Falklands MkII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The English are the spawn of satan.

---

That expalins why we're so good at winning.:2thumbsup:

Seriously though, Churchil was made for war and at war he was good. In general his plans were sound and in this case he was basically right, he saw a potential threat and neutralised it.

Yes he was swift but as Master Tzu said, "The one thing in war you cannot replace is time."

Tribesman: Not only are you very much in a minorety position but you are facing an Anglo-French Alliance.

When a Frenchman and an Englishman agree on something it has to be true.

As to the troops in Germany, well we keep closing bases here so they have to go somewhere. Until recently there were also German Panzers in Wales. I don't know if there are any Germans left in Britain.

The Americans never get involved unless it affects them directly and never will. The British on the other hand are in the unhealthy habit of over-supporting their Allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Tribesman: Not only are you very much in a minorety position but you are facing an Anglo-French Alliance.

When a Frenchman and an Englishman agree on something it has to be true.

---

Well...I agree with you that if and when the fleet posed a threat to Britain, they should've been destroyed.
However, I agree with Tribesman that these ships did not yet pose a clear and present danger.

The problem of course lays the 'if and when'. That Churchill saw a potential threat is not sufficient. 'Potential' is not good enough to kill 1300 French sailors. 'Master Tzu said, "The one thing in war you cannot replace is time". Probably, but Master LouiSun Tze Fat says that the one other thing in war you cannot replace is human lives.

Britains options were not yet exhausted.
The reactions of French crews and admirals varied greatly - some sailed to Britain, some joined the free French, some placed themselves under Vichy command. All of these scenario's were yet possible.

Alas, perhaps these are the wisest and true-est words on this matter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

War is never a pleasant or honourable business. Things are done for a reason. Unfortunately they didn't have the benefit of hindsight. I'm glad it wasn't my call.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kommodus

One question, though, after reading the article: why are there 20,000 British troops in Germany?

---

Originally they were there in case of an invasion by the USSR. Although British Forces Germany has been much reduced since the end of the cold war, there is still a very significant presence there, due to the strategically useful location, the large area for training, and the large amount of money they contribute towards the German economy due to the number of local civilians they employ.

Tribesman: Not only are you very much in a minorety position but you are facing an Anglo-French Alliance.

How is it a minority position ?
Find any statement from those involved in the operation that don't describe it a a balls up , even Churchill himself .
Or for the claims of hindsight why not look at the records from the planning and the events leading up to the action and all the objections that were recorded .
Or as for the events themselves look the correspondance between the fleets and their respective governments .


So what you mean is that on this games forum it is a minority position , , well I am used to that , but you cannot alter the fact that your initial statement on the subject has absolutely no basis in fact , followed later by another statement entirely deviod of fact .

So I will stick with the minotity position thank you , as all the factual evidence supports it .:2thumbsup:

Oh , Churchills plans were generally sound ?????
I wonder what the cabinet had to say about that , or the military command , or even his personal secratary .
But hey , don't let facts get in your way .
The old pisshead certainly made some good speeches though , he did have some good basic thoughts (plans , especially good ones were not his forte at all) , and he was right about the Russians .

I think the US would be there in a heartbeat! any chance we get to kick the crud out of a loud mouth dictator like him we would take it. the only thing is that the conflict cant take more than a month tops, after that the Shehans start coming out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Well...I agree with you that if and when the fleet posed a threat to Britain, they should've been destroyed.
However, I agree with Tribesman that these ships did not yet pose a clear and present danger.

The problem of course lays the 'if and when'. That Churchill saw a potential threat is not sufficient. 'Potential' is not good enough to kill 1300 French sailors. 'Master Tzu said, "The one thing in war you cannot replace is time". Probably, but Master LouiSun Tze Fat says that the one other thing in war you cannot replace is human lives.

Britains options were not yet exhausted.
The reactions of French crews and admirals varied greatly - some sailed to Britain, some joined the free French, some placed themselves under Vichy command. All of these scenario's were yet possible.

Alas, perhaps these are the wisest and true-est words on this matter:

---

Granted Churchil was a ruthless bastard, but he calculated that he had to eliminate the risk before it materalised, which is another pillar of the Art of War.

The real question is the weighting, Churchil deemed the risk to English servicemen and civilians sufficiant for a thousand Frenchmen to die. You might weight the risk as less and have waited longer. Ultimately you would have had to make a similar decision.

It is clear that the intention was to present the French commander with options which removed his ships from Combat or brought them under Allied control before he decided what he was going to do.

Leaving it until the French commander had decided to join Vichy France would have left the RN with "Surrender or die" as a negotiating position which would definately have resulted in bloodshed.

The fact is that had the French Admiral said, "Yes, we will fight with you against tyranny," everyone would have said what a good idea it was to offer them the option.

Tribesman, no. In war even men can be replaced. This was a military decision, if you cannot argue from a military standpoint don't even bother. There can not be humanitairian considerations in open warfare, which, by the way, has nothing to do with post-Industrial warfare.

Tribesman, no. In war even men can be replaced. This was a military decision, if you cannot argue from a military standpoint don't even bother.
Errrrr.....Wigferth , all the military commanders said it was a balls up , thats a military standpoint on it .
Even now you cannot even use facts to back up your position on this can you .....Leaving it until the French commander had decided to join Vichy France would have left the RN with "Surrender or die" as a negotiating position which would definately have resulted in bloodshed.
....The fleet was the French fleet the commander was the French comander , they were under the French government , that government was the Vichy government !!! They didn't decide to join anything .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

[B]Why couldn't the Ships have been used , errrr.... because the French were under orders to scuttle them if the Axis tried to take control of them.

---

I don't know if it was a ballsup - given how proficiently the British were performing in the war up to that point, it's certainly a possibility.

But I don't see a problem with the action in principle. The balance of forces in the Med was extremely precarious. The French fleet joining the Italians could have swung things.

There was no assurance that the Vichy government would not at a future date change it's mind and become an active member of the Axis - they were essentially a puppet regime (and proved to be rather a nasty one in regards to complying to some other Nazi demands).

And even if Vichy held out, the Germans were rather good at carrying out coups de main - taking fortresses by surprise, overrunning whole countries in weeks that had resisted for years in previous wars, later rescuing Mussolini etc. They were at the height of their power, whereas the capacity of the French armed forces to resist them was at its nadir.

If I were in Churchill's shoes, I would have made every effort to get the fleet to join the British or be scuttled. But if they had refused, I would have approved the action. It's rather like a scorched earth policy - regrettable, but if you are being beaten and fighting for survival, it may be necessary.

Simon , I agree basically , though it is was a ballsup in every aspect on a political and military level . The issue I have was not the original post which broached the subject , as it is spot on .

We did sink the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in WWII. Britain will go to such lengths to protect herself.

But then you have people writing stuff that is not true to try and justify the action , like ; the fleet joined the germans .... false , the fleet were going to join the germans ....false , the Vichy French were fighting in Africa for the Germans ....false , the fleet joined the French ....false .
That is just rubbish .

Something had to be done , yes , but the actions that were taken in this instance were just about the worse possible choice of the options available . The fallout from the action was instant and very long lasting , and it ended up costing a hell of a lot more lives than those of the French sailors in harbour that day .

Tribesman, you have yet to actually provide testimonies from these commanders that is was a "balls up" and if you do I would bet they saw it as an operational one rather than a strategic one.

Also:

"But then you have people writing stuff that is not true to try and justify the action , like ; the fleet joined the germans .... false."

No one said they joined the Germans, just that they could.


"the fleet were going to join the germans ....false"

Hindsight, you don't know if someone is going to do something until they do.


"the Vichy French were fighting in Africa for the Germans"

I misposke but there was a short battle between Vichy Troops and the Big Red One when they landed in North Africa, IIRC. Then the Vichy troops went Rebel.

"....The fleet was the French fleet the commander was the French comander , they were under the French government , that government was the Vichy government !!! They didn't decide to join anything ."

As Louis said, the issue was unclear, he could have gone Vichy or Free French.

To be honest I see nothing backing up your arguement at all.

No one said they joined the Germans, just that they could.

Really , whats this then.....

As has been said the French lost the fleet as it decided to go German.


I misposke but there was a short battle between Vichy Troops and the Big Red One when they landed in North Africa, IIRC. Then the Vichy troops went Rebel.


Oh dear , you are lacking in knowledge of actions between the vichy and the Allies it seems , would you like some more examples , I have mentioned one already , and as you seem to think it was only an operational error rather than a strategic one would you care to hazard a guess at one of the next actions where the fallout from the action at Mers-el-kebir had strategic implications (apart from the fact that it was also an operational ballsup) .


To be honest I see nothing backing up your arguement at all.
Well perhaps you might try reading a book , WWII for beginers might be an idea to start with .:idea2:


As Louis said, the issue was unclear, he could have gone Vichy or Free French.

They didn't join anything , they were French , it was the French fleet and the government was the french government .:wall: What free french , who was their leader , where was their government ? Are you getting your dates mixed up ?

Tribesman, you have yet to actually provide testimonies from these commanders that is was a "balls up" and if you do I would bet they saw it as an operational one rather than a strategic one.

Well Wiggy , I think you would lose your bet very quickly , would you like a full reading list ? A selection of memoirs , some official transcripts perhaps ?what about some biographies , autobiographies , complete histories , histories specifically concerning this event ????? Pick your poison , you may not like swallowing it though . :laugh4:

Less talk more sources.

"They didn't join anything , they were French , it was the French fleet and the government was the french government . What free french , who was their leader , where was their government ? Are you getting your dates mixed up ?"

Confusion of terms, it is clear from the message sent ot the French commander that even the British understood the situation, i.e. not everyone was going to capitulate, and they didn't.

Try replacing "Free French" with "free French." Does the concept make sense now.

It was said during the war, by Churchil IIRC, that even if Britain fell her army, navy and Empire would fight on. Clearly the same was expected of the French.

Let us assume for a moment that nothing is done. France has just surrendered and signed an armistice, a puppet government is bowing to the Germans and French ships are at sea. Suppose the Germans strong-arm France into fighting for them, the way they have everyone else, the French Fleet masses and shifts the balance in the Med, worse it masses and blockades the Channel.

Britain is sunk, and that is what Churchil wanted to avoid.

Try replacing "Free French" with "free French." Does the concept make sense now.

Ah , I see now , you mean after De Gaulle had made his speech on the BBC, but before he was court martialed for treason and a long time before Churchill (against cabinet objections) decided that de Gaulle was the leader of france and he would call them a government in exile .

Suppose the Germans strong-arm France into fighting for them, the way they have everyone else,
Errrr....who else exactly ? The Poles ? Danes ? Norewegians ? Dutch ? Belgians ? Who ????

Let us assume for a moment that nothing is done. France has just surrendered and signed an armistice, a puppet government is bowing to the Germans and French ships are at sea.
Now that is interesting , the French at sea . :inquisitive:
You are aware of the proposals put forward by the admiralty to Churchill , and pushed very strongly by Cunningham and Somervile about having the French at sea ?
It takes away the complications that arose from the demands for "surrender" being made on French territory , it was those demands , backed by the threats that caused the whole problem .
Plus consider the sinking of the French ship by the P-class submarine after the incident at Mers el Kebir , the British apologised to the Vichy government over that , another balls up you see , the submarine didn't get the orders not to sink French ships at sea .

Less talk more sources.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Wigferth , I rarely post links , didn't you know .
The challenge is for you to find anything , absolutely anything , that I have posted on this subject that is not factually accurate .
I offered to provide a book list , try anything on Force H or HMS Hood they cover it very well , or you could try Churchills own history books on WWII , straight from the old drunkards mouth so to speak .
An interesting parallel subject would be the Battle of Copenhagen , a completely diferent time period , and that time the French were the enemy , but the neutralisation of a possible maritime threat is the same scanario .

About the date of the establishment of the Free French:

Quote:

---

On 28 June 1940, Churchill acknowledged de Gaulle as leader of the Free French. De Gaulle organised the armed forces that were to become the Forces Françaises Libres (FFL) or Free French Forces. Under an agreement drawn up by an eminent lawyer, René Cassin, and recognised by the British on 7 August, the FFL were to be considered not as a foreign legion within the British armed forces but as an independent national force. Though still few in number, the French forces now had official status and growing numbers of men and women rallied to the cause in Britain and throughout the Empire. The unfortunate affair of the British bombing of the French fleet at Mers El Kébir on 4 July 1940, however, caused the number of recruits to slump.

---

About the date of the establishment of the Free French:

Interesting Louis , Churchill reconised De Gaulle from June , Britain recognised the forces from August . And no one recognised the government in exile until September .
Soooo , about the estabishment of the Free French ?
The fleet was not offered the chance to join the free French Government , it didn't exist , it was not offered the chance to join Free French forces , they didn't exist , it was offered the chance to join Britains forces .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

About the date of the establishment of the Free French:

Interesting Louis , Churchill reconised De Gaulle from June , Britain recognised the forces from August . And no one recognised the government in exile until September .
Soooo , about the estabishment of the Free French ?
The fleet was not offered the chance to join the free French Government , it didn't exist , it was not offered the chance to join Free French forces , they didn't exist , it was offered the chance to join Britains forces .

---

It was also given a chance to demobilise in a French colonial or American port. They made their choice. Their politicians were cowards and their leaders fools. The smaller fleet in Alexandria was wiser, choosing to stand down and eventually join the Free French IIRC.

It was also given a chance to demobilise in a French colonial or American port
It was being demobilised in a french colonial port (though of course they didn't regard Algeria as a colony) .
A result of the action was that ships went back to be demobilised in French Metropolitan ports , until the French sank them as they said they would when Germany broke the armistice terms 2 years later .

The smaller fleet in Alexandria was wiser, choosing to stand down and eventually join the Free French IIRC.
Would you care to hazard a guess at how many in Alex joined de Gaulle ? Or how many of those in British ports ?
But those are entirely different situations , as they were not French ports .

Quote:

---

The challenge is for you to find anything , absolutely anything , that I have posted on this subject that is not factually accurate .
I offered to provide a book list , try anything on Force H or HMS Hood they cover it very well , or you could try Churchills own history books on WWII , straight from the old drunkards mouth so to speak .
An interesting parallel subject would be the Battle of Copenhagen , a completely diferent time period , and that time the French were the enemy , but the neutralisation of a possible maritime threat is the same scanario .

---

Astonishing, you expect me to work to disprove you when you lack proof. Provide your sources and I will provide counter sources, that is how an acedemic debate works.

"Errrr....who else exactly ? The Poles ? Danes ? Norewegians ? Dutch ? Belgians ? Who ????"

The Poles, Chezchs, Austrians, I'm not sure about the Norwegians but there might have been a few drafted. On D-Day there were Polish troops with their sergants pointing guns at them so they would fight, and this is well documented, from Polish sources.

As Louis has demostrated De Gaulle was already recognized by Churchil and recruites were flooding in. So its not like the French Admiral would be the one making the big leap.

"Let us assume for a moment that nothing is done. France has just surrendered and signed an armistice, a puppet government is bowing to the Germans and French ships are at sea."

Care to respond to the relevant part of this.

Oh, I am aware of the Campaign against Denmark, that was premature but the difference was that Denmark still had an Army, which was guarding the border against the French, ironically.

As Louis has demostrated De Gaulle was already recognized by Churchil and recruites were flooding in. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
oh stop it hurts :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Flooding in :laugh4: :laugh4:
Errrr....Would you care to hazard a guess at how many in Alex joined de Gaulle ? Or how many of those in British ports ?

Come on as you have reliable sources Wigferth can you tell me how many of the 15,000+French sailors in British ports "flooded" to de Gaulle .
Was it thousands , that would be a fair proportion wouldn't it , hey a thousand would be a substancial downpour , 200 is a trickle .
And in case you missed it Churchil recognised de Gaulle , the British Government didn't , was Churchill a dictator so that only his opinion mattered and not that of his government .
Provide your sources and I will provide counter sources, that is how an acedemic debate works.

No wiggy I state facts and if you can show that what I write is not factual then that is debate , so far you have been very light on anything factual at all .

The Poles, Chezchs, Austrians, I'm not sure about the Norwegians but there might have been a few drafted. On D-Day there were Polish troops with their sergants pointing guns at them so they would fight, and this is well documented, from Polish sources.

Now that isn't even worth a reply , can you guess why ?

Oh, I am aware of the Campaign against Denmark, that was premature but the difference was that Denmark still had an Army, which was guarding the border against the French, ironically.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Where do you dream this up from ?

I find it interesting you find mockery neccessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

As Louis has demostrated De Gaulle was already recognized by Churchil and recruites were flooding in. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
oh stop it hurts :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Flooding in :laugh4: :laugh4:
Errrr....[I]Would you care to hazard a guess at how many in Alex joined de Gaulle ? Or how many of those in British ports ?

---

"Despite repeated broadcasts, by the end of July that year, only 7,000 people had volunteered to join the Free French forces. The Free French Navy had fifty ships and some 3,700 men operating as an auxiliary force to the British Royal Navy."

Not bad considering Mers El Kébir, without Mers El Kébir it probably would have been much higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_French

Quote:

---

And in case you missed it Churchil recognised de Gaulle , the British Government didn't , was Churchill a dictator so that only his opinion mattered and not that of his government.

---

Yes, in a lot of ways, that would be how he blocked some of the Cabinet from preventing De Gaulle's speech.

Quote:

---

Provide your sources and I will provide counter sources, that is how an acedemic debate works.

No wiggy I state facts and if you can show that what I write is not factual then that is debate , so far you have been very light on anything factual at all .

---

Without sources you have no facts, now I'm only doing a little work and proving you wrong is pretty easy.

Quote:

---

The Poles, Chezchs, Austrians, I'm not sure about the Norwegians but there might have been a few drafted. On D-Day there were Polish troops with their sergants pointing guns at them so they would fight, and this is well documented, from Polish sources.

Now that isn't even worth a reply , can you guess why ?

---

So around a third of Polish forces weren't deserters from the German army?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_...bution_to_WWII

Quote:

---

Oh, I am aware of the Campaign against Denmark, that was premature but the difference was that Denmark still had an Army, which was guarding the border against the French, ironically.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Where do you dream this up from ?

---

The Battle of Copehagen was in 1807, it lasted about 20 days and was essentially a blockade of Copehagen and a demand that she surrender her fleet. When the Danish refused the city was bombarded with incendury weapons. At the same time the "Battle of the Clogs" (Køge) saw the defeat of a Danish militia Force by British troops, including one of the first significant uses of the 95th Green Jackets.

The reason for the action was a fear that either Denmark would capitulate to Napoleon or that Napoleon would invade and sieze the fleet. The threat of invasion meant that the Danish Crown Prince and the regular army were on the border with French (Holstien) and therefore unavailable to fight British troops under (the future) Wellington.

The action was premature because it initiated a state of War and because the French were preparing to attack, at which time the British could have come to the aid of the Danish. In the end the action resulted in the destruction of the Fleet, the Danish going over to the French and also led to the eventual dismembering of the country.

Now, my point was that the fundamental difference was that Denmark was still and independant soverign nation at this time with no foreign forces in ocupation.

Or were you thinking of the 1801 battle.

So around a third of Polish forces weren't deserters from the German army?

Did the Polish armed forces join the Germans ? No , neither did the French armed forces .

Not bad considering Mers El Kébir, without Mers El Kébir it probably would have been much higher.

Flooding in ? how many of French the sailors in Alexandia and British ports joined De Gaulle ?
Or for that matter , could you enlighten me as to how many French troops went to Britain during Dynamo , how many of them flooded to de Gaulle ?

Yes, in a lot of ways, that would be how he blocked some of the Cabinet from preventing De Gaulle's speech.

So the British government is irrelevant and it is only Churchill that matters ????
If the British government does not recognise the the government of De Gaulle then there is no government of de Gaulle .

The Battle of Copehagen was in 1807, it lasted about 20 days and was essentially a blockade of Copehagen and a demand that she surrender her fleet.
Oh I see , I thought you were talking about the Germans invasion .

Without sources you have no facts, now I'm only doing a little work and proving you wrong is pretty easy.

So far you have managed to prove absolutely nothing that I have written is false Wiggy . Congratulations .
Keep it up .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Did the Polish armed forces join the Germans ? No , neither did the French armed forces.

---

That does not stop the Germans from appropriating the the ships, or the Vichy turning them over. It was a real danger in 1940 that would have had catastrophic results. Also, the Polish never capitulated to the Germans.

Quote:

---

Flooding in ? how many of French the sailors in Alexandia and British ports joined De Gaulle ?
Or for that matter , could you enlighten me as to how many French troops went to Britain during Dynamo , how many of them flooded to de Gaulle ?

---

Around 10,000 men in a month and a half isn't too bad, considering the political fallout from Mers El Kebir. I'd be willing to bet that most came from before that.

Quote:

---

So the British government is irrelevant and it is only Churchill that matters ????
If the British government does not recognise the the government of De Gaulle then there is no government of de Gaulle .

---

Official recognition or not De Gaulle's speeches and the fact that the FF were forming should have been evidence enough that there was more than one option. Oh, and No, the British Government's recognition was not a prerequisite fro the existance of the FF.

Quote:

---

Oh I see , I thought you were talking about the Germans invasion .

---

I was responding to your point.

Quote:

---

So far you have managed to prove absolutely nothing that I have written is false Wiggy . Congratulations .
Keep it up .

---

Well I've shown there was a French resistance force forming in early july and it had a recognised leader.

All this is going round in circles anyway.

This is the situation in June-July 1940.

1. France has surrendered, effectively and a puppet regime has been installed.

2. De Gaulle has escaped, with others, and is forming the Free French.

3. Exactly what is going to happen the French forces left in France is unclear, bear in mind Vichy is a puppet goverment and might decided to totally support Germany, hell they'd get to have a go at the British.

4. The French Fleet is dispersed and no-one really knows whether they'll keeping fighting or follow the Vichy government.

5. If the ships in the French Fleet were to come under Axis control they would allow Hitler to blockade the channel and would put him a long way towards sufficiant naval power for invasion.

6. Churchil decides that this is the greatest risk and hte ships MUST NOT fall into Axis hands. Rather ely on French bravery, they've already surrendered, Churchil decided that the problem must be dealt with as-soon-as.

7. Hence Operation Catapult. The ideal objective is to keep the French fighting, the worst case is the fleet falling into Axis hands.

8. The destruction of the ships at Mers El Kebir ensures they will not fall into Axis hands. That said the ideal situation was for the French to join the Allies.

:help: Hey Wiggy, howz it going ?
Would youlike a drunken arse to rip your position apart ? or wil youwiat fora semi-sober one ?
So far youhaveprovided aabso;ue craparticle fromWiki, whucxh if I may say so contrdicts the kriegsmarine records very severely , the fact tat it also contradicts both the British Nay reports , and those of the French Navy is I sppose irrelevant .
Quote all th sources you like , Imwill write stuf taken from the primary ources thatshow that you is talking crap .
I don;t have to provide links to state facts , facts are facts .
If you, would like some links then I cn provide somem that say that most of the casualties were infact sailors from the Kriewgsmarine, but you know that is bulshit ,, yet it is her emin this thread (though noit as funny as the one that claims that te majorit of the ctrews in Alex were Hriefsmarine,


Damn , maybr tomorrow:help: After some:coffeenews:

Wow , s cup of tea and a quick delve throughthe music boxes can clarify things .
Wiggy you is talking crap, from point 1~8 .
Talking of which , #8 ? Isn't that a case of Arthur ????

Poor old Arthur Foxache .:shrug:

Tribe'

I think many of his points had some strength to them (1, 5, 6). The French enjoying the chance for a swipe at the Brits is not accurate at all of course.

Britain was, collectively, scared spitless of invasion at that point as their field forces had bollocks for equipment and their air forces had proven so ineffective in France. They, especially Winnie, felt the Navy was their only line of defense.

Remember, too, that Winnie was very new to the top job at this point. He was experienced in the cabinet, but mostly at the Admiralty -- having a somewhat parochial view emphasizing naval concerns would have been understandable at this juncture.

Winnie may have blown the call on this one (I think it was a bad decision, but then again so was Gallipoli, Winnie wasn't perfect), but times of great fear and the immediate aftermath of defeat rarely lend themselves to the best decision-making.

I think many of his points had some strength to them (1, 5, 6).
1. France has surrendered, effectively and a puppet regime has been installed.

Who installed the French government ? ....the French government .
Who regognised this government ? everyone .
Who installed the FF government ?....no one , at the time it didn't exist .
Who recognised the FF forces ? no one .

The ships were French ships , the port was french territory .

If the risk over possesion of the French fleet was so great then why was no action taken against Toulon or Marsaille ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I think many of his points had some strength to them (1, 5, 6).
1. France has surrendered, effectively and a puppet regime has been installed.

Who installed the French government ? ....the French government .
Who regognised this government ? everyone .
Who installed the FF government ?....no one , at the time it didn't exist .
Who recognised the FF forces ? no one .

The ships were French ships , the port was french territory .

If the risk over possesion of the French fleet was so great then why was no action taken against Toulon or Marsaille ?

---

Legallity is not legitimacy, the point of a puppet regime is that its sort of hard to see the strings.

Mers El Kebir was not an issolated incident, was it? Taking French Ships in French ports wasn't really practicable.

Operation Catapult was intended to remove the ships from play and leave them either under allied control or at the bottom of the sea. At this point in the war the fleet represents a crucial strategic resource.

If you want to say I'm conradicting sources then you have to provide them or indicate where I can get hold of them, otherwise I can't answer you, which is then the same as you having no sources.

Oh, and Wiki follows everythign else that is easily accessable in the public domain.

Show me where I'm wrong.

Mers El Kebir was not an issolated incident, was it?

No , not an isolated incident , they tried at Dakar and failed , they were going to try in the Carribean but American pressure stopped the attack at the last minute .
They didn't try anything at all against the far Eastern Fleet , which is really surprising if they considered the French fleet such a threat .

Taking French Ships in French ports wasn't really practicable.

As Mers-el-Kebir shows , it was a French port wasn't it , so was Dakar , so was Algiers (but they didn't attempt that one) .
The Germans also discovered the problem of trying to take French ships in a French port didn't they , they had even worse results than the British .
What is surprising though is that the British didn't try and stop French ships leaving Nova Scotia .

Show me where I'm wrong.
Well ....8. The destruction of the ships at Mers El Kebir ensures they will not fall into Axis hands. That said the ideal situation was for the French to join the Allies.........Operation Catapult was intended to remove the ships from play and leave them either under allied control or at the bottom of the sea. At this point in the war the fleet represents a crucial strategic resource.

As I said before it was a stategic balls up as well as an operational one . It didn't get the French ships to join the British and it didn't sink them . Instead it made them move closer to where the Axis forces were and made the French navy very hostile to Britain . The ships were not removed from the equation until the French sank them .
The operation sank a battleship that was obsolescant when it was launched , and was prctically useless decades later , and a light vessel that was sunk because the Pandora didn't recieve her orders not to sink it .

Just so we're talking the same language here:

Strategic: Removing the French ships from play.

Operational: Mers El Kebir action.

Tactical: Sinking a ship.

When I said French ports I meant in France, sorry.

As to a strategic ballsup, well what about the ships in British ports that were siezed?

As to an Operational Ballsup, IIRC there were two Battleships and seven Destroyers, of which four destroyers and one Battleship escaped.

Strategic: Removing the French ships from play.

It didn't remove them , it sank one museum piece . a ballsup .

Operational: Mers El Kebir action.

A balls up , it didn't achieve its objectives .

Tactical: Sinking a ship.

See above .

As to a strategic ballsup, well what about the ships in British ports that were siezed?

Well thats different , its easy to sieze a ship in one of your own harbours , as you control the habour , the ships in it and the defenses around it . Which is why it is so strange that they let the ships leave Nova Scotia .

As to an Operational Ballsup, IIRC there were two Battleships and seven Destroyers, of which four destroyers and one Battleship escaped.
Two old Battleships , two new battle cruisers , 6 destroyers and various smaller vessels .
One old slow battleship was destroyed .

I was just defining Strategic, Operational etc, some people have funny definitions.

"Well thats different , its easy to sieze a ship in one of your own harbours , as you control the habour , the ships in it and the defenses around it . Which is why it is so strange that they let the ships leave Nova Scotia ."

Still part of the operation, the successful part. Mers El Kebir was an Operational Ballsup but the Strategic issue was the fleet en masse.

"Two old Battleships , two new battle cruisers , 6 destroyers and various smaller vessels .
One old slow battleship was destroyed ."

I stand corrected but sinking any Battleship is a good thing, they were still using WWII battleships in Desert Storm, everybody loves the 12" guns.

Im sick of the Falklands all it is, is the argentian goverment taking there peoples minds off of how crapy there lives actually are. A war with britan and Argentina wouldnt be a war it would be a trianing excersie...and Britan would win...bad....really bad......like really bad...like in 10 mintues....Soulforged would have to stay at my house...I get top bunk...He has to cook...and do my spainish homework

I stand corrected but sinking any Battleship is a good thing, they were still using WWII battleships in Desert Storm, everybody loves the 12" guns.Ummm , right OK , how big were the guns ?~;)
But would you comapare one of the last classes of battleship to be built , that has undergone numerous upgrades , entire remodelling , refits and many modernisation programs to a ship that was out of date when it was constructed and was long overdue at the scrapheap ?

Mers El Kebir was an Operational Ballsup but the Strategic issue was the fleet en masse.

And not only did it fail to get the fleet en masse it failed to get the modern ships in the fleet .