When Britain Blew Up the French Fleet - Mers El Kebir 1940
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- If you enjoyed this video and want to see more made, consider supporting my efforts on Patreon: / historigraph
To chat history, join my discord: / discord
#MersElKebir #Historigraph
► Twitter: / historigraph
►Facebook: / historigraph
►Instagram: / historigraph
►Patreon: / historigraph
►Discord: / discord
Sources:
Colin Smith, England’s Last War Against France: Fighting Vichy 1940-42
Stephen Roskill, Churchill and the Admirals
Correli Barnett, Engage the enemy more closely
avalon.law.yale...
Music:
Rynos Theme, Incompetech incompetech.com
Malicious, Incompetech incompetech.com
Crypto, Incompetech incompetech.com
Join us in #WarThunder for free using this link and get a premium tank or aircraft and three days of premium time as a bonus: gjn.link/Historigraph/190504
If you enjoyed this video and want to see more made, consider supporting my efforts on Patreon: www.patreon.com/historigraph
To chat history, join my discord: discord.gg/vAFTK2D
@mikechrishill: What a fucking uneducated troll response to a really well made video. France was not remotely pro-Nazi, aside from Hitler’s puppet government. Sure there was an armistice, but it was forced on them. Churchill knew full well the puppets were planning an invasion, which is why he took drastic measures to keep the warships out of German hands! It’s not a bullshit narrative, if you’ve seen Historograph’s other videos, you’d know he’s very fucking thorough when it comes to research. If you consider the time and resources spent on the Maginot (to deter the Germans), the investment from Britain into the resistance movement, and the attacks on France in general, you’d have to be a complete retard to think France was pro-Nazi. The US got into some fights with Britain too, but at the end of the day we were still on the same side. Fighting with our allies was unfortunate...but fighting without them would have been catastrophic.
@mikechrishill Non sense and completely false. Darlan promised the Brits that the French fleet would never be used against them. What was in the armistice regarding the fleet was as likely to happen as, let say, that the German would pay the Versailles Treaty reparation. Still the Brits would open fire at their allies of yesterday and kill 1300 officers and sailors, just to show how reckless they were and impress the Yanks. A treacherous communication event. Unless you really think that the Americans and Roosevelt were assholes ready to let down the Brits, this action was pointless. Mers el Kebir was out of reach of the German. The French showed afterward with the scuttling of their fleet in Toulon that they would never let the German have their ships, and the enraged vichy French gave the Brits some payback in Dakar or in Syria. Darlan was a fool to think his word would mean something. Until that day, and set aside the fact that his wife was british and that he probably had to endure sub-standard cooking at home, he had no real reason to hate la perfide albion.
You should link drachinfel's video to this. He goes into depth about the negligence of the french admiral.
Hi Mr Historiograph, I'm trying to reach out to you to propose a business agreement: I would love to dub your videos to Italian and then re-upload them onto an italian Historiograph channel. I reckon there is a potential untapped market for italian-speaking wartime history videos. Your videos are shockingly well made and would face very little same-language competition. The revenue from those videos would then be split at some rate to be decided between the two of us. Let me know what you think, I belive this can be a profitable endevour.
Historigraph, Your Photo at minute 9:16 of Admiral Marcel-Bruno Gensoul Looks more Like a Photo of Admiral Darlan, I think you ought to check it
British admirals: "please surrender your ships :)"
French admirals: "your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries"
Damn hamsters
Only this time, the Brits farted in their general direction and two battleships were sunk.
in 1940 , t British were more effective aginst the French than against the German
@@dellawrence4323 you know guys los their life , that's not funny ?
Gensoul: You are a mere captain and not worthy of an audience with me.
15in shell: Guess I'm worthy then.
It broke my father's heart. He was in the Navy and at the time with the Free French in North Africa. For him the Mers el-Kebir was a tragedy.
Its a tragedy of war alright - but a necessary one. While Sommerville was concerned with the action, with honour and with the pride of the Navy, Churchill was thinking of the long game - the need to court Armerica's interest, the need to eliminate a potential threat early and the admission that, with France lost and the British Army historically being small (and scattered across the world) this would be a long war. They knew that the RAF and the Royal Navy could keep Britain safe and the were both more than a match for their German enemy - but there is only so much you can do as a island nation. In 1940 there was a very real likelihood that Europe would remain under the Nazi grip for years - maybe decades. You simply can't take shortsighted, hopeful actions early in a conflict, particularly when you are the last man for your team standing.
@@dynamo1796 All Churchill's unnecessary war crime did was encourage people in France to support the Vichy regime.
Recruitment for the Free France movement plummeted.
@@MarkHarrison733 You're conflating matters here. The Free France movement was always doomed to be a a wisp of ideology and nothing more. Once the world saw Britain wouldn't give in, they knew it meant Europe would under German occupation for years. There would be no peace settlement, only the war between Britain and Germany until the US could bring her might to bear and support the retaking of Europe. Supporting the Vichy regime was what people did so they could survive until that day of freedom. The same happened in the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and beyond. The French didn't simply go "oh well, the British sank three ships, we'd better join forces with the tyrannical dictator who just slaughtered tens of thousands of our countrymen" - you muppet.
@@MarkHarrison733
It was better to lose some recruits in the resistance than arm our enemy with a modern powerful fleet.
The British were already out-numbered in the Mediterranean without adding this French fleet to their arsenal.
@@BikersDoItSittingDown The French would have scuttled their fleet, as they did in November 1942.
All memes aside, this was a great tragedy.
Albert Wesker most couldn’t care less about Algerians or Subsaharans
Created entirely by the French.
@@F40PH-2CAT How do you figure?
@@F40PH-2CATdid we sunk our battleship ourself or was it our fault because we didn't want to obey to the UK ? In both case that sound like an incredibly retarded take, I'm surprised someone that can come up with this can also actually write
@@MrGuana141 The French should have surrendered their fleet. The British were correct to assume that Germany would attempt to seize the French fleet as shown in 1942 when ultimately, all the flagships at Mers El Kebir were scuttled by the French themselves anyway. The Germans never did obtain the French fleet but they very well could have, in fact they came very close. Not to mention the utility the British would have gotten from the French ships in fighting the axis, a cause which would have benefitted France. France could have contributed it's navy to the liberation of France but chose to keep them in port until 1942 for no good reason, wasting some incredible ships.
Thinking the Battle of Trafalgar was the last naval battle between Britain and France, I found this. As I tell friends, the more I learn of history, the more I realize how little I know.
Reporter: "What do you think of British civilization?"
Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea."
After the skinny little fanatic had studied law in London.
Is this incident the reason why vichy-french soldiers kept fighting the Allies in Madagascar, syria and on the landing of the American and British troops in North-Africa?
@@ozzmanzz thanks for the reply. I was searching for that for a long time. Weirdly, they must have known, that Germany would occupy them anyhow and -on the long run- they would be better off fighting with the Allies, not against them.
MrUnseen
The French tried to maintain some pride by thinking they were still in control, albeit in just the Vichy south. Sadly the Allies paid a heavy price for this. An Australian soldier who later became the Governor of New South Wales, Sir Roden Cutler, was awarded a Victoria Cross and lost a leg fighting not the Germans but the French in Syria during ww2. What a mad time it was.
Vichy was built on proto-fascist tendencies already existent in France.
Gee, how dare the French defend their own colonies.
@@generalzyklon3913 Defending their colonies my ass...the allied troops were not fighting to take france's colonies, they were fighting for France to be FREE!
I mean they have been doing it for centuries. I thought this is mabey a Napolianic wars video until i saw the ships.
I hope you just playing the idiot on purpose, and that you realize the difference between sinking ships in a naval battle and "this".
It's nothing more than the proverbial English perfidy. They fled to Dunkirk like cowards, but they still managed to sink the fleet of their (former) ally (!!)
@@xenotypos not really, the ships could have joined vichy France. They were given a reasonable ultimatum that would have benefited them and had no consequences (all they had to do was sail to a British port) and they refused. If they didn't to go to an allied port that seems rather suspicious even if the French later proved their honesty to Britain
@@justinbeath5169 Literally no power in the world would have agreed to any of those deamnds and Churchill knew that when he gave the order, similar deamnds are exactly what started WW1 and ofcourse the british would ahve said no if the situation was turned on its head.
Letting your millitary be commanded by anyone else Is jsut the biggest NO GO you can have, when you are letting someone else command your forces then you are already beyond the point of surrendring to them and there is no point in your further existence.
The consequence of accepting any of the demands would clearly be that nobody would ever take the french navy seriously.
There is nothing suspicious about a sovereign nations millitary not taking orders from a different nations governement , if they did take orders from that other nation then that would truly be suspicious.
@@freedomfighter22222 there are many instances of armies being commanded by other nations, it even happened at Alexandria at the same time and early in the war with the polish navy. It would have been better to continue the fight than to capitulate like the rest of France
The perfect example of testing to see if friendly is on
Was this battle forgivable? Yes
But was it regrettable? Yes, in my opinion yes
Thank you for this video. Thank you a lot. All I want more is a video on Gernan ships crossing of the Channel and that is it.
The British had no choice then to take out the Frence fleet!! The French should have compliet to the British,... they should have joined the Royal Navy!! The had their chance and choise to do so,.. unfortunately for the French they didn't
Their admiral seemed like an obnoxious prick.
HMS Hood: "Wow it's so lame to see these ships go down like total punks under our enormous guns"
Bismarck: (chuckles in german)
Bismarck:But before I go down, I'm taking you with me!
This video makes the French look way more innocent than they really were in this matter! Drachnifel's video on this is much more detailed and outlines how Gensoul was in complete dereliction of duty.
I can't imagine what kind of dilema Somerville had, In my opinion this attack was necessary, in order to keep the ships out of enemys hands, Nazis hands this time, the british had no choice to open fire since Gesoul acted all mighty and foolish believing his ship would stay out of nazis hands.
Really interesting! I didn't;t know this. Thank you.
The French Admiral was so naïve
His country already surrendered and the guy thinks he can chill on a port inside the warzone continent with toys that could change the event of the war
Lol French and logic I guess
That whole decision wasn't logical, and had a number of consequences that hurt the Ally in the long run. There was 0 chance the French would allow their fleet to fall into Italian/German hands.
To explain one thing, as a French man I understand the british response and think it was necessary to take action against our fleet.
The french sometimes are never rational or logical, only a few were, besides the navy wanted to abide by armistice stipulation.
But again, I'd prefer to see either: My fleet taken by the british, joining the british, scuttled (like in toulon) or sunked by the british to avoid the germans doing that one annoying thing they wanted to do in 1942 (which failed by the way).
But again, we had pretty idiotic higher ups (except for a few) that were really rigid and prefered their pride over fighting.
@@Mysteres78979 En même temps les alliés n'ont montré que du mépris pour les français même ceux qui se battait à leur coté. Cette décision n'avait rien d'illogique à une époque où la fierté était si importante ne serait ce que pour la crédibilité du pays. Et elle relevait surtout d'une volonté de garder la France de Vichy qui était neutre, en dehors du conflit. Churchill lui-même a plus tard déclarer que ce fût une grave erreur
This is why France and UK had a “kind of maybe nah chief” alliance
It was a temporary ceasefire thing.
French Pearl Harbor
Except worse because it was done by an ally
@@jeanhunter3538 yeeep
@@jeanhunter3538 I wouldn't call the French admiral an ally. He was obviously not willing to help the allies beyond promising to not help Germany. He also promised not to fight Germany. Really he was a fool. He knew his government was forced to surrender and seemed quite willing to let Germany have France
There was no surprise though?
CG Account He was following orders that he would scuttle the ships if they were threatened to be captured. He was under no obligation to sail out and leave his post.
Churchill absolutely did what was necessary. He had balls of steel.
The British Ultimatum to France makes for a moving read also:
"It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German enemy. We are determined to fight on until the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers, and that our common enemy is Germany. Should we conquer we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;
(a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans.
(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.
If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.
(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies - Martinique for instance - where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.
If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.
Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German hands."
churchill showed he wasn't beaten by sinking his allies' ships.
Damned horrible decision but bloody marvelous outcome in getting the Yanks to wake up. Churchill was the hard nosed "bugger" that we needed at the time. RIP Sir.
RIP indeed.
Americans conveniently forget that it was solely through the Herculean efforts of the RN, the RA and the RAF that this country was able to avoid war as long as it did.
@@richardcleveland8549 Americans forget anything that doesn't revolve around them, cannot be twisted to sound like it singularly involved them, or just makes them look bad.
@@TJH1 Well, a little sweeping, but not without a core of truth. Some of us DO read and remember history! "Steady, boys, steady!"
Great work!
.In my rescue boat (12 places) I see in the North Sea a group of ten English dabbling and a German 50 m further dabbling too. I have no hesitation. 50 m do not scare me.
Gensoul to the British Commander: Nuts!
Hell yeah new vid
The English firing on the French ship Dunkerque when less than 2 month earlier French soldiers held Dunkerque to allow the English ships to escape.
History has a dark sense of humor.
The only alternative at Dunkirk for the British is the annihilation of the BEF along with the French Forces. Would any sane country waste thousands of lives and equipment when they could save it? The British took the reasonable choice of preserving the relatively small amount of men they had left and even some of the French as well
But hey they were allies right so it just makes sense that the fleet would just surrender
Hello, to everyone who is interested in the perspective from a French man, let me show you a message that I saw on Reddit that explains totally what I think about this massacre.
"It was a treatorous actions. Completly not required. As mentionned before, France was still an allie of the UK at that moment. Out of the 5 PROPOSITIONS given by the British, none were to stay under free french command.
And this massacre only happened on the "suspicional thought, unfunded", that Hitler would add French vessel to its own navy.
Which wasn't true anyway, as Hitler promised not to touch the French navy, AS LONG as they would be DISARMED, which most of them where in port that day, the others still being disarmed, and it was known of the british.
Furthermore, Hitler knew an alliance with France would be beneficial, so that's why he mostly put effort to show the French people he was trustworthy of somekind, which is a proof he wouldn't have use french vessels anyway.
That destruction coming from the British actually had impact on the french people and started to question "who their real allies were"."
Also let me tell you what the options the British gave were: "you come with us or we kill you".
Is your first response "oh yeah dude sure! Our allies are threatening to kill us!"?
"Hitler promised" And that is the fault in the reasoning right there. Furthermore, the French Army had folded like a deck chair, the Frech government (such as there still was) was making "come hither" noises to the Nazis and the Free French movement was a joke in bad taste, represented by some unknown lanky guy with a big nose and an even bigger ego, which got on everyone's nerves but was humored along in case he might turn out to be useful one day. And Admiral Gensoul still thought he was in command. In command of what? A fleet needs huge supplies just to keep it seaworthy, not to mention operational. Where did Gensoul think all the supplies for his Fleet would come from? Morocco? Shan-Gri La? His own Lend-Lease program? That the Brits would just give him all that ammo without of course doing something so scandaleux as telling him where to use it? It was time for Gensoul to pick a side. He didn't, out of sheer arrogance. Well, he was French, comes with the territory. Well, that territory not currently occupied by the Nazis.
The French Admiral was an egotist, what a shock.
Actions like this, the Bengal Famine and many more are the reason I don't see churchill as a good guy.
Churchill did a lot of things wrong, and I do believe he was a terrible human being, but this action I can forgive him for.
At that stage he had just witnessed Britain's only continental ally left be crushed, and this ally had the 4th largest navy in the world (and was negotiating with Germany). Combining the French Mediterranean fleets with the Italian ones would have cut the British off from the British Raj, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand.
It was a massive potential threat that Britain could not tolerate, therefore action had to be taken. While they should have been given more time for the French to think about the options available, I think the French handled it very poorly.
The French Admiral basically scoffed at the idea that the British fleet would open fire on his ships, forgetting that the Royal Navy had a history of capturing and/or sinking neutral/potential enemy fleets to prevent them from being a threat.
@@cameronsmith1339 I think thats a valid point. I will adjust my viewpoint
@@cameronsmith1339 The french couldn't accept the ultimatum without german retaliation (which would have probaly led to full annexation) so they did what they had to : refuse and suffer the british attack
@@volcanares9620 Didn't do much good for them, if you count the events of 1942, however, that's with hindsight, without hindsight refusing the ultimatum was certainly not a bad idea, but not the best one, althought I do consider Vichy France to be more legitament then De Gaulle, as did Roosevelt.
Admiral Gensoul of the French fleet bears the heavy responsibility for this tragedy that could have been avoided. The French fleet worries Churchill and Admiral Darlan by letting it dock with the Continent is very guilty.
Already one can be revolted against the Government of Petain which enters the date of request of armistice (17.06.40) & the date of application of the armistice Nothing was done to save the fleet and to put it in security.
In addition the Petain Government betrayed the alliance with Great Britain of March 28, 1940
"Sees British shelling French ports"
*Oh! Brits and their habits!*
It's nothing more than the proverbial English perfidy. They fled to Dunkirk like cowards, but they still managed to sink the fleet of their (former) ally (!!)
Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette if the retreat to Dunkirk was cowardly, then we're going to need a new word to describe the French.
@@benmurray8810 I remind you that it was the French and Belgian troops who defended Dunkerque during the British "evacuation" ...
I also remind you that the French have continued the fight, thanks to the Forces Françaises Libres ("Free French Forces") led by Général de Gaulle: from the Battle of Britain to Hitler's Eagle's Nest, the French have been in every fight, including in North Africa, on June 6, 1944 in Normandie, but also in the Soviet Union (Régiment de Chasse Normandie-Niémen). Anglo-Saxon historiography may have deliberately "forgotten" their struggles but not us!
And I remind you again that the French people have organized one of the most effective resistance movements in Europe and that the country has the third largest number of "Righteous among the Nations", behind Poland and the Netherlands.
@@gilbertdumotiermarquisdela3037 You are incredibly deluded. Britain sent an army to your country to fight two world wars. Millions of our people died for your country and you dare to call our retreat to Dunkirk cowardly?
It was the French army that knew the threat from an Ardennes attack existed and placed old men with out dated guns in a thin line to hold it. That was not our failing. We did exactly what your high command told us to do and when you failed to defend your own country you call us cowards for withdrawing?
Have you forgotten how many French and Belgian troops the Royal Navy and British civilians evacuated from Dunkirk? Did you also forget that we allowed De Gaulle to use our broadcasting capability to speak to France while your own government surrendered.
You are possibly the worst person I've ever seen crawling over TH-cam. Britain is not perfect but the situation at Dunkirk was one of it's proudest moments and one of the greatest human achievements ever done.
If your retarded admiral at Mers El Kebir had agreed to sail to the Carribean no French sailors would have died that day. It's a shame he was French. A German would almost certainly agreed to that generous offer.
@@gilbertdumotiermarquisdela3037 while saying that the French did nothing during or after the German invasion is wrong, I disagree that the retreat from Dunkirk was cowardly. First of all if they hadn't evacuated they had no chance of survival so all of the people there would be killed or taken prisoner, Secondly being a coward means running away from the fight but a good amount of the evacuated soldiers fought in North Africa, manned AA guns during the battle of Britain and then even returned to France for round 2 on the 6th of June 44. The French and Belgian soldiers protecting the evacuees, the British fighting after Dunkirk, the men and women fighting in the French resistance and all of the other soldiers that took part in the war against Germany were heroes and anybody calling them cowards should be ashamed of themselves.
"you know we had to do it to em" - King George VI
@@ng3898 *British Navy
@@MK-rr7cg *Royal Navy
Churchill: "It do be like that sometimes"
Roosevelt to French ambassador in Washington "I would have done the same if I were Churchill." (this is not the exact quote, I have no idea what the exact quote is, though do feel free to tel me).
@@keithwatson1384 *Afghanistan Navy
Can you do a video on the WW1 campaigns in Africa? No one (except for like potential history that one time) talks about them
Well the great war talked about it
tbh yes
potential history just did a bit about german east africa, check him out!
@@TheKurtkapan34 ehh, i think he saw it already
@@bomschhofmann1644 eh, you never know. youtube works really differently sometimes, i know of few channels that i really love that was recommended to me on comment sections and not by youtube.
and since i love the guy's work, why not publicize it so he can get more views?
-
oh, i don't think that part in paranthesis was there when i wrote the comment, if it was, my bad :)
British shelling French ports and ships?
*see nothing wrong with that, they’ve been doing that for centuries*
?
I don't understand your point
@@luxembourgishempire2826 it's a joke
Anonymous Person Britain and France (well really England and France but I’m counting them as the same) have been at war for centuries. The joke is that in these wars both navies have fired on each other multiple times at sea and from port.
Some thing never change
Dunkirk- “I’m one of the greatest ships afloat”
Hood- “I’m about to end this guys whole career”
Bismarck- “Say what?”
hood joke...just sayin
Then HMS Ark Royal decides Aircraft carriers are more effective,
Then U-81 decides submarines are more effective,
Then B-17 Bombers of 15th AAF decide long range tactical bombers are more effective,
Hms rodney - what u say Bismarck?
Ohio class gets finished, did sumbudy say enemies ship
@@ukleonidas300 if only Rodney was anyhow crucial to bismarck sinking.... oh wait. ;)
Fallen ally remains: *exist*
U.K:It's free real estate
Anything: exists
UK: It's free real estate
@@artificialgravitas8954 well that's more accurate
I think the whole of western Europe is free real estate
Artificial Gravitas *RULE BRITANNIA EARRAPE*
@@artificialgravitas8954 Explicitly true for Australia.
Cook was interacting with the locals all the way up the east coast on his first voyage. His men were working on a translation dictionary while the Endeavour was being repaired after running onto the Great Barrier Reef, so he knew that they had a language. Yet he declared the land "Nerra Nullius" - empty land! This has ramifications to the present day.
*Some guy jokes about the French always surrendering*
Brits: Surrender now
French: No
Brits: Nani
Britain: "Dude, why did you think now was a good time to break with tradition?"
france: retaliates by bombing gibraltar
the brits: :0
@@rallestein because Britain, making fun of the French since 1337.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 But they loose the one hundred years war
@regis bognor Regarding the 100 years war, my belief is both sides lost. The French crown should have, legally, gone to Edward III. The French kingdom was, by all means, divided and leaderless.
One can dream of what may have happened if Edward had become king of England AND France. Maybe centuries of useless wars, resulting in millions of deaths, not mentioning Brexit.
Germany : invades France partying like its 1914
Britain : destroys the french Navy partying like it’s 1814
1940 is the French 2020
@@Csetnikke fortunately, UK no longer has navy in 2020...
@@hangar1873 Rip
@@hangar1873 Britain had a large navy
@@hangar1873 if we built another 2 Queen Elizabeth class Carriers and 10 Type 45 or Type 83 Destroyers, we would be quite the naval power
There was an alternative plan the English presented where the French ships could sail to a US port. However due to the strict interpretation of his orders, Gensoul determined he would have been going against orders had he done so. The last order he had received from Admiral Darlan was that he could sail to the US in the event the Germans or Italians (Frances enemies at the time of the orders) were trying to capture his ships. Now that the armistice had been signed and England was making the demands for capture (instead of Germany or Italy), it was his strict interpretation of his orders rather than following the spirit of the orders that led to his being fired upon.
Actually Darlan's order was Gensoul could sail to the U.S. if an enemy fleet tries to seize or attack them. Meaning that they are not limited to just Germany or Italy
Sail to the US whive "magical fuel " .
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Hunter D not really
The French betrayed the British by backing out of their agreement never to sign a separate peace. The French navy was the 4th largest in the world. If the Germans had managed to get their hands on it they could've (together with the Italians) reached naval parity with Britain and interrupted her trade enough to starve the British Isles. One of the agreements reached in the second armistice at Compiegne was that all French ships were to return to ports in mainland France, there's no reason to think the Germans wouldn't have tried to seize them. They eventually actually did try, but the French scuttled their ships.
@Hunter D the fact that the French were beaten on the mainland didn't mean they had to sign a seperate peace.
They could've set up a government in their colonial holdings.
@Hunter D Vichy France was a puppet State of Germany but they could still make their own decision like, not fighting the war for Germany and not giving them their ships.
@@nicobruin8618The purpose of an army is to protect your people, how can you protect the people of France is you leave France? When you are beaten you have to admit defeat otherwise the wars would never end.
Although it shouldn't have happened, I completely understand why the British did it, it was the most logical thing to do
Ikr, the French admiral should have just thrown in with them against the Nazis. He had that choice, and several others
exactly@@KBV1497
Shaque Johnson it was a logical decision. The French admiral could have easily just sailed away with the brits or joined the other French ships with the brits but they were adamant. Plus, the alliance between the 2 stated that they were not to negotiate a separate peace but the French did so any way, betraying the british
true@@pergys6991
not true@@ArmyRangerSJ
thank you for producing such quality content
Pierre Sihite your last name is quite the minefield
@@vulgarpotato indeed it is and ironically im not even french
@@vulgarpotato its pronounced si-he-te. te like the te in tell
Omlette du fromage
8:30 That Gun Boat is one of the badass naval ship in history
Do you even USS Johnston?
@@therealwildboar1007 Ok then, Second Badass
There is a mistake in the video about it not taking a scratch. It's 5 inch gun was actually damaged so it could no longer fire and forcing it to turn away.
Try HMS Glowworm.
Before you enter the comments section, there are a few things I would like to make clear. For one thing, to all those who regard the shelling of Mers El Kebir as a British betrayal, may I remind you that the French and British had signed an agreement stating that neither country would sign a separate peace with Germany, an agreement which the French broke when they signed the Second Compiene Armistice. Secondly, Admiral Gensoul could have sailed to the Caribbean and still technically be in French territory. I hope that people do express their beliefs, and I myself will do my best to respect those beliefs, even if I do not believe in them myself, those who wish to challenge my views may do so, and I will do my best to either reply in my defense, or acknowledge my mistake (if I remember to, that is), I hope that we can all be respectful to each other. Good day.
@@alexgraham12345 Sorry I took so long to reply, Anyway. Yes, Britain and France did fail in their obligation to protect Poland (aside from the Saar offensive, but that was basically a failure), which was the faults of Britain and France, however, if you want to be more specific, it was the fault of the two governments, both of which were gone by this point. The shelling of Mer El Kebir was a tragedy, however, without the benefit of hindsight, it was a nesessary tragedy, the British feared that the germans or Italians would comandear the ships, and yes in the end, it was proven to be an unesessesary tragedy when the French scutteled their remaining fleet at Toulon, but that is with hindsight, and one cannot truly understand decisions with the benefit of hindsight, because with hindsight we know what will happen afterwards, so put yourself in Churchill's Shoes, Your country could be invaded by the Germans, your biggest ally has abandonned you, and now their navy is ripe for the taking by your enemies, what would you do, desparate times call for desparate measures, this was one of them, you can either accept that it happened and move on, or we can argue about it until we die, and let me tell you something, I am Greek-Canadian, since I'm Greek, I have tons of reasons that I could use as an excuse to hate all Turks and Germans, but I don't, I believe that just because someones ancestors did bad things, dosn't mean that those people are evil, their ancestors, yea, them, no. Also, so what if it had no enforcement mechanism, using that as an excuse to break it is like saying that since there are no police officers then I can break the law. I will leave you with this, to understand decisions made in the past, you must remove the benefit of hindsight from your understanding, I'm glad that we were able to remain civil in our little debate here, good day to you.
Then again, the French wouldn't have signed a separate peace with the Germans if the French far right hadn't seized power in what amount to a coup d'état. Which wouldn't have happened if the French government hadn't panicked and voted to give emergency powers to some old guy who happened to not like the Republic's politicians very much. Which wouldn't have happened if the Battle of Belgium hadn't been lost.
Which wouldn't have happened if _the British army hadn't run away to Dunkerque in the middle of the French counter-attack_ (and let's be clair, it's not the British that are to blame, it's specifically John Gort, who acted against the general British consensus of wanting to actually win)
... Which wouldn't have happened if the idiot in charge of the defence of the Ardennes hadn't stubbornly refused to listen to the detailed reports from air scouts and told the French Air Force to bomb the giant armored German traffic jams in the forest to oblivion
Which wouldn't have happened if Belgium hadn't pulled off of the alliance, somehow believing that neutrality would work this time
Which wouldn't have happened if France had lent the required money to Belgium for turning the Meuse-Argonne line into another impassable Maginot line
Well, we can continue for a long time, actually...
@@eth3549 Total nonsense...Gort moved 'some' troops back to plug a gap left by the Belgians which threatened the channel ports. The only escape route for all allied armies.
The Weygand Plan never looked likely to succeed any way, he hardly believed in it himself. When he took command of the French army in late May he said himself, 'I'm several weeks too late'
French, British and Belgians ALL made to Dunkirk to escape a POW camp. The 125,000 French, majority of the French army in the northern pocket were not cowards for leaving France.
Besides, there were still over 100,000 British troops fighting further south, who had to be evacuated later as France continued to collapse. They didn't even defend their own capitol. There was no spirit of the Marne, no real belief in victory in France from the get go.
France has many option to continue fight, from exile, or in poliltical union with Britain...sadly Petain was chosen and turned his back on France's only true ally in this period Britain. Now we know what we know about Vichy, the
British should have been even more distrustful.
That didn't justify the war-crime !
so the french version of pearl harbour where the brits asked in a gentlemenly way by asking them to kindly surrender then fight haha
It wasnt even surrender since they were allies they just told they to go somewhere else
@@vallas8345 They couldnt wait just think of the consequences if the Germans got those ships
@@vallas8345 What as you French were sending your own ships to fire on the British ships, nice work genius.
The French commander couldn't just sail off and join the British fleet. He had to see a much bigger picture than the British. He had to consider the political side-effects and recriminations such an action might have on occupied France, and possibly even Vichy France as well. The Germans might have retaliated against the French citizenry (if you think that unlikely, just take a look at what they did to the inhabitants of Oradour-Sur-Glane), or the Germans might have proceeded to occupy Vichy France (which they ultimately did anyway). By the same token, although I'm sure the French were sincere when they promised that they would never voluntarily turn their vessels over to the Germans, the British couldn't be sure that the Germans wouldn't just show up one morning, order the crews off the ships and take them over themselves (something the Brits had done in the First World War), which would have shifted the Mediterranean's balance of naval power irrevocably in favor of the Axis powers. In the end, it was a terrible, perhaps even treacherous, thing to do to an ally, but when your nation's very existence is at stake and you're fighting an enemy as formidable and ruthless as Nazi Germany, you haven't the luxury of being nice.
The French had the opportunity to scuttle them at that moment and solve the problem on all sides, but no he had to get his own sailors killed. If he was going to do it anyway then i fail to the see the problem in doing it sooner rather than later
Considering many vichy soldiers actually fought against the allies in north africa, i'd say the paranoia of the British was well founded
@@TheTeremaster He didn't have to get his sailors killed, he just couldn't believe an ally would bomb his ships.
Could’ve just fucked off the the Caribbean too. It’s not like Germany can cry foul if you did that, because what good would they be in the Caribbean?
Two of the three options wernt that though. 1st Option ally with the Royal Navy and fight to free occupied France, 2nd Option scuttle your ships, 3rd option sail to the French colonies in the Pacific and agree to sit out the war.
Y’all better be praying to the copy right gods that this video doesn’t get copy righted again.
That idiot who commanded the fleet in Oran was more interested in etiquette than in averting a tragedy. Sinking fleet was okay but what really got him worked up that the British did send a captain to haggle with him instead of an admiral like he was one himself. The rest is known
Old breed mentality
Britain: Can you maybe, like, move your fleet to friendly ports?
France: ...No.
Britain: Please?
France: No.
Britain: I will be forced to open fire on you
France: Still no.
Britain: (Opens fire)
France: (Surprised Pikachu Face)
*opens fire on ally, killing nearly 1300 of them. After they would already scuttle their ships if the Germans attempted to seize them
@@jeanhunter3538 no they wouldnt
@@jeanhunter3538 Benefit of hindsight, how can the British be sure that the French fleet is actually gonna scuttle their own fleet? Its not like that has ever happened before.
@@averagenewbie2968 they did en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_at_Toulon
How would Germans even reach French fleet in Africa?... Only reason it was moved to Toulon was exactly due to British attack...
With Mers El Kebir British only proved theirs' paranoia which was enough for them to justify attacking theirs' former allies. That attack is to this day arguably the biggest stain on British account.
This is one of those situations with no easy solutions. France had just surrendered so any action viewed by the germans as breaking the armistice could lead to an even worse outcome. Don't forget no one had the benefit of hindsight so all decisions were based on the realities of the moment not what might be the case 4 or 5 years later.
"The crews were no about to abandon their ships and allow Les anglais to finish them up " . God, I love this line
The royal navy told the to get off the ships they refused they in fact started there engines and prepared to fight
@@jakesmith-bw1yc war crimes are war crimes
@@pokefreak480 except it was not a war crime it was the sinking of a fleet of war ships that would be used to attack us.
@@jakesmith-bw1yc but they scuttled their ships, so it was unnecessary 11:30
@@jakesmith-bw1yc It's a war crime !
As a French. Im glad that you covered this event for the english speaking viewers. And as always, wonderfull work !
So do u think the british were justified in attacking the french navy?
Do you really think they do not know about this?)
@@amitm1993 my guy without the UK helping france the whole of France would still be under german control also who is "Britishers"?
@@amitm1993 firstly who the is “Britishers”? Also in ww2 uk had the strongest bavy in the world and contained germany with it. They also contributed the most technologically and single handedly saved europe. Tell me if the uk didnt get involved how would france get freed ?
@@amitm1993 "😂"
"When Britian Blew up the French Fleet"
Think they have done that more than once...
Lol you have to have the French Navy in your port to destroy it, remember the battle of Cheasepeake where the French Navy shot you in the ass because yes they did that more than once.
@@sayzen4588
The most famous ones of England/Britain beating french navy are:
Sluys, Quiberon bay, Nile, Basque Roads & Trafalgar
@@archivesoffantasy5560 Je vais te la faire plus court moi, L'invasion de Normandie en (1202-1204), en (1213-1214), Saintonge, Anglo VS Français (1294-1303), 1557-1559, French religion (1562-1628), Bataille au Québec de 1627-1628, Guerre de Cent Ans 1337 - 1453, Guerre de succession d'Autriche 1743, Guerre d'indépendance Américaine, je pourrais continuer longtemps comme ça. Vous avez le don de tout remettre à vos batailles les plus connu, je n'ai pas fait les conquêtes napoléoniennes où il a fallut des coalition de votre armée avec l'Europe pour nous arrêter. Et ce coup de le dos a été le coup de grâce, Dunkerque quand pourtant on vous a sauvé le cul parce que à l'heure actuelle tu serais entrain de pleurer sur ton sort de ne pas avoir d'armée. Arrêtez de vous référez aux batailles "Les plus connus" parce qu'elles ne veulent rien dire tout simplement, parce que à l'heure actuelle notamment en niveau maritime permet moi de douter de la supériorité britannique. Avec les salutations Françaises !
@@sayzen4588 I don’t speak French but I know France has a powerful military history.
Britain has names like Nelson, Cochrane, Wellington, Marlborough, Henry V, Edward III, Richard O Connor etc
France has named like Napoleon, Turrene, Villars, Grand Conde, Saxe, Davout, La Hire etc
Like I say, got no problem admitting France has powerful and important history because it’s the truth.
I feel that Franco Prussian and WW2 is what damaged the reputation, but people forget the eras of dominance of bourbon France.
British Admiral Nelson left the chat, blew up by a canon
If Gensoul didn’t put his pride above his country, then they might have reached a peaceful resolution by not wasting the hours Holland spent relaying messages via intermediaries.
Actually Gensoul tryed to own time for move .
He suceeded ....
french navy : France have lost, so our ship will stay neutral . And if the german try to take them, we will scuttle them . Are we good ?
England : Well yes, but actually no
lol
Total war, with us or against us...anyone who can't see the need for ruthlessness in WW2 is infantile
@@angloirishcad Adults can handle nuance. Children see the world in black and white.
@@gaohkai9441 There is no nuance in a death struggle
@Cpl. Rook just because, the fleet at Toulon scuttled their ships, doesn't mean the one at mers el kebir would have.
Also the british werent exactly in a trusting mood at the time, as the french had recently betrayed them by surrendering to the germans, even though a previous agreement made it so they could not surrender without british consent. Which would make the british eye french promises with suspicion.
It was also far more likely for the fleet at mers el kebir to turn over to the germans for the following reasons.
2 years had passed after the surrender and vichy france was becoming more hostile to the germans, as to why they would have been eager for a chance to resist. The fleet at toulon was also a fair bit smaller as to why the germans had not thought to sieze those ships earlier.
The vichy france at mers el kebir was more eager to please as they had just recently surrendered. And the germans would have been far more interested in these ships than the ones at toulon as they were planning to invade britain at this time and the fleet at mers el kebir was more powerful.
Another brilliantly researched video. I didn’t know that any French ships had actually managed to escape. So again, I’ve learnt something, thank you.
only the old battleships Bretagne was destroyed and very minor ships, all the destroyers, the submarines, the carrier and the others battleships survived the attack
@@volcanares9620 but not the 1500 sailors sadly
@@zainkhan69420 yes I know, they died as brave men refusing to surrender their ships
@@volcanares9620the destroyer Mogador was hit by a 15" shell while leading the way out of the harbour, her depth charges detonated and she sank.
The battleship Provence was damaged by several hits, and because she was quite old she was never repaired.
The Dunkerque battle cruiser (or whatever her class is called in english) was damaged by shells and three days later, her side was blown up when an aerial attack hit and expoded a torpedo boat next to her. She was hastily repaired (using concrete to fill the holes in her hull), sent back to Toulon just in time to be stuttled there.
Even if most of the human casualty are from the Bretagne's crew, she was not the only ship damaged there.
(And also, there are claims of british aircrafts downed by french fighters but not confirmed for what I know. Anyway, several contradicting reports have been made of this event and Historograph's video is the best I have seen on it)
Get out the British propagand ! The attack was a complete failure and just a bloodbath !
even the british commadner wasn't proud of that.
As a Brit I’m saddened that we had to do it
But if Britain was ever knocked out in a war I’d expect our allies to do the same to our navy
Never let the ship fall into enemy hands
It's not enough to be sad of the death of thousands of French sailors, neither apologies
Jacob Zondag it’s not about the ships. It’s about the men who were ruthlessly murderers in a blatant war crime
Josh lower although they didn’t swing the sword, French leadership is just as responsible for the deaths of those men- additionally their arrogance prevented the war itself from
Being over in a matter of weeks.
@JZ's Best Friend When fighting the likes of Hitler...might is always right
French Navy: Damn, we just lost the war. We have no use for our ships really.
British Navy: *Attacks Mers El Kebir*
French Navy: *a h s h i t h e r e w e g o a g a i n*
People have died please respect them
@@misterf2785 I can't; They're dead.
@@EstonianShark Shame on you! If you are really Estonian it like I did a joke on the brave people who resisted Germany and the URSS occupation of your country.
I can see the British side of this but I can also understand the French side you can never tell what's going to happen in the future or how people truly react British did what they had to do remember hindsight is always 20/20 you have to look at things from the lens of today and what has happened in the past because you can never see the future and it is certainly a sad thing with a British had no choice and their opinions Sapphire was it the right thing sadly I think it was considering the nature of Germany at that time
Germany nature doesn't change whatsoever that French still could just as much simply scuttle theirs' warships in situation in which Axis actually tried to seize them. If Germans managed to do that in Scapa Flow 20 years earlier, it's only ignorant to say that far better manned French warships couldn't.
@@ReichLife and how were they supposed to know if the French navy's loyalty lied with Britain or vichy France
Ignoring the fact that Vichy France was THE France in 1940, 1941 and 1942 without any doubt, it's delusional to expect that one's military will be more loyal to other state than it's own.
@@ReichLife hence why they needed to be destroyed
@@ReichLife and it is not delusional to think than they would join the side in favor of liberating their country rather than the puppet state of the country that invaded France
More than half as many deaths as in Pearl Harbour. What a tragedy.
From an ally, no less.
@@DeeJaysterity Not an ally.
2 weeks before they where.
But yes quite an unfortunate series of events.
That French admiral was so damn annoying and stubborn. Like wtf was he thinking? Why would they be fucking bluffing 😂
@@madman10340 He can't give a fleet like that to the first one threatening him. France was now at peace, helping the british could have meant war with germany again. That's funny how people are joking about the french saying they surrendered, but they don't understand why Gensoul didn't surrender his ships.
@@Madhattersinjeans Well yeah, but whether it was 2 weeks or 2 months ago they still considered the brits trustworthy
Reposez en paix courageux marins français morts pour la France 🇨🇵🇨🇵🇨🇵
Ur navy got rekt
As an American I’ll always be thankful to the French for their support in fighting against the British for our Independence. We owe the French a lot.
They didn’t fight for your support they. They couldn’t care less about the American people, they just wanted to get one over the British because we had beet them in war a few years earlier and they were still mad
As a 🇬🇧 🇫🇷 never really had a choice but still respect 🇫🇷 from 🇬🇧
And some people don't understand why Charles De Gaulle didn't fully trust the allies
@@brothergrimaldus3836 Yeah... A foreign country ask kindly to leave his ship and he say no, yeah he sure was an idiot... Everyone would have agree to this term, for sure...
@@Theo2lag French ship , french officer , french government and french shore .
what is your problem ?
@@Theo2lag i kindly ask you to leave that app, will you?
@@Theo2lag foreign friendly country. not ur enemy.
Hindsight is always a thing but it still gives us two alternate possibilities as to what the fleet could have done, they could have scuttled like they did in French ports, or they could have done the same as the Vichy army in North Africa and sided with Germany, fighting the US army that was expecting them not to resist as they had pledged not to during operation Torch.
Educate yourself
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_at_Toulon
Bonne vidéo bien documentée et objective, merci
This might be because i'm British and maybe we are programmed in a particular way, but am i the only one who thinks the ultimatum issued was entirely reasonable.. ? basically either continue to fight, sail to Gibraltar and disarm or sail to another French territory and disarm?
The French Admiral can make all the guarantees that he wants but he could easily be replaced or otherwise unable to disarm the French fleet in the event the Germans tried to take over and if Britain hadn't sunk this French squadron the French, Italian and German fleets combined could have overwhelmed Britain and forced it into an armistice
Nope, he was literally given 3 good options and 1 neutral option (scuttle). Instead he chose option 5, which was to waste his sailors lives and then cry about how it was all the brits faults. Talking about how he'll never surrender to germany all while refusing to join the fleet to fight against them? Bullshit.
SS officer finds out the crews families, tells them they either fight the british or their families suffer, all of a sudden malta is gone and the north africa campaign may very well have had a different outcome.
Every life lost that day was 100% on the french admirals head.
Actually you are wrong it was an insane risk for the british to do this. The vichy government could have easily chosen to take this betrayal as justification to side with the germans actively and declare war on the UK. It was nowhere near the full force of the french navy. This also caused many french forces to refuse helping the british when they could have. It is a shameful disgrace on the Uk navy.
@@feanedhell The French where scattered after the fall of France in 1940 including their navy. From a British perspective Vichy France was little more than a German puppet state, French collaborators with Pétain at the helm of the Vichy government. So "actively working with the Germans" was to be expected.
@@JohnMacbeth except that petain wasn't even in power at that time, and the armistice had barely been signed
It was a complexe decision as the french had just signed the armistice so technically they shouldn't fight anymore. The order received by the french admiral were to sail to the US or Britain in case of Axis attack, but Britain tried to disarm them first. With no reel threat, the admiral didn't see a reason to choose these option that, if reveiled, could have endangered Free France.
Wouldn’t have happed if the french listened for once
Things only happen when some peoples push buttons ..... then declaring dead sailors guilty .....
@@bultelpascal3819 No one blames the sailors. The French admiralty certainly has blame though.
Rest in peace French sailors :(
Uk had to do what they had to do.
@@DoubleAAce no
@@selimgokalp2805 shut up
@@DoubleAAce no
@@selimgokalp2805 shush
The French Admiral was entirely to blame for this. The French could have gone to the West Indies.
Could of had a nice holiday
I guess it would depend on the terms of surrender between france and germany . I could see how it could violate these terms , especially considering that the u.s is about to get involved
The entire French fleet should have sailed out to continue the fight after the surrender. This is why I respect De Gaulle, Petain and the rest of the leadership betrayed France.
The French fleet would have clearly broken the armistice by joining the Allies
@@KatyushaLauncher Other brave countries did. Poland for a start.
This ^
Seems rediculous that the French Navy at Mers El Kebir didn't see the writing on the wall with the fascists. They were not going to stop at France or Britain.
@@404Dannyboy Look at what happened to Poland and Warsaw. Do you blame the French for not wanting Paris to be annihilated and millions of people dying?
Yeah, it's kinda foolish considering the country is being held hostage... There is little choice here
This incident is still bitterly remembered in the French navy. When you talk to French sailors about working with the British, they usually tell you "remember Mers El Kebir".
and we remind them "Remember when you made friends with Hitler'
@@coolstorybrooooo7643 And they would answer : "Sure, after we had no other choice since you had scurried back to your island". The French navy did not fight for Germany anyway. They either left France and joined the French free forces, scuttled or disarmed. Some sailed to the UK to join the fight, but Mers El Kebir seriously eroded their trust in the British, understandably so.
Don't act like the British were winning at that point. They were just lucky they did not share a land border with Germany and Germany did not have sufficient forces to invade Britain after the battle of France.
@Caratacus Nearly all of the French forces who went to England (once the British had decided to reembark, they could not hold the pocket anymore) were almost immediately shipped back to France (Brittany) to keep the fight going, until Pétain said otherwise. And after Mers El Kébir, not too many French soldiers were inclined to trust the British, which is why so few ultimately went to Britain.
But anyways, my point is not to stir controversy about complex historical events none of us know enough about. I was just saying that Mers El Kebir is still bitterly remembered in the French navy. That's it.
@Caratacus Yeah, as I told you, the majority of the French troops evacuated to Britain were almost immediately redeployed to France to keep fighting, until the armistice was signed. There were not 100 000 French troops in England by that time.
I'm also not trying to defend the French collaborators of the time. What they did was horrible. But also not that antisemitism was widespread in Europe, and not just in Germany, although it was not weaponized by the other governments. Heck, the Brits had a Nazi party in the 1930s. If the UK had fallen, there's no doubt that Hitler would also have found good friends in Britain.
And please, leave the "shed tears" and other angry ad hominem rhetoric for the schoolyard. If you're a true Brit, keep calm and carry on. Although I must say, I lost interest in this conversation, so as a true Frenchman, I surrender.
I wish you a pleasant day good Sir
@@damienpeladan481 ironic that they had no thought on ppl invading through Belgium
There is a slight translation issue here, where the word 'contrôle' in french, and 'controllo' in Italian was mistakenly translated as 'control', where they really meant 'supervision' or 'check' as in 'passport control'. According to John Keegan, this might have played a factor in the British admiralty decision ...
On the other hand, could you *really* trust the axis to not use the French ships? Hitler *promised* not to invade Czechoslovakia, and yet...
Tetragon 213 well, they tried to cease French ships a couple years after that incident... Then the french sailors sank they own ships
@@vitoravila9908 true, although we do have the hindsight. The Admiralty didn't have a magic crystal ball to see into the future, so they made a decision based on the information they had. Regrettable, but tragically necessary.
Tetragon 213 well, there is a lot of controversy if the action in Oran was really necessary. Suffice to say that they were out of the Axis reach, as this particular action took place in Algeria
Politically tho, in the great scheme of things, this action, again according to Keegan, galvanized the nation around Churchill, due to his firm decision to keep fighting no matter what. We often forget how fragile UK's position was during the summer of 40, and with the surrender of France and no clear commitment from the Americans, the British were on their own, and surrender, or even invasion and defeat, were considered by many( including the American ambassador Kennedy) the most likely outcome. Even Hitler got surprised by the British determination.
In short, even if militarily this action was questionable, politically was a very effective and successful move
@@vitoravila9908 effective and successful move... yes and no... We all know that was a doubtful move military, it was even Lucky to not put at war France against UK... which was meaning, that germany could have freed millions of french prisoners, give back all tanks and guns to french and more of all, french fleet would have joined italian fleet in mediterranean sea, and both of them there would have been a great threat for english... Suez canal would have felt etc... but to be less specular, there was true negociations, secret ones, between De gaulle and all of the french colonies in africa and in french middle east protectorate... it was working actually, Mers el Kebir destroy almost all the negociation... let's wait 2 weeks in july, and AOF, AEF and Syria lebanon join free french... then automatically, french fleet + 150k good soldiers in algeria join back the fight, combined with british 8th army, they can take Lybia and thrashed the unprepared and under equipped italian army there... Churchill was knowing french would never give their fleet to axis... He told it, but he was truly needed to give a new "souffle" to Britain in schock and total disarray... British media have always presented Mers el Kebir as a victory over Axis... Despite this sort of betrayal (as french have the right to considere it and so has the right the english to not considere it), de gaulle has shown a true leader skill : he went to the BBC to defend the British for the indefendable act of Mers el Kebir... and it wasn't easy. We were lucky that at those time, We had so charismatic leaders, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and De gaulle... I don't say Stalin was a good one, but you can't deny him his tenacity and his leadership... Place Chamberlain instead of Churchil and the war is over... place De gaulle instead of petain and things would have gone either way... For Rossevelt, it's different... I would say he wanted to enter in war before but wasn't able to convince his own people and he needed their approbation, he pushed Japanese to make pearl harbour, he wished it, but didn't expected to be that efficient against his own navy... then he was preferring petain to De Gaulle, which is harsh to accept here, especially he had prepared a money and many american servants to take the lead of the french administration after DDay... stunning and poor idea but logic... but he leads perfectly USA.
Admiral Darlan may have had some responsibility for this tragedy as a result of his 'tricksey' behaviour. But while the real world is usually more nuanced than simple answers in this case all the deaths are entirely and incontrovertibly the fault of Admiral Gensoul - he couldn't be more responsible if he had personally shot every one of the men he was responsible for point-blank in the face.
Whiteness what happened with the French fleet at Alexandria if you want to see what commanding officers who care about the lives of their men do. Indeed, take a look at the behaviour of the commanders of EVERY OTHER ship or fleet from countries invaded by Germany - none required invitation or coercion, all who could sailed directly to the nearest British port knowing where their duty was and their responsibility to their own men! DeGaulle must have been horrified at how many of his compatriots in French territories turned traitor after the fall of France, as an example the commanders in the Dutch and Belgium colonies fought on after the fall of their respective countries in spite of all that was going on at home.
This has recently been featured in Azur Lane, in a special event, in all its tragic splendour. Royal Navy ships unwilling and remorseful, French ships determined to stand their ground whether against German or British guns, and a new hope arising with Richelieu organizing the Free French Fleet.
fk porn azure lane shit
For all of those that are saying that UK had no choice well...it was a shitty Idea, the British shot themselves in the foot and Churchill later on declared that this operation was a bad idea and a tragedy. The British did way more harm than good to both France and UK. Vichy gained legibility and power following the attack, UK lost thousands and thousands of volunteers for the FFF as well as giving a motive for the African army to resist. "France negotiated a peace with the Germans thus betraying the British" do you want to talk about the times previous to the armistice where UK betrayed France. Before Dunkirk the French were planning a counter attack with the British. Prior to the said attack the British felt like not doing so and they left without telling the French. At Dunkirk the BEF was supposed to hold the city with the French and Belgians but a counter order was given and the BEF sat back on the beach without, again, telling the French that had to desperately fill the holes in the defence by launching furious counter attacks to repel the Germans. The British left France alone and now France is the traitor for wanting the good of their citizens? You people thinking that this attack was deserved are really dipshit just wanting to protect the British treason and blaming the French yet again
You’re missing the big picture. This attack cemented belief that Britain wasn’t defeated, and she would carry on with the war. At a time when it looked like Britain would be defeated, Churchill needed to show the world (and the US in particular) that Britain meant to carry on no matter what.
Yes it was a tragedy, but it’s not like it was a sneak attack. The British gave the French plenty of choices and time.
And also, thousands of French soldiers were evacuated along with the BEF at Dunkirk. It’s not like it was just the British who escaped.
@@muttley8818 Pleased that someone wants to disagree with me so I can correct you. You say they had plenty of choices and that It wasn't a sneak attack ? Well the French couldn't comply to ANY of the options the British gave them so it was basically a death sentence for the fleet or for the French at home. Secondly, while this attack was not sneaky, the British choose to open fire when they heard French vessels were heading their way. It means they attacked with both ships and planes, a fleet of French vessels almost unable to move and to deemed themselves in a Harbour. If this attack was a surprise attack (Like pearl harbour) then it would have been a total massacre and the few ships that fled would have been sunk too. Thirdly, "this attack showed that UK would still fight" well it showed that they were more than eager to attack their former ally less than a month after their armistice while leaving the Germans alone. A great act of heroism and bravery. It would have been better if they didn't TARGET THEIR FUCKING ALLY THAT WAS NOW NEUTRAL. Fourthly I don't know why you mention Dunkirk saying "Not only French were evacuated" well of course otherwise the brits would have been pretty horrific allies. But you know what happened to these french soldiers that got evacuated ? They were all sent back to France. They all returned to desperately fight for France. They lived to fight another day, without the brits this time.
@@parodyclip36 1- The French Navy knew how to scuttle their fleet. It’s not rocket science. Darlan refused to sail to a neutral port. And Vichy France could not be trusted.
2 -As above. Vichy France could not be trusted. British couldn’t take the risk of the Navy falling into German hands. They gave plenty of warning to Darlan.
3 - You imply the British escaped Dunkirk to leave the French fend for themselves. I just corrected you by saying French troops also evacuated. And I won’t even bother telling you how many British troops were left behind in France and became POW’s. Do your own research.
4 - French soldiers were NOT sent back. They became part of the Free French, led by De Gaulle. Some went to fight in Africa, some took part in SOE ops to support French resistance. Most remained in the UK until they took part in D-Day (along with British and other Allied forces, making your last sentence false).
@@parodyclip36 Oh. Your third point makes no sense.
Lots of piss poor jokes in the comments.
How dare you accuse us of pissing on the poor
It's the same french fleet under vice admiral Arial that save the british at dunkirk a month earlier.....
No it didn't.... there was FAR more British ships rescuing over 100,000 French troops from within the Dunkirk perimeter.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Abrial Commanded the French navy and land forces, the land forces sacrificed themselves to allow as many allies as possible to flee, the British navy refused (during a good half of the evacuation) the evacuation of the French forces, the French navy who was sunk participated in the evacuation, I worded it badly I should have said, "who participated in" or "who saved English soldiers". In any case, the French land forces not only saved the English at Dunkirk but this evacuation should not have taken place.
@@Bracus.Reghusk The numbers evacuated from the Dunkirk pocket were.
205,000 British troops,
110,000 French troops
23,000 Belgian troops.
The BEF suffered 66,426 casualties, that was 11,014 killed or died of wounds, 14,074 wounded and 41,338 men missing or taken prisoner
The BEF lost one seventh of its personnel killed and captured, because the TEN BEF divisions on the Belgian border were left isolated by the unannounced withdrawal of the French first army on their right flank, and collapse of the Belgian forces on their left.
The Perimeter of the Dunkirk pocket was manned by British, French and Belgian troops, which fought to allow British French and Belgian troops be evacuated MOSTLY by the RN and British "little ships".
Don't try to blame the DREADFUL performance of the >140 divisions of the French home army on the 10 BEF divisions. They were seconded to the PISS POOR French high Command, and it was THEY who lost the battle.
Luckily We Brits fought on and saved you from the 1000 year nazi reich, while the majority of the French population quietly acquiesced and collaborated with nazi rule.
Naval combat is so brutal, so so scary. Watching your last several videos, including the Scandinavian campaign, terrifying.
@Jacob Zondag
Wow, that's sick mate! Where was that at?
Terrifying isnt it!
Everything in hindsight is terrifying but knowing your nation could be enslaved by Nazis? Wouldn't you do anything you can to survive? I sure as hell would.
Britain were left with no choice had Italy or Germany taken control of the French fleet which they definitely would’ve we likely would’ve lost the war in the Mediterranean
And yet, in 1942, when the Germans invaded Vichy France, they tried to get their
hands on the French fleet at Toulon, but the French managed to scuttle their
fleet before they arrived. They didn't just let the Germans get it.
a tragic loss of French sailors, sacrificed for the arrogance of a French Admiral
it was british arrogance as well.........what nation is going to accept terms like that unless there ships come under an active threat of actually being seized.
French brought this upon themselves.
This is no battle, it's just a reenactment of their historic naval battles in the 18th & 19th century
ruthless
War's a time of tough choices, and firm decisions in the face of peril
I've heard from some naval historians that the French Admiral transmitted to his superiors that the only options were scuttle themselves or surrender themselves to the British so they responded with basically piss off instead of choosing another option that they were unaware of.
Though that's often pointed out the 3rd possibility of the french Caribbean was impossible. There was no base there able to receive a fleet that size, nor the ressources to sustent them. And the proposition was not only that but also disarm them under us control. Gensoul did not mention it because he knew it was not an option.
Magical fuel didn't exist in real life and Gensoul didn't had enought fuel !
Because refueling didn't exist....
Well ...Mers el Khébir was still under construction and fuel was low .
He barelly had enought for return to Toulon .
@@Pentagon6519
When the 1pm deadline was passed, the frog fleet should have been warned by gun salvos. none would have escaped then. Stupid time wasting. In war there is no time to 'be nice'....
The French admiral doomed his own men by refusing the ultimatum
he can't !
Just imagine the brits sending troop for capture the french nuclear arsenal after brexit .
Do you expect , the french will surrender all their nuke ?
@@druisteen Wha.t
Typically French. Full of self importance and with no understanding of the bigger picture. If you've already lost the war you may as well sink the ships so the British can fight on and help rescue France (again). Needless loss of life.
@@terrancedactielle5460 The French Navy will never fight for the King of England !
Asking that to the French was madness !
@@terrancedactielle5460 ''Typically French. Full of self importance and with no understanding of the bigger picture.'' Oh look another american / british who throws his contempt at the french people, how original...
Captivating video and extremely well edited.
.The mere fact that you continue to persuade yourself, that you arouse the reason for doing this ignominy, is enough to maintain my aversion towards your country. May Dunkirk and the scuttling of Toulon not cast doubt on your arrogance, confirm to me the baseness of your mentality.
I see a lot of coments saying, Gensoul should have made the decicion to sail with the RN like some other french ships did.
I must say something that a lot of people doesn't understand. You are thinking by today's standards, don't forgive that it was in 1940, France was not De Gaulle or what would become Free French Forces at this time.
Sailing with the RN = Treason
Sail to West Indies needed a way more time than only an afternoon, to have the approval from the french authorities, so it was never a viable option to me.
I would also remember to you that France was neutral after the June armistice, and Brits officially open a war with France with that act. Syria, Madagascar, Dakar, Op. Torch maybe didn't exist without Op. Catapult. Think about that...
It was clear that British just sent a captain to talk an admiral they showed no respect to the French but on the other hand French did their best as an admiral tried to talk with British,he was wrong British didn't desire to talk just wanted to destroy the ships
Strasbourg was having a police chase from the Hood, but escaped
well the french are very good at giving up without a shot fired, there greatest legion to not give up is all foreigners.
Im curious how the remaining french fleet with numerous other battleships were sunk.
Scuttled by the French at Toulon in 1942 following the German occupation of "unoccupied" France
must of been what happenend then
@@michaelwang1524 yes battleships Dunkerque, Strasbourd and Provence along most of the ships from Mers el Kébir where brought to Toulon to be safe from british attacks but as the germans tried to take the ships the french scuttled them. But the most powerful battleship of the french navy : Richelieu joined the allies after operation Torch as she was still in Africa.
With the intent of the French fleet to surrender, the British had no choice but to destroy the French fleet. Strategically, they simply couldn't allow their enemies to gain one of the worlds most powerful navies. To my mind the whole disaster was down to the arrogance and stupidity of Admiral Gensoul who managed to become a true example of the leadership that lead French forces to defeat in World War 2.
This is a brilliant response to this
The discission to destroy that feel is one of the stupidest decisions ever made, totally unnecessary, and it could've caused a total defeat in WW2 north African front, if Hitler haven't made an equally stupid decision and declared war on Russia that is
I think it was the right decision.
What happens was terrable, but the French had it coming, What's worse British, wrecking french naval forces, or Hitler and Mussolini getting there greasy fingers in those ships.
What's better? Keeping those ships
In fact the french fleett scuttled itself in 1942 ... nobody put his hands on. They died ..... for nothing ....
A political disaster, not "a battle". Allow me to help out, with a similar event. Not exact, because "history only rhymes", but close enough to explain how diplomacy works.
*Drax went to Moscow in 1939 to "talk", not "negotiate".*
According to the narrative Stalin (whose snowflake feelings got upset about not receiving an equal "Munich" treatment, with the highest level London diplomat jetting off to see Hitler) felt dissed, just like the French did when a "mere captain" arrived to discuss the future of their own empire (at least, the possessions in N.Africa).
Apparrently Stalin understood quite well what sending a lower prominence delegation meant.
Also what *power of negotiation* means.
Neither Drax nor Holland had these powers, which is why they were sent off with matters unaccomplished.
I watched a video of survivors. They were so shocked and cursed churchill and Britan. They felt betrayed.
They were betrayed by theyre admiral
Cullen Moseley They were offered a choice to join the British or alternatively move to a British port or be fired upon. So their Admiral betrayed them with his decision.
I just picture French men drowning and burning. It was murderous treachery.
People harp on the admiral a bit too much. He said he would scuttle the ships if it came to it. But he wasn’t simply going to sink them in a safe port to the request of an ally.
Cullen Moseley Murderous treachery yet they were made aware hours before said ‘treachery’ took place of what would happen if the terms were rejected. The British are not proud of this hence why they offered terms to avoid it in the first place, but they should not have to rely on an Admirals word that the ships would be scuttled especially considering the threat said ships would pose to Britain if the Admiral failed to scuttle the ships and the Germans/Italians captured them.