|
In June 1940 the French government made peace with Germany and was replaced (in the south) by an authoritarian state led by Philippe Pétain. As part of the armistice, Germany and Italy agreed to allow France to keep it's naval fleets and would not attempt to capture said fleets for use against the Allies. Despite this and personal assurances from the French, the British remained skeptical of whether or not Germany would maintain it's end of the agreement.
If the Germans seized control of the French fleet, the balance of [naval] power would tip in favor of the Germans. The British felt that the risk was too great and gave the French an ultimatum. The ultimatum was that the French should either assist the British (Free French Forces) during the war or surrender their ships to the British, who would then allow the French crew to return home (to France). A third option of transferring ownership of the ships to the United States and returning the French crews home was originally supposed to be offered, but the British liaison went against orders omitted the option when delivering the ultimatum to the French.
The ultimatum was it was supposed to be delivered is below:
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.
After receiving the ultimatum, the British and French entered into talks over the future of the French fleet and it's crew, however both sides felt as though little progress had been reached. Negotiations were thereafter ended and the British began dropping anti-ship to prevent the French fleet from fleeing. Viewing the dropping of anti-ship mines as an act of aggression, the French shot down one of the British planes, killing it's two-man crew. After the loss of British lives, Winston Churchill ordered that the British eliminate the French fleet.
The battle was a decisive British victory, with the French fleet suffering a major loss of assets and life. Nearly 1300 Frenchmen were killed in the attack and around 350 were wounded; they also completely lost one ship, while taking severe damage to six other vessels. The British on the other hand only lost six aircraft and the aforementioned two lives. The French later retaliated by bombing the British city of Gibraltar.
The battle is a matter of some controversy, especially for the French. There is some disagreement over whether or not it was necessary for the British to attack the French fleet to begin with. The British argue that the risk of the fleet falling into German hands was too great and would have been devastating for the British war effort. Others criticize the British officers for not relaying the entire ultimatum as they had been ordered to, and that the French may have accepted the undelivered terms, avoiding over a thousand deaths. What do you think, was the British attack on the French fleet justified?
Poll: Was the attack justified?American/Other: The attack was justified. (51) 37% American/Other: The attack wasn't justified. (35) 26% British: The attack was justified. (25) 18% French: The attack was justified. (14) 10% British: The attack wasn't justified. (6) 4% French: The attack wasn't justified. (6) 4% 137 total votes Your vote: Was the attack justified? (Vote): British: The attack was justified.
(Vote): British: The attack wasn't justified.
(Vote): French: The attack was justified.
(Vote): French: The attack wasn't justified.
(Vote): American/Other: The attack was justified.
(Vote): American/Other: The attack wasn't justified.
User was banned for this post.
|
Having no information on this other than what is posted in this thread, it seems clear to me that since negotions ended the British were justified in mining the french fleet, and after the shooting of their planes they were justified in the attack.
|
Why is this in general forum?
|
You really can't discuss this without bringing up the fact that the French did indeed latter scuttle their fleet at Toulon. That is to say, the British didn't know whether or not the French would allow their navy to fall into Nazi hands, but the answer in real life is that, no, they did not, and the British fear that they might was factually incorrect. Even so, one can argue that the British had no way of knowing this for sure and were still justified. It really was not a case where there was clear communication and understanding on both sides, so it's quite a gray area. That said, war is full of grayer areas than this, so I'm not sure this decision warrants any particular handwringing (unless you're wondering about whether for example it contributed to France not integrating better with NATO).
|
The answer would be no the if the stakes weren't so high. When you have war on a global scale then everyone in the world is a participant, whether they want to be or not.
|
lol, you make such random threads.
|
On May 05 2013 05:40 HunterX11 wrote:
You really can't discuss this without bringing up the fact that the French did indeed latter scuttle their fleet at Toulon. That is to say, the British didn't know whether or not the French would allow their navy to fall into Nazi hands, but the answer in real life is that, no, they did not, and the British fear that they might was factually incorrect. Even so, one can argue that the British had no way of knowing this for sure and were still justified. It really was not a case where there was clear communication and understanding on both sides, so it's quite a gray area. That said, war is full of grayer areas than this, so I'm not sure this decision warrants any particular handwringing (unless you're wondering about whether for example it contributed to France not integrating better with NATO).
Yes, but the French scuttled their fleet at Toulon two years later. As you said, the British had no way of knowing that the French could be trusted, especially since they had just surrendered and were now somewhat collaborating with the Germans.
|
On May 05 2013 05:40 HunterX11 wrote:
You really can't discuss this without bringing up the fact that the French did indeed latter scuttle their fleet at Toulon. That is to say, the British didn't know whether or not the French would allow their navy to fall into Nazi hands, but the answer in real life is that, no, they did not, and the British fear that they might was factually incorrect. Even so, one can argue that the British had no way of knowing this for sure and were still justified. It really was not a case where there was clear communication and understanding on both sides, so it's quite a gray area. That said, war is full of grayer areas than this, so I'm not sure this decision warrants any particular handwringing (unless you're wondering about whether for example it contributed to France not integrating better with NATO).
Can you really say whether a decision was right or wrong based on a future event that we have no way of predicting? The fact that the French scuttled their ships before letting them fall into Nazi hands shouldn't have much impact here because the British didn't have the benefit of that hindsight.
|
There's so many miscellaneous history threads ~_~.
|
Is there going to be a Thread like this about the Dresden Bombing? ;D
|
On May 05 2013 05:55 Daumen wrote:
Is there going to be a Thread like this about the Dresden Bombing? ;D
You can go ahead and make one if you want, might prove to be an interesting conversation.
|
On May 05 2013 05:59 Arctic Daishi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 05:55 Daumen wrote:
Is there going to be a Thread like this about the Dresden Bombing? ;D You can go ahead and make one if you want, might prove to be an interesting conversation.
Too much hassle/work for me, I wouldnt be able to make a nice OP ;D But the conversation would be interesting indeed...
|
Justified? Hell no. Necessary? Of course. It happened long ago should we discuss every little war crime in WW2? There are too many to count. Germany would have done worse in the same situation I imagine. Especially considering what happened to our "allies" the italians when they surrendered.
|
I've never understood why people try to mix war and moral justifications. Just strikes me as naive as fuck.
|
On May 05 2013 06:03 Yuljan wrote:
Justified? Hell no. Necessary? Of course. It happened long ago should we discuss every little war crime in WW2? There are too many to count. Germany would have done worse in the same situation I imagine. Especially considering what happened to our "allies" the italians when they surrendered.
I would think if something is necessary it is therefore a justifiable action...
|
You can reframe the question as "Is X an element of the set Y" where X = "the attack on the fleet by the British" and Y = "things that are just". In order to answer this question you simply have to define X and Y clearly enough and your answer becomes apparent without any further work. Any other approach has no use.
It'd be like if someone came up to you and asked if 363 was an element of the set Z. You'd ask "What are the rules that govern set Z"? If they told you "all odd integers" you'd know that 363 was a member of that set. If they told you "I don't know" you'd say "then there is no way to determine whether 363 is a member of that set or not, given the information that is available." Same thing for this thread question, except it's not about numbers, but set theory still applies.
|
British fleet had a major problem: Italy. To be able to hold mediterrean sea on both sides, UK had to maintain a fleet the size of italy's in the eastern mediterrian sea (to be able to hold alexandria and suez) and another fleet the same size at the gibraltar. So the pretty small fleet of italy managed to hold two fleets double the size only due to its existance.
Now add french fleet into this problem: It was so big, that if the germans would have aquired it, together with italian fleet, the UK Royal Navy would have no way to secure both, suez and gibraltar, no supplys from the colonies would reach UK and vice versa, While german /italian forces were nearly conquering Egypt, while threatening atlantic traffic with submarines.
Whilest this, london was bombed on a daily basis, and UK was the only unoccupied allied at that time. And running very short on food, oil, supplys, especially Pilots (polish exile, indian, aussie pilots saved UK back than) everything. All had to be imported from the Colonies (india, australia, New zealand, and so on).
Without ruling the mediterrian sea, , the american /british landing in north africa, and later italy would have never happened if this fleet would have existed. Basically said, the germans would have won.
The french should have destroyed their fleet themselves, or put it on sleepmode in a neutral country (perhaps argentinia), or to help against axis, even put it under allied command (what germany would have retaliated on vichy regime for sure).
The French were stubborn to keep their fleet in algeria, and gave UK no choice.
|
When I clicked the link I seriously thought it was some peaceful village in the Middle East that Obama droned because it refused to hand over some important resistance leader.
Pleasantly surprised.
|
On May 05 2013 06:19 Craze wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 06:03 Yuljan wrote:
Justified? Hell no. Necessary? Of course. It happened long ago should we discuss every little war crime in WW2? There are too many to count. Germany would have done worse in the same situation I imagine. Especially considering what happened to our "allies" the italians when they surrendered. I would think if something is necessary it is therefore a justifiable action...
yeah... I would say it's more like: Justified? Hell no. Understandable? yep...
|
I'm hardly a military expert, but somehow I doubt that the Germans could just take the french ships and have them operating in any reasonable ammount of time.
I don't think all the french sailors would have decided to fight for Germany so new sailors would have needed to be trained to use the french equipment, which I don't think could happen very fast. At least not to improve Germany's chance to knock Britain out of the war.
And once the war with Russia had started that fleet wouldn't have made any significant difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
