# Attack on Mers-el-Kébir



## Darth Angelus (Jun 24, 2013)

Hi! I would just like to hear about how people here feel about this dark decision by Winston Churchill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c_Xi5IvrS8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JQLhefiSw8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulEHCBn1Gic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElC8DvE67w0


As horrific as it must have been to fire upon (former) allies like that, I think Churchill made the necessary decision.
It was early July 1940, and the Battle of Britain was imminent. With the French having signed an armastice with Germany, Britain was, at that time, alone. Well, I guess a lot (if not most) of you will know of this dark time in British history. This is not what I intended to discuss, but rather this drastic measure taken by Churchill to ensure that the French fleet was not going to end up in enemy hands.

I think the word of one French admiral was far too weak an assurance to Britain, given the stakes involved. We are talking about a possible, sudden boost to German naval power in Britain's already dark hour. A nightmare in the making. And while the French did indeed scuttle their fleet in late 1942, meaning that the British sinking might have been needless in hindsight, Britain did not, in fact, have satisfactory assurances when needed, nearly two and a half years earlier.
I feel the French attitude here was a bit nonchalant towards the gravity of Britain's predicament. If they had taken British fears of Germany getting the French fleet seriously, they had a couple of chances to comply with any one of Churchill's demands. Because Churchill did need to see the French fleet would not end up in German hands.

The navy was, from what I have read, the one area of military power where Britain was, in fact, stronger than Germany throughout the war. I imagine this was a major obstacle to German occupation of Albion. It would have been beyond irresponsible to the Allied cause in the war to give up this advantage in such an otherwise grave military situation, would it not?

How do you feel? Could the word of one Frenchman be trusted in this matter, or did Churchill need to take the drastic measures of sinking French ships which did not comply with his demands?


P.S.
By the way, I realize this may be a somewhat touchy subject, and I mean no offense to anyone. Obviously, most are English speakers here, not French (who would be the most likely to be offended). I am just saying Churchill did need to be determined in that situation, even facing hard decisions.


----------



## The Ace (Jun 24, 2013)

He said himself that it was the hardest decision he ever made.

Much as it hurt the French, I think it was the right one - letting all parties know that no sacrifice was too great if it led to Allied victory.

While 2000 French sailors died, their families later gained the freedom to complain about it, in a free and democratic France, and that's what mattered.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jun 24, 2013)

Modern history's not my area, really, but from what I know I'd have to agree. The loss of 2,000 French sailors is not insignificant, but if the Nazis had gained the upper hand on the seas that could've changed the result of the war.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 25, 2013)

The Ace said:


> While 2000 French sailors died, their families later gained the freedom to complain about it, in a free and democratic France, and that's what mattered.


 
Precisely - the Vichy government, that ended up nominally in charge of these vessels, ended up sending around about 60,000 of it's own citizens to death camps. How many more would have died on the allied side if these ships had been left alone?


----------



## Boneman (Jun 26, 2013)

Whether the word of one Frenchman could have been trusted or not (and he did keep his word, ultimately), imagine if a sudden daring raid by Germany HAD captured the fleet? The french, in shilly-shallying about moving the fleet, forced Churchill's hand - if the ships had been moved to the French West Indes immediately, none of it would have arisen. Any asset the Germans could have used - from oilfields to dams were a legitimate target. The decision was the correct one - some french Vichy forces fought for the Germans, and Churchill could have viewed that as an act of war, in which case the french fleet would have been attacked legitimately. The French wanted it both ways, and the Vichy collaboration is a shameful blot on their history.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 1, 2013)

Thanks for the replies!
I have been a bit too busy to reply in the last few days. However, it seems that we are pretty much all in agreement here.



Boneman said:


> Whether the word of one Frenchman could have been trusted or not (and he did keep his word, ultimately), imagine if a sudden daring raid by Germany HAD captured the fleet? The french, in shilly-shallying about moving the fleet, forced Churchill's hand - if the ships had been moved to the French West Indes immediately, none of it would have arisen. Any asset the Germans could have used - from oilfields to dams were a legitimate target. The decision was the correct one - some french Vichy forces fought for the Germans, and Churchill could have viewed that as an act of war, in which case the french fleet would have been attacked legitimately. The French wanted it both ways, and the Vichy collaboration is a shameful blot on their history.


Yeah, that too, and good point. The French way of acting (or rather, not acting) in this regard gave Churchill plenty of legitimate cause for worry.


----------

