships to leave British ports in one piece. The fleet at Mers-el-Kebir on the other hand was fully autonomous, and the British had to come to them to enforce their will.
@@507764CAT so, as I understand your opinion, Vichy, or rather Gensoul since he was actively denying his government important information, HAD to show the world they/he could make their own decisions by refusing all British demands? And then, having shown off its independance, Vichy had no problems following Getman orders to strip jews of citizenship and send them to the death camps, along with all the other undesirables as the Nazis defined them? No problems putting their economy to work for the German war effort? No problem sending their civilians to Germany for forced labor along with about 2 million soldier POWs? I guess the Vichy government had to take pride in demonstrating its independance at Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon because they weren't independant of Germany in any other way until the Free French came back in 1944.
Where French High Command's legendary incompetence after WW1, National Pride, and miscommunication struck home. Somerville still had a good reputation still after this incident in the Royal Navy, so at the very least I'm happy about that.
regarding bad leadership post ww1; man, i really feel for the poor french dudes on the ground when reading about some of the shenanigans vis a vis Generals Gamelin - Weygand including dissmissing the former for the latter as Commander in Chief while the Battle of France is underway. Yikes.
@@dndboy13 Yea imagine being a French conscript during that shitstorm.
They did bloody well at Cassino though, apparently.
There was a video by the Chieftain that showed the exact same problems in the army: Officers acting only under direct written orders as well as not cooperating with each other. They'd rather capitulate than act without or against orders.
Apparently, this was the result of harsh punishments from top brass in several cases where orders had not been followed to the word. It's bad when your men are more afraid of their superiors than of their enemy.
Indeed sir. Admiral Somerville did not open fire at the start... Could he have done anything else?.... from my perspective... No. Somerville did the right thing.
God, now I'm super bummed out. But thank you for that. This was a skillful and obviously well researched retelling and analysis of war history that did not seek to glorify combat. In fact, the editorial thesis placed a premium on avoiding bloodshed and not treating exchange of fire as inevitable. I wish more war historians took this approach with their recounting of historical events.
It’s interesting that no one that I can see has brought up Churchill’s thought on Oran/Mers-El-Kebir. He considered that it drove home to Roosevelt that the British were deadly serious about continuing to fight on despite facing the German juggernaut alone (except for the dominions) at that point. Cheers!
Quite true. FDR apparently said, when informed of the action, that in a similar position he would have done the same.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 ah, yes, lives, people..they are collateral to british interests, of course. yet you forget that the unacceptability of that same premise is why your heavenly angel regime justified its war with germany in the first place. The Polish border question, which was obviously in german interests to resolve, could not be resolved by force. FAIL
@@ipsoepsum6880 Did you really just try to blame the British for Nazi Germany's actions? Lmao
You're criticizing the British for seeing lives as collateral as if Nazi Germany was somehow better than them.
Oh God I can't take this anymore. First Jingles has a 40min video. Then I go to get fish and chips (they were very nice). I comeback to find the history guy has uploaded a video (which was excellent) and, now I find this video which I'm sure will be brilliant. Thanks Drachinifel!
Damn straight my man
The French admiral displayed much of the same class distinction & haughtiness that resulted in WW1 and the deaths of MILLIONS. Tactically, the French admiral should have recognized that a fleet that is moored in the harbor is almost defenseless against a fleet with the maneuverability, armament & positioning of the British.
As for this and MANY arguments of historians today? They fail to recognize the minutia of international law, custom & what is "cricket" DISAPPEAR when bullets start flying...especially 15 inch rounds weighing over a ton!
Agree, even if he’s upset with the British admiral sending a “mere captian” he at least could of demanded the British admiral who could of then either come with said captain to be translator or told the French admiral I don’t speak French talk to him he’s my lesion
You know technology outpaced tactics at the end of 1914, right?
Blaming the blood letting on arrogance and haughtiness alone shows your abject ignorance of the events in question.
It took 3+ years to develop tech and tactics which would overcome the deadlock.
Do you think they werent TRYING to work it out?
@@sugarnads what? What tactics?? Even in WW1 that was unacceptable behaviour, if the French government found out he was being lazy with his message (say the Brit’s risked it and ask the French government and got the truth across) he would been court martial see for incompetence and for nearly getting the fleet killed.
You are defending such an attack on a neutral nation? Guess you are pro Japanese, pro Pearl Harbor as well. Oh, we have cornered some old ladies in this room, let's put the boot to them!
When the Allies invaded French North Africa in November 1942 commander Dwight D. Eisenhower struck a controversial deal with Darlan, recognizing him as High Commissioner of France for North and West Africa. In return, Darlan ordered all French forces in North Africa to cease resistance and cooperate with the Allies.
Less than two months later, on 24 December, Darlan was assassinated by Fernand Bonnier de La Chapelle, a 20-year-old monarchist and anti-Vichyiste.
Touching end to a snake.
Excellent analysis, I still side with the British on the decision to open fire on the French fleet. That French admiral was such a jerk to be offended at the particular rank of the messenger. To me, by the summer of 1940, one was no longer in a position to justify taking Hitler's Germany at their word, whether on or off a signed document. The whole tension buildup leading to the war was built upon Hitler breaking promises. As far as I am concerned, from the contemporary perspective, that French Fleet was a threat. I believe that the French Fleet in North Africa should have said "To Hell with the Vichy Govt, we will continue to fight!".
Yes I agree, even General de Gaulle justifies the operation by declaring on July 8 on London radio: “[…] by virtue of a dishonorable commitment, the government of Bordeaux had agreed to deliver the ships to enemy discretion. There is not the slightest doubt that in principle and out of necessity the enemy would have used them either against England or against our own Empire. Well, I say it bluntly, they had better been destroyed. "
God bless all these sailors.
@@alexh479 Huh except Vichy absolutely never agreed to give the ships. It was already written clearly in the treaty that they would scuttle their ships if anyone tried to seize them. Which is what happened at Toulon actually
@@alexh479 Even Churchill said it was a mistake.....
@@loicguermeur4256 just because one declares something a mistake later in life does not mean it was not the right one at the time under the circumstances
@@davilanetworks382 but it was. For example, Dakar and the whole french West africa colonies were about to join deGaulle and stood with Vichy until 1942. Regardless all the damages with others french people and decisions. That’s called a mistake. And by the way, The attack on Tarente in octobre was far more usefull.
well... can also look at this in the light of what happened latter, in Toulon, when the French navy scuttled itself in order to not fall in German hands when they invaded the free zone...
That was only after Germany broke the Armistice first. Who knows what would've happened had Germany stuck to the terms, and just asked the French ships be handed over to German and Italian ports?
To little to late Frenchman
@@loremipsum3610 We all know what would have happened .... Dunkerque would have become KMS Siegfried or the like.
@@3vimages471 No the French would have refused to hand over their ship. If they sunk them in 1942 they would have simk them in 1940. The whole French government of the time even said they they would never let the French fleet fall into German hands and that the control of the fleet was nor negotiable
@@parodyclip36 Yeah right ..... the French and Germans are always trustworthy during war. Of course Britain should have trusted the French who had already given up fighting and were kissing Hitler's arse.
All they had to do was put their ships out of the reach of the Germans.
The French admiral couldn't have been that....oh...oh dear
Sadly, crass arrogance and stupidity are not unique to French Naval Officers as there was still a tendency for the upper ranks of European navies to be staffed by members of the upper classes
The British could not risk being cutting off of its major supply of oil coming from the Middle East , and shipped through the Suez Canal and Mediterranean . Had the Vichy Fleet fallen into the hands of the Kriegsmarine , Britain would have been forced to capitulate .
There is no way any leader of a country , could trust the fate of his country , based on the promise of an Admiral from another country - especially if that Admiral is starting to collaborate .
.
At Mers El Kebir, the British gave and left every chance to the French.
The main responsibility for this lies with the English-speaking French admirals, namely Admiral François Darlan, Admiral Gensoul and Admiral Leluc.
Admiral Darlan who from June 13, 1940, in Tours, did not understand at all, or did not want to understand, the legitimate concern of the English explained by Prime Minister Winston Churchill during this inter-allied conference, where he was then Darlan are already thinking of joining Marshal Pétain and Generalissimo Weygand, also Anglophobes, in the camp of defeatist traitors.
This British concern was duly motivated by the fear that the Germans and Italians would completely seize the French fleet.
At the same time from Mers El Kebir, in Alexandria (Egypt), French Admiral Godfroy reacted very well, understanding very well the very clear demands of the British.
We forget or we wrongly hide that during this conference on June 13 in Tours that Prime Minister Churchill will ask a second question asking if it was possible to hand over to the British army the 400 German airmen, shot down since May 10 1940, and prisoners of the French. This request was fully justified by the fear that these airmen would later bomb Great Britain. The President of the French Council, Paul Reynaud, will immediately say YES! and will order Generalissimo Weygand to execute this surrender as soon as possible.
What's going to happen ? Nothing good. The German prisoners will be strangely transferred to Toulouse, and therefore, never delivered to our British allies.
After June 17, 1940, the defeatist Pétain will free the prisoners to send them back to Germany (which is the second act of collaboration of Pétain) and weygand factieux did not carry out the order of the French Government.
Arrived in Germany where Goering, in person, will come to welcome them at the station to invite them and transport them to his Manor of KarineHall to celebrate in a large hearty meal and very well watered, their outings.
And of course, all these 400 German airmen, will all participate in the Battle of Britain, where their bombardments will cause many deaths among British civilians.
So the British understood very well the reversal of the alliance of the new French government from June 17, 1940, and the betrayal of the Franco-English agreement of March 28, 1940. And the British will still insist on the subject of the French fleet again sends a delegation on June 22, 1940, to Bordeaux where Pétain and Darlan will remain impassive and deaf and will not grant anything confirming this cooling of Franco-English relations.
In addition to Mers El Kebir, he let it be known that Admiral Leluc in Toulon would clearly transmit what was an imbecility, to Admiral Gensoul, the dispatch of a French fleet. Of course this message will be heard by British Admiral Cunnigham's Bitannic fleet, who will thus be forced to put an end to the negotiations in progress, and to the truce, by opening fire.
Admiral Gensoul dragged out the negotiations for half a day, refusing to receive the British emissary, Captain Holland, whom he knew well from before the war in Paris. And Gensoul will not take any saving measures to keep the French boats away since the beginning of the morning.
Incorrect.
They gave an ultimatum any Brit himself would never have accepted, if ever in the same position, obviously hoping it'd be turned down.
@@ralphbernhard1757 In point of fact, one of the options, the transfer of the fleet to the French West Indies, might well have been acceptable to Darlan.
Unfortunately, Gensoul never saw fit to inform Darlan, or anyone else in the French administration, of the full text of the British ultimatum.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 With re. to France, your above "standpoint" is pure bias.
To every French officer and leader, (loyalty) the future of French N. Africa came first, and sailing the French navy away, or handing it over to British control, would have left Algeria/Tunesia wide open to an attack (most likely by the "hyena" Italy).
@@dovetonsturdee7033 In the West Indies, they could not protect French citizens and subjects of French North Africa.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Really, when the Italians had just embarked on a military campaign against Egypt? Nonsense.
Excellent analysis. Typical of the French intransigence shown throughout the war.
And postwar to this day even
not quite... A part of France that chose to collaborate with the germans...or closed their eyes as log as they remained untouched...
anyway, they had very little choice, and british navy did what they had to do
@typo pit love the Anglo-Saxons, they arrange the story as it suits them so that it is always the fault of others.
in 1938 the french wanted peace just like the british which led to the munich accords. If you make sense, you should also say that half of the British were for Hitler
Not the French in general bu their idiotic commandment which was fighting another war.
@@patrickbotti2357 the British fled to their island, the Soviets had to retreat several thousand kilometers but only the French generals were idiot? Did the American generals do better at the start of the war with Pearl Harbor and the loss of the Philippines? the only difference is that France did not have a sea or an ocean to protect himself nor the possibility of retreating for 1000 km before reorganizing itself
Excellent and clear analysis of this tragic action which corresponds closely with the account in a book by Warren Tute given me by a half-French journalist friend decades ago. France and its fighting men were amazingly badly served by their most senior officers: Gamelin and Waygand stumbling around in the Battle of France, and Gensoul´s arrogance and utter stupidy at Mers el Kebir
One must never forget the fact Darlan had, even pre-war, always taken care of his own self promotion and preservation regardless of everything and everyone. Even at the expense of his own service branch and country. The man never stopped playing his own game, to the bitter end.
Very fine analysis, Drach. I've never heard such an in depth and clear study of this horrible tragedy. Thank you!
Of course the Germans used it as a propaganda tool after the fact... Though 3 years later they would do almost the same against the Italian battleships after their capitulation (only without negotiating first).
Yeah, war crimes do tend to make for rather good propaganda don't they?
@@johndoe5432 War crimes?
So you think fire bombing cities is totes legit... But you'd draw the line at sinking a couple "neutral" warships to stop them from being captured by the enemy?
Except it's legal if the neutral nations are under the orders of an enemy nation, so it's not actually a war crime...
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Hey, speaking of fire bombing cities wanna talk about Dresden? Good old RAF, what a bunch of heroes.
Your analysis,& judgments are spot on...I agree 100%.
This extended analysis of Gensoul is backed by a picture of Darlan.
I found the Admiralty's ultimatum quite reasonable. It's clear to me that the French admiral Gensoul screwed himself and his fleet. The fault for this entire misadventure rests on him
@Naurius Stupid comparison, they were allowed to sail to the USA or any french territory away from Europe. This just summarizes the french mentality in all of WW2, stubborn and cocky with inept leaders who live off their old glory days.
You realize if he did that then the Germans would punished France badly with atrocities
@@Ghosttanker no
Oh no! That man was an asshole, no doubt about it, but who caused the tragedy? The British - attacking neutral ships just because they can? Yeah, sounds about right for people who (to this day!) think the world should bow down to them :(
This French admiral was a pompous fool from a bygone era, you also had his type in a lot of other navies, including th RN
... including the USN, i.e. the unhinged Anglo-loathing Fleet Admiral Ernest King....
Just ask the families’ of the thousands of merchant sailors manning the hundreds of freighters and tankers that went to the bottom off the east coast of the U.S. and Canada without hardly any American ASW response 🤬 during the Kreigsmarine’s Operation Drumbeat in 1942-43....
Bygone now but not then.
The Sink the Bismarck film, which was shot during WW2 when the British still didn't want the Germans knowing they had cracked Enigma, used this explanation for how they correctly guessed what the Lütjens/Bismarck's course would be after the engagement with Hood & PoW.
@@abatesnz apparently that secret was kept into the 1970s...long after the war
@@abatesnz The sink the Bismarck film was made in the early1960's!!! Ultra was not declassified until the mid 1970's
My father was there serving as the CEPO on board the cruiser, HMS Naiad. His previous ship HMS Ajax was also there. He discussed this action with me two or three times and was always of the opinion that the fleet had sailed there to negotiate and when that failed they had no option outside taking the action they did. He regretted the loss of life but was pleased not to have had to fight the French vessels later on. As his time in the Med was already hard enough; Battle of Crete, convoy protection etc. before eventually being torpedoed and spending a number of hours in the water, it is no wonder that he and the majority of his comrades supported the British fleet erring on the side of caution. Regards
This was a wonderful episode. Great analysis. One positive effect of this action was that Roosevelt, who was not sure of Churchill's tenacity to continue the fight against Germany, was convinced of it and began to foster the provision of assistance as far as the Congress and population would allow.
156k views on such a minor topic, youtube crowd really is knowledge hungry seekers of truth. And lets not forget the wonderful content providers for creating videos like these for us.
Well, it depends how you define a minor topice. If you look at it, everything can be a minor topic. What is important is the consequences of such minor incidents. ANd by the way. how many French sailors died in this one? Twelve or thirteen hundred, or even more?
That was seriously interesting. Great doco mate. I agree entirely with your take on the bottom line, as far as responsibility is concerned. Yet another example from history, of ego causing disaster.
First of all thanks for taking the time and the efforts to review the documents and the events from the british side. Secondly, I'm probably one of the few if not the only french posting comments. To be complete, my grand father was a sailor at Mers El Kebir on July 3rd 1940, so do not expect me to agree on most of your comments !
You're stating that Darlan was no longer trusted, that Gensould was not capable to communicate, that french gave false information to the british, that the fleet in Alexandria surrendered already and thus British navy had full right to "use force".
First, "use force" means killing at point blank 1,297 men in 16 minutes. Yep, the fleet was disarmed. I recall my grand father telling me he had to remove the cylender head of his gun days before the battle took place, and that all men and officers from North Africa (Pieds noirs) like him were sent on shore. He saw most of the battle from land, and could only his friends, mostly from Brittany, facing the choice to drawn or swim in the water which were covered with burning fuel. So, yes, the fleet was not a direct threath to the british Navy. Just remember, that the last shot between France and Great Britain was fired .. 125 years ealier !
What about Alexandria ? Well, first admirals Godfroy and Cunningham were french and british, but also brothers in law, that helped the communication. When Cunningham received the same orders than Somerville he showed Godfroy the "utterly repugnant" orders. The french fleet received then the order to fight against the british fleet. The two fleet were extremely close but did not engage. Finally italian planes attacked the Alexandria port and received fires from both fleet. The french proposed a different term than the one proposed by the british, they would empty their fuel tanks and leave the firing mechnism at the french consulate. The agreement was signed and put in place on July 7th 1940. Knowing this, Somerville had other options, and did not try to engage seriously with Gensoul. Furthermore, I don't know how Gensoul would have been informed on the fate of the fleet in Alexandria on July 3rd when it all happened 4 days later his fleet had been attacked !!
You are picturing Gensoul as a total idiot merely incapable to overcome the fact that a subordinate comes to negociate. On June 24th Admiral Dudley North, who was based in Gibraltar came onboard the Douglas to Mers-el-kebir to meet with Admiral Gensoul and Admiral Jarry. During that encounter Admiral Gensould informed Admiral North that he would not take action unless ordered by the new governement in France, and that he gave his assurance that the fleet would not surrender to neither Germany nor Italy. Gensoul informed North that armistice clauses were being enforced 6 hours after the signature in Rome of the armistice. North shaked hand with Gensoul and returned to Gilbraltar. He reported to London that the french fleet was ready to sunk itself in case of a German or Italian attempt to size it, and that they were being disarmed. Knowing this, London still sent on July 1st the order to attack the fleet in Mers-El-Kebir. When Somerville reached Gibraltar on July 1st, he met with North, and told him "he was ashamed to share his orders". When sharing the orders with the captains of his fleet, they told him the orders were "disgusting". Somerville sent a message back to London explaining that his men were reluctant to carry the orders and that he was suggesting amending the text to be handle to the french. Admiral Pound replied that there were no change in the orders, and that they had to be carried. On July 3rd, Captain Holland and Lieutnant Dufay met, and they were extremely god friends, but the formalism of the british communication was very badly perceived. First, all communications were made first by lights, indicating to all that the french Admiral was receiving an ultimatum, then the written document handled by Holland was signed not by North nor Somerville but the cabinet of war. While the negociations were on-going, british ships pointed their guns onto the french fleet, clearly indicating their intention. When Holland left finally receiving the answer from the french repeating that they would garantuee that no sheeps would surrendre to the German nor Italian, but that the french could not abide by the british terms, Holland replied in french « Permettez-moi de vous dire d'officier à officier, qu'à votre place, ma réponse eût été la même. » (Let me tell you, as an officer, in your position, I would have replied exactly the same way). Gensoul sent a new message then "Ne créez pas l'irréparable." (do not do what cannot be repaired) and "Suis prêt à recevoir votre délégué pour discussion honorable." (I'm ready to meet your delegate in order to discuss honorably). Waiting for reply, Gensoul and the sailors can see the british planes droping mines at the entrance of the port. Holland is finally coming back, and the discussion happens with Gensoul himself who's asking if mining the port entrance is the way to manage an honorable discussion. He's asking for the option to move to French West Indies. Is that option still on the table ? Aftr some discussion Holland says that the option is still valid and Gensoul accepts to sail with reduced staff if the fleet is under direct German or Italian threath. The message is passed, but there is no flexibility on the British side. At that time, the British receive the message that the fllets in Algiers and Toulon are sailing to support Mers-El-Kebir. Holland takes a boat to his fleet, while men are going to the combat position at 16h25. At 16h55 Somerville's fleet opened fire. 16 minutes later, when only the gun posted on the coast could reply he stopped. 1,297 sailors were killed. More french sailors died during these 16 minutes by friendly fire than by ennemy fire in 5 years ! Admiral North was relieved of his command in December 1940 for his objection to the Mers-El-Kebir attack.
Darlan told Churchill the fleet would not surrender to Germans nor Italians, on June 16. On June 17 and 18, boats that can leave Brest are sailing away to Casablanca and Plymouth, while the ships that cannot take the sea are destroyed on site in Cherbourg, Brest, Lorient, La Palice and Verdon. Even De Gaule gives his words to Churchill that the fleet would not surrender. On June 23rd Darlan repeat to Churchill the fleet would not pass onto German nor Italian control. Weygand also makes a similar statement. But I would say if British do not trust French early June anymore, French do not either. Indeed, after the retreat at Dunkerque, Churchill clearly wants to save his planes for the battle ahead and do not commit any air support to help the french troops that are left alone facing Germans. He's not sending back trrops to fight on the continent, and that means that France is totally alone. Prime Minister ask on June 16th the agreement to the british for a separate armistice. London refuses. Paul Reynaud then resigned as he's in a deadlock, neither he can continue the fight nor he can stop it. Petain takes over with only one thing on his agenda, the armistice. Is Darlan a person Churchill cannot trust at that time ? Darlan gave his words, showed he was ready to destroy its own navy when needed, he got no support in return. Darlan was killed on December 24th 1942, one month after his orders to destroy the french fleet rather than surrendering to the german were carried out in Toulon. Darlan was buried right in the middle of the military cimetery at Mers-El-Kebir cimetery. I had the chance to visit the place in 2009 and he and his men are still there, facing the sea where the attack came from.
Overall, I do not think 1,297 men died because a french Admiral was sticking to the etiquette, and another could not be trusted. Clearly Churchill was looking to send a message that British troops were ready to keep on the fight, even if that included the killing of former allied troops. Message was received, but don't re-write history as it pleases you.
Heart breaking reply. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
Fact 1 - Under no circumstances could that French fleet be used against the UK and it's commonwealth.
Fact 2 - The French government, what was left of it, was seriously compromised and playing games for which there was no way for them to win.
Fact 3 - Under no circumstances could that French fleet be used against the UK and it's commonwealth.
Fact 4 - The Germans were never to be trusted. Period...
Fact 5 - Under no circumstances could that French fleet be used against the UK and it's commonwealth.
Lastly before I listen to some "historian" bemoan the actions of the British government and fleet for what they were forced to do I will take my cue from a grieving mother of one of the French sailors who LOST HER SON on one of the French ships that day. She had the coffin draped in both the French flag AND the British flag. She KNEW that the only hope for France was going to come from the British being able to hold out against the Nazis and her faith in that bore more fruit than a thousand "historians" refusing to look at the fact that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES COULD THE FRENCH FLEET BE USED AGAINST THE UK AND IT'S COMMONWEALTH
*Battle of Copenhagen intensifies*
French Navy: ah shiet, here we go again.
Yes but unlike the Bombardment of Copenhagen 1807 they aimed at the ships. In Copenhagen they used a church as aim point thereby killing 3500 mostly civilians - even the British press at the time was not impressed.
that brits seem to have a habit of sinking their allies ships whenever they're a madman running about the continent
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography i would not call Napoleon a mar man .
Murderous Kitten But perhaps the Brits would be inclined to call him that in the 18-hundreds ;-)
@@laugechristophersen9913 well , weaklings always call great man mad :D
A VERY WELL ARGUED CASE… VERY COMPELLINGLY & COGENTLY EXPLAINED… And your conclusion regarding where the blame must principally lie for this eminently avoidable tragedy, is one which - in my humble opinion - is the only one that the known facts leading up to it, emphatically support.
This is even more tragic when you know that when they heard the RN was on its way, French sailors cheered as they thought the Brits were coming to "pick them up" and continue the fight...
On business in Oran in 1982, I made a special detour to have a look at what is left of the French naval base at Mers el Kebir - not much, I have to say. But enough to envisage the tragic events of 1940. My interest originated with a comment made by a French student in a language class some years earlier - 'The French can never forgive the English for 3 things : Joan of Arc, the Fashoda Incident, and Mers el Kebir' ! All that said, I have to point out that the picture systematically shown as Admiral Gensoul is, in fact, another photograph of Admiral Darlan. A quick check on Google will easily turn up a picture of Gensoul himself. Also, while Darlan, whatever you think of his behaviour during the Vichy period, was unfortunate enough to be assassinated in 1942, Gensoul was lucky enough to live until 1973, dying at the ripe old age of 93, unlike many hundreds of the men he was responsible for !
And I don't think he ever apologized for it either...
An excellent coverage and analysis of the entire Mers el Kabir incident. My reading is that the British simply could not take the chance of a combined Italian and French fleet in control of the Mediterranean. Gensoul clearly bears most of the responsibility here, imo. As a high level Admiral he should have seen the importance to the British, realize how serious the situation was, and tried to work with them....he did not at all.
Had to listen to this twice to make sure I understood Drach's viewpoint. I've struggled to find the rationale behind the FN decisions that led up to this, Whitehall and the Admiralty had drawn some very obvious and clear lines in the sand, the least of which for the FN was just to leave the Med or any other Theatre of War and retire to maybe a French holding in the Caribbean and sit the War out.
I know you try and avoid the more recent conflicts but this was one of the best bits of research I've come across regarding the events, Anglo phobia was not restricted to King then.
06:00 "...this is were you can drop out." WoW: 43 minutes with background and analysis next? :-)
Uncle Drach, this one always makes me tear up. :(
Bury those feelings into a pit and refine it into a rage which could only be justifiably directed at the French
Thank you for an informative video.
While I do agree that Gensoul failed in his duty as commanding officer that day, I can at least find understanding for his dilemma.
Right or wrong, he considered himself a subject to the Vichy Regime and he felt bound by its The 22 June Armistice agreement with Germany. Keep in mind that harsh though the terms may have been, they were supposedly temporary and at least gave the illusion that France was still a country on the map. The agreement, while allowing for a (temporary) occupation of 3/5ths of France, only officially annexed Alsace and Lorraine and allowed France to keep their colonies as well as air and naval units. It certainly did provide for some pretty draconian measures; "surrender on demand" of persons of interest to the German state (such as Jews or political asylum seekers) being one of them, but on the other hand, from the point of view of pure realpolitik, it may not have seemed much worse than the terms imposed on Germany after WW1 (who had now served as proof-of-concept that a strong comeback was indeed possible within 20 years).
Why he was such a poor judge of character insofar as believing any of Hitler's promises... that I must say I can't quite understand - but on the other hand there are more than one modern politician whom I consider deeply untrustworthy, who nevertheless have admiring fans aplenty even among (otherwise) seemingly intelligent people. In any case, from the perspective of a lot of people at the time in both France and Germany, it was very much thought to be a temporary deal until Britain and Germany finalized terms to end the war, which at the time seemed quite likely to happen soon: In July 1940, Germany was widely thought to be winning the war. As a naval man, Gensoul would have known that Germany could not challenge Britain at sea, but he probably also knew that the Luftwaffe held clear advantages in numbers over the RAF and that Britain would be unlikely to be able to do anything about mainland Europe. There was also a widely held (wrongful) impression that Germany would be able to outproduce the British by a considerable margin. Thus, I think he saw - and rejected - his options as such:
1) Taking up the fight against the Axis with the regimes' most powerful naval assets would, in his mind, probably have given cause for Germany and Italy to occupy the remainder of France directly and to renege on their armistice agreement promise to restore (most of) France to French rule once the war was over. Unlike other, fully occupied, countries, France still had - or appeared to have - something more to lose. That was thus out of the question.
2) Keeping what little leverage France would have in the (soon to come?) peace treaty negotiations were important. The alternatives stipulated by the British, one way or the other, all amounted to pulling the teeth of the French fleet - indeed their goal - and could not be reconciled with keeping that leverage.
3) Raising steam and making a run for it would have invited shells (pre-aimed) before they were out of the harbor, not to mention it may not have even been practically possible for all ships at such short notice. Strasbourg did make it, so I will assume he would have wanted other ships to do that had they been able to. The British had obviously positioned themselves so as to make this as hard as possible.
4) There is also the implicit alternative of only appearing to agree to terms and then running for the French coast (possibly even firing upon British ships to do so). Since he was actually thought highly of in RN circles for all up to about this point, I would assume his honor stopped any attempt at shenanigans like that. Not to mention the possible political ramifications.
Taking Gensoul refusal to meet with Cpt. Holland as pure arrogance may do him a bit of a disservice though, as I could equally well see it as a way to attempt to stall for time (using rank as an excuse to send a junior negotiator who would fruitlessly confirm that only bad options were on the table, then have to run back to confer). He may have thought he could get time to summon aid, get his ships ready, get the cover of darkness, get political involvement, hoped it was a bluff or just hoped for some miracle of weather or circumstance to change his situation... neither of which, it turns out, were very realistic. Thus; left with only options that failed the goal of keeping a viable fleet under French command, he could not get himself to select one, and instead left it in the hands of others how to conclude the day.
None of this, ofc, excuses his failure to anticipate the dilemma faced by the RN. This isn't actually a unique incidence either - one example that comes to mind is the RN attacks on Copenhagen in 1801 and 1807. Nor does it excuse the lack of scouting and failure to react when a large RN fleet was approaching his base by attempting to make contact early. But I do appreciate that he felt like he was left in a situation where he could not chose correctly.
Underrated post
No, that's hogwash. The honourable thing for Gensoul to do would've been to set his ships on a track to the West Indies, take blame and pretend he had lost command of them, and then resigned. All that would've cost him would have been his pride.
@@loremipsum3610 Could you expand on that? Are you saying he should have taken my option 4), but headed off for some faraway location instead of France? Does that keep his ships relevant to the situation in Europe? How would the ships be protected if the RN came after them? And what would it achieve to throw some easily-seen-through bullshit story of a mutiny to the mix?
however, didn't one of Gensoul's orders specifically state that moving to a neutral third party was outright an option (if threatened by the germans or italians if taken literally, apparently, but the base point stands)? even if he'd run the political math on your point 2, his orders specifically allow for him to follow both the british (allies up to a few days beforehand, now neutral to him) ultimatums and his written orders from his superiors?
the complete specifics there (which I do not have, merely interpreting from your post and drach's info here), seem to be a crux there. even if he figured ''I want france to have *some* navy left in the soon-to-come peace treaties." to be his overriding concern. preserving that fleet in the US still seems to be the best option, when faced with 'sail or sink' demands. as, the moment a peace treaty is opened, your forces being interned in the US, along with your ships, would be released back to you.
the only reason I can think of at that point(making assumptions on his political acumen in such a rushed moment), was that he'd run the political math and decided he'd rather sink then give degaulle even the hint of getting a single ship.
Excellant alternative viewpoint, thank you for the input
Gensoul sounds fairly typical of French senior officers of the period. The army was about the same, the general in commend of French North African forces refused to accept commands from General DeGaulle (in London) on the grounds that he was an inferior officer.
You should visit the Chieftains account of the French High Command's screw ups in the battle of France. All the Allied Armies suffered from poor leadership at the outset of the war...but the French High Command, took it to new heights of incompetence.
David Gifford Were they both FF. If not, that is your answer. If not both FF - that is also your answer.
Eric Grace Indeed, French high command for the Battle of France in 1940 preferred dispatch riders than that new-dangle technology: the telephone.
I am old enough that my father fought in Coastal Forces from 39-45 and when that was going on the whole German army was waiting to cross the Channel U boats were sinking ships in the North Atlantic, if you weren't for us look out and as this was post Dunkirk where British and French forces were over run.
A very thought-provoking and well-presented analysis. Having examined quite a few sources in this matter, I agree that the tragedy hinged on the negotiations around Admiral Gensoul and his reactions to the situation. IMHO, I believe that Gensoul was motivated by a combination of arrogance and wounded pride that led him to respond as he did. Let's face it, France had lost in a humiliating way to Germany, so national pride was wounded and doubtlessly his too, then the dreaded British turn up wanting to take his fleet out of his control and worst of all, sending a mere captain to negotiate with him! The fact that he rejected Captain Holland immediately and out of hand, refusing to accept any explanation as to Holland's role, speaks volumes for Gensoul's state of mind. One thing that might have helped would have been for Admiral Somerville to meet personally with Gensoul and have Holland act as his interpreter - and I'm not sure why this was not actioned...
Still, the fact that Gensoul was so duplicitous with his own government in providing an inaccurate sitrep and options presented to him, seems to indicate that he wanted to manipulate the situation to support his own personal agenda.
Except Gensoul would still have perceived that as a huge slight that Somerville had to get someone of LOWER rank (Holland) to speak on his behalf, he wanted it to be Admiral to Admiral ONLY and given that Somerville barely spoke any French apart from the odd small sentence how well do you think that would have gone over for Somerville?
Let us never forget the 1302 valiant men who died in vain on that day. Their spirits live on in spite of the failure of their leaders.
That exactly is the real thing. Those guys died in vain, thinking they were going to fight the Germans alongside the English.... They did not comprehend what was happening.
Well if I'm in the French Admiral's position and sailing to the US is within the scope of my orders as well as the terms of the ultimatum yeah that's what is going to happen.
Do you have enough fuel to go over 6k kilometers or 4k nmi? Older battleships and destroyers will need over 80% of their capacity to do that in most economical way.
@@tokul76 if the Brits are escorting you I'm pretty sure that topping off the tanks in Gibraltar is an option
@@toddwebb7521 visit Gibraltar after events in Alexandia.
@@tokul76 the fleet at Alexandria was peacefully disarmed, it only goes to show that the British wanted a peaceful conclusion if possible thus making a pitstop at Gibraltar seem even more like a good option
@@tokul76 It seems like Admiral Somerville would've been inclined to let them take time to refuel after agreeing to sail to the US. Or a tanker could've been dispatched from England or US for them to refuel at sea. Or, as others suggested, the British probably would've happily refuelled the French ships at Gibraltar.
Your analysis of responsibility for this tragedy is spot on, God bless those Many sailors who were lost to this ego trip. Reminds me of macarthur
🤨
“-armed with a CAKE-“ how very French of them, only the French could use pastries as weapons of war
Where other nations open fire yelling "EAT LEAD!!!" the French open fire with "LET ZEM EAT CAKE!!!"
Damn right they still making me fat with their croissant 🥐
Well, the Americans threw potatoes at a Japanese submarine 😅
@F Castle
No, just plain old unpeeled potatoes.
But apparently the Japanese thought they were hand grenades, so their response must have looked hilarious 😆
Churchil knew it was only a matter of time before the
Germans consolidated in northern france and took the rest of the country, which happened. He was not going to allow the french fleet to be taken over by the NAZIs. The French would have been removed and German sailors installed. He offered the French the only deal he could and they chose unwisely. It was a tragedy but there was a much bigger picture that the French just couldn't see.
Thank you for all your hard work!
In Darlans defence when the Germans actually tried to take over the French fleet , he scuttled said fleet
Darlan was in North Africa by then.
@Herbert Norkus the Italians salvaged several smaller vessels during the war. Given that Toulon is still a major French military port I'd be surprised if any portion of the wrecks is still there.
36:56 "... the Polish, Norwegian, Belgian and Dutch navies had already faced the situacion and knew enough universally what was left of those navies had stuck up 2 fingers at the Nazis ..." 'Stick 2 fingers' is pretty British, I would even say English thing to say and would not be used by those navies (I am open to the possibility that I am wrong ofcourse but that is unlikely in this case)
i think he was just using the term here in the video - not necessarily ascribing it as an action done by the many thousands sailors of exiled navies.
Excellent presentation, I enjoyed watching this. I have read about this before but you put the issues very clearly and I feel that I have a much better understanding of this very controversial episode.
There is an interesting parallel - in 1943, when Italy sought an armistice with the Allies, the Germans feared that the British would get their hands on what was left of the Italian fleet and sank whatever they could find. On 9 September 1943 German glider bombs sank the brand new, 46,000 ton battleship Roma, with the loss of Admiral Bergamini, CinC of the Italian fleet and most of her crew.
Why go to your former allies with,
“if you don’t do one of these things immediately, we’ll kill you”
at all?
Yes, have that as your last ditch option, but it’s crazy to make such a proposal right from the beginning.
Who is likely to respond well to “join us or die”?
And why the rush? Time was not unlimited, but neither was there none. Once elements of the Regia Marina and kriegsmarine are bearing down, then desperate ultimatums would be more understandable.
It’s the most delicate situation imaginable, handled in a panicky, blunt way.
None of this is to waive the French admiral of his guilt, mind.
"Who is likely to respond well to 'join us or die'?"
Uh... ever resistance movement and government in exile during the war, from Polish pilots protecting the skies of Britain to Greek college students tearing down Nazi banners at the Acropolis. From a Norwegian King and his Cabinet in London to De Gaulle in Brazzaville. Millions of every day people across the continent fought for the freedom of their countries in ways big and small, but this Admiral couldn't bear up to his duty and make sure that his ships, within the terms afforded him by his government's surrender, did their best to aid the liberation of his nation.
They were never allies they were Vichy French, where on earth do you get the idea they were ? After the war they were tried for war crimes and collaborating with the enemy
PirateGhost
Oh, see I missed the bit where _any_ of those people were told be Britain, “join us or we kill you”.
... because it didn’t happen. I don’t even know if you understand the words you’re responding to. Which, if English isn’t your 1st language, then that’s fair enough.
They didn’t have assassins under the beds of every European civilian, ready to knife them if they didn’t become resistance fighters.
They didn’t surround the Polish ships, guns aimed demanding compliance.
They didn’t fly bombers over Norwegian troops primed to drop.
None of them were responding to “join us or die”.
This isn’t about whatever you’re saying. What on earth are you on about?
I think I worked for Gensoul's spiritual successor when I was in the Marines
Same
Very well done work on such a charged issue.
So, in summary, French Admiral gets his fleet blown away because he was snobby.
Honestly, that checks out....
The fact that he wouln't accept the Captain even after it was explained to him that it was sent because he spoke French much better, really sticks in the craw.
I love the story of that battle where the Free Polish ship was firing at the Germans while flashing "We are Polish" at them.
That is such a satisfying image to me.
Satisfying bcs no damage at alle was made
It would be nice to hear the France version because what we have here is only second-hand. The British had now way of knowing what the French and Germans were negotiating at all.Churchill therefore when in to a panic mode.
Excellent assessment. And a superb watch. Thank you
Totally agree with your evaluation and conclusion.
Interesting that although there was terrible loss of life from this attack, in the end only one elderly and obsolete battleship of very limited miliary worth to the Axis was permanently sunk and destroyed by the British. Strasbourg escaped unscathed to Toulon, and both Dunkeque and Provence, damaged as they were, joined her there in good time. The attack accomplished little of military value, but it certainly killed many French sailors and soured relations between British and French.
Actually it made the us feel better about helping the British..
What the fuck do you know TH-cam bunghole!🤫
It was in fact a public relation nightmare for Britain. But maybe that as not the objective after all. Maybe it was more to impress the Americans, showing them Churchill's resolve as he recounted later one.
This is a great video.
One thing perhaps should have been considered about this dark episode:
With what fuel could this enormous fleet ever been fueled? The Italians and the Germans might have seized it. But how on Earth could have these two countries made war with it?
They had no fuel to their own fleets let alone for all these other battleships
the fleet alone could have been used to better arm italian navies as well as expand italian influence to areas they once would have had issues using their navy to control, whether or not they had the fuel for it its possible they could have mothballed ships that were outdated and replaced it with much better french ships as well as used other ships for screening the medditerainian giving them an advantage. Dont forget that all those ships could be used to better protect axis fuel from external countries that they couldnt protect in terms of trade due to their navy not being able to stand up to the british. But with the addition of the french who were just behind britain as well as italy and germany could allow them to basically screen enough ships to expand outwards.
Have you ever read/heard about all the measures that have been taken to destroy the Tirpitz? It's mere existence was a risk and did bind huge forces. Imagine there were 5 or more fleets like this.
Dunkerque the battleship really said to herself "Hi,I'm still a piece of GARBAGE"
The french showed their resolve and kept their promise to keep their ships out of German hands when they scuttled the fleet at Toulon in 42
As I noted below that was at the end of 1942 when the Germans were obviously headed for defeat not the Summer of 1940 when it looked like they were headed for victory.
And in Nov of 42, the French navy sortied to fight the USN at Casablanca. They fought gallantly with excellent ship handling, good fire discipline and effective damage control. The USN got off lucky. How do you explain that?
Perhaps the reason that the US Navy won was that they were better?
@@johnshepherd8687 explain why the French fought the allies with such resolve even at the end of 42?
Pardon the spotty comments, Jeopardy was on 😁
The VT Squadrons at Midway fought with great resolve too.
Please tell the story of the SMS Emden. You might want to make it two stories, the voyage and what happened after.
1. British faced with an impossible dialema
2. French high command does not kniw its contradictory messages were being read by Bletchley Park
3. D'arlon was a collberatuer
4. Gensoul was a pompous preening ass tyoical of the French high command that failed its country so miserably in WW2. France weren't alone in having incompetent peace time admirals and generals, all nations had them.
5. Thay said the British government should have listened to Sommerville and in not doing so were guilty of the 'Jutland' effect which eventually was purged from mist of Whitehall and the services by Churchill. The Jutland effect was the tendency of peacetime military to destroy initiative in commanders, officers and NCOs by over centralisation of decision making. It os the antithesis of the Nelson Touch or Shackleton Leadershup model.
6. Gensoul was ultimately responsible, his failure to share the terms with his government was completely irresponsible and petulant... reminds me of Emmanuel Macron!
7. It was a terrible tragedy for the sailors and officers of the Marine National and the same if the Royal Navy who executed the orders and a personal tragedy for Somerville.
As an ex member of the RN I am sure most RN personnel would not have considered sinking French ships a bad thing be at that time. Half of France had already joined the Germans. Two of my relatives who fought the French in the middle East during WW2 hated them as much as they hated the Germans. Many if not most of the French Forces evaluated from Dunkirk actually returned to France and helped the Germans. A fact not well reported.
You can see this same mindset when they took back control of Vietnam and they had been offered an option, which they refused, of giving Vietnam home rule which Ho Chi Minh wanted.
That is also true... Ho Chi Minh did not want full independence originally. He wanted to have home rule within the French Republic. But as a Frenchman I can guarantee you that there is such a thing as French Arrogance!!! TGhey basically laughed and kicked him out... Well you know the rest, Dien Bien Phu and all.
I would ask the question, "What would the consequences have been if the Axis powers got control of these ships?" It would almost certainly have been catastrophic to the war effort - the battle of the Atlantic would have been lost and thereby probably the war; it was not something that could have been trusted to the word of somebody under the control of Vichy. As awful as this was, there really was not choice, given that the French admiral was showing no comprehension of the circumstances Great Britain was under - he must surely have known that we could not take the risk. Churchill wept in parliament when he informed the House and that tells you what was in his heart. War polarises situations into black and white.
Hard to say for sure what the capture of the French Fleet would have resulted in. At very least it would have threatened Gibraltar and may have made the British operations around Malta impossible. I guess it would depend on how long it would have taken to get trained crews on the captured vessels. I have doubts that the Germans themselves could have manned all those ships. One thing's for sure though, Force H would have found it very hard to cope with both the Italians and the Dunkerque and Strasbourg under German control.
Darlan gets a bad rep from most of what occurs, is he perhaps unfairly judged? He did initially secretly order "every ship able to cross the Ocean under her own power, by fuelling at sea or by being towed, should endeavour to concentrate at Halifax in Canada. Vessels are not to obey an order to return to France or to a port under enemy jurisdiction unless an order is headed 'In the name of Xavier-Francois'" This would seem to show honourable intent, however he was a political animal and future public comments about the fate of the fleet during the Armistice negotiations, as mentioned by Drach, would seem to make this order unreliable.Yet as a politician was he not merely saying what he wanted his new overlords to hear with a nudge and wink to the British? If so he was perhaps too subtle. Furthermore the British had a copy of the Armistice which they had translated (together with the translators bias to interpretation of certain words and statements, and was it a final draft) and compared it to a copy provided by Darlan (with French bias and interpretation). They did not match and this was seen as further unreliability. However show many people a short film and each one when asked will tell you something different when asked what they had just seen. This is because, simply put, we use our experience or 'bias' to interpret what we see and hear to fit our own 'narrative'. Then of course the Germans had made and broken many promises so the Armistice was not really worth the paper it was written on. It suited the Axis to have a large chunk of France under French control as this reduced the occupying force required. It also split French opinion and kept them sniping at each other and thus more involved in petty in fighting than real resistance. The reality of France now was much like the Revolutionary France of Robespierre with neighbours settling old scores by turning each other over to the authorities for this crime or that crime. As for the scuttling at Toulon showing they would have prevented the Germans and Italians getting the fleet, well no. Many of the vessels scuttled at Toulon were raised and repaired by the Axis within months. If given an extra two years to conduct repairs then who knows, even some of the larger vessels may have been returned to service.
Darlan should have sent all his navy to Britain ..
I thought I knew a lot about this attack & many of the other great vids, boy you been doing some research/reading sir! Very well done & absorbing content. Ty
I too feel sorry for the French officers and sailors because of their incompetent admirals. However the British really had no choice. They could have faced two enemy navies, the Italian and the French if they didn't take action.
The Mediterranean Sea was an absolutely vital lifeline for the British and they were duty bound to defend it and keep that lifeline opened. Churchill was not the kind of man to regret what he didn't do.
For the most part I agree with your final opinion.
Completly false....
@@loicguermeur4256 it's false that the med was a lifeline? Or false that he agrees? What?
Always lovely English people on the internet. We save your army at Dunkirk, you stab us in the back at Mer el kebir, and then you make decades of propaganda for everyone to laugh at us.
I hope we get the chance to return the favor in the future. And we too will say "yes, but we had no choice" as you do so easily.
Rot.
You know, this would be an interesting movie if it was made.
Yeah but not by Hollywood or it would be a romance with a heavy handed statement against British Imperialism or something.
Possibly the clearest analysis and morally correct study of this incident.
Did I, or did I not, hear two very specific homages to Star Wars in this?
I remember watching a documentary about this event, and one of the sailors interviewed (who was also at Tulon) basically said "War is hell, I don't blame the British per say" but one of the other sailors interviewed said "No, I will never forgive the British, they had no right to shoot at us." so even opinion among French sailors seemed split.
I saw the same documentary- never understood how the second person could hold that bitterness for all of those years.
@@stephenmcdonagh2795
Probably not much of a deep thinker and probably a close minded kind of person. For all we know he could have been a nazi sympathizer, I don't know the man.
@@whoknows8264 True, but if he should blame anyone, it should've been Gensoul for his idiotic pomposity.
@starbomber= Imagine the newly independent Scottish fleet attacking an English fleet by surprise with 1’300 dead !
The British and French Navies, in spite of sporadic tensions, had been comrades at arms since the Crimean war. So the Mers-Et-Kébir attack was seen by most of the French (and the French Navy in particular) as an unnecessary and deliberate act of treason. The British can give a thousand of excuses to their Mers-El-Kébir initiative, it shall not change this opinion of the French.
The first sailor, who does not blame the British, is representative of the minority “Free French” view : 1’300 dead are valued less than the British contribution to winning WW II.
The second sailor, who does not forgive the 1’300 dead, is representative of the mainstream French view which holds that 1’300 lives - just to convince Roosevelt that Churchill meant business - has been an unnecessary and callous expenditure of another country’s young men. There were other means available to convince Roosevelt!
These two views have been very difficult to reconcile, and in the post-WW II French Navy the coexistence between former Free French (ie. ‘rebel’) officers and former Vichy French (ie. ‘loyalist’) officers has remained difficult at least till the end of the ‘Fifties.
- •
@@christianfournier6862 If Mers El Kabir happened under Renaud's government, you could have a point, but he was ousted and replaced by a rabid bunch of Anglophobic far right ministers- one countess tried to stab Churchill after he visited France to negotiate with the French government- this was before Mere El Kabir.
A government at war can't rely on the word of a procrastinating admiral, all the offers given to the French Navy were fair and sensible. I can understand that French sailors would not have been comfortable carrying on the fight whilst their families were trapped in France, but the offers given didn't demand France carry on the war with its navy- the main concern was France's ships falling into German hands, an admiral could be easily replaced or "Disappeared". Added to this, was a promise from Hitler worth anything at-all?
It seems that many French hate the British for Mers El Kabir more than Germany's invasion of France- which seems misplaced, especially as over a hundred thousand French Jews were rounded up by the Vichy Government and never came back, not to mention hundreds of thousand of Frenchmen taken as forced labourers.
France was the first to break the treaty by signing a separate peace treaty with Germany. To defend Gensoul's pomposity is no different to defending the Vichy Government he worked for. A military force is only as good as its leaders allow it to be, Petain's obsession with communists in France makes it seem that he almost welcomed a far right invasion.
Who's to say that without the attack at Mers El Kabir, Western Europe could've spent fifty odd years under German, or most likely, Russian hegemony.
I would have gone to Martinique. I've been there. It's nice!
How would you have protected French citizens on Corsica in case Mussolini intended to invade here after July 1940?
I so wish I was an expert on things like this, with an expert's 20/20 vision, which I seem to lack despite the year. And then I read the comments, and wonder why I don't have the wisdom that other people possess - absolute certainty that this or that historical figure was a genius or an evil rogue, and the ability to judge them all and their actions, carried out in the heat and confusion of a world war. I am always bogged down with: what did they think? What did they know? What were they uncertain about? What outcome couldn't they let happen?
We are lucky to have so many expert commenters. I would try to read more history in an effort to join their ranks, but then I feel it is not knowledge I am lacking, but that absolute certainty they possess.
Yeah I'm baffled that nobody seems to consider the possibility that Gensoult was maybe just trying to stall for time while refusing to talk with a captain