Mers-el-Kebir - Tragedy on a Grand Scale
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 окт 2019
- Today we look at the facts and thinking behind the attack on Mers-el-Kebir, with my own take on roles a responsibilities.
Comments and Discussion welcome.
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Want a medal? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel
Drydock Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A :)
May I suggest the series on strikes known as the "Bombardment of Ancona" on the 23rd of May, 1915 to be included on "THE" list?
As a French man, the way you present this contrevertial event is really appreciated. You seem to take care to read the facts from a neutral perspective.
I fully understand why the Royal Navy attacked in such a way and I fully blame French command for this. Once defeat was near they should have sailed all ships and crews, with full loads of fuel, munition, equipment out of France and all the way to the US.
French Merchent fleet should have sailed witn full cargos of equipment and goods to Britain to help them sustain themselves in the months to come.
National pride in France suffered greatly from this defeat and a greater commitment from France - before its fall - to help the UK stay in the fight would have helped us keep our honor even if the land campaign was a resounding defeat
I saw the intro for this video, why when a battleship fires some debris came out from the turret ??
@@nitsu2947 That debris is probably the remains of the silk bag of the propellant charges.
Thanks for covering this. I hope one day the 1941 Bombardment of Genoa gets the same treatment.
"Armed with nothing but a cake and 27 candles."
Awh. 😞
Right in the feels dude. Can you imagine having to shoot at someone you were supposed to be at a party with?
Yeah a high capacity assault cake. No cake should be able to hold that many candles. 5 candles is more than enough. Wee need to ban these dangerous weapons of birthday festivities. Think of the kids! But in all honesty I was so releaved to hear that that particular situation was resolved peacefully. Having to fire on the men who were just prior gathered to wish you a happy birthday would have been awful. I don't know if i could have followed those orders.
That's a goddamn heartbreaker.
To look back with a piece of your birth cake in your mouth to your ships 15 inch guns pointed at you ! Dont screw up ! Talk about looking down the barrel .
I'm glad I'm not alone in having my heart sink at hearing that, I'm glad it worked out so well.
I guess if Admiral Gensoul felt a mere Captain was of an inferior rank and insulting to him he must have considered a 15" shell to be equal in rank to himself and worthy of a personal meeting with himself.
I'm sorry I can only like this once.
nice
Absolutely spot on! Its people like Gensoul that helped the French revolution happen!
How many times throughout history have men died simply due to some senior officer’s petty whims or perceived slights? So sad that such men with their weak minds rise to control other mens’ lives.
Ponchoman07 I think it’s kinda a french thing, it’s not the first time I’ve heard of the french skipping lower ranking/class people and try to only talk to higher ranks and nobles. But what do I know, I only took social studies in high school
In his book “The Second World War: Their Finest Hour” Winston Churchill indulged in a bit of “what if”:
How vain are human calculations of self-interest! Rarely has there been a more convincing example. Admiral Darlan had but to sail in any one of his ships to any port outside France to become the master of all French interest beyond German control. He would not have come like General de Gaulle with only an unconquerable heart and a few kindred spirits. He would have carried with him outside the German reach the fourth Navy in the world, whose officers and men were personally devoted to him. Acting thus, Darlan would have become the chief of the French Resistance with a mighty weapon in his hand. British and American dockyards and arsenals would have been at his disposal for the maintenance of his fleet. The French gold reserve in the United States would have assured him, once recognised, of ample resource. The whole French Empire would have rallied to him. Nothing could have prevented him from being the Liberator of France. The fame and power which he so ardently desired were in his grasp. Instead, he went forward through two years of worrying and ignominious office to a violent death, a dishonoured grave, and a name long to be execrated by the French Navy and the nation he had hitherto served so well.
Winston was brutal, but on a point.
"How vain are human calculations of self-interest!"
spoken well for a man who was a whore to finance and global banking power so that he could buy nice cigars, live the high life and thus have the "honored grave" in the multicultural era, despite his hatred for the indians who ironically won the war for him (enlisted in ridiculous number to get away from the India that the UK was starving to death), despite his support for gassing "inferior tribes", despite taking a course of action that let half of Europe fall to communism. Well, his grave isn't very "honored" now; it's rightfully sitting in a box in some British square, and the inheritors of the British isles will melt this f#ckwits statue down and use it to make a mosque dome, if anything. The man who sold the world.
Winston also had to prove to President Roosevelt that he (Britain) would do whatever had to be done. I've always had mixed feelings about this, as many people do, but Churchill was begging the US for support, and Roosevelt was dealing with the Isolationist sentiment which constituted a huge segment of the population and Congress. It was high risk, and there really wasn't a happy outcome. Britain couldn't take the risk, and Roosevelt needed proof that Britain really had the backbone to what had to be done.
Well, that is what separates men with spine, and sheeple.
A great many of the tragedies in this world happen because when a man is tested between making that deadly choice between greatness and cowardice, too many cannot step off the path of the easy and compliant.
Well said, all.
DOUGout
@12:10 "And pray they don't alter it any further". Love this slipped in Empire Strikes Back reference!
Imagine celebrating your birthday with sind french officers and then getting the order to blow up the guys who just gifted you a nice cake.
War is hell. Cake or no cake.
'these are times that try men's souls'
the Cake is a Lie, sorry someone had to, i'll get my coat.
To be fair the French should of seen this coming. They were rolled by the Germans and thought they could wait it out in the middle of the Allies and Axis. Those ships should've been long gone by the time France surrendered.
Bad behaviour among the French - and cake...seem inextricably linked somehow.
Fadm Chester Nimitz was once asked by one of his staff officers "Why do you have a photo of Douglas MacArthur in such a prominent place?" The Answer - "To remind me not to be a Horses Ass." Gensoul could have taken that to heart.
lol, logic be damned by this comment section
Britain committed a war crime, sorry
@@looinrims Great Britain was at War, on her own and fighting for her life. The stakes were high in the extreme. This was no time to go wobbly. For the sake of your loved ones and fellow countrymen, I sincerely hope you never have to go to war to defend your country.
@@wongfeihung6285 with Germany, not France
Also I could replace Great Britain with Germany, does that validate their war crimes?
No
@@looinrims The French surrendered to the Germans, thus their fleet was indirect control of the Germans. Making the French Fleet the enemy.
@@looinrims Once France was a puppet government of Germany, they were at war. You have the mind of a child.
The way I read him, Admiral Gensoul was an aristocrat, probably making his rank via political appointment rather than merit and achievement. The fact he never spoke on the matter post war up until his death though, makes me wonder if he truly grasped the enormity his own errors.
French aristocrat who was born after any French royalty were in power. Sure.
@@mad_max21 i have bad news about who took power after the resolution, especially post-empire....
@@mad_max21lol, you must know absolutely nothing about French or European history in general to make this statement. Basically your thesis = after the FR, the existence of aristocracy was deleted and forever more, the idea of lineage, houses/families with century of wealth and political connections and/or a rarefied social class ceased to exist. Sure..
@@RobinTheBotThis guy, right?
@@The_ZeroLinedoesn't really matter a girls scout troop would cause French military to surrender.
I would have thought sailing to a French colony in the West Indies would have been the one leaving the most possibilities for them..
Unfortunately, when passing on the British ultimatum to his government, Gensoul didn't mention that as one of the options.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Churchill had no intention to let the ships go to the indies.
@@loicguermeur4256 Your evidence for that comment being?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 at Dakar, Dorsetshire cruiser had the order to sink the Richelieu if he intended to go to the indies. Churchill wanted tje french fleet down.
@@loicguermeur4256 Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a credible source for your claim?
A nice touch at the end to give a few moments silence to honour the loss of the sailors.
Joe how are you doing where is peter
@@hoangho6781 I'm ok, I think Bonnie wants to kill me though. I haven't seen Peter since he went skydiving.
I heard he went to China after the skydiving trip haven’t heard him since
Sure does a lot of good for everyone decades after the crime.
Like the tooth
36:05 "The British were coming" given the naval history between the British and the French.
That's not exactly the kinda of news a French Admiral wants to hear.
The only nation more fearful to hear that would be the Spanish, maybe that's why they stayed out of it, they knew what would happen
@@leodesalis5915 ye probably lol
@@leodesalis5915 I get the deep History between the French and British... but don't forget that it had sort of be "reset" during WWI when both fought as allies... mostly on French soil... also against the Germans. The actual LIVING memory at the time (personal experiences, as opposed to knowledge gained from History books) was of France and GB being allies.
@@nyetzdyec3391 Yeah of course but in England it's always been a joke to hate on the French no matter what happens it's the same as the Americans, people like Churchill and Monty that summed up the stereotypical opinion of our allies
@@nyetzdyec3391 and no matter how far you go back everyone in British history had one reason or another to dislike the French or at least have something to rag on then about
There exists a lesser known communique attributed to Admiral Gensoul which may shed some light on why the British attacked, it reads as follows: "Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries". I'll get my coat...👍
They just could not wait until he gave the order: 'Fetchez la vache.'
The response was:' I fart in your general direction"
Now that's funny
Hey??? Hamsters are cute and clever animals! Don't insult the little guys. I laughed for a while when I saw that comment. Still one of the best moments in movie history. Monty Pythons Flying Circus never failed to entertain!!!
@@davidsuzukiispolpot I've always to reply with that comment. Just never had the guts to do so! 😃
Many point to the fact that the French eventually scuttled ships, but to me, this just highlights the waist of life brought on by the admiral in charge of the French fleet.
Had Mers el Kebir not happened in some way or another, it's an open question whether the French fleet would've scuttled itself since the political calculus at the time would have been completely different. With MeK and subsequent battles the Vichy French knew their fleet was doomed one way or another and scuttling the fleet while daring the Nazis to 'punish' them was a gamble vs not scuttling and getting bombed and bombarded to death by the Brits / US who clearly weren't going to let the Nazis use that fleet in any way other than scrap / salvage.
Military and political leaders have to make decisions with the information they have at the time .
So arm chair historians making claims with after the fact information is worthless .
The absolute worst are generals and politicians who make claims after the war is over .
Most famously , Halder of the OKH .
.
Excellently done, thank you!
@josephdestaubin7426= The Nov. 1942 invasion of the “Zone Libre” by the Germans in response to the Allied operation Torch in North Africa removed any reason for Marine Nationale (the French Navy) to abide by the Armistice clauses.
The logical decision would have been for the French Admirals to order the Toulon fleet to sail for North Africa and join the Allies, since the Pétain-Laval government had no longer any degree of independence from German occupation!
But following the Mers-el-Kébir 1940 attack, there was such an enmity of the MN High Command towards the British that the Admirals in charge at Toulon (Jean de Laborde & André Marquis) did not follow the last-minute order from Algiers of Adm. François Darlan (commander of all French Forces at the time) to send the Toulon MN fleet to Africa and instead chose to follow his previous standing order to scuttle the fleet if Toulon were invaded. Laborde was for that reason condemned to death (later commuted to a 15 year prison sentence) at the end of WW II.
The fleet in Toulon able to cast off for Africa represented about a quarter of Marine Nationale, which at the start of WW II was ranked fourth in the world. While honorable and wildly applauded by the US press, the Toulon 1942 scuttling could have been avoided, and the MN vessels, refitted in US arsenals, could have contributed to the war, both in European and Pacific waters. This is where the July 1940 Churchill decision to attack the MN fleet at Mers-el-Kébir casts its long shadow. __ .
@@christianfournier6862A classic example of the French being pompous asshats, who are only out for themselves and would be more than happy with fucking over everyone else.
Typical of the entire French culture.
Gensoul's performance here reminds me of the quote from Hunt for Red October when the Konovalov's torps homed in onto itself- "You arrogant ass, you've killed us"
BEST COMMENT AWARD!
Yeah, and if he had followed the brits conditions the same would have happened, except with the civilian population falling entirely under occupation.
Gensoul had no choice.
@@lsq7833 What's even more frightening is the French Admiral going on vacation at the beginning of World War II what the heck is that all about?
@@lsq7833 The civilian population *did* fall under occupation, first of the fascist puppet regime aligned with the Nazis, later to the fascist Axis powers themselves.
+1 Like, I remember that quote!
Cunningham managed to talk the French admiral in Alexandria into giving up his ships peacefully, and he was pretty annoyed at the pressure Churchill laid on to open fire.
This is one of the reasons why, regardless of his reputation, I've always held Churchill in low regard.
Sir Andrew Cunningham was one of the Navy’s most notable commanders of WW2, and any future capital ships the Navy builds would be fully justified if his name was given to one of them. Possibly with an HMS Jellicoe in the same class.
It helps that you have an overwhelmingly superior force at hand and the enemy has no chance to win or escape (as was the case in Alexandria). The significantly more powerful French force in Oran (both in absolute and relative terms - compared to the threatening RN force) did have a chance (and a sizeable portion of it did escape)
Having a month with them in your own port under your guns is not the same.
@@RedXlV And the fact that he encouraged other war-crimes (fire-bombing cities with now outlawed phosphorus-bombs! Churchill was a man of action, a true bulldog, but he was also a criminal IMHO! Killing civilians (directly, if they are collateral damage it is bad enough!) is a no go in war and everybody who does it should be executed IMHO!)
even with all the history between Great Britain and France, this was still heart breaking to listen to. Nothing would have made me more proud as a Brit than to have heard a new twist to the battle of the denmark straights, of Hood, Prince of Wales and french battleships working together to sink bismark. 🇬🇧🇨🇵 God bless all involved in this tragedy.
@Gordon Freeman the British 🇬🇧 couldn't afford those French vessels to fall into German and Italian hands. Simple .
@Gordon Freeman I did I was basically agreeing with u . Relax have a cookie.. bhehehhe
AMEN.
Almost every British veteran of WW2 that cared enough to write author Nicholas Pringle ,said they regretted having fought in WW2 , and given the chance to go back would not have fought , their letters were compiled in " the unknown warriors" by Nicholas Pringle
@Gordon Freeman what you remarked is so true. Of course the French weren’t going to let the brits tell them what to do and they fought the land campaign very badly. Britain just couldn’t take a chance of that navy falling to the nazis
I like the Star Wars reference he worked in there.
Quick, witty.
lol, nice one Drach!
Could not agree more. Plenty of blame to go around, but Admiral Gensoul shoulders the most as 1) he was the leader on the spot (the buck stops there), and 2) his conduct in placing his personal pride, with his perceived affront at the rank of the British emissary (and it's not like the British sent a mere lieutenant or some such), above his obligation to his fleet/men is unconscionable and indefensible.
One would have to think how Admiral Gensoul's own Captains thought of the snub to their rank. They are the officers an Admiral directly commands and he goes all, men of your rank are not worthy to smell my bad breath. Opposite of leadership.
@@dreamingflurry2729 History has to be seen in the context of the time. The French at the time were no colony being treated like dirt but an ally and a major power.
Your non sequitur about treatment of others by the British through the context of French colonialism is pretty silly. Nobody just jumps up and says "Hey we want to ruled and controlled by some foreign nation, turn us into a colony!"
Finally British propaganda. War. And? So?
Considering Germany's track record at the moment made the British look like saints.
@@dreamingflurry2729 Really ? In a war that truly can be described as being between good and evil, you do not fight cleanly. You fight to win. Your opinion is both sanctimonious and bigoted. I suppose a little crypto fascist like you would have preferred Hitler to have won.
You either on are side or with Hitler? There's no neutral or gray area to hide your fleet there Vichy!
@@dreamingflurry2729 not because they might turn into enemies, but that the enemy you were fighting together might seize valuable assets if those assets aren't moved completely out of reach. What, you're going to trust Hitler when he says he doesn't want your ships? Can we even count the times that Hitler said, "Just give me this, I dont want anything else" and a month later he's making more demands? Hm, Rhineland, rearmament, ships over 10,000 tons, Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslovakia, Poland ... Now we're supposed to trust that Hitler won't decide he needs those ships and just come take them? Or trust that the new French government, which just broke its promise not to seek a separate peace, will scuttle the ships before the Germans can seize them?
However distasteful the final outcome, the British did what was necessary at the time given their decision to continue resisting Hitler. If Gensoul had just accepted one of the options offered by the British, an option Darlan had already approved of (relocation to French colonies in the Americas), then those thousand or so French sailors would have lived to join the Free French in 1942.
Thanks for doing this Drachinifel, this is a part of history that never gets taught here stateside.
You should follow ‘The History Guy’. Regards
Already do, he’s great!
Yea. This gets swept under the rug.
Don't forget about Mark Felton's channel.
adam alton what bullshit school did you go to?
12:03-12:12 A Empire Strikes back reference!? lol " I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." LMAO
My grand father witnessed it. He was on an ammunition transporter, and the Harbour Captain forbade his ship to remain with the Other ships. He was based outside the harbour and when they saw the Royal Navy coming they just let the Anchor go, and escaped.
If that isn't the sum of the French military in 1940- brave men, brave and competent junior and field grade officers Colonel and below- lead by incompetent, arrogant and/or lazy General and Flag grade officers- seems to be a carryover from WW1 - weather they tried to or not.
Whether!
whether or weather incompetent or spellcheck , you decide
it didn't help with many of their leaders aged in their 70's and 80's. Totally out of touch with reality and way behind the times with regards to technological improvements, developments and modern military tactics. The french had more and heavier tanks than the germans, they had a powerful and modern navy. Much of their strategy was of a defensive nature and was exposed when the maginot line was flanked. But as for the navy they had many bases within their colonies to fall back on. But the rapid collapse of their country came before the dithering old cronies posing as leaders could make a decision.
It may seem like a morally right thing to say that it was a bunch of “brave and competent junior and field grade officers” and to blame the leadership, but this is just a simplistic way explanation. Militaries of all countries are lead by senior leadership because over many years it has been shown to be more reliable. Also this is the same excuse Hitler sympathizers often gives to Wehrmacht. “Ooh, but they were just honorable soldiers carrying out orders. They were innocent and all the bad things were done by the SS.” Un...no. Of course the French aren’t Germans but the idea that everything in any war is just leadership’s responsibility seems to be excusing any military from any wrong doing by default.
@Nickolas Schneider Yes, of course I realize that. It is difficult for me to imagine that anyone in the world who has seen at least one documentary about the war would not know it. Yes, I do mean that many people perpetuate the myth of "innocent Wehrmacht" . Of course the people who are known to have committed specific acts of heroism may deserve respect for those acts. I also agree that German soldiers who were drafted to war deserve pity in a sympathetic way. But respect as veterans, if it implies "heroes", or for carrying out their duty, then no.
If it makes you feel better, I am Russian American, and I think that soviet soldiers who participated in any kind of looting and violence against civilians do not deserve adoration or respect simply for having followed the draft orders. Particularly because Putin's russia today has an extremely unhealthy cult like thing about USSR and WW2 especially now when Putin and his supporters really exploit it.
As a Frenchman, I really appreciate the effort you gave into thorough researching for this episode.
I entirely agree with your perception of the event. Even though the British had breached some articles of neutrality when firing upon the French vessels, it was vital for this French fleet to be put out of action so long as its loyalty to the Allies was in doubt. Failure to have done so could have had very dramatic results on the war as a whole, not just the Med theatre. I cannot bring myself to blame the British for this, as belligerent Churchill was, since if they had not done it the Allies could have lost the Med, leading to the potential fall of Egypt, allowing the Axis to seize the Middle East, and then I will let you imagine what would be the end result...
Gensoul and Vichy are the culprits of this tragedy. Vichy first because they are traitors, flat out traitors. There is a reason why 1940 to 1944 are regarded as the darkest years in all of French history, not because of the military defeat but because of the collaboration regime. Had these nazi sympathisers not been put in power following the debacle of 1940, and real French patriots kept control of the military, the entire French fleet would have carried on the fight alongside the British just as it had done up to that point. As to Gensoul, not only did he fail his men and let them die in the worst circumstances possible, at the hand of their allies, but his refusal to join forces with the British in by itself shows that Gensoul was willing to collaborate with Vichy/the enemy and lay down his arms and worse, perhaps fight against the Allies. Even still, he could have simply sailed to Fort-de-France and regrouped with the rest of the demobilised fleet. No deaths, no breach of orders. But no, that would have to sensible!
Mers-el-Kébir is also the perfect representation of why Britain always had an edge on France and why it was more successful. In military terms, the quality of British equipment was never excellent, almost always inferior when compared to French equipment. Be it in gunsmithery (beginning in the musket era, France had tougher musket designs and overall established itself as a nation of excellent gunsmiths even until today), troop quality (Britain was the last major European military to finally adopt a professional army while France had a long history of having a well-trained standing army), and in ship design (yes, as much as it seems incredible, French ship designs, starting in the 18th century, were regarded as among the best in Europe very close to that of the Dutch. And guess who thought that too. The Royal Navy itself! Read about the Commerce-de-Marseille class for example), and in to a lesser extent depending on which field we look at, innovations. France had an edge on Britain in terms of means.
BUT! One thing France did/does not have or at least did/does not have consistently throughout history is an effective leadership. Britain always, ALWAYS, had that edge over France. Where France had a single outstanding general, Britain had two. Where France had a single great minister or adviser, Britain had a whole cabinet and a Prime Minister of great cunning. Where France had one successful admiral surrounded by ten incompetent other, Britain had two matchless admirals and countless naval geniuses. France ended up with the best tools, but Britain ended up with the best minds. Look at the Seven Years War, look at the Napoleonic Wars, look at the Invasion of Algeria, look at the intervention in Mexico, look at Franco-Prussian War, look at the Lebel in WWI, look at inter-war France, look at French rifle stocks in 1939, look at WWII, look at Indochina, look at the Algerian War, look at France today. At Mers-el-Kébir, another French incompetent and worthless leader led so many valiant sailors manning some of the better ships of this conflict to their futile deaths while on the other end clear-sighted and thoughtful British commanders had endeavoured whole-heartedly their very best to prevent this tragedy. It has always been so and it will always be so...
Not actually french despite my name but ya I agree. Would have made the Battle for the Atlantic look like a minor skirmish if the French fleet had switched hands.
Votre réponse empile les contre-sens historiques et les erreurs mais c'est surtout
la démonstration d'une d'une rare veulerie ...
Un chien soumis léchant les pieds de son maitre.
Neu Guinea Compagnie Very nice writeup here. Well read
VAN GORP Votre réponse à vous empile la haine et la bêtise mais c’est surtout la démonstration d’une rare rare simplicité...
Un serpent perfide qui n’a ni tête pour penser ni cœur pour avoir d’émotion.
@@blackbokis3064
1° Si vous n’êtes pas français:
J'allais vous répondre point par point quand j'ai relu :
"Votre réponse à vous empile la haine et la bêtise mais c’est surtout la démonstration d’une rare rare simplicité...
Un serpent perfide qui n’a ni tête pour penser ni cœur pour avoir d’émotion."
En fait , vous n’êtes mêmes pas francophone !
Vous ne faites que répétez que ce que vous avez lu en anglais.
Une version anglaise et simplifié de l'histoire de France...
Mais par pitié, ne vous faites pas passer pour un français.
Le pire c'est vous croyez probablement être francophile.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
2° Si vous êtes français:
Vous n’êtes pas digne de ma haine simplement du mépris qu'on doit
à un individu aussi servile et prétentieux.
vous n'avez qu'une connaissance d'autodidacte des sujets sur lesquels vous blablatez,
une absence totale de compréhension des enjeux de l'époque.
Dénoncer la simplicité quand vous n'avez si manifestement aucune formation en sciences historiques n'est qu'une preuve supplémentaire de votre prétentieuse imbécilité.
la conclusion s'impose d'elle-même:
vous n’êtes qu'un simple c.... qui à partir de références superficielles et incomprises
se fait mousser en crachant sur la France.
Pitoyable...
POSTS
Your assessment is spot on, although I would not consider "legality" to carry any weight. Did Hitler consider legality when he ordered German troops into the Rhineland...or invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway...etc? By the time Mers-el-Kebir happened, legality was a sham. At that point, it was all about survival. By issuing the ultimatum, Churchill was fulfilling his obligation to ensure the survival of Britain. Hitler had thrown legality under the bus long before that.
LOL
In other words "we are excused when we drop bombs and murder other people because the Germans crossed imaginary lines to unite with other Germans and invaded fake countries we set up to keep Europe weak"
The UK loves its Sith vs. Jedi fantasy about the world, even while it sinks in the dumpster fire of wreckage that goes back to the avoidable wars it "won". The British are basically the American neo-cons of the next century.
@@ipsoepsum6880 Fake countries? Like Poland that can trace its history back to 1025, or Norway and Denmark which are even older? You have an interesting world view to say the least. So the Nazis were fine to invade whoever they wanted on the flimsy pretext of "uniting Germans" but the British were wrong to try to stop them? And don't even use words like "murder" when your favourite guys were responsible for the greatest atrocities in history. Seriously.
Well said.
But what legality? Legality made by victors forced on a nation? That is a complicated topic and just saying that it’s legal, like situations like that are covered extensively by some common law and not just made up on the spot especially back then, makes no sense.
@@Icetea-2000 ...um, it's not clear to whom your remarks are addressed. For my part, my point was that "legality" is essentially an irrelevant criterion during a condition of total war, which was the condition in evidence during WW2. Indeed, in an absolute sense, "legality" is a relative, arbitrary criterion at any time. It is determined by political laws, which typically are not anchored in rational or moral principle.
So, if you expected me to disagree with you, I can't accommodate you. The fact that legality is ultimately rooted in the edicts of transient political systems makes it a dodgy criterion at best and a wholly unsuitable criterion at worst for determining the rightness or wrongness of any action.
Drach : you’re using Darlan’s photograph for Gensoul.
Churchill could not trust Britain's future to the promises of one French Admiral no matter how good that person's intentions.
@TheSatanicTicTac you think that truth matter to anglo-american
@TheSatanicTicTac I see your point but the royal navy didn't have a crystal ball
@TheSatanicTicTac exactly everyone from the top brass to the able seaman must of felt a huge sense of shame.
@TheSatanicTicTac France had been ordered by the Axis to render control of their fleet over to the Germans and Italians--the British had reasons to doubt Britain's very survival if the Axis then did what they had done repeatedly and readily many times over recent years: blatantly betray their international agreements for the sake of conquest and opportunism.
So the British ultimatum was absolutely necessary--either Darlan violates the Axis orders of the armistice by not giving his fleet over to German control, or he violates the Axis orders of the armistice. Simply keeping the ships for themselves, in their own control, was not an option unless they became a free navy and continued to fight the Axis.
And the British gave them a whole slew of options, which was entirely reasonable. Remember, they had both the option to just scuttle their ships (which basically satisfies the letter of the armistice, since the ships were going to be supposedly "disarmed" anyway), or to sail them to a neutral nation's ports for the duration of the war (which also basically satisfies the armistice, since a neutral nation is not going to let them be used in the war lest its own neutrality be compromised. And Gensoul rejected the very basis of being an officer--to either make decisions when presented with a situation in which a decision must be made, or to consort with their superiors to get THEM to make a decision based on all the information you could give them. Gensoul both refused to make a decision and actively decided to not give absolutely critical information to his superiors when he was asking for THEM to make a decision for him (despite already having pre-existing orders from his superior officer that laid out what he was to do if his fleet was threatened with seizure or an ultimatum).
The British did NOT want to open fire on the French ships. The French gave them no choice BUT to open fire. Because you can't bet your nation's very existence on a bunch of sailors and officers managing to scuttle their ships no matter what despite orders from the Axis (to which their leadership had agreed to) saying otherwise.
@@russty81ify In fact Somerville's orders began "You are charged with carrying out perhaps the most disagreeable orders that any of His Majesty's admirals have been given ...."
This is my favorite 'weird war tale' of ww2. Your voice is perfect for this stuff. Great job with everything.
The French admiral was guilty of the sin of pride.
Yet again enlisted get fucked over by officer pissing matches
His options were to give the ships to the brits or the fascists. Regardless of what happened to them after the war, failure to give them over to the British is a colossal ethical and moral failure, to the point of being disgusting
@@About37Hobos but he had the option to do neither (by essentially going on vacation in America) and he instead chose to let 13,000+ of his own men die for no reason
Edit: 1,300+ not 13,000+ 🤦😅
The whole of France was guilty of pride after having won world war 1, this in conjunction with their misunderstandings of how war as a whole would develop is what ultimately led to their downfall.
The entire affair had nothing to do with any threat by the French fleet. It was brought on by a political miscalculation by Churchill. Catapult was Churchill's way out of his miscalculation.
Thoroughly enjoyed listening to this very concise take on this tragic event. It deserves to be seen many more people. Thank You
Man, should have called this one as follows:
“Mers-el-Kebir: When Leadership Fails”
Anyhow, great episode.
Failed leadership, I mean that is so WW2 France is it not?
Amen brother.... this is one example... where the French Admiral was determined to fuck over his own command.
@Blesava Konjina Nonsense. The French ships were manned and ready to sail.
The French were given every opportunity to continue with the war effort or to stay out of it, but they chose to make it clear that they would become a nazi-aligned threat to the British war effort and so had to be sunk.
Just imagine being the Admiral of a strong French fleet and abandoning your alliles to fight alongside the Nazis, who had invaded your country. Gensoul was weak and stupid.
@ZebsFrend If the people at the top are incompetent there is not a whole lot anybody can do about it.
@Blesava KonjinaWhy would the British land more troops when France had already switched sides and joined the Nazis?
The point was that the strength of the fleet at Mers was enough to clear the British out of the Med, and seeing as the French were on the side of the Nazis, that fleet had to be neutralised.
While the French performed their coward act, the British kept fighting for 5 more years - the navies of all the other countries invaded by the Nazis sailed to England to keep fighting alongside their allies while the French instead collaborated with the enemy.
These early days of WW2 don't get enough attention. They didn't have the pitched battles of the later days, but my goodness, the uncertainty, terror, and betrayal is enough to cause nightmares.
I'm not sure where you get the lack of pitched battles from. Most of the country of Poland was a battlefield. Northern france had huge battles take place. The low countries commited their entire forces and Norway held out against incredible odds. Not to mention the huge battles happening in China. And that's not even a year into the war!
Totally agree with Adam B. There was a lot of blood and desperation since 39 and for many 37. IMHO, the generally told & known story of WW2 in the US is bracketed by Pearl Harbor and the atom bomb. More and more it's just the atom bomb.
@@AtomicBabel Yes, I am American, so my education of WW2 is very American-centric
Such a shame. In England the war is taught as a world war. We learn it all. There is a tendancy to forget about China too much. It's often dismissed as a civil war with added Japan. but it's still taught in passing.
I often wonder how much better America might manage if it's people knew more about the world that wasn't just about how it effects America. I've been over a few times and met amazing and lovely people. But it's astonishing how little that said people know about the world :(
@@Skyhawk1998 isn't it wonderful to have so much info available at your fingertips 🙂 ?
That was in my opinion a very well reasoned and explained story of the events. Thank you!
I have seen several docs about this event and this vid is easily the best. From the info, to the personal view really comes together quite well! Great job
It wasn't mentioned or isn't much acknowledged but the attack also cemented other Allied and neutral opinions (especially the USA) that the UK was going to continue fighting the war in mid-1940.
_DK_ - it also had a sequel in the Invasion of Madagascar.
The allies were concerned that the Japanese would use it to cut off India - a genuine fear - meaning that it had to be taken from the Vichy regime. The USA was deliberately kept out of the invasion so that the British would take the propaganda hit, keeping the Americans’ image as a “clean” peacemaker
Again, more casualties were caused on the Allies by the French than upon the Axis...
That claim is repeated on and on by the British propaganda trying to both overestimate its achievements and importance in WW2 as well as justify this action of outright agression. Drachinifel at least didn't buy it (he mentions that consideration being of secondary importance at best to the British decision makers at the time).
@@VersusARCH If Britain didn't hold out the war in Western Europe would've been over and America would've just been in the Pacific. How supportive of Russia would America have been if It was just Hitler and Stalin fighting it out in Eastern Europe.I understand the hard feelings on this topic but this is on the Vichy and Free French governments for not seeing them ships as a future headache and having them leave when the Free French government did.
@@robert48044 Germany would have still attacked the USSR and everything would have ended more or less the same (UK would reenter the war as France did).
I come to opinion why European forces were defeated by German Nationalist. . They became to liberal pacifist as they are today . To hear The French President this year say liberalism is the only way . Haaaaahaaaaaa! The reports from the Germans that most there weapons were found only dropped once and most of there weapons were abandon leads to the liberal policy of putting weak leberalist in charge.
Gensoul was clearly in the wrong refusing to talk to a captain, but on the second attempt where he actually met Holland they probably should have actually sent Somerville along side Holland in an attempt to appease the bastard. If he’s such an egomaniac maybe Somerville showing up would have buttered him up.
In those days I wonder how in touch he was with what had been going on. Its bad enough there would be no TV in those days but on board ship there would have been no newspapers, no cinema news and possibly no news radio when not in port and perhaps no contact with civilians. He would doubtless have been getting military news and orders. The political situation and the subjugation that the vichy treaty meant might not have sunk in. he could have been thinking he was head of a fleet for a politically viable and independent part of France so business as usual - so what if we lost a bit of the north, why should i betray France and hand over to a foreign power and upset the apple cart.
@@redf7209 there definitely were tvs in those days
@@bluebird1046 pretty sure he couldnt watch cnn. The British experimental TV service was suspended for the war.. Tv transmitter towers were not widespread either. I don't think the French had one at all and if they did I'd bet the war they didnt have any on their ships
Absolutely. People like that are very easy to manipulate; all you have to do is flatter them. The method of getting your way with a narcissist is to pretend to be as much in love with them as they are with themselves (Mr Trump anyone?).
I'm in agreement with Croweater, if Admiral Somerville had negotiated directly with Admiral Gensoul and took Captain Holland as his interpreter with the written terms things might have gone very differently. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. A lot of the French military leadership also hated the British and regarded them as willing to fight to the last drop of French blood. After the sinking any stray French warship would have a tough choice on their hands but the intact French navy falling into German and Italian hands would probably meant an axis victory and a stronger, better equipped and earlier invasion of Russia, Hitlers real goal and they might have taken Moscow and knocked Russia out of the war. I can see why Churchill gave that order.
Interesting that Admiral Gensoul apparently never talked about it, even though he lived another 30+ years.
Are there any contemporaneous French records available?
Narrative in postwar France, (up to today, but more forcefully in the early days) was staunchly De Gaullist, with the man himself actually either ruling or being a major influence in the country. No wonder Gensoul kept quiet on the subject.
He probably never talked about since in hindsight he realized what an absolute idiot he was. And he was again too prideful to admit it. Maybe talking about it is like talking to a captain??
Nobody ever sent an Admiral to interview him.
I laughed a little too hard at that!
@@rogerwilco2 Underrated comment.
That moment of silence at end... It really touched a cord. What a gentleman Drachinifel
Gave me chills.
There is another factor that Drachinfel missed that I believe is important to think about. At this point in time France had been knocked out of the war, and Britain was effectively alone and facing a probably invasion threat ("Operation Sealion"). This was not a time for half-measures; Britain had to show Germany and the rest of the world that it was serious about fighting to the end. Whatever the other facts are about the Mers-el-Kebir attack, the destruction of the French fleet showed everyone that Britain was not going to roll over die, and hence that Germany was not going to gain yet another easy victory. It has been argued that this was one of the factors that convinced Hitler that any invasion attempt was unlikely to succeed, allowing Britain to continue the fight and act as a platform for the final defeat of Germany.
But there has not been a destruction of the french fleet ! There were four french dangerous modern line battleships that Churchill feared; only one has been damaged, the Dunkerque, and rather quickly repaired; the Strasbourg escaped ( by painting in yellow an officer of the Hood with the coloured splashes of her shells ) and the Richelieu and the Jean-Bart were not there; but the destruction of the old dreadnought Bretagne and other more little vessels made more than 1300 casualties. In fact, only an unuseful and treatrous mass murder... Actually, no place for complacency ...
@@felix25ize How can it possibly be described as traitorous?
France had capitulated to Germany and so Great Britain owed no allegiance whatsoever to Vichy Government France.
@@DraigBlackCat Do you mean that not stabbing in the back our fleet with more than 1300 casualties would have been an act of allegiance to Vichy ? Btw; the fleet was docked, neutralized and not , by any mean, destined to attack Great Britain, only to potentially protect north Africa. Of course, if you wanted to be more than 100% sure of that, the best was this ruthless stalinian way mass assassination (there are many people who may, one day or another, harm me, do you believe that I will preventively murder them for that reason?). I repeat: no place for complacency ...
The truth is that when Germany invaded France, the French admiral refused any of the five options that would've saved the French Mediterranean fleet. Yet when it was certain the allies were going to win the war- the French scuttled their fleet as promised to the Germans- that's screwed up, stupid and vindictive.
@@stephenmcdonagh2795 As promised to the britishs, not to the germen. ("answer selected " ; Yes but by who ?)
Gensoul sounds like, as they say, "le huge prick"
Le Très huge prick
Le Très Grande Prick.
"le flacid prick"
Le gros traître.
Le grand con
A comprehensive and insightful look at tragic events. My thoughts on this are more clear with the behind the scenes descriptions that you have related. Fascinating video. My thanks!👏🤨
A few years ago I investigated this tragedy and have to say that Drachinifel's analysis is absolutely top notch.
If only all documentaries were this thorough. Well done.
To add, The British got much of their oil from the Persian Gulf and it was shipped through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean.
As Drachinifel pointed out, when Reynaud came to office, one of his first acts was to sign an agreement with Chamberlain
that said neither France or Britain would sign an armistice or peace agreement without mutual consent.
Churchill agreed to releasing France of this agreement providing either the French fleet either join the British or neutralize their fleet so that the ships could not fall into German hands. So Churchill felt betrayed when he read the terms of the
Vichy - German agreement that the French fleet was to return back to ports in France, and be placed under German guard.
What Churchill did not know , was that Petain had insisted that the French fleet be disarmed in North Africa.
So the bottom line was this , France had the second largest fleet in Europe. So had the French fleet landed in the hands of the Kriegsmarine , the Kriegsmarine and the Italian navy could have cut Britain off much of its oil supply
and the war would have been over for Britain.
Churchill could not put the fate of Britain into the hands of Darlan's solemn word .
The bottom line is this: London made demands without considering the French position.
Bible says to "put yourself in their shoes".
French position: protect Algeria from invasion.
*What did Churchill offer to protect Algeria when the French ships left?*
@@ralphbernhard1757 You have repeated yourself. Refer to your other version of this for my response.
ne thing is for sure : the Dunkerque was a beautiful ship.
Indeed. A real shame she never got to go cruiser killing.
@@jamesm3471 Then again, only two battleships from the 1930s/40s ever got into a situation where their presence was justified. Failure is the norm for battleships of that time.
@@bkjeong4302 The Washington and South Dakota at the 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal?
@@JohnE9999 Washington at 2nd Guadalcanal (South Dakota didn't contribute to that battle) and Duke of York at North Cape.
Everything else never justified their costs.
@@bkjeong4302 King George V and Rodney vs. Bismark?
Thank you Drachinifel. It is excellent explanation of this historical episode. Excellent analysis.
Very interesting breakdown and analysis. I learned a lot new about the Mers-el-Kebir incident here. Excellent video, Drachinifel.
The French admiral displayed much of the same class distinction & haughtiness that resulted in WW1 and the deaths of MILLIONS. Tactically, the French admiral should have recognized that a fleet that is moored in the harbor is almost defenseless against a fleet with the maneuverability, armament & positioning of the British.
As for this and MANY arguments of historians today? They fail to recognize the minutia of international law, custom & what is "cricket" DISAPPEAR when bullets start flying...especially 15 inch rounds weighing over a ton!
Agree, even if he’s upset with the British admiral sending a “mere captian” he at least could of demanded the British admiral who could of then either come with said captain to be translator or told the French admiral I don’t speak French talk to him he’s my lesion
You know technology outpaced tactics at the end of 1914, right?
Blaming the blood letting on arrogance and haughtiness alone shows your abject ignorance of the events in question.
It took 3+ years to develop tech and tactics which would overcome the deadlock.
Do you think they werent TRYING to work it out?
@@sugarnads what? What tactics?? Even in WW1 that was unacceptable behaviour, if the French government found out he was being lazy with his message (say the Brit’s risked it and ask the French government and got the truth across) he would been court martial see for incompetence and for nearly getting the fleet killed.
You are defending such an attack on a neutral nation? Guess you are pro Japanese, pro Pearl Harbor as well. Oh, we have cornered some old ladies in this room, let's put the boot to them!
When the Allies invaded French North Africa in November 1942 commander Dwight D. Eisenhower struck a controversial deal with Darlan, recognizing him as High Commissioner of France for North and West Africa. In return, Darlan ordered all French forces in North Africa to cease resistance and cooperate with the Allies.
Less than two months later, on 24 December, Darlan was assassinated by Fernand Bonnier de La Chapelle, a 20-year-old monarchist and anti-Vichyiste.
Touching end to a snake.
What odd here is that both sides had a willingness to allow the ships to go to the USA. Since the US was still essentially neutral, they could've sent over an escort for the ships to return to America and nobody would've bothered them. Germany would've grumbled but they certainly wouldn't have opened up on an American fleet at this point in the conflict since bringing the US into the war almost 18 months earlier than they actually entered the conflict would've been disastrous to the Axis. So really, the whole conflict comes down to the British fear driving them to a rapid resolution, and the French taking a too 'laissez-faire' approach to something so crucial to the situation. Had both sides actually negotiated at the Admiral to Admiral level to start with, even with guns levelled at each other, they could've probably come across the American solution at the same point, kept it quiet and had the US intervene to help out, thus the only potential win-win in the whole mess. Instead, we got tragedy all the way around and 80 years later... still anger and hatred. Again, the human factor driving unnecessary loss.
Great idea if it could have been pulled off but what happens if whilst you wait the long time for the Americans to be informed, agree, put to sea and then cross the Atlantic, the French Fleet are sent to France to be seized or seized in north Africa by the Axis (Italians you would suspect) or dispersed around multiple ports and you've lost the ability to bottle them up if it all goes wrong, with the state of the French government of that time (and the events leading up to) no deal could be relied upon that didn't have immediate effect. The Royal Navy could blockade Mers-el-Kebir with a sufficient force to keep the French there or fight the Italians, there wasn't enough ships in the med to do both. Whatever outcome it was going to be it had to be decided that day.
It wasn't that crucial at the moment, at least from my read on it. The French were signaling in their own French way that they didn't expect the Germans/Italians to do much of anything with the fleet for a while since they were occupied elsewhere on land. It was the fears that have been outlined that really panicked the British into wanting this decided so rapidly. The ships weren't going anywhere and any land forces to try and take them by force would've taken weeks to assemble and get marching. In that same time, the US could've had a small naval force there and escorted them away. They could've even reflagged them as US ships and had them sitting in the middle of the Med for a week or so for a US ship to start escorting them. There are a lot of tricks that could've been employed to keep them out of both British and German/Italian hands which would've been the point.
I think it unlikely that the US would have agreed to escort the French ships - it simply wasn't politically viable for the US. Many in the US and elsewhere, most especially in the US congress, would've seen that as a US fleet escorting British prizes of war and thus as a violation of US neutrality.
Captain Holland pointed out to Gensoul (or was it one of his subordinates?) that both his orders and the British ultimatum allowed the French ships to go.
Sommerville didn't speak french. Gensoul didn't speak english. So they couldn't negotiate directly with one another.
A chance to have a chance to grab a bunch of French warships to look at? Yeah, they would've taken them, even Congress isn't that stupid. It was okay'd by both sides so there wasn't a political cost anyway. No significant risk.
@@SHcinema Sorry but that is wishful thinking, the german navy was well outnumbered, the addition of the modern French leaflet would have more than doubled the german capability not necessarily in number but type and modernity. No choice surrender the ships or face destruction.
Thank you for this episode and the research to highlight all the events behind the Mers El Kbir incident. I never knew about the sailing of the French fleet to the U.S. was in the orders from the Vichy Government, that really changes in my eye how we Brits played it.
Thank you for this in depth look at one of the lesser known episodes in naval history. One is forced to wonder how many of these there are, most glossed over because of history tending to focus on major events and even that interpretation having inaccuracies and misconceptions in various places. And some tragedies we’ll never even know about, mainly because most if not all of the individuals involved did not survive the incident.
Gensoul witheld the most viable option of sailing for the French west indes. He effectively lied and bears most responsibility for the outcome. The French needed to keep their fleet intact without handing it over to the axis. The fleet was virtually the last bargaining chip that the French had. The threat of handing these ships over to the British was sufficient to keep the Germans out of the South of France. Relocating to the French West indes could have kept the ships out of both British and German hands.
Could that have put the ships in danger of being take. By the Japanese? I don’t know the answer, just asking the question.
@@pathutchison9866 This was 1940. The Japanese were not in the war yet. This would have moved the ships to the other side of the atlantic, close to the USA. Apart from a couple of submarine journeys, the Japanese never visited the Atlantic.
@Michael The best option was for them to move to a french west indian port. They would have remained out of reach of the Germans and Italians and served as a bargaining chip for the Vichy government. I doubt that the german u boats would have been too much trouble for them. They could have sailed out of the danger zone in convoy at 22 knots.
PS. For his arrogance, Gensoul denied a part of this bargaining power by loosing ships, he let his sailors down, he lied about his options, all for the sake of his pride. The French should have shot him.
@Michael He could not turn the fleet over to the british because its mere presence was keeping the germans out of the south of france. As for submarines, wolf pack tactics had nt been developed yet and the type 7C was only good for about 7 knots submerged and about 14 knots on the surface. The only subs on the area were french.
Fine work, Drach, as always.
This one was exquisite.
".....and that is the ultimate tragedy of war."
"....pray they don't alter it any further..."
Only a fool trusted Darth Schickelgruber twice
The best analysis of the situation I have ever seen. The sad thing is indeed the tragedy of war in that people die for various reasons and those that fail to justify their deaths and those that try to.
This is one of your finest videos. Thankyou for doing it, it is admirable the effort you put in to make sure that fact is the basis for logic. It is such a tragedy which us Brits aren't proud of and for that reason aren't taught about, when it is exactly these type of lessons which everyone needs to be aware of to learn from.
I'm an American so take this as you will but as I look back at history there seems to be a lot of miscommunication where the French are involved. I suspect there are subtleties of their culture that we still don't understand. Seemingly inexplicable decisions made time and again. Rather interesting.
@@IcyTorment you are biased. clearly you have adopted moral standards of the brits and brutish Americans. Which are double faced. A smiling face to the front a beautiful facade but at the back holding a knife and the tail of a snake. Dishonorable war mongering and immoral culture that pretends to be virtuous whilst breaking all of their own morals constantly, though carefully veiled by well crafted indoctrination lies and propaganda. Just look at all the atrocities caused by them. They aren't good people. Sure they are genetically and culturally the most similar to myself, but just like most others, they aren't good people. They aren't good at all, everything is shades of grey and the allies both now and then were far far far in the darkest corner together with Germany and many others. Humans are often quite immoral and disgusting as a collective society. Yet they can't see it because they are blind to their own faults.
@naurius there really were options that did not require the French to give up their ships. In fact, most options did not require this.
@David Wilhelm- the French navy, during the generation that these Admirals were from, was chaotic and nonsensical in hindsight, but that's hindsight. This man had the chance to continue the fight in one way or another, but chose to soothe his pride at his men's expense. That's not subtlety, it's narcissism.
@@nocensorship8092 what does that even mean? There's lots of allusion, lots of words, but no substance. It's nonsense if there are no details. If there are details, then you'll find that most, if not all, military powers have their atrocities and their benevolence. It's because they're run by humans, which have these same moments, and rely on the strict application of orders.
@nocensorship8092 clearly, you've adopted the self-centered superiority complex of... whatever you are.
As you can see, Darland was trying to hide aspects of the armassist from the British. Gensoul was trying to lie about the options given to the French fleet.
To put a blanket statement that the Americans and the British are British and have no morals yes unfounded and quite frankly prejudiced. I could say the same for you because you actually sound like a Muslim.
Americans and British and westerners at least take action. When it comes to muslims they just talk in circles and never come to an agreement and then you wonder why you're so fractured.
thank you for making this video. I had seen other videos on this unfortunate situation, but none contained the detail you provided. As you say, it is easy to look back now and judge, but at the time I can only imagine the angst the British naval leadership had to endure regarding a decision like this.
Your analysis,& judgments are spot on...I agree 100%.
I had expected this video to start with Copenhagen, back then England also refused the existence of an uncommitted possibly competive fleet, there is nothing new aboukt Mers-El-Kebir, other than that the french navy hadn't read the naval historybooks, if they had, they had been much more aware of the danger, they were in.
Came here for the Copenhagen reference
An enthralling education.... feels like I was there. To err is human... so many lives at the mercy of I'll thought decisions.... truly the tragedy of war, thanks mate
Thank you for all your hard work!
Thanks for doing the deep dive on the history.
Where French High Command's legendary incompetence after WW1, National Pride, and miscommunication struck home. Somerville still had a good reputation still after this incident in the Royal Navy, so at the very least I'm happy about that.
regarding bad leadership post ww1; man, i really feel for the poor french dudes on the ground when reading about some of the shenanigans vis a vis Generals Gamelin - Weygand including dissmissing the former for the latter as Commander in Chief while the Battle of France is underway. Yikes.
@@dndboy13 Yea imagine being a French conscript during that shitstorm.
They did bloody well at Cassino though, apparently.
There was a video by the Chieftain that showed the exact same problems in the army: Officers acting only under direct written orders as well as not cooperating with each other. They'd rather capitulate than act without or against orders.
Apparently, this was the result of harsh punishments from top brass in several cases where orders had not been followed to the word. It's bad when your men are more afraid of their superiors than of their enemy.
Indeed sir. Admiral Somerville did not open fire at the start... Could he have done anything else?.... from my perspective... No. Somerville did the right thing.
Thank you once again for fantastic content. Your channel has become by far my absolute most watched on RUclips! I have a 45 minute drive to and from work each day and your Drydock videos are all i listen to. I'm up to episode 49. Yours is the most technically competent and interesting channel I know of. Keep up the work!
Very well done work on such a charged issue.
I don’t see the controversy. The Poles refused to surrender in any official capacity, evacuated their Navy and fought on with the Allies until Germany's surrender. The French created a collaborationist regime instead of evacuating their naval assets. They were fair game however slight the possibility of their ships ending up in German hands.
Exactly...I think many modern day people especially casual historians or the general public fail to realise that compared to the polish government in exile the French government in exile was basically pointless having no military assets and only finances stored in the US.
Looking back vichy France was the "legitimate" France at the time....afterall they held the control over the military and the land...where as free France had a bank account and thats about it.
While we view modern day free France, the 4th Republic as part of the allies...because they were....vichy France must be viewed as a separate entity and they were firmly part of the axis. Even if it was through a mixture of threat, coertion and the French far right getting the power given to them by the nazis. They were still the axis....if there is anyone to feel sorry for its enlisted and lower officer personnel who ended up going from serving democratic France to a nazi puppet....and they had very little option but to go with it or risk being sent to.slave labour camps or killed....poor souls
Lies upon lies. Vichy was a neutral state, the attack on Mers-El-Kébir is what gave them the perfect excuse to collaborate with the Axis. Even though in 1942 when Germany annexed what remained of France, on direct order of Admiral Darlan, they destroyed what was remaining of their navy to prevent it of being captured by the Germans.
@@anaon7025 I think your point is that the French were not monolithic in WWII. The collaborationists got an excuse while others, like Darlan, tried to walk the tense middle road of preserving what their nation had without it being destroyed by either side in the war (which failed, by such a time you can't fence sit and they should have did what the Poles and others did despite the cost to their nation that they left behind).
There is more there too. The Resistance and its infinitely numerous factions wound up fighting one another more than they did the Nazi's or Vichy.
@@anaon7025 Neutral state my arse. You deported Jews and fought the Allies in Operation Torch. The Poles had huge moral high ground over French actions.
@@PolakInHolland Absolutely mad how the French narrative is still so much that they did a great job in WW2. Such a bad look to not admit to faults or mistakes.
See how they dealt with getting caught doing state terrorism in New Zealand in the 80's. Such noble behaviour en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
Absolutely fantastic video Drach....one of your best ever.
Regardless of the legality of the attack. It deeply bothers me the lack of effort by the French Navy to seek shelter in British ports to continue the fight. The tiny Navies of Greece, Poland, Norway and others did their dead level best to get to safety and fight on. Sometimes even defying orders from high command.
In the book "No greater ally" the author lays heavy charges of downright hostility against the Poles from the French. He also says that many French troops were openly friendly with the Germans. Lastly he says how the French Navy and army did all they could to prevent an evacuation of Polish troops from France.
Many many French servicemen and civilians fought bravely in the war, but many many others, especially in the beginning seemed to be dead set on capitulation and surrender.
The existence of the Vichy regime complicated matters greatly for the French navy. Which is of course why it existed, if France had been occupied like Poland or Norway then the French navy, air force, empire and the large number of troops in and around British territory would have just joined the British. But it wasn't, there was an unoccupied (albeit smaller) French state with a French government giving out orders.
@@DoddyIshamel it's still no excuse.....the Vichy government was obviously not a legitimate government and only existed because the Germans allowed it to do so.
@@admiraltiberius1989 In what way was it not legitimate? It was a legally formed government voted for by a massive majority in the national assembly (the same assembly who had formed the previous government which went to war), which was democratically elected.... It was headed by a premier constitutionally chosen by the President after the previous government fell apart. It had majority popular support at least initially. I mean they were a bunch of cowards and reactionaries but military personel are not really supposed to abandon their nation because they don't like their politicians.
There was also no alternative at this point. The Poles etc had their governments in exile but the French government was still in France. There was no real alternate government until years later and that didn't have anything approaching legitimacy until after the war.
DoddyIshamel Hindsight is 10/10. I agree the French were in an impossible situation. Almost nobody in France had even heard of De Gaulle at that moment. There was no organised resistance let alone a legitimate French government in excise.
Hear, hear. Great appeal to your proposal.
The passion you bring for your condemnation upon Admiral Gensoul is a thing of beauty to hear.
Gensoul was only a honest militaryman who obeyed the orders of the legal government. France, at that time, was neutralized by the armistice treaty., that Pétain never broke, and never had the intention to break. Mers-el-Kébir was in fact nothing but an unuseful crime and felony, and in more, a military failure, since the french fleet was only temporarily a bit lessened by the loss of an old dreanought and other more little ships; the four modern line battleships stayed untouched, except the Dunkerque who was later rather quickly repaired.
@@felix25ize You get nowhere appealing to me to remember Marshall Pétain's honorable nature: je me souviens le Vel d'Hiv. (If you're going to use latter events to justify your position, that opens the field for me to do the same.)
As for Gensoul's supposed honesty - his inability to fully appraise the authorities back home that he was trying to appeal to for a decision is not what I'd describe as the act of an honest man. I'm just a former blue shirt scum, but if I ever bungled a sitrep as badly has Admiral Gensoul failed in his communications to the Vichy government I'd have lost my rating and likely faced time in Leavenworth
@@OtakuLoki Pétain later engaged in collaboration, the nazi pistol aiming his temple, and becoming older ; but never to the point of engaging his fleet and army besides the nazis; and Mers -el-Kébir showed him ( and also to the french population) what kind of allies were the englishes , and that was quite something as a reason for his later attitude ( and the attentism of most of the french population ). With such friends, you do not need ennemies ... De Gaulle, at his burial, even brought him justice, which was impossible in the political climate of the immediate afterwar, when he only had as reasonnable option to change his death condemnation into prison ...
@John Higgins Especially if those arguments are here to drown the fish by defending an undefendable crime...
@John Higgins Neither do I
You didn't think through the fact that a fleet/Task Force would be permanently tied up just blockading the port..... shades of Napoleonic lessons that the Navy remembered.
“Altering the deal, and pray I don’t alter it any further”...nice! Good use of a line from that other historical documentary
25:44
Admiral Somerville "Cowabunga it is.|"
Of course the Germans used it as a propaganda tool after the fact... Though 3 years later they would do almost the same against the Italian battleships after their capitulation (only without negotiating first).
Yeah, war crimes do tend to make for rather good propaganda don't they?
@@johndoe5432 War crimes?
So you think fire bombing cities is totes legit... But you'd draw the line at sinking a couple "neutral" warships to stop them from being captured by the enemy?
Except it's legal if the neutral nations are under the orders of an enemy nation, so it's not actually a war crime...
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Hey, speaking of fire bombing cities wanna talk about Dresden? Good old RAF, what a bunch of heroes.
Excellent exposition of events and detailed information!
One must never forget the fact Darlan had, even pre-war, always taken care of his own self promotion and preservation regardless of everything and everyone. Even at the expense of his own service branch and country. The man never stopped playing his own game, to the bitter end.
The French admiral couldn't have been that....oh...oh dear
Sadly, crass arrogance and stupidity are not unique to French Naval Officers as there was still a tendency for the upper ranks of European navies to be staffed by members of the upper classes
Sir, Your video documentary is spot on. The reasoning, documentation and analysis was refreshing to view here on youtube. I give you a 15 on a scale of 1-10 !!
A very Great contribution to history you have provided here. Thank You
I thought I knew a lot about this attack & many of the other great vids, boy you been doing some research/reading sir! Very well done & absorbing content. Ty
Totally agree with your evaluation and conclusion.
This extended analysis of Gensoul is backed by a picture of Darlan.
Thank you Drach, I've been waiting for a detailed account of this event for a very long time.
God, now I'm super bummed out. But thank you for that. This was a skillful and obviously well researched retelling and analysis of war history that did not seek to glorify combat. In fact, the editorial thesis placed a premium on avoiding bloodshed and not treating exchange of fire as inevitable. I wish more war historians took this approach with their recounting of historical events.
Best explanation of how this incident turned from allies to mutual distrust, to what appears to be a mix of ego and arrogance leading to death and destruction. Moving the fleet to the Caribbean would appear to have been both the smartest & easiest solution.
Back in the days of sail, that is what would have happened.
British Admirals had wide-ranging powers, even of a political nature for obvious reasons.
It was also the most successful days of Empire.
Strange how historians would conclude that it was "generals sitting in Chateaus far away from the action" which lost many battles in WW1 and early-WW2, rather than allowing front-line commanders and officers to lead from the front, given "objectives", not *specific orders.*
True.
The specific orders by the Admirality, coupled with Churchill's "settle matters quickly" had 2 main effects:
1) it took the decision out of the hands of Admiral Somerville
2) put emense pressure, by dictated orders (rather than "objectives")
Even Churchill must have instinctively grasped that it was a mistake, and he prepared 2 speeches for Parliament.
One conciliatory, the other more defiant...
well... can also look at this in the light of what happened latter, in Toulon, when the French navy scuttled itself in order to not fall in German hands when they invaded the free zone...
That was only after Germany broke the Armistice first. Who knows what would've happened had Germany stuck to the terms, and just asked the French ships be handed over to German and Italian ports?
To little to late Frenchman
@@loremipsum3610 We all know what would have happened .... Dunkerque would have become KMS Siegfried or the like.
@@3vimages471 No the French would have refused to hand over their ship. If they sunk them in 1942 they would have simk them in 1940. The whole French government of the time even said they they would never let the French fleet fall into German hands and that the control of the fleet was nor negotiable
@@parodyclip36 Yeah right ..... the French and Germans are always trustworthy during war. Of course Britain should have trusted the French who had already given up fighting and were kissing Hitler's arse.
All they had to do was put their ships out of the reach of the Germans.
Let us never forget the 1302 valiant men who died in vain on that day. Their spirits live on in spite of the failure of their leaders.
That exactly is the real thing. Those guys died in vain, thinking they were going to fight the Germans alongside the English.... They did not comprehend what was happening.
It’s interesting that no one that I can see has brought up Churchill’s thought on Oran/Mers-El-Kebir. He considered that it drove home to Roosevelt that the British were deadly serious about continuing to fight on despite facing the German juggernaut alone (except for the dominions) at that point. Cheers!
Quite true. FDR apparently said, when informed of the action, that in a similar position he would have done the same.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 ah, yes, lives, people..they are collateral to british interests, of course. yet you forget that the unacceptability of that same premise is why your heavenly angel regime justified its war with germany in the first place. The Polish border question, which was obviously in german interests to resolve, could not be resolved by force. FAIL
@@ipsoepsum6880 Did you really just try to blame the British for Nazi Germany's actions? Lmao
You're criticizing the British for seeing lives as collateral as if Nazi Germany was somehow better than them.
Love it every time he says "whil-st"!
The spirit of Verdun was strong in this one. Poor dead sailors.
You mean when Petain was fighting the Germans in WW1 instead of licking their arses in WW2.?
On 4 July, Roosevelt told the French ambassador that he would have done the same as Churchill.
There you go.
In Brooklyn, the French sub captain that fired at the USN at Casablanca told the officers of his targeted ship (USS Brooklyn), that he would do it again.
They could not risk those ships falling into Axis hands. It would have shifted the balance of the war in the Med, and that would have won the war in the desert for the Afrika korps. They would then have seized the Suez canal, linked up with the Japanese, taken the middle East oil fields and won the war.
Roosevelt lied. He had French ships including a Aircraft carrier basically sitting a planes flight from US territory in the West Indes, and did nothing but harass them into maintaining neutrality and disarming.
"They would then have seized the Suez canal, linked up with the Japanese, taken the middle East oil fields and won the war."
This has to be a joke. The Japanese were nowhere near the Suez Canal.
Uncle Drach, this one always makes me tear up. :(
Bury those feelings into a pit and refine it into a rage which could only be justifiably directed at the French
A VERY WELL ARGUED CASE… VERY COMPELLINGLY & COGENTLY EXPLAINED… And your conclusion regarding where the blame must principally lie for this eminently avoidable tragedy, is one which - in my humble opinion - is the only one that the known facts leading up to it, emphatically support.
Very fine analysis, Drach. I've never heard such an in depth and clear study of this horrible tragedy. Thank you!
Excellent analysis. Typical of the French intransigence shown throughout the war.
And postwar to this day even
not quite... A part of France that chose to collaborate with the germans...or closed their eyes as log as they remained untouched...
anyway, they had very little choice, and british navy did what they had to do
@typo pit love the Anglo-Saxons, they arrange the story as it suits them so that it is always the fault of others.
in 1938 the french wanted peace just like the british which led to the munich accords. If you make sense, you should also say that half of the British were for Hitler
Not the French in general bu their idiotic commandment which was fighting another war.
@@patrickbotti2357 the British fled to their island, the Soviets had to retreat several thousand kilometers but only the French generals were idiot? Did the American generals do better at the start of the war with Pearl Harbor and the loss of the Philippines? the only difference is that France did not have a sea or an ocean to protect himself nor the possibility of retreating for 1000 km before reorganizing itself
The germans used several of the big ship guns they got hold on from the french navy and some of them ended up in Denmark and apparently never was used , lots of pictures of them in the danish archives from the german occupation during world war 2
Well done as always!
This is even more tragic when you know that when they heard the RN was on its way, French sailors cheered as they thought the Brits were coming to "pick them up" and continue the fight...
My father was there serving as the CEPO on board the cruiser, HMS Naiad. His previous ship HMS Ajax was also there. He discussed this action with me two or three times and was always of the opinion that the fleet had sailed there to negotiate and when that failed they had no option outside taking the action they did. He regretted the loss of life but was pleased not to have had to fight the French vessels later on. As his time in the Med was already hard enough; Battle of Crete, convoy protection etc. before eventually being torpedoed and spending a number of hours in the water, it is no wonder that he and the majority of his comrades supported the British fleet erring on the side of caution. Regards
I love this channel. Thank you.
Excellent and clear analysis of this tragic action which corresponds closely with the account in a book by Warren Tute given me by a half-French journalist friend decades ago. France and its fighting men were amazingly badly served by their most senior officers: Gamelin and Waygand stumbling around in the Battle of France, and Gensoul´s arrogance and utter stupidy at Mers el Kebir
Hindsight is 20-20 is and old saying but I say unto you that hindsight is often as bad as foresight. We aren't going to know what the outcomes of many of those alternative choices would have been.
Excellent analysis, I still side with the British on the decision to open fire on the French fleet. That French admiral was such a jerk to be offended at the particular rank of the messenger. To me, by the summer of 1940, one was no longer in a position to justify taking Hitler's Germany at their word, whether on or off a signed document. The whole tension buildup leading to the war was built upon Hitler breaking promises. As far as I am concerned, from the contemporary perspective, that French Fleet was a threat. I believe that the French Fleet in North Africa should have said "To Hell with the Vichy Govt, we will continue to fight!".
Yes I agree, even General de Gaulle justifies the operation by declaring on July 8 on London radio: “[…] by virtue of a dishonorable commitment, the government of Bordeaux had agreed to deliver the ships to enemy discretion. There is not the slightest doubt that in principle and out of necessity the enemy would have used them either against England or against our own Empire. Well, I say it bluntly, they had better been destroyed. "
God bless all these sailors.
@@alexh479 Huh except Vichy absolutely never agreed to give the ships. It was already written clearly in the treaty that they would scuttle their ships if anyone tried to seize them. Which is what happened at Toulon actually
@@alexh479 Even Churchill said it was a mistake.....
@@loicguermeur4256 just because one declares something a mistake later in life does not mean it was not the right one at the time under the circumstances
@@davilanetworks382 but it was. For example, Dakar and the whole french West africa colonies were about to join deGaulle and stood with Vichy until 1942. Regardless all the damages with others french people and decisions. That’s called a mistake. And by the way, The attack on Tarente in octobre was far more usefull.
Once again brilliant presentation
Thanks. So informative. Right and wrong, wars are full of what if moments.