Were there any British casualties? I think the article should say either way. -- dandelions, not logged in
re: British Casualties
From all accounts I have read, it appears there were no British casualties.
At least two sailors on HMS Hood were injured by French shell fragments, so there were casualties on the RN side, but only minor ones.
Update on the air combat that occurred on the 3rd: French reports state that two Skuas went down in the action, the first after apparent accidental loss of control while trying to follow sous-lieutenant Boudier's H-75. Then, sergent-chef Legrand claimed one Skua shot down. According to Ehrengardt & Shores' book, the first Skua is the real British loss (Petty Officer Riddler / Naval Airman Chatterley), while Legrand's claim (identified as crewed by Sub-Lieutenant Brokensha / Leading Airman Costan) is simply erroneous. So, we cannot write as a fact that "one H-75 shot down one Skua". PpPachy 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the article on Vichy France: The Third Republic was voted out of existence by a majority of the French National Assembly on 10 July 1940 by 468 votes to 80 and 20 abstentions. (...) The Vichy regime was established the following day, with Pétain as head of state, with the whole powers (Constitutive, Legislative, Executive and Judicial) in his hand. Yes, Pétain was already in office on July 3rd, but he was - theoretically - still accountable. I think the article should therefore not mention the Vichy regime except in a paragraph describing the distant consequences of the attack. PpPachy 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
it's obvious though that this action was due to the political influence of the vichy, not that of the third republic or the french resistence fighters. Therefore, this military action was taken against the vichy french, and thus should be noted as a combatant.
France and Britain were still allies at the time. 193.132.242.1 ( talk) 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I dispute the comment in the battlebox that "Vichy France is driven into the Axis camp". Vichy forces stayed neutral unless attacked. Axis forces did not get to use Vichy territory, indeed, they resisted Japanese occupation of Indochina and considered German occupation of Vichy territory as an abrogation of the armistice: Vichy forces then rejoined the Allies. The French Fleet stayed out of action and took decisive action to avoid use by Germany. All-in-all, they stayed aloof, despite Mers-el-Kebir and the resultant ill-feeling. Folks at 137 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
All the same, the relative ease of capture of the French ships at port reinforced Churchill's fear that the Nazis could do the same. This is not factual, unless there is a written account of Churchill saying so, and is highly disputable: the decision to attack Mers el-Kébir was taken long before the ships in England were captured. And of course there were no Germans in Mers el-Kébir, or elsewhere in North Africa for that matter, to capture the ships! PpPachy 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This comment is not correct. The decision to 'attack' Mers el-Kebir was not taken until the ultimatum had expired, which of course was after the French ships in British ports had been seized. As for the statement that there were no Germans in North Africa, the provisional treaty between France and Germany provided for French ships to be placed under German supervision. 86.157.95.203 ( talk) 10:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested to know if the British approach was influenced by their history with regard to Denmark and the Danish Fleet in the Napoleonic wars. There we took rather extreme action to prevent a fleet falling into the hands of Napoleon... given that this would have been extremely well known to the Admirals in charge it must have had some infulence in their thinking. Duncan 11:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The French Navy of the 1930s was a different issue. Although they were indecisive, they were playing ball with the Germans. -- Stat-ist-ikk ( talk) 13:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The book, "Churchill's Bodyguard", by Tom Hickman, gives the refusal of the Vichy government to honour the armistice agreement by handing interned German airman shot down by the RAF to Britain as a reason why Churchill should be more worried about the possibility of French warships falling into German hands:
'A week later Churchill was back in the House of Commons to announce that British warships had shelled the main French fleet at Mers el Kebir near Oran in Algeria. As part of the armistice agreement, the French should have handed over to the British 400 interned German pilots shot down by the RAF; the Pétain government, however, had refused to honour this (wringing from Churchill the growled comment: "Then we will have to shoot them down again"). Dreading the French navy falling into German hands, Churchill had ordered the many French ships already in British ports (like Alexandria) to be seized, and sent Admiral Somerville's naval force, which was in the Mediterranean, to offer Vice-Admiral Gensoul in Algeria four options: sail to Britain and fight; hand over to the British navy; sail to a French West Indies port and accept demilitarisation; or scuttle his vessels in Mers el Kebir harbour. Loyal to Pétain's Vichy government, Gensoul refused all options. Somerville launched an attack; two cruisers were sunk, two badly damaged and 1,300 sailors killed.' -- ZScarpia 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
According to what I have read elsewhere, one of the options was that the French sink their ships there and then. This does not appear in the ultimatum as given in the article. Has this 4th option been omitted in error? Did the ultimatum really include this 4th option? Mikeo1938
OK all noted. Couldn't see for looking! VMT. Mikeo38
The following passage does not maintain a NPOV: "As negotiations dragged on, it became clear that both sides were unlikely to give way, with the French commander being loath to agree to demands made under the threat of British aggression". Is it the case that the French commander perceived the ultimatum as aggression? If so, the article should say so. However, if it were simply the case that the French did not wish to jeopardise the Armistice by complying with any part of the ultimatum, and there exists no evidence that the French felt loath to agree to British demands, then this passage should be removed or edited. Richardhearnden ( talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. Richardhearnden ( talk) 20:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This obviously reflects the population of the English language wikipedia, but the article had a flagrant pro-British bias. It had effectively forgotten to mention that the British Navy sank an unsuspecting ally fleet. I have attempted to make it more neutral, but would welcome some assistance. 193.132.242.1 ( talk) 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
French Marine Minister Admiral Darlan never received the full text of the British ultimatum from Admiral Gensoul, most significantly with regards to the option of removing the fleet to American waters, an option which formed part of the orders, given to Gensoul by Darlan, to be followed should a foreign power attempt to seize the ships under his command.
The article should include detail about the French revenge bombing of Gibraltar which is touched on in the article Military history of Gibraltar during World War II. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 12:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This time I've spotted something which definitely isn't touched on in the article. Site http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/churchillsinkingfrenchfleet.php mentions that Churchill gave the order to attack the French fleet when orders to send reinforcements to Oran were intercepted:
-- ZScarpia ( talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It was an unprovoked attack on non-belligerent ships 68.183.223.239 ( talk) 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If this was a war crime then Nuremburg would still be going on today as most of the things that happened in WW2 would have been classed a crime. If Britain was so anti France why allow the Free French into Britain and aid De Gaulle who was less than pro British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.241 ( talk) 10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It was classified as an act of war but the resentment, especially in the French navy, is still very strong. In my mind it is obvious that the French sailors would never accept to see their ships fly the British flag, unless of course it had been captured, as Duguay-Trouin was. I believe this was a blunder by the British command, who should have at least mobilized someone like De Gaulle to Parley with the French commander. -- Nikoniste ( talk) 05:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a great quote in Ciano's diaries about how "the fighting spirit of british piracy is alive and well" and which made the Axis powers realise the english were not about just to give up and roll over. Psychologically significant, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.82.57.134 ( talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The source given for this comment seems unrealiable as opposed to this source [4], ive therefore added citation with a view to removal of this phrase and a ``assurance`` whether or not even true was worthless in any case and should be reflected as .-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 14:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 15:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The sources clearly state before Mers El Kebir, they were not allies, as from when France ceased fighting, and i think ive provided enough to amend this point. Assurances, Gurantees in my view mean the same thing in this context. But ill roll with your point, but i therefore still think the point should be made from Both sides. i.e The French gave assurances and the British could not believe/accept them etc...-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 16:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Rockybiggs, thinking back to the "assurance vs guarantees" point, we might have a similar problem about the notion of alliance. From what you write, I gather that you understand "ally" as "fighting together" (you would not say that the USA and UK were allies in 1940, am I correct?); on the other hand, I understand "ally" as "part of a legal contract between two nations" (and since nothing indicates that such a contract was broken before the 3rd of July 1940, I regard France and the UK as allies at this point even though France had signed armistices with Italy and Germany).
Maybe we could find a wording that would satisfy everybody by giving a few more details. I would suggest qualifying France of "defeated ally" or "powerless ally", but of course I am starting from the alliance-as-legal-contract point of view. Is there a formulation that springs to your mind? Rama ( talk) 08:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
How about this `This event shocked the world, as Britain had attacked and destroyed the French fleet, made even more tragic as they had been fighting side by side as allies against Germany a few weeks before.`-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 09:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Changes to opening paragraph which are mainly grammatical, gave context to "French assurances" ie those give by Admiral Darlan to Churchill. Removed "This event shocked the world" - as unencylopedic, vague, unsourced, origninal research - who is "the world" in this context? Was every human being on the face of the planet shocked? 86.164.40.232 ( talk) 23:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The Harold Nicholson link goes to a gentleman born in 1950, after the attack occurred.
The correct Nicolson is Harold Nicolson (no H in the last name) who indeed in his diary for July 4, 1940 wrote "The House is ... fortified by Winston's speech." (HN, The War Years: Diaries and Letters 1939-1945, Atheneum, 1967, p. 100) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.229 ( talk) 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a programme on this subject on Channel 4 (UK TV) this week (25 May 2009). It left little doubt that the decision to destroy the French fleet was inevitable. The French commander was given ample opportunity to avoid the British attack, but defied the British ultimatum by calling his men to action stations and calling for reinforcements. Of course, he was quite entitled to do so, but equally the British were entitled to take his actions as a sign that the French intended to fight. And in fact the French response to the ultimatum was explicitly that they would respond to force with force. Incidentally, many of the French sailors were on shore when the British fleet arrived, but were called back on board to prepare for action. This must have increased the casualties greatly. The programme also said a lot about Admiral Darlan, and left the impression that he was a proud and honourable man who would have stuck by his personal assurance that French ships would not fall into German hands. And we know what happened at Toulon. But of course it would be puerile to expect the British to rely on the word of one French officer in taking a decision which might mean the difference between survival and defeat. There was no guarantee that Darlan would stay in control. The new (collaborationist) French Government might replace him, or he might be killed. Even if he stayed in command, there was no guarantee that his orders would be obeyed, or that the Germans would not seize the French ships by force. The Germans themselves still had a powerful navy (Bismarck, etc) which sank the British battleship Hood not long afterwards. 86.157.95.203 ( talk) 11:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(1) "The attack was no more inevitable than that at Alexandria, that was averted; the French commander at Alexandria was more flexible," This comment seems to overlook the fact that Alexandria was under British control, and the British knew the French fleet could not escape. At Mers-el-Kebir this was not the case, and one major French ship did manage to slip away despite the British blockade. (2) "You discourse features the notion that one's willingless to defend himself is attacked justifies agression against him, which just plain baffles me." For the British, the question was whether they could be sure the French would not let the Germans take control of their fleet. Since the Germans (obviously) could not be trusted to adhere to the terms of any peace treaty with France, the only way the British could be assured of this was for the French to take the fleet immediately out of any danger of falling to the Germans, either by scuttling it or in some other way. France had already broken the terms of its alliance with Britain, by entering unilateral negotiations with Germany, and the French response to the ultimatum at Mers-el-Kebir gave no grounds for confidence about French intentions. I didn't actually say the British action was 'justified', but I don't see what alternative they had. Simply trusting the French not to give in to the Germans was not a realistic option. Letting the fleet sail to US waters under British escort would have been more reasonable, but apparently the French would not accept this, and letting them leave without escort would just be another form of trusting the French, which I have already pointed out was not an option. What part of 'not trusting the French' is difficult to understand? I am not suggesting that the British are any more trustworthy, just that when national survival is at stake no country can afford to trust any other. (3) "How Bismarck has anything to do with anything here is beyond me. The French ships were in the Mediterranean, could never have crossed Gibraltar, and thus would have been unable to join with the large German units. " This seems to assume that German naval forces could not have entered the Mediterranean. Why not? They managed to slip through the English Channel at least once, so why not the Straits of Gibraltar? And it could not be assumed that Britain would keep control of Gibraltar itself. Franco might well have joined the Axis if he had been sure that Britain was on the verge of defeat. And if a powerful German force had entered the Mediterranean, a combined German-Italian-French fleet would probably have obtained complete control. 86.157.95.203 ( talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting points raised above, regarding this regrettable incident. Re the question of German heavy units in the Med: would the KM have had a need to consider so deploying if they could have added the French units to the Italian force there? I think not. Indeed, the presence (real or potential) of German capital ships in the Atlantic prevented the RN from diverting more forces to either the Med or Pacific. 86.160.63.63 ( talk) 03:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Alister
Sorry, I perhaps didn't express myself very well: I was stating, in response to a post above, that the addition of the French forces alone to the Italian fleet would have been sufficient to severly stretch the RN, ie the KM question is a moot point. (I have never seen it stated that the KM did consider sending heavy units to the Med, as one of the advantages of Italy entering the war was that they should shoulder that responsibility.) As such, the action taken by the RN may be seen as a prudent, although very unfortunate, precaution. 86.160.63.63 ( talk) 13:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Alister
Does anyone know a reference for the actual text of the ultimatum? Most of it sounds authentic, but there is one phrase towards the end: 'I have the orders from His Majesty's Government' that doesn't read as if it was written by a natural English-speaker. Similarly, some of the punctuation seems a little odd.
Was the ultimatum delivered in French (unlikely, I suspect) or English?
Nsorelli ( talk) 09:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The ultimatum was sent by Churchill himself. As First Lord of the Admiralty (later Prime Minister) Churchill out ranked every French Admiral. They probably should have stood at attention and saluted the signal. The rank of the messenger boy is unimportant. Andrew Swallow ( talk) 22:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The opening paragraph says there were 1,297 French casualties, but the table at the end shows there were 1,300. Am I missing something, or is there an error here? - 75.82.100.57 ( talk) 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is a citation-required flag on the statement that Gensoul did not transmit the American waters option to Darlan. In fact, this statement is covered by the source given at the end of the section, Mers-el-Kebir: A Battle Between Friends by Irwin J. Kappes:
I suspect that, originally, the source given at the end of the section was supposed to cover the whole section, but, with the insertion of source 6, it now looks as though it only covers the last sentence. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 13:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't responsible for the changing the Result from "British victory, disabling of the French fleet" to "Disabling of the French fleet", but I support it. Clearly, short of the ships falling into Axis hands or being used to support the Axis, the battle was not the desired outcome and so was a dubious kind of "victory". -- ZScarpia ( talk) 14:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
you can probably add the operation torch's operation reservist and operation terminal. there was a vichy propaganda poster depicting a sailor with " don't forget oran!" (mers el kebir is part of the oran province) Cliché Online ( talk) 04:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Did the british ever paid reparations to post-1945 France for the sunken ships and lost lives? 91.82.167.232 ( talk) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
From Naval warfare: an international encyclopedia, editor Spencer C. Tucker , ISBN 1-57607-219-3 (hardcover), ABC-CLIO, Inc., Santa Barbara, California, 2002:
British plan to immobilize or, if necessary, destroy French naval forces to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Germans. France’s armistice with Germany in June 1940 caused great concern in London. The armistice stipulated that the Vichy government would not surrender to Germany any naval units still in French-controlled ports. London feared precisely that eventuality. Consequently, Prime Minister Winston Churchill decided to seize or disable any units of the French navy within reach. The date chosen for Operation catapult was 3 July.
In 1940 France possessed a formidable navy, much of it deployed beyond the principal base of Toulon. At Portsmouth and Plymouth were two battleships, four light cruisers, eight destroyers, several submarines, and some 200 smaller vessels. At Alexandria was a battleship, three modern 8-inch gun cruisers, one older cruiser, and numerous smaller ships. In the West Indies the French had an aircraft carrier and two light cruisers. French naval units in North and West Africa, however, caused the greatest alarm. At Casablanca was the uncompleted battleship Jean Bart. The harbor at Algiers held seven cruisers, and sheltered at Oran and Mers-el-Kebir were the modern battle cruisers Strasbourg and Dunkerque, the older battleships Bretagne and Provence, the seaplane carrier Commandant Teste, and six large destroyers. Finally, at Dakar in West Africa the new battleship Richelieu had reached preliminary operational readiness. Churchill was determined that none of these ships would fall into German or Italian hands.
On 3 July French ships in Great Britain were seized, with two British and one French sailor killed. At Alexandria a negotiated settlement resulted in the internment of the French squadron and repatriation of some crews. In the West Indies protracted three-way talks among French, British, and American authorities led to the internment of the French vessels at Martinique.
In Algeria and at Dakar, however, serious fighting occurred. After the French commander at Mers-el-Kebir refused British terms, his ships were attacked by the battleships Valiant and Resolution and the battle cruiser Hood. Largely ineffective aerial torpedo attacks followed from the aircraft carrier Ark Royal. Taking several direct hits from 15-inch shells, the Bretagne blew up, capsized, and sank. She lost more than a thousand officers and men. The Provence, badly damaged, beached herself. Trying to escape, the Dunkerque ran aground. Of the major French ships, only the cruisers at Algiers broke out to Toulon, as did the battle cruiser Strasbourg and the Commandant Teste (on 5 July) from Mers-el-Kebir. The Strasbourg was, however, torpedoed and damaged by Royal Navy aircraft. On 8 July the Richelieu at Dakar was attacked and damaged by torpedo bombers flying off the Hermes as well as by a Royal Navy motorboat.
Through Operation catapult the Royal Navy largely accomplished its mission of eliminating French naval strength. Much bitterness resulted, however. The Vichy government broke diplomatic relations with Great Britain. Only the later German seizure of unoccupied France in November 1942 allowed for a formal reconciliation between the erstwhile (and subsequent) allies.
The role of the French Navy in World War II was a minor one in terms of combat but extremely significant in terms of diplomacy and balance-of-power considerations. The fleet represented a potential bargaining chip for the Vichy regime, which retained control of the unoccupied southeastern third of metropolitan France until November 1942. Had Germany secured control of the fleet after the defeat of France in June 1940, its surface strength, combined with that of Italy and covered by the German Air Force, might have rendered Britain vulnerable to invasion. Determined to remove this possibility, in July 1940 Winston Churchill ordered British naval commanders to seek out such units of the fleet that were readily accessible and demand that their commanders either join the British, be disarmed in neutral ports, or be destroyed. On 3 July 1940, British ships actually opened fire at Mers-el-Kebir in Algeria. The British sank the battleship Bretagne, new battle cruiser Dunkerque, and several destroyers. The Strasbourg got away. Some 1,300 French seamen died, and 350 were wounded. This led to much bitterness, which lingers today.
With the June 1940 defeat of France by Germany in World War II, Vichy leader Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain appointed Darlan to be his minister of the navy. Darlan assured British leaders that France would not allow Germany to acquire its fleet and issued secret orders for French ships to be scuttled should the Germans try to take them. Fearful that this promise would not be honored, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an effort to acquire the French fleet, which resulted in fighting and considerable loss of French life at Mers-el-Kebir in Algeria (3 July 1940). Already anti-British, Darlan believed Germany would win the war, and this event caused him to seek closer cooperation with Berlin.
←
ZScarpia 18:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The article text has been changed so that it now reads that the British were concerned about the seizure of the French fleet by the Germans rather than the transfer of the French fleet to the Germans. My understanding is that the British were worried about both possibilities. The concern about a transfer stemmed from a belief that the French government might use its fleet as a bargaining chip in order to obtain better terms from the Germans. ← ZScarpia 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If we know the names of Gensoul and Darlan, something seems strange to me. One was killed in his own office by a student running with a handgun of Spanish manufacture. How did that student get this far? Why would he even think he could get so far? Poor security standards? If so, why the lax security standards, 2.5 years after Operation Catapult? Gensoul lived to his early 90s, taking his opinions to his grave.
Can one judge the quality of the Vichy Navy of that day, by what the Commanders did later in life?-- 82.134.28.194 ( talk) 09:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The times of the opening and closing of the attack have just been shifted forward an hour. Does anyone know whether those times relate to UT (GMT) or something else? ← ZScarpia 19:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Something I think is worth investigating is the relative concern about the fleet at Mers-el-Kébir passing into Italian, rather than German, hands. The former is not currently mentioned in the article. It seems to me that the hostilities with Italy supply a possible reason why the French, in opposition to the British demands, would want their fleet to remain in the Mediterranean. ← ZScarpia 14:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (edited 20:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC))
Hello. Translated from Russian FA. Maxrossomachin ( talk) 19:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"The scuttling of the French Fleet at Toulon in November 1942 can be seen as the Vichy government's acceptance that the allies were now winning the war. This was not the case in June 1940"
Doesn't seem like a very neutral approach to me... The fact is that you can't know what would have happened. An article shouldn't take a quasi-affirmative position like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.231.133.165 ( talk) 10:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Darlan's message to Churchill in late 1942, claiming that the Vichy collaborationist navy had acted with honour, was obviously disingenuous. By November 1942, the RAF had won the Battle of Britain. The Royal Navy had sunk the Bismarck (and killed the Germans' favourite U-boat captain, Prien). The Soviet Union and the United States had entered the war on the Allied side. The RAF had put 1,000 bombers over Cologne. The Commonwealth Eighth Army had won at El Alamein. And the German Sixth Army was hopelessly mired at Stalingrad. The Allies were obviously going to win. In July 1940, the collabos of the French naval command thought the Nazis were going to win, and this dictated their actions. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A Royal Navy task force attacked the French fleet, after giving them a warning that they would do so. The French fleet was at anchor and had not been expecting an assault from the United Kingdom.
This sounds like a contradiction. Can you clarify?
Valetude (
talk) 11:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Did the Germans use captured French tanks against the British, Russians or Americans? Possibly with German crews? This is the same strategy as using French war ships with German crews against the British.
Knowing how ruthless the Nazis were, obtaining the ships would not be a problem - although the admirals may have died saying "No". Andrew Swallow ( talk) 16:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
If you look at wiki articles like this [9] you can see that the Germans used captured French equipment and farmed other items to their allies. Some of the detail is cited to RS. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That might be a distinction without a difference. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
London Review of Books - Charles Glass - Melancholy Actions,Vol. 31 No. 24, 17 December 2009, pages 16-18. ( full text at Charles Glass website) ← ZScarpia 17:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
At some stage the article will have to be amended to remove the inconsistency, which involves how the Vichy regime is defined, introduced by this edit: the article states in multiple places that France was being governed by the Vichy regime at the time of the Mers-el-Kébir attack (3 July 1940); the highlighted edit states that the Vichy regime didn't come into existence until a week after the attack. On one hand, France was being governed from Vichy with Philippe Pétain as President when the attack occurred; on the other, Pétain didn't receive full powers and the Third Republic wasn't officially wound up until 10 July 1940. ← ZScarpia 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
the dunkerque and strasbourg are generally referred to as battlecruisers
the tugboat is referred below as patrol boat Terre Neuve
the attack was made from NW (see the map in wikicommons) from a distance of about 15 km; therefore the bow-arranged guns of D/S could be readily brought in fire position and the distance was not an extreme range. the fire was indirect above the hills.
the above is sure. the following are my considerations (i.e. things that I have read in unremembered places and/or logical extensions of what I have read) that the author might check and eventually insert to make the text clearer.
the british admiral arrived in front (E) of MeK to show how powerful was his force; in this position the considerations on the french weakness apply. Then he moved NW, a position even more favorable because the hills N of the harbor made blind the french but not the english (the french fired on a moving target with at most the observation from the land batteries, the british on a target at known position with respect to the hill and guided from the air) and with less risk of hitting the town (the naval fire is more accurate in direction than in range)
pietro 151.29.249.152 ( talk) 10:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Cleaned up references and sfn'd citations, filled gaps and added some headers. Suggest not sufficient coverage for B2. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attack on Mers-el-Kébir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted a number of recent edits, the reasons being:
← ZScarpia 17:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
My rules trump nothing because WP:NEUTRAL doesn't apply, IMO. The French use separate terms for battleship (cuirassé) and battlecruiser (croiseurs de bataille) as do the Germans (Schlachtschiffen) and (Großer Kreuzer).-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Sturmvogel 66: Greetings, are you beginning a campaign to abolish small print? It's been in use for as long as I've been on Wiki. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
(Note: on 31 October, IP account 2A00:23C7:CF0E:7800:6CEA:C86D:36B7:B7D6 was blocked as a sock of banned editor HarveyCarter. WP:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter: "As of 2015 and 2016, HarveyCarter is using IP accounts and new accounts to start trolling-type discussions on talk pages of articles related to World War II, most commonly advancing pro-Axis viewpoints. He has also been trolling articles relating to the British Empire." ← ZScarpia 17:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC))
The attack on the neutral French fleet was not a battle. (
2A00:23C7:CF0E:7800:C851:67F:59F4:E198 (
talk) 12:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC))
Template:Infobox military conflict
result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
It was a military engagement; not necessarily a battle and the infobox is about conflict per se not the type. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources This might help. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Few people would call this a glorious or brave triumph, but the British had the upper hand in the tactical military engagement, and also achieved their overall larger objective of denying the use of the French ships to bolster German military strength, so I don't see how it could be called anything but a British victory...
AnonMoos (
talk) 12:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This conversation is a repeat of one held years ago ( see above). I think that the 'Result' field should be omitted. I doubt any sources refer to the battle as having resulted in a 'British victory'. As far as the French fleet having been sunk is concerned, as only some of the French ships were sunk, that is clearly not true. ← ZScarpia 17:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Something like that will attract OR criticism. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
OK lets put it like this, there is no evidence that the French would not surrender their fleet anyway, there is some evidence it hardened Vichy resolve to oppose the British (and maybe even give some help to the Germans), there is some evidence it increased US resolve to help the British. So there are debits and credits to the British with this. We are not expert enough to determine which is the greater, which is why we use RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The accompanying instructions for the 'result' parameter of the
Infobox military conflict template:
result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
← ZScarpia 11:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
(@
Keith-264:) As there have been a number of edits to the Result field in the infobox recently, we should probably try to figure out what the consensus position is. The field is optional. If it is included, the permitted entries are a binary choice between victory two one side or an inconclusive outcome. The impression I have is that sources do not treat the battle as one with a victory/defeat/draw outcome and therefore, if the field is included, whatever is entered will not have supporting source evidence and will therefore be a matter of opinion. As the field is optional, I therefore recommend that it is omitted. ←
ZScarpia 17:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If you haven't finished WP:dead horse perhaps you could list what your sources say? Keith-264 ( talk) 15:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Closing discussion which constitutes block evasion by User:HarveyCarter. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Where is the evidence this was a British victory? Hitler wanted to keep France neutral and not seize the fleet, despite Admiral Raeder's wishes. The French would have scuttled their fleet if the Axis had tried to seize it, as they did in November 1942. ( 86.160.157.11 ( talk) 12:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC))
|
Were there any British casualties? I think the article should say either way. -- dandelions, not logged in
re: British Casualties
From all accounts I have read, it appears there were no British casualties.
At least two sailors on HMS Hood were injured by French shell fragments, so there were casualties on the RN side, but only minor ones.
Update on the air combat that occurred on the 3rd: French reports state that two Skuas went down in the action, the first after apparent accidental loss of control while trying to follow sous-lieutenant Boudier's H-75. Then, sergent-chef Legrand claimed one Skua shot down. According to Ehrengardt & Shores' book, the first Skua is the real British loss (Petty Officer Riddler / Naval Airman Chatterley), while Legrand's claim (identified as crewed by Sub-Lieutenant Brokensha / Leading Airman Costan) is simply erroneous. So, we cannot write as a fact that "one H-75 shot down one Skua". PpPachy 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the article on Vichy France: The Third Republic was voted out of existence by a majority of the French National Assembly on 10 July 1940 by 468 votes to 80 and 20 abstentions. (...) The Vichy regime was established the following day, with Pétain as head of state, with the whole powers (Constitutive, Legislative, Executive and Judicial) in his hand. Yes, Pétain was already in office on July 3rd, but he was - theoretically - still accountable. I think the article should therefore not mention the Vichy regime except in a paragraph describing the distant consequences of the attack. PpPachy 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
it's obvious though that this action was due to the political influence of the vichy, not that of the third republic or the french resistence fighters. Therefore, this military action was taken against the vichy french, and thus should be noted as a combatant.
France and Britain were still allies at the time. 193.132.242.1 ( talk) 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I dispute the comment in the battlebox that "Vichy France is driven into the Axis camp". Vichy forces stayed neutral unless attacked. Axis forces did not get to use Vichy territory, indeed, they resisted Japanese occupation of Indochina and considered German occupation of Vichy territory as an abrogation of the armistice: Vichy forces then rejoined the Allies. The French Fleet stayed out of action and took decisive action to avoid use by Germany. All-in-all, they stayed aloof, despite Mers-el-Kebir and the resultant ill-feeling. Folks at 137 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
All the same, the relative ease of capture of the French ships at port reinforced Churchill's fear that the Nazis could do the same. This is not factual, unless there is a written account of Churchill saying so, and is highly disputable: the decision to attack Mers el-Kébir was taken long before the ships in England were captured. And of course there were no Germans in Mers el-Kébir, or elsewhere in North Africa for that matter, to capture the ships! PpPachy 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This comment is not correct. The decision to 'attack' Mers el-Kebir was not taken until the ultimatum had expired, which of course was after the French ships in British ports had been seized. As for the statement that there were no Germans in North Africa, the provisional treaty between France and Germany provided for French ships to be placed under German supervision. 86.157.95.203 ( talk) 10:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested to know if the British approach was influenced by their history with regard to Denmark and the Danish Fleet in the Napoleonic wars. There we took rather extreme action to prevent a fleet falling into the hands of Napoleon... given that this would have been extremely well known to the Admirals in charge it must have had some infulence in their thinking. Duncan 11:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The French Navy of the 1930s was a different issue. Although they were indecisive, they were playing ball with the Germans. -- Stat-ist-ikk ( talk) 13:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The book, "Churchill's Bodyguard", by Tom Hickman, gives the refusal of the Vichy government to honour the armistice agreement by handing interned German airman shot down by the RAF to Britain as a reason why Churchill should be more worried about the possibility of French warships falling into German hands:
'A week later Churchill was back in the House of Commons to announce that British warships had shelled the main French fleet at Mers el Kebir near Oran in Algeria. As part of the armistice agreement, the French should have handed over to the British 400 interned German pilots shot down by the RAF; the Pétain government, however, had refused to honour this (wringing from Churchill the growled comment: "Then we will have to shoot them down again"). Dreading the French navy falling into German hands, Churchill had ordered the many French ships already in British ports (like Alexandria) to be seized, and sent Admiral Somerville's naval force, which was in the Mediterranean, to offer Vice-Admiral Gensoul in Algeria four options: sail to Britain and fight; hand over to the British navy; sail to a French West Indies port and accept demilitarisation; or scuttle his vessels in Mers el Kebir harbour. Loyal to Pétain's Vichy government, Gensoul refused all options. Somerville launched an attack; two cruisers were sunk, two badly damaged and 1,300 sailors killed.' -- ZScarpia 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
According to what I have read elsewhere, one of the options was that the French sink their ships there and then. This does not appear in the ultimatum as given in the article. Has this 4th option been omitted in error? Did the ultimatum really include this 4th option? Mikeo1938
OK all noted. Couldn't see for looking! VMT. Mikeo38
The following passage does not maintain a NPOV: "As negotiations dragged on, it became clear that both sides were unlikely to give way, with the French commander being loath to agree to demands made under the threat of British aggression". Is it the case that the French commander perceived the ultimatum as aggression? If so, the article should say so. However, if it were simply the case that the French did not wish to jeopardise the Armistice by complying with any part of the ultimatum, and there exists no evidence that the French felt loath to agree to British demands, then this passage should be removed or edited. Richardhearnden ( talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. Richardhearnden ( talk) 20:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This obviously reflects the population of the English language wikipedia, but the article had a flagrant pro-British bias. It had effectively forgotten to mention that the British Navy sank an unsuspecting ally fleet. I have attempted to make it more neutral, but would welcome some assistance. 193.132.242.1 ( talk) 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
French Marine Minister Admiral Darlan never received the full text of the British ultimatum from Admiral Gensoul, most significantly with regards to the option of removing the fleet to American waters, an option which formed part of the orders, given to Gensoul by Darlan, to be followed should a foreign power attempt to seize the ships under his command.
The article should include detail about the French revenge bombing of Gibraltar which is touched on in the article Military history of Gibraltar during World War II. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 12:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This time I've spotted something which definitely isn't touched on in the article. Site http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/churchillsinkingfrenchfleet.php mentions that Churchill gave the order to attack the French fleet when orders to send reinforcements to Oran were intercepted:
-- ZScarpia ( talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It was an unprovoked attack on non-belligerent ships 68.183.223.239 ( talk) 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If this was a war crime then Nuremburg would still be going on today as most of the things that happened in WW2 would have been classed a crime. If Britain was so anti France why allow the Free French into Britain and aid De Gaulle who was less than pro British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.241 ( talk) 10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It was classified as an act of war but the resentment, especially in the French navy, is still very strong. In my mind it is obvious that the French sailors would never accept to see their ships fly the British flag, unless of course it had been captured, as Duguay-Trouin was. I believe this was a blunder by the British command, who should have at least mobilized someone like De Gaulle to Parley with the French commander. -- Nikoniste ( talk) 05:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a great quote in Ciano's diaries about how "the fighting spirit of british piracy is alive and well" and which made the Axis powers realise the english were not about just to give up and roll over. Psychologically significant, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.82.57.134 ( talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The source given for this comment seems unrealiable as opposed to this source [4], ive therefore added citation with a view to removal of this phrase and a ``assurance`` whether or not even true was worthless in any case and should be reflected as .-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 14:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 15:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The sources clearly state before Mers El Kebir, they were not allies, as from when France ceased fighting, and i think ive provided enough to amend this point. Assurances, Gurantees in my view mean the same thing in this context. But ill roll with your point, but i therefore still think the point should be made from Both sides. i.e The French gave assurances and the British could not believe/accept them etc...-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 16:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Rockybiggs, thinking back to the "assurance vs guarantees" point, we might have a similar problem about the notion of alliance. From what you write, I gather that you understand "ally" as "fighting together" (you would not say that the USA and UK were allies in 1940, am I correct?); on the other hand, I understand "ally" as "part of a legal contract between two nations" (and since nothing indicates that such a contract was broken before the 3rd of July 1940, I regard France and the UK as allies at this point even though France had signed armistices with Italy and Germany).
Maybe we could find a wording that would satisfy everybody by giving a few more details. I would suggest qualifying France of "defeated ally" or "powerless ally", but of course I am starting from the alliance-as-legal-contract point of view. Is there a formulation that springs to your mind? Rama ( talk) 08:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
How about this `This event shocked the world, as Britain had attacked and destroyed the French fleet, made even more tragic as they had been fighting side by side as allies against Germany a few weeks before.`-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 09:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Changes to opening paragraph which are mainly grammatical, gave context to "French assurances" ie those give by Admiral Darlan to Churchill. Removed "This event shocked the world" - as unencylopedic, vague, unsourced, origninal research - who is "the world" in this context? Was every human being on the face of the planet shocked? 86.164.40.232 ( talk) 23:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The Harold Nicholson link goes to a gentleman born in 1950, after the attack occurred.
The correct Nicolson is Harold Nicolson (no H in the last name) who indeed in his diary for July 4, 1940 wrote "The House is ... fortified by Winston's speech." (HN, The War Years: Diaries and Letters 1939-1945, Atheneum, 1967, p. 100) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.229 ( talk) 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a programme on this subject on Channel 4 (UK TV) this week (25 May 2009). It left little doubt that the decision to destroy the French fleet was inevitable. The French commander was given ample opportunity to avoid the British attack, but defied the British ultimatum by calling his men to action stations and calling for reinforcements. Of course, he was quite entitled to do so, but equally the British were entitled to take his actions as a sign that the French intended to fight. And in fact the French response to the ultimatum was explicitly that they would respond to force with force. Incidentally, many of the French sailors were on shore when the British fleet arrived, but were called back on board to prepare for action. This must have increased the casualties greatly. The programme also said a lot about Admiral Darlan, and left the impression that he was a proud and honourable man who would have stuck by his personal assurance that French ships would not fall into German hands. And we know what happened at Toulon. But of course it would be puerile to expect the British to rely on the word of one French officer in taking a decision which might mean the difference between survival and defeat. There was no guarantee that Darlan would stay in control. The new (collaborationist) French Government might replace him, or he might be killed. Even if he stayed in command, there was no guarantee that his orders would be obeyed, or that the Germans would not seize the French ships by force. The Germans themselves still had a powerful navy (Bismarck, etc) which sank the British battleship Hood not long afterwards. 86.157.95.203 ( talk) 11:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(1) "The attack was no more inevitable than that at Alexandria, that was averted; the French commander at Alexandria was more flexible," This comment seems to overlook the fact that Alexandria was under British control, and the British knew the French fleet could not escape. At Mers-el-Kebir this was not the case, and one major French ship did manage to slip away despite the British blockade. (2) "You discourse features the notion that one's willingless to defend himself is attacked justifies agression against him, which just plain baffles me." For the British, the question was whether they could be sure the French would not let the Germans take control of their fleet. Since the Germans (obviously) could not be trusted to adhere to the terms of any peace treaty with France, the only way the British could be assured of this was for the French to take the fleet immediately out of any danger of falling to the Germans, either by scuttling it or in some other way. France had already broken the terms of its alliance with Britain, by entering unilateral negotiations with Germany, and the French response to the ultimatum at Mers-el-Kebir gave no grounds for confidence about French intentions. I didn't actually say the British action was 'justified', but I don't see what alternative they had. Simply trusting the French not to give in to the Germans was not a realistic option. Letting the fleet sail to US waters under British escort would have been more reasonable, but apparently the French would not accept this, and letting them leave without escort would just be another form of trusting the French, which I have already pointed out was not an option. What part of 'not trusting the French' is difficult to understand? I am not suggesting that the British are any more trustworthy, just that when national survival is at stake no country can afford to trust any other. (3) "How Bismarck has anything to do with anything here is beyond me. The French ships were in the Mediterranean, could never have crossed Gibraltar, and thus would have been unable to join with the large German units. " This seems to assume that German naval forces could not have entered the Mediterranean. Why not? They managed to slip through the English Channel at least once, so why not the Straits of Gibraltar? And it could not be assumed that Britain would keep control of Gibraltar itself. Franco might well have joined the Axis if he had been sure that Britain was on the verge of defeat. And if a powerful German force had entered the Mediterranean, a combined German-Italian-French fleet would probably have obtained complete control. 86.157.95.203 ( talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting points raised above, regarding this regrettable incident. Re the question of German heavy units in the Med: would the KM have had a need to consider so deploying if they could have added the French units to the Italian force there? I think not. Indeed, the presence (real or potential) of German capital ships in the Atlantic prevented the RN from diverting more forces to either the Med or Pacific. 86.160.63.63 ( talk) 03:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Alister
Sorry, I perhaps didn't express myself very well: I was stating, in response to a post above, that the addition of the French forces alone to the Italian fleet would have been sufficient to severly stretch the RN, ie the KM question is a moot point. (I have never seen it stated that the KM did consider sending heavy units to the Med, as one of the advantages of Italy entering the war was that they should shoulder that responsibility.) As such, the action taken by the RN may be seen as a prudent, although very unfortunate, precaution. 86.160.63.63 ( talk) 13:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Alister
Does anyone know a reference for the actual text of the ultimatum? Most of it sounds authentic, but there is one phrase towards the end: 'I have the orders from His Majesty's Government' that doesn't read as if it was written by a natural English-speaker. Similarly, some of the punctuation seems a little odd.
Was the ultimatum delivered in French (unlikely, I suspect) or English?
Nsorelli ( talk) 09:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The ultimatum was sent by Churchill himself. As First Lord of the Admiralty (later Prime Minister) Churchill out ranked every French Admiral. They probably should have stood at attention and saluted the signal. The rank of the messenger boy is unimportant. Andrew Swallow ( talk) 22:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The opening paragraph says there were 1,297 French casualties, but the table at the end shows there were 1,300. Am I missing something, or is there an error here? - 75.82.100.57 ( talk) 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is a citation-required flag on the statement that Gensoul did not transmit the American waters option to Darlan. In fact, this statement is covered by the source given at the end of the section, Mers-el-Kebir: A Battle Between Friends by Irwin J. Kappes:
I suspect that, originally, the source given at the end of the section was supposed to cover the whole section, but, with the insertion of source 6, it now looks as though it only covers the last sentence. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 13:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't responsible for the changing the Result from "British victory, disabling of the French fleet" to "Disabling of the French fleet", but I support it. Clearly, short of the ships falling into Axis hands or being used to support the Axis, the battle was not the desired outcome and so was a dubious kind of "victory". -- ZScarpia ( talk) 14:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
you can probably add the operation torch's operation reservist and operation terminal. there was a vichy propaganda poster depicting a sailor with " don't forget oran!" (mers el kebir is part of the oran province) Cliché Online ( talk) 04:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Did the british ever paid reparations to post-1945 France for the sunken ships and lost lives? 91.82.167.232 ( talk) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
From Naval warfare: an international encyclopedia, editor Spencer C. Tucker , ISBN 1-57607-219-3 (hardcover), ABC-CLIO, Inc., Santa Barbara, California, 2002:
British plan to immobilize or, if necessary, destroy French naval forces to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Germans. France’s armistice with Germany in June 1940 caused great concern in London. The armistice stipulated that the Vichy government would not surrender to Germany any naval units still in French-controlled ports. London feared precisely that eventuality. Consequently, Prime Minister Winston Churchill decided to seize or disable any units of the French navy within reach. The date chosen for Operation catapult was 3 July.
In 1940 France possessed a formidable navy, much of it deployed beyond the principal base of Toulon. At Portsmouth and Plymouth were two battleships, four light cruisers, eight destroyers, several submarines, and some 200 smaller vessels. At Alexandria was a battleship, three modern 8-inch gun cruisers, one older cruiser, and numerous smaller ships. In the West Indies the French had an aircraft carrier and two light cruisers. French naval units in North and West Africa, however, caused the greatest alarm. At Casablanca was the uncompleted battleship Jean Bart. The harbor at Algiers held seven cruisers, and sheltered at Oran and Mers-el-Kebir were the modern battle cruisers Strasbourg and Dunkerque, the older battleships Bretagne and Provence, the seaplane carrier Commandant Teste, and six large destroyers. Finally, at Dakar in West Africa the new battleship Richelieu had reached preliminary operational readiness. Churchill was determined that none of these ships would fall into German or Italian hands.
On 3 July French ships in Great Britain were seized, with two British and one French sailor killed. At Alexandria a negotiated settlement resulted in the internment of the French squadron and repatriation of some crews. In the West Indies protracted three-way talks among French, British, and American authorities led to the internment of the French vessels at Martinique.
In Algeria and at Dakar, however, serious fighting occurred. After the French commander at Mers-el-Kebir refused British terms, his ships were attacked by the battleships Valiant and Resolution and the battle cruiser Hood. Largely ineffective aerial torpedo attacks followed from the aircraft carrier Ark Royal. Taking several direct hits from 15-inch shells, the Bretagne blew up, capsized, and sank. She lost more than a thousand officers and men. The Provence, badly damaged, beached herself. Trying to escape, the Dunkerque ran aground. Of the major French ships, only the cruisers at Algiers broke out to Toulon, as did the battle cruiser Strasbourg and the Commandant Teste (on 5 July) from Mers-el-Kebir. The Strasbourg was, however, torpedoed and damaged by Royal Navy aircraft. On 8 July the Richelieu at Dakar was attacked and damaged by torpedo bombers flying off the Hermes as well as by a Royal Navy motorboat.
Through Operation catapult the Royal Navy largely accomplished its mission of eliminating French naval strength. Much bitterness resulted, however. The Vichy government broke diplomatic relations with Great Britain. Only the later German seizure of unoccupied France in November 1942 allowed for a formal reconciliation between the erstwhile (and subsequent) allies.
The role of the French Navy in World War II was a minor one in terms of combat but extremely significant in terms of diplomacy and balance-of-power considerations. The fleet represented a potential bargaining chip for the Vichy regime, which retained control of the unoccupied southeastern third of metropolitan France until November 1942. Had Germany secured control of the fleet after the defeat of France in June 1940, its surface strength, combined with that of Italy and covered by the German Air Force, might have rendered Britain vulnerable to invasion. Determined to remove this possibility, in July 1940 Winston Churchill ordered British naval commanders to seek out such units of the fleet that were readily accessible and demand that their commanders either join the British, be disarmed in neutral ports, or be destroyed. On 3 July 1940, British ships actually opened fire at Mers-el-Kebir in Algeria. The British sank the battleship Bretagne, new battle cruiser Dunkerque, and several destroyers. The Strasbourg got away. Some 1,300 French seamen died, and 350 were wounded. This led to much bitterness, which lingers today.
With the June 1940 defeat of France by Germany in World War II, Vichy leader Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain appointed Darlan to be his minister of the navy. Darlan assured British leaders that France would not allow Germany to acquire its fleet and issued secret orders for French ships to be scuttled should the Germans try to take them. Fearful that this promise would not be honored, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an effort to acquire the French fleet, which resulted in fighting and considerable loss of French life at Mers-el-Kebir in Algeria (3 July 1940). Already anti-British, Darlan believed Germany would win the war, and this event caused him to seek closer cooperation with Berlin.
←
ZScarpia 18:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The article text has been changed so that it now reads that the British were concerned about the seizure of the French fleet by the Germans rather than the transfer of the French fleet to the Germans. My understanding is that the British were worried about both possibilities. The concern about a transfer stemmed from a belief that the French government might use its fleet as a bargaining chip in order to obtain better terms from the Germans. ← ZScarpia 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If we know the names of Gensoul and Darlan, something seems strange to me. One was killed in his own office by a student running with a handgun of Spanish manufacture. How did that student get this far? Why would he even think he could get so far? Poor security standards? If so, why the lax security standards, 2.5 years after Operation Catapult? Gensoul lived to his early 90s, taking his opinions to his grave.
Can one judge the quality of the Vichy Navy of that day, by what the Commanders did later in life?-- 82.134.28.194 ( talk) 09:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The times of the opening and closing of the attack have just been shifted forward an hour. Does anyone know whether those times relate to UT (GMT) or something else? ← ZScarpia 19:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Something I think is worth investigating is the relative concern about the fleet at Mers-el-Kébir passing into Italian, rather than German, hands. The former is not currently mentioned in the article. It seems to me that the hostilities with Italy supply a possible reason why the French, in opposition to the British demands, would want their fleet to remain in the Mediterranean. ← ZScarpia 14:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (edited 20:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC))
Hello. Translated from Russian FA. Maxrossomachin ( talk) 19:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"The scuttling of the French Fleet at Toulon in November 1942 can be seen as the Vichy government's acceptance that the allies were now winning the war. This was not the case in June 1940"
Doesn't seem like a very neutral approach to me... The fact is that you can't know what would have happened. An article shouldn't take a quasi-affirmative position like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.231.133.165 ( talk) 10:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Darlan's message to Churchill in late 1942, claiming that the Vichy collaborationist navy had acted with honour, was obviously disingenuous. By November 1942, the RAF had won the Battle of Britain. The Royal Navy had sunk the Bismarck (and killed the Germans' favourite U-boat captain, Prien). The Soviet Union and the United States had entered the war on the Allied side. The RAF had put 1,000 bombers over Cologne. The Commonwealth Eighth Army had won at El Alamein. And the German Sixth Army was hopelessly mired at Stalingrad. The Allies were obviously going to win. In July 1940, the collabos of the French naval command thought the Nazis were going to win, and this dictated their actions. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A Royal Navy task force attacked the French fleet, after giving them a warning that they would do so. The French fleet was at anchor and had not been expecting an assault from the United Kingdom.
This sounds like a contradiction. Can you clarify?
Valetude (
talk) 11:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Did the Germans use captured French tanks against the British, Russians or Americans? Possibly with German crews? This is the same strategy as using French war ships with German crews against the British.
Knowing how ruthless the Nazis were, obtaining the ships would not be a problem - although the admirals may have died saying "No". Andrew Swallow ( talk) 16:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
If you look at wiki articles like this [9] you can see that the Germans used captured French equipment and farmed other items to their allies. Some of the detail is cited to RS. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That might be a distinction without a difference. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
London Review of Books - Charles Glass - Melancholy Actions,Vol. 31 No. 24, 17 December 2009, pages 16-18. ( full text at Charles Glass website) ← ZScarpia 17:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
At some stage the article will have to be amended to remove the inconsistency, which involves how the Vichy regime is defined, introduced by this edit: the article states in multiple places that France was being governed by the Vichy regime at the time of the Mers-el-Kébir attack (3 July 1940); the highlighted edit states that the Vichy regime didn't come into existence until a week after the attack. On one hand, France was being governed from Vichy with Philippe Pétain as President when the attack occurred; on the other, Pétain didn't receive full powers and the Third Republic wasn't officially wound up until 10 July 1940. ← ZScarpia 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
the dunkerque and strasbourg are generally referred to as battlecruisers
the tugboat is referred below as patrol boat Terre Neuve
the attack was made from NW (see the map in wikicommons) from a distance of about 15 km; therefore the bow-arranged guns of D/S could be readily brought in fire position and the distance was not an extreme range. the fire was indirect above the hills.
the above is sure. the following are my considerations (i.e. things that I have read in unremembered places and/or logical extensions of what I have read) that the author might check and eventually insert to make the text clearer.
the british admiral arrived in front (E) of MeK to show how powerful was his force; in this position the considerations on the french weakness apply. Then he moved NW, a position even more favorable because the hills N of the harbor made blind the french but not the english (the french fired on a moving target with at most the observation from the land batteries, the british on a target at known position with respect to the hill and guided from the air) and with less risk of hitting the town (the naval fire is more accurate in direction than in range)
pietro 151.29.249.152 ( talk) 10:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Cleaned up references and sfn'd citations, filled gaps and added some headers. Suggest not sufficient coverage for B2. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attack on Mers-el-Kébir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted a number of recent edits, the reasons being:
← ZScarpia 17:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
My rules trump nothing because WP:NEUTRAL doesn't apply, IMO. The French use separate terms for battleship (cuirassé) and battlecruiser (croiseurs de bataille) as do the Germans (Schlachtschiffen) and (Großer Kreuzer).-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Sturmvogel 66: Greetings, are you beginning a campaign to abolish small print? It's been in use for as long as I've been on Wiki. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
(Note: on 31 October, IP account 2A00:23C7:CF0E:7800:6CEA:C86D:36B7:B7D6 was blocked as a sock of banned editor HarveyCarter. WP:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter: "As of 2015 and 2016, HarveyCarter is using IP accounts and new accounts to start trolling-type discussions on talk pages of articles related to World War II, most commonly advancing pro-Axis viewpoints. He has also been trolling articles relating to the British Empire." ← ZScarpia 17:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC))
The attack on the neutral French fleet was not a battle. (
2A00:23C7:CF0E:7800:C851:67F:59F4:E198 (
talk) 12:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC))
Template:Infobox military conflict
result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
It was a military engagement; not necessarily a battle and the infobox is about conflict per se not the type. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources This might help. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Few people would call this a glorious or brave triumph, but the British had the upper hand in the tactical military engagement, and also achieved their overall larger objective of denying the use of the French ships to bolster German military strength, so I don't see how it could be called anything but a British victory...
AnonMoos (
talk) 12:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This conversation is a repeat of one held years ago ( see above). I think that the 'Result' field should be omitted. I doubt any sources refer to the battle as having resulted in a 'British victory'. As far as the French fleet having been sunk is concerned, as only some of the French ships were sunk, that is clearly not true. ← ZScarpia 17:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Something like that will attract OR criticism. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
OK lets put it like this, there is no evidence that the French would not surrender their fleet anyway, there is some evidence it hardened Vichy resolve to oppose the British (and maybe even give some help to the Germans), there is some evidence it increased US resolve to help the British. So there are debits and credits to the British with this. We are not expert enough to determine which is the greater, which is why we use RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The accompanying instructions for the 'result' parameter of the
Infobox military conflict template:
result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
← ZScarpia 11:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
(@
Keith-264:) As there have been a number of edits to the Result field in the infobox recently, we should probably try to figure out what the consensus position is. The field is optional. If it is included, the permitted entries are a binary choice between victory two one side or an inconclusive outcome. The impression I have is that sources do not treat the battle as one with a victory/defeat/draw outcome and therefore, if the field is included, whatever is entered will not have supporting source evidence and will therefore be a matter of opinion. As the field is optional, I therefore recommend that it is omitted. ←
ZScarpia 17:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If you haven't finished WP:dead horse perhaps you could list what your sources say? Keith-264 ( talk) 15:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Closing discussion which constitutes block evasion by User:HarveyCarter. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Where is the evidence this was a British victory? Hitler wanted to keep France neutral and not seize the fleet, despite Admiral Raeder's wishes. The French would have scuttled their fleet if the Axis had tried to seize it, as they did in November 1942. ( 86.160.157.11 ( talk) 12:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC))
|