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

Jan 2015
79
Gloucestershire, UK
To be honest, the more I have read about Mehr el Kebir over the past few days the more I am convinced that Churchill was right. He gave fair warning to the French Government, he rightly judged Lavalle to be a a Quisling, he made a generous offer to the French Government and to the local commanders regarding the safe disposition of the French Fleet. All these were rebuffed, and he had the guts to make the right, although tough decision.

No one wanted to see the French sailors killed, but the fault lies with Lavalle and Darlan more than Churchill, Sommerville or Cunningham.

de Gaule did right thing and kept fighting. Darlan did the wrong.

However, just let me say that I have found this a very interesting thread and why I really like Historum. Thanks to all sides for their interesting and provocative posts. Very enjoyable.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,953
Spain
To be honest, the more I have read about Mehr el Kebir over the past few days the more I am convinced that Churchill was right. He gave fair warning to the French Government, he rightly judged Lavalle to be a a Quisling, he made a generous offer to the French Government and to the local commanders regarding the safe disposition of the French Fleet. All these were rebuffed, and he had the guts to make the right, although tough decision..
Well, but the thread is about Catapult was or not a "only option" or a "Bloddy Betrayal"... I think Churchill thought he was doing the right for his country.. as Tojo in Pearl Harbour. And I wrote, Churchill was a courage man and never hesitated... but in Catapult he was not a gentleman

but the fault lies with Lavalle and Darlan more than Churchill, Sommerville or Cunningham.
I am afraid nor Lavalle or Dalan attacked the British Fleet in Malta.. I think...

de Gaule did right thing and kept fighting. Darlan did the wrong.
I think as you, but De Gaulle and Darlan did what they thought it was the right.

However, just let me say that I have found this a very interesting thread and why I really like Historum. Thanks to all sides for their interesting and provocative posts. Very enjoyable.
Me too, A bientot!
 
Well, but the thread is about Catapult was or not a "only option" or a "Bloddy Betrayal"... I think Churchill thought he was doing the right for his country.. as Tojo in Pearl Harbour. And I wrote, Churchill was a courage man and never hesitated... but in Catapult he was not a gentleman
are you really comparing this event to the attack on pearl harbour :zany:. the attack on pearl harbour was a surprise attack (unless you believe the conspiracy theories) that started a war whilst the French in this situation where given an ultimatum "Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German hands" the French knew what could happen if they didnt agree to the terms. the situation could have been handled better by both sides but this situation is nothing like pearl harbour.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,953
Spain
are you really comparing this event to the attack on pearl harbour :zany:. the attack on pearl harbour was a surprise attack (unless you believe the conspiracy theories) that started a war whilst the French in this situation where given an ultimatum "Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German hands" the French knew what could happen if they didnt agree to the terms. the situation could have been handled better by both sides but this situation is nothing like pearl harbour.

Wel, I was comparing both Churchill and Tojo wanted the best for their countries.. and both men attacked without declaration of war.
You say in Mers-el-Kebir was given a ultimatum (not to the French government).. in Pearl Harbour also.. In fact, It was supposed the attack begun after the Japanese embassy in Washington had sent the note to the US government... but the embassy was late because of they had to decipher and translate the note.
Nothing is 100% similar but I can see some parallels.
 

Davidius

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
4,923
Pillium
No. The word Pérfida Albion (Perfidious Albion) was written by first time by Ximénez in 18th Century althought It is truth the treacherous attack as typically British feature is, as you well said, before (16th Century).
You describe an entire nation as treacherous but say that this is not perjorative?
As English is clearly not your first language I will consider this ignorance due to misunderstanding rather than the bigotry that it sounds like.

Britains enemies having a negative view does not make that view objective on account of its ubiquity. Countries always seek to diminish the character of their enemies. Lots of countries referring to Britain as 'perfidious' does not make it true, it just indicates that Britain has had a lot of enemies in the past and engendered dislike in them due to her success in war..

An ultimatum (in time of Peace and against neutral countries, only It can be given by the Government, not by an admiral)..So, tomorrow, can a Londinian Police man to send a ultimatum to Russia? :eek: Maybe a teacher in Manchester?
No, the Ultimatum only the State, the Government can send in Peace time as It was France in july 1940.
So now you are disagreeing with dictionary definitions in a foreign language ? It's you vs the rest of the world on that score I'm afraid.

Ultimata (plural) may be given between individuals or organisations of any size, even from an individual to an entire country or vice versa.

With apologies, but you have not said anything about Spain that has a minimum of historical accuracy and yes .
You have been challenged accurately several times now. You may be choosing to ignore or disagree with those statements but that just reflects poorly on you.
Not liking what is said about your country doesn't make it untrue.

.. but not an act of betrayal attack in war ... just had to be indicated when Spain treacherously attacked a country ... there is no such case. It would be dishonorable and Spain (like Austria) always took great care of their honor.
So how about the Inca and Aztecs? Massacre, theft, rape and extortion with no declaration of war and full royal assent. If you consider that honourable then I wouldn't want to witness anything you considered dishonourable.

Earl of Rochester, Davidious, Flying Scott... I hope you considered answered.
Not even a little bit.
 
Last edited:
Wel, I was comparing both Churchill and Tojo wanted the best for their countries.. and both men attacked without declaration of war.
You say in Mers-el-Kebir was given a ultimatum (not to the French government).. in Pearl Harbour also.. In fact, It was supposed the attack begun after the Japanese embassy in Washington had sent the note to the US government... but the embassy was late because of they had to decipher and translate the note.
Nothing is 100% similar but I can see some parallels.
Vicky France was a German puppet state which made them Britains enemy an ultimatum does not have to be given to a government both myself and others have given you the definition of the word an ultimatum can be given to the government but it does not have to be given to a government it can be given to anyone.
 

Mangekyou

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
7,884
UK
Yes,I read and It is very interesting but I don´t agreed.
That is your prerogative.

No. The word Pérfida Albion (Perfidious Albion) was written by first time by Ximénez in 18th Century althought It is truth the treacherous attack as typically British feature is, as you well said, before (16th Century). In fact, It was said that time, the "treacherous attack" is in "British Nature" (Maybe today they would say DNA issue) and they were vikings who introduced the treacherous attack on the English blood. (It is not my opinion.. It is the opinion who wrote in 16th and 17th Centuries)... and I think they had their reasons...I have a long list about treacherous attacks from 16th century to Mers-el-Kebir in 1940. I don´t judge them. Each country have their own values and as you well said...in your society... "Honor is Rubbish". And you are right: The Treacherous attack is very profitable. In this issue, + 1 for your country.
You keep reiterating this issue, and you keep calling Britain treacherous and now bring DNA into the question. That is a very dangerous line of inquiry and a prime example of being pejorative. I have replied to you on more than one occasion now that that term was used by enemies of Britain or countries not on goo terms with Britain, and you are now associating with DNA. That is definitely your opinion and it is anglophobic.


I think so.. An ultimatum (in time of Peace and against neutral countries, only It can be given by the Government, not by an admiral)..So, tomorrow, can a Londinian Police man to send a ultimatum to Russia? :eek: Maybe a teacher in Manchester?
No, the Ultimatum only the State, the Government can send in Peace time as It was France in july 1940
No, you are wrong, as you have been shown, but, let me agree with you, just for the sake of international politics. I have already provided sources to show that the ultimatum was forwarded to the Vichy government, the information was not communicated to the Vichy government 100% and because of this [or maybe not, I don't know] the Vichy government told the admiral to stand or escape. Therefore, the government of Vichy was involved in the process, whether the ultimatum was delivered directly to them or not.

Because they were not in War against France (and the only France was Vichy). The Norgewian government was evacuated to Britain.. the French no... by the way, NOBODY voted de Gaulle in 1940... NOBODY. The legal French Government signatured the Peace with Axis Powers. So unhappy and so legal.
That is irrelevant, as far as Britain was concerned, the Free French were their allies. Once the Vichy had made the armistice with the Nazis, then that stopped Vichy France being allies of Britain. Therefore, there was no treachery. Ruthlessness, yes, treachery and cowardice, no.

Vichy was never in War against Britain, USSR, USA and never joined the Axis Alliance. After Mers-el-Kebir, Vichy collaborated... unworthy? Yes, but understandable.. What for me it´s impossible to understand It is why France didn´t declare war on Britain in july 1940.
So for you, it was understandable that they collaborated in mass murder alongside Nazi Germany? No offence, but you have a warped sense of the word honour. You still don't understand that as a wartime leader, honour is not at the forefront of a thinking mind and decisions to save one's country is, and considering all this talk of treachery and cowardice, do think about the fact that Britain was instrumental in the liberation of Spain during the Napoleonic wars and do think about the duplicity shown by some [not all, because some showed tremendous bravery and co-operation] of the Spanish commanders.

Sorry, I don´t distinguish. Vichy was France. Vichy was the majority in French Government, French Political class, French armies, navies, Air forcer, Seaborne dominions and population... De Gallue was not any legal government. A general...
Yes you did, in a previous post.

What Hitler thought.. it is subjective. Catapult is objective. Also Hitler thought Spain joined Axis... and never happened.
Yes, we have no sources and no facts prove otherwise.
You have already been provided a source by EoR showing that Spain did in fact send volunteer soldiers to support the Nazis, with the knowledge and support of their leader, Franco. Would you like to again suggest there is no evidence?

If you want.. I can speak about Spain, point by point.. but It is going to be very long...and I don´t thinks It is not related to this topic.
Blue Division is not any treacherous attack. Germany treacherous attacked june 22, 1941. The Spanish volunteer Force arrived to Russia in October 1941. Russians had been in Spain...and Spain returned the visit...
With apologies, but you have not said anything about Spain that has a minimum of historical accuracy and yes .. the issue of Rizal was embarrassing (like the US when they murdered Sacco and Vanzetti, for example or Britain and the Maguire Seven or the Guilford Four and the evidences infamous manipulation by the United Kingdom and their Court..) .. but not an act of betrayal attack in war ... just had to be indicated when Spain treacherously attacked a country ... there is no such case. It would be dishonorable and Spain (like Austria) always took great care of their honor.
Rizal was unworthy but not an treacherous act...We can compare Rizal and Maguire Seven.. but not Rizal and Mers-el-Kebir... In the history of Spain there is not any Mers-el-Kebir...not better or worse but different concept about Honor... (the only stain of dishonor was after the Battle of Baylen, the only case I know.. because the Junta didn´t recognized the Capitulation text).
There is a lot of nonsense in this post, an if you want to turn your head from or ignore Spanish atrocities and duplicity, that is your own issue and confirms how petty and weak your argument has been once it has been deconstructed.

As for treachery, yes. The Spanish lured Atahualpa to a meeting and ended up firing and killing his troops, and then used him as a puppet before killing him and conquering his nation, and got royal decrees to conquer South American countries without declaration.
 
Mar 2014
6,532
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
To be honest, the more I have read about Mehr el Kebir over the past few days the more I am convinced that Churchill was right. He gave fair warning to the French Government, he rightly judged Lavalle to be a a Quisling, he made a generous offer to the French Government and to the local commanders regarding the safe disposition of the French Fleet.
His "offer" was not substantially different than the agreement already in place with the Germans, the only difference being where those ships would be disarmed. Where's the incentive to violate the terms of the armistice and accept it at the point of a gun?
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,953
Spain
You describe an entire nation as treacherous but say that this is not perjorative?
No, I describe the British attacks from 16th Century to Mers-el-Kebir... I don´t try and being perjorative. It is more. From your point of views not even are treacherous but glorious attacks.. different values and I respect your values although I don´t share.

Lots of countries referring to Britain as 'perfidious' does not make it true, it just indicates that Britain has had a lot of enemies in the past and engendered dislike in them due to her success in war..
"Perfidious" came from the attacks without war... nobody use the name "perfidious" with other countries... Why?

So how about the Inca and Aztecs? Massacre, theft, rape and extortion with no declaration of war and full royal assent. If you consider that honourable then I wouldn't want to witness anything you considered dishonourable.
Do you know anything about Aztecs? I don´t think so... Aztecs declared war on Cortes...by other side they were not Christian.. about rape etc pure invention from yourself or any anglosaxon writer.

Mangekyou

You keep reiterating this issue, and you keep calling Britain treacherous and now bring DNA into the question. That is a very dangerous line of inquiry and a prime example of being pejorative. I have replied to you on more than one occasion now that that term was used by enemies of Britain or countries not on goo terms with Britain, and you are now associating with DNA. That is definitely your opinion and it is anglophobic.
No, it is not anglophobic. I describe a fact. The name Pérfida Albión is a 18th Century expression minted by writer Agustín Luis María de Ximenes (1726 - 1817) in his poem L´ere des Français. Others thinks came from Bossuet in 17th Century, and others think the name Perfidous Albion was invented in 13th Century. About the origin of the "Perfidious" some writers thought it came from Viking origin and others thought It was not Viking but own British.. I don´t take part because I don´t know.

I have already provided sources to show that the ultimatum was forwarded to the Vichy government,
If Britain had sent an ultimatum to the government, the issue would be very different.


t was understandable that they collaborated in mass murder alongside Nazi Germany?
In 1940 the mass murder hadn´t begun in France... and France had been attacked by England.. yes, after Mers-el-Kebir, France had to join Axis.


You have already been provided a source by EoR showing that Spain did in fact send volunteer soldiers to support the Nazis, with the knowledge and support of their leader, Franco. Would you like to again suggest there is no evidence?
Show in this forum the date Spain joined Axis.. oh wait.. that never joined... Spain sent volunteer to Russia because soviets had been in Spain before... but Spain was never part of the Axis. Finland yes. Spain not.

As for treachery, yes. The Spanish lured Atahualpa to a meeting and ended up firing and killing his troops, and then used him as a puppet before killing him and conquering his nation, and got royal decrees to conquer South American countries without declaration.
This is your poor argument? Atahualpa? :) Any attack against France, Britain, Denmark, German States, Savoy....
Yes, I welcome you recognize that Spain never treacherously attacked any Christian country and you must to speak about Pizarro...
If I write here the list of British betrayal in colonial... I am not going to end in months... I wan you give me a list with Spanish Attack against Countries... European Countries, for example...as:
1.- Mers-el-Kebir, 1940
2.- Navarino, 1827
3.- Copenhague 1807
4.- Santa María, 1804
5.- Copenhague 1801
6.- Passaro, 1718

All of them treacherously attacks without war. Have you got a list as that? For sure not.

The issue makes no sense. For you, Mers-el-Kebir is a great British feat and a right option.. ok.. for me it is It is an unworthy, shameful, treacherous attack. Ok. Whe have different point of view. The same opinion I have about Japanese in Pearl Harbour or Port Arthur. We are not goint to change our minds.
I think different than you, but I like to read you. Regards and until next argument in another thread. Regards.
 
"Perfidious" came from the attacks without war... nobody use the name "perfidious" with other countries... Why?
that word can describe any countries actions (even spains at some point) it does not simply relate to attacking countries without a DOW.
perfidious
deliberately faithless; treacherous; deceitful:
 

Similar History Discussions