Was the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir justified?

Remove all ads!

In June 1940 the French government made peace with Germany and was replaced (in the south) by an authoritarian state led by Philippe Pétain. As part of the armistice, Germany and Italy agreed to allow France to keep it's naval fleets and would not attempt to capture said fleets for use against the Allies. Despite this and personal assurances from the French, the British remained skeptical of whether or not Germany would maintain it's end of the agreement.

If the Germans seized control of the French fleet, the balance of [naval] power would tip in favor of the Germans. The British felt that the risk was too great and gave the French an ultimatum. The ultimatum was that the French should either assist the British (Free French Forces) during the war or surrender their ships to the British, who would then allow the French crew to return home (to France). A third option of transferring ownership of the ships to the United States and returning the French crews home was originally supposed to be offered, but the British liaison went against orders omitted the option when delivering the ultimatum to the French.

The ultimatum was it was supposed to be delivered is below:

After receiving the ultimatum, the British and French entered into talks over the future of the French fleet and it's crew, however both sides felt as though little progress had been reached. Negotiations were thereafter ended and the British began dropping anti-ship to prevent the French fleet from fleeing. Viewing the dropping of anti-ship mines as an act of aggression, the French shot down one of the British planes, killing it's two-man crew. After the loss of British lives, Winston Churchill ordered that the British eliminate the French fleet.

The battle was a decisive British victory, with the French fleet suffering a major loss of assets and life. Nearly 1300 Frenchmen were killed in the attack and around 350 were wounded; they also completely lost one ship, while taking severe damage to six other vessels. The British on the other hand only lost six aircraft and the aforementioned two lives. The French later retaliated by bombing the British city of Gibraltar.

The battle is a matter of some controversy, especially for the French. There is some disagreement over whether or not it was necessary for the British to attack the French fleet to begin with. The British argue that the risk of the fleet falling into German hands was too great and would have been devastating for the British war effort. Others criticize the British officers for not relaying the entire ultimatum as they had been ordered to, and that the French may have accepted the undelivered terms, avoiding over a thousand deaths. What do you think, was the British attack on the French fleet justified?

 

All's fair in love and war. I've witnessed people and goverments abuse the statuses love and war to get what they want. You can discuss whether it was right or not, but it always depends on the perspective. I don't even think there is an objective way to look at some situations.

For what it's worth, the British shouldn't have been so pro-active in forcing French allegiance. But perhaps their navy was a real threat that they couldn't just wait to see if it would remain neutral or not. It might have been a logical course of action from their perspective. Perhaps the conquered France (we're talking about Vichy France here?) issued the naval non-aggression treaty as a ruse, and the intent was indeed to lull the British into complacency, so that the Germans could use the fleet to stike at a vital time in the future. Even decades after the fact, with almost full disclosure of information, it's too complex for us to pass judgement, really. It happened, and it was tragic.

p.s. I'm Dutch/British, holder of both nationalities, so I voted as British.

 

"American/Other"? Why not just say "Other"?