Operation Catapult: Britain's only option or a bloody betrayal?

Pauke! Pauke! · Dec 23, 2014

3 July 1940, Operation Catapult: Churchill orders the neutralization of the French Fleet following the French armistice with Nazi Germany. After negotiations to accept the British ultimatum failed with Admiral Gensoul at Mers el Kabir, Algeria, the French warships are fired upon by their allies the Royal Navy with devastating affect and many casualties. The French admiral Darlan, who had promised to scuttle their warships before allowing them to fall into the hands of the Germans, felt betrayed and in fact did scuttle the French Fleet at Toulon in November 1942 when the Germans invaded Vichy France after the Allied invasion of North Africa.

Was Churchill correct in attacking and neutralizing the French Fleet in 1940? Did the action become a propaganda coup for the Nazis?

Here's an interesting link to an American PBS program on the subject:
Churchill's Deadly Decision ~ Full Episode | Secrets of the Dead | PBS

Isoroku295 · Dec 23, 2014

I do believe it was not a betrayal. It may have been a miscalculation, but not a blatant betrayal.

SimpleThunder · Dec 24, 2014

I never knew this happened.

It made my mouth fall wide open.

Betrayal, inexcusable.

Another stain on UK's already shoddy additions to the Allies' effort during WWII.

Isoroku295 · Dec 24, 2014

SimpleThunder said:
I never knew this happened.

It made my mouth fall wide open.

Betrayal, inexcusable.

Another stain on UK's already shoddy additions to the Allies' effort during WWII.

The british likely figured it was better safe then sorry.

Kevinmeath · Dec 24, 2014

SimpleThunder said:
I never knew this happened.

It made my mouth fall wide open.

Betrayal, inexcusable.

Another stain on UK's already shoddy additions to the Allies' effort during WWII.

Really? perhaps Britain should have left countries like Netherlands occupied.

Whether Britain had any other choice is debateable other French warships such as in Alexandria and British ports were interned or taken over without such loss of life (not always bloodlessly) so there may have been alternatives if calmer attitudes were taken by both sides.

However the British were between 'a rock and a hard pace' the French Fleet could totally change the balance of power, they had no surefire way to know that the French Navy wouldn't allow it to fall into Axis hands. The behaviour and collapse of France in 1940 had shocked the British.

It can be argued that France had betrayed Britain making peace with Germany and a pro-Axis right-wing government taking power, so a horrible decision but not necessarily the wrong one and certainly not a simplistic betrayal as the post above claims.

pugsville · Dec 24, 2014

Winston Churchill believing the safety of Britain took ruthless action.

The French were presenting with a number of options that would have preserved both their ships and their crews lives. (though most major Nations navies would have not accepted such a ultimatum )

The Vichy French government was a puppet collaborationist government that was helping the German war effort, and would at times help the Axis war effort. Was the Vichy Government trustworthy?

Did the French abandonment of war by the term of the armistice a Betrayal of Britain? The French could have fought on in the colonies, as they had substantial forces in colonies and could have been pretty effective. Churchill would have fought on in such circumstances. Conquest of France and occupation of mainland France did not mean France had to abandon the fight.

Churchill did a number of dubious and morally commendable actions, he was an old fashioned Imperialist, and ruthless in respect to British interests and sold other nations and peoples down the river.

This one is more Borderline for me. The Vichy Government was hardly inspiring of confidence. The French fleet would later scuttle ships rather than let them fall into German hands.

Kevinmeath · Dec 24, 2014

pugsville said:
............
...................................The French fleet would later scuttle ships rather than let them fall into German hands.

Which shows that the French sailors were true to their word and the RN officers on the spot were wrong (and Churchill).

However we only know that with 20:20 hindsight they didn't know that; a decision had to be made.

The later actions make the issue even more tragic but not wrong in itself.

Jaquet · Dec 24, 2014

In France it is know as "Pearl Harbour" or the stab in the back from an old ally. It was murder: an unprovoked attack on the forces of an ally without a declaration of war. The French told them that they would never hand over their warships to the Germans. And the British have no right to tell them what to do. The champagne flowed in a victory party at number 10 Downing Street when France held a massive funeral for 1090 sailors of the Bretagne and 210 crew of the Dunkerque who had been killed in the massacre.
The same arrogance. The British abject retreat to Dunkirk, when you all expeditiously evacuated the place as soon as you started to get a glimpse of the German mechanical superiority, abandoning all military equipment behind you, and without any consultation with your “ally”, while the French army lost 110,000 men (3000 per day!), because it was protecting your retreat to your precious island.

Kevinmeath · Dec 24, 2014

Jaquet said:
In France it is know as "Pearl Harbour" or the stab in the back from an old ally. It was murder: an unprovoked attack on the forces of an ally without a declaration of war. The French told them that they would never hand over their warships to the Germans. And the British have no right to tell them what to do. The champagne flowed in a victory party at number 10 Downing Street when France held a massive funeral for 1090 sailors of the Bretagne and 210 crew of the Dunkerque who had been killed in the massacre.
The same arrogance. The British abject retreat to Dunkirk, when you all expeditiously evacuated the place as soon as you started to get a glimpse of the German mechanical superiority, abandoning all military equipment behind you, and without any consultation with your “ally”, while the French army lost 110,000 men (3000 per day!), because it was protecting your retreat to your precious island.

Well that's your interpretation of events needless to say the British have a different one.

Lawnmowerman · Dec 24, 2014

Jaquet said:
The same arrogance. The British abject retreat to Dunkirk, when you all expeditiously evacuated the place as soon as you started to get a glimpse of the German mechanical superiority, abandoning all military equipment behind you, and without any consultation with your “ally”, while the French army lost 110,000 men (3000 per day!), because it was protecting your retreat to your precious island.

You'd rather the British all died with the Frenchmen and not come back and liberate you all 4 years later.

SimpleThunder · Dec 24, 2014

Why on earth would the French allow their ships to fall into German hands?

That's a ridiculous notion, and it proved to be false.

They didn't just kill honest soldiers. They murdered their ALLIES on the basis of an idiotic assumption.

And I'll tell you what;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MDujCzmv9M

This video hints towards an even darker situation, but I'll let you be the judge of that yourself. I'm guessing it's not a coincidence that the only version of this documentary I could find is a Chinese subtitled one, since the one you linked is "blocked in your region due to rights restrictions".

GogLais · Dec 24, 2014

SimpleThunder said:
Why on earth would the French allow their ships to fall into German hands?

That's a ridiculous notion, and it proved to be false.

They didn't just kill honest soldiers. They murdered their ALLIES on the basis of an idiotic assumption.

And I'll tell you what;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MDujCzmv9M

This video hints towards an even darker situation, but I'll let you be the judge of that yourself. I'm guessing it's not a coincidence that the only version of this documentary I could find is a Chinese subtitled one, since the one you linked is "blocked in your region due to rights restrictions".

Well the version in the UK has an English commentary. As regards the ships falling into German hands it's possible that Vichy might have handed them over either due to coercion or in return for some sort of better deal. Whatever else you might think about it there's no way the British could have been 100% sure that those ships would not end in German hands. And they would then have been German ships in the Med, not blocked up in the North Sea.

SimpleThunder · Dec 24, 2014

GogLais said:
Well the version in the UK has an English commentary. As regards the ships falling into German hands it's possible that Vichy might have handed them over either due to coercion or in return for some sort of better deal. Whatever else you might think about it there's no way the British could have been 100% sure that those ships would not end in German hands. And they would then have been German ships in the Med, not blocked up in the North Sea.

There is no excuse.

Poly · Dec 24, 2014

Jaquet said:
In France it is know as "Pearl Harbour" or the stab in the back from an old ally...

Old ally is a bit strange - if anything the Germans are an older ally to the British than the people of France, against who'm Britain has defended freedom on more than a few occasions

And how can it be a "stab in the back" when the French fleet was given advance warning ???
(not something Japan did before the real Pearl Harbor")

...it was murder...

France's colonial past gives you little right to use this word

...an unprovoked attack on the forces of an ally without a declaration of war. The French told them that they would never hand over their warships to the Germans....

There was clear advanced warning

France's supine nature against Germany is more than enough provocation - and how can the word of Vichy be trusted ? If it could happily handed over its own people (French Jews) the the Nazis, why wouldn't it hand over a few ships ?

...the British have no right to tell them what to do...

Britain was at war with Germany...the Vichy government was a collaborator to the Nazis...of course Britain had the right to tell the French not to support the Nazis !

...France held a massive funeral for 1090 sailors of the Bretagne and 210 crew of the Dunkerque who had been killed in the massacre...

France / Vichy should have listened to what the British told them then

...the British abject retreat to Dunkirk, when you all expeditiously evacuated the place as soon as you started to get a glimpse of the German mechanical superiority...

Rather planned a retreat when the full nature of French moral inferiority was made clear. France would NOT fight to defend France, why should Britain ?

...abandoning all military equipment behind you...

Britain had factories run by British people...

...and without any consultation with your “ally”, while the French army lost 110,000 men (3000 per day!), because it was protecting your retreat to your precious island.

And no French soldiers climbed aboard British ships and boats ?

The same France that was about to CAPITULATE ?

pugsville · Dec 24, 2014

Your math is wrong 26th may to 4 june 9 days (* 3000 = 36,000) will short of 110,000.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk]Battle of Dunkirk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
gives 11,000 Allied dead (some were british)

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France]Battle of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
total allied casualties 360,000

110,000 FRENCH casualties for covering the retreat is obviously wrong.

The Defeat in the Battle of France was overwhelmingly down to bad French planning and organization whatever the BEF chose to do it could not overcome the situation which was much much more of the French making, and cut off (but the breakthrough French line, with no strategic reserve to help get it out) evacuation was the only option. Yes the French (and Belgians till they surrendered) did by valuable time for the British evacuation, and do not forget about 1/3 of the troops evacuated were not British.

While the French Navy did prove fairly reliable the Vichy Government was not.

Poly · Dec 24, 2014

SimpleThunder said:
There is no excuse.

And if the British had not attacked the French fleet, would there have been an excuse if the French had handed over their ships to the Germans ?

SimpleThunder · Dec 24, 2014

Poly said:
snip

You don't open fire on your allies, period. But not only did they open fire. They -massacred- the men on those boats whilst they were defenseless. They might aswell have put them all up against the wall.
Death by firing squad is a lot less gruesome than what these men had to go through.

What I find even more questionable about this whole ordeal;
The British were afraid that the French fleet would fall into German hands, yet there they were. In a position to inflict a massacre upon it and it's men. If the French ships were that valuable, why not make an attempt to seize them?

The British wanted to drag the U.S.A. into the war and the U.S.A. wouldn't join as long as the British and the French could still combine their navies and keep the Germans at bay. Now there was no more French navy.

SimpleThunder · Dec 24, 2014

Poly said:
And if the British had not attacked the French fleet, would there have been an excuse if the French had handed over their ships to the Germans ?

They wouldn't have. Later the French proved to be true to their word and never turned over their ships to the Germans.

pugsville · Dec 24, 2014

The French were no longer allies the moment they surrendered. To disribe the French as allies is factually wrong.

The British did seize those ships that were at all likely to be. The British did give the French Ships a range of choices. Churchill believed it was necessary.

SimpleThunder · Dec 24, 2014

pugsville said:
The French were no longer allies the moment they surrendered.

That's disgusting.

The French should've gone by those sorts of sentiments when they defended the British retreat from Dunkerque.

Search

Search

Operation Catapult: Britain's only option or a bloody betrayal?

Pauke! Pauke!

Isoroku295

SimpleThunder

Isoroku295

Kevinmeath

pugsville

Kevinmeath

Jaquet

Kevinmeath

Lawnmowerman

SimpleThunder

GogLais

SimpleThunder

Poly

pugsville

Poly

SimpleThunder

SimpleThunder

pugsville

SimpleThunder

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions