>>61973053
Reminder that there was a Anglo vs French naval battle during WWII

>>61973239
Many dogfights too.

File: USS_New_Jersey_BB62_and_F(...).jpg (465 KB, 3250x2676)

465 KB JPG

But they aren't.

>>61973239
Reminder that the French proposed a Union with the UK just before the Fall of France. A union as in, France becomes part of the UK with the British King as the head of state. Imagine if it went through...

>>61976240
>Imagine if it went through
The British Army would have been compelled to commit their full force to the defense of France and would have been wiped out, leading to the capitulation of the UK before Pearl Harbor brought the USA into the war, and thus an Axis victory in Europe would have been all but certain.

>>61976240
No fucking way.
The ancestors of both the French and Engliah from the late 1400s-1815 would be spinning in their graves fast enough to cause earthquakes. I thought that the end of the HYW settled that.

File: large_000000-596507948.jpg (37 KB, 800x604)

37 KB JPG

Somers be like
>Zanzibart....forgive me..
>bombs the frogs to kingdom come while manly tears silently stream through his steel hardened cheeks
>churchill in the back wickedly smiling and rubbing his hands furiously
>"eheh...just as I have foreseen" says in an uncharacteristically raspy tone due to his smoking and drinking habits
>imperial march starts playing

>>61976298
the English-French hatred goes even further back. they were fighting each for basically the entire high/late medieval period

>>61973239
Imagine being given three very reasonable options, with the fourth being getting forcibly sunk to stop the French fleet from falling into nazi hands
1. Get your ships to Britain and continue the fight for your homeland
2. Get across the Atlantic to America and sit it out
3. Scuttle your fucking ships
And then responding to this with
>Fuck you Rosbif
Only to get mad when they, you know, sink the fucking ships to stop Jerry from having them.

>>61978183
haaaaave you met the french?

>>61978183
The French are retarded and full of unjustified pride, in other news the sky is blue.

>>61973053
>>61973239
Reminder that the very first heavy casualties inflicted upon US troops in the European theater were by French soldiers because the British had the brilliant idea of sailing a ship of soldiers directly into fortified French ports.

File: ww2.jpg (149 KB, 1544x1390)

149 KB JPG

>>61976285
The good timeline we never got

>>61973239
Why wouldn't there have been? France was Germanies most reliable and committed ally during WW2.

>>61978183
>>61978205
>>61978209
>>61978823
The French were fighting to protect the independence of southern france, which was being held hostage by the nazis. Why would they hand over their perfectly good ships to the incompetent and haughty brits?

>>61978884
The French were fighting for their German masters. As soon as they realised that the Germans had a boot that could be kissed their natural 'Frenchness' kicked in and they started making passionate oral love to the boot.

>>61978183
the surrender of the french barred the first two options.
doing so would have meant the germans taking the rest of france under direct occupation. With reappraisals against the officers that carried it out, probably by shooting arts of their families.
the third option is just stupid, the fleet is on the other side of the med and the germans can't get to it without the fleet having the time to scuttle or to set sail.
the british already storming and taking several french vessels also got the french pissed at them.
To the french the brits had left the fight early in week two of what turned out to be a six week war. Then storming their ships in british harbors and then sailing up to them and threatening to open fire.
I can understand that people find the frogs haughty (because they are). But no self respecting country would have accepted the british offer. Imagine if the americans had offered the british home fleet those terms while at anchor in Newfoundland. the bongs would have never accepted those terms and would never forgive them if they then opened fire.

France's inability to fight was the best thing that could happen to them. Look what a grueling grind Ostfront became. The French women merely had to suck Kraut dick for some years but without much bloodshed.

>>61979072
What do you mean 'had to' suck Kraut dick? They were lining up and fighting each other off to get a mouthful of Bratwurst.

>>61979072
This. Pretty sure the Allied bombings killed more french civilians than the krauts.

>>61979072
in the end, those who were "able" to fight were those who lost the most. so who's the fool here? spain, for staying neutral? italy, for switching sides? france, for relegating all the hard work to the allies?

or germany, who lost 15 million people and half of its land for 50 years?

>>61976354
I mean it was William's conquest of England that essentially meant a bunch of Norman noblemen now held lands in both England and France, which means French territorial disputes would draw in English forces, causing more intermarrying of English and French nobility as everyone sought to secure alliances to protect their French holdings, and it all eventually coagulated into the King of England winding up with a not-ridiculous claim to the French throne
The Nobility got intertwined, and this in an era where the Nobility were far more relevant than they would be centuries later when the only army of import was the national army.

>>61978884
The Germans could take Southern France whenever they wanted (as they eventually showed) and avoided doing so solely because having the official government of France pushing your propaganda lines was a real neat trick.
Said French government wasn't "protecting" anything, they were actively making the German control over their country easier.

>>61979114
I knew the French were the good guys.

>>61973917
take your floating burger flipping battlecruiser to some other thread, hernandez. we're talking about battleships

>>61978183
>Scuttle your fucking ships
Which the frogs did, later, when the nazis tried to take them. So basically, the bongs murdered those frogs for nothing.

>>61979197
well the bongs did have a grand oll time in the doing

>>61978959
>the surrender of the french barred the first two options.
No it didn't. You don't have to obey orders from traitors. And the Germans took direct control of France anyway, anything else is a cope. The fact is that they wanted to switch sides and use the surrender as an excuse. This is why the French are eternally mad about this, because it's a smoking gun that a good portion of the French government and military were Nazi sympathizers. In any case, the French have no room to be angry. Defeated peoples have terms dictated to them, not the other way around.

In-period, Americans faced similar confusion when fighting Vichy troops. They honestly, 100% expected them to immediately switch sides and fight for their liberators, not realizing that Vichy troops were genuine, sincere fascists.

>>61978959
>To the french the brits had left the fight early in week two of what turned out to be a six week war.
And the brit propaganda turned dunkirk into some epic victory lol

>>61978412
You lost.

>>61979236
Fact is, the Bongs stuck through it and got a seat at the winner's table to dictate terms to the groveling defeated. It really doesn't matter if you start out in the lead only to fall out mid-race.

>>61979217
>sincere fascists.
NAZISTS you moron. they were nazi.

>>61979300
I'm not inclined to split hairs. When you blow a guy's brains out with a Garand, does it really matter what specific ideology it held before becoming a Pollock painting?

>>61979217
>You don't have to obey orders from traitors
The Vichy regime was the "legitimate" one since it was headed by the war time cabinet.
A cabinet (in a different configuration) had been at odds about an armistice for a good two weeks at that time asking the Brits and the Americans for aid, getting none aside from Churchill agreeing that to the proposed French armistice terms and stated that "whatever happened, we would level no reproaches against France."
to call them traitors is easy, fast and stupid.
If if you'd consider them to be traitors.
That would change nothing to the having you family shot if you carried out those orders bit.
Now I'm sure you would have no issue sacrificing the wife and children you don't have for the cause. But most men would the higher ranking officer probably all having grand children as well.
> And the Germans took direct control of France anyway,
yes, 2 years later after the allies invaded French north Africa and after a brief fight the french there sided with the allies.
In effect you are saying that it was good that the ships in north Africa where sunk, because the french in Europe where overpowered because the french guarding the ships that where sunk joined the allies later on.
>The fact is that they wanted to switch sides
that some very nice post war communist propaganda
>They honestly, 100% expected them to immediately switch sides
>if the french surrender to the German the are cowards and vanquished suffer what they must
>if the french fight back against the allies attacking them as they where neutral and they don't just surrender but switch sides fast enough they are fascists and rats
have you perhaps considered that the french might want to put up a fight no matter whom it is that is invading their country?

>>61979296
fact is, the French sat right next to them
how can they be surrender monkeys if they fought for the whole duration of the war and sat with the victors?

>>61979361
Risk to family didn't stop the far, far braver Poles from resisting to the bitter end (and it is to our eternal shame we didn't liberate them from the Soviets and help them slaughter those vermin). The Allies weren't attacking the French, they were liberating them from a pillaging invader that was literally shipping French citizens off to die, be it in camps or German wars of imperial expansion. And of course once the Allies had done all the actual fighting, the common French were quick to turn on collaborators, which rather puts a hole in this fallacious argument. (That I'm not criticizing, traitors deserve humiliation and death, more of thr Vichy government should have been executed or sentenced to forced labor for the rest of their lives.)

>>61979369
France was there only as a polite fiction. They had little actual say in proceedings, it's just that the US and UK were incredibly kind to them.

>>61979502
UK had 0 power by the end of the war, especially in anything concerning France.
Hitler was absolutely right about Britain's fate being sealed.

>>61979495
> resisting to the bitter end (and it is to our eternal shame we didn't liberate them
>fight to the bitter end or you are a coward
>if you do fight to the bitter end we'll leave you to die
hum me thinks discretion might be the better part of valor if valor's reward is an anglo's word
>The Allies weren't attacking the French, they were liberating them
but there weren't any Germans in the french colonies that the allies attacked or Italians.
there where just french whom had stated very clearly and publicly that their goal was to sty neutral operating within the confines of the armistice accords. While there where those that did collaborators (no one is denying that and everyone that gets occupied has collaborators, just ask the afghans). The french commander in North Africa was political counter weight to Petain and a lot more in favor off the allies even after Mers El Kébir.
>fallacious argument
no, treason and collaboration are separate crimes.
When Mers El Kébir was attacked it wasn't clear to many of the over seas french if they should follow the Vichy government or the Free French (whom had less legitimacy than the Vichy regime having been backed by less elected members of parliament and ministers). The attack was a major element in convincing a lot of the other french colonies to side with the Vichy regime.
the attack also gave the impetus for Petain getting dictatorial power being just 3 days before the vote granting him those powers.
A good chunk of the french collaboration can be traced back at least in part to Mers El Kébir that rekindled the old feud on the French side.
The attack was a political own goal for the Brits.
The French felt betrayed by the Brits, they considered it a tearing up of their treaties. Having fought and died side by side in the trenches and then again in Belgium and northern France only to have the Brits attack their fleet in part when it posed no danger to the Brits that had blockaded them.

>>61979318
yes it does, because the only fascists that ever existed were italian, and if you say that vichy france was ruled by fascist it implies italian ruled over it, which is not true.

>>61979361
>have you perhaps considered that the french might want to put up a fight no matter whom it is that is invading their country?
This is the biggest cope I've ever read. Fighting your liberators in an effort to keep your country under Nazi control isn't some shining example of patriotism you tard, it's the obedience of a well trained dog.

>>61979661
>Fighting your liberators in an effort to keep your country under Nazi control
there where no german troops in french north africa

>>61979677
>fighting for the enemy that raped your country as they rape another country
The French really take their cuckoldry paraphilia to an extreme, don't they?

>>61978183
France considered herself neutral and out of the war due to the armistice as such they had no reason to do more than the terms of the armistice dictated nor did they had to be anglo lapdogs. What the anglo love to forget is that France honored their word by not letting the germans get their fleet once they finally invaded Vichy France. But honor is a foreign concept the eternal albion.

>>61979719
>>fighting for the enemy
Can't you read?

>>61978959
there is also the fact that letting the ships fight for britain might be seen as a betrayal of the armistice by the germans encouraging them to oppress the French and dismantle the remaining government. it's one thing that a couple of soldiers and a general fight on, it's another thing that highers ups let a whole branch of the armed force "defect"
The brits couldn't give a fuck about the French or anyone else, in their mind they are safe as long no else has a navy and don't care about anything else. That's why they were so quick to leave the french to fight for themselves, same with norway

>>61979743
>France considered herself neutral and out of the war
Yeah, but guess what? France's betters didn't, and really, it's their view of the situation that matters. But hey, if pretending to have a moral high ground helps you deal with your wife whoring herself out to Hans and Fritz, go wild.

>>61979719
but the french weren't fighting for the german anon
they where neutral, they had already lost the war.
their capital was taken, their army beaten, their air force gone, their industrial capacity denied to them, their ammo reserves depleted, their allies retreated or beaten as well.
the only thing they had left was their fleet and most off it was in Mers El Kebir. Then their former ally, the one who's leader told them that the would not be blamed for surrendering and that they could keep their fleet (as that was part of the armistice plans he found acceptable) attacked their fleet.
To the french the British where the traitors.
Going by how you think that traitors deserve death I'm wondering if you will now call for Churchill's head. After all he told the french that keeping their fleet was okay and then stormed or bombarded every french ship he could. A treason most fowl I'm sure we can agree on that.

>>61979760
The Bongs were in no position to fight the entire war for Norway or France. They had to pick battles they could actually win. If the French didn't want their ships sunk, maybe they should have fought harder instead of being cowards? Oh well, it worked out in the end.

>>61979775
>they where neutral
They were not. The Vichy government was a Nazi puppet state.
>To the french the British where the traitors.
Only if you accept the fiction that the French were neutral, which they were not.

>>61979764
>France's betters didn't, and really, it's their view of the situation that matters
what ere you even trying to say?
what France considers her self to be doesn't matter but their (France's)view of the situation that matters (they where beaten and their former ally then attacked them).
it's like you are trying to make an argument in favor of the frogs just joining the krauts openly.

>>61979296
Because they are an island, had they been in France's position they would have folded even faster. France lost the battle for France so what do you expect from them? To die for nothing? They couldn't just hide in Algeria fighting the Italian in Tunisia while the germans had the whole mainland taken as hostages and you should know how brutal the germans could be. In France's mind they lost the war and sued for peace like what happen in the past with other wars, they didn't expect Churchill to go autistic and make this whole thing an existential war that will only end with the complete destruction of either side thus keep France under occupation in perpetuity. The anglo keep acting smug but all he has for himself is being shielded by water.

>>61979502
>US and UK were incredibly kind to them
They kept trying to fuck them over and actually got them away from the big conferences.

>>61976285
>thinking the UK is ever gonna surrender while the Royal Navy still rules the waves
LMAO

File: 2c30128c1f8920b479b9dedae(...).jpg (81 KB, 600x887)

81 KB JPG

>>61979796
>he germans had the whole mainland taken as hostages and you should know how brutal the germans could be
And yet, some other nations which actually get fucked even harder by krauts keep fighting.
curious

>>61979764
If you think you'll get friends and allies by bossing them around it's not wonder you are stuck alone being miserable.
In the end, the brits used everyone and discarded everyone. Poland? yeah let's not talk about the fact they didn't help the warsaw uprising despite the polish volunteers begging to be sent there just because we wouldn't want to make Stalin mad after all the brits were already trying to split europe in half in spheres of influence with the soviets as if they owned the land themselves only in the end to be left with nothing like cucks because they let Stalin take all of eastern europe for himself.
This is not a question of moral high ground but honor and britain is the one that pawn off the eastern allies to the soviets.
inb4 muh unthinkable
yeah the thing that didn't happen?

>>61979786
>The Vichy government was a Nazi puppet state.
the Vichy regime was the internationally recognized French government by everyone but Britain and her dominions. And yest that also meant that the US recognized them as the legitimate french government until they joined the war, in fact until operation Torch.
And this in the eyes of the world legitimate government had publicly stated that they would stay neutral for the rest of the war in so far as possible by the armistice accords.
Under the period and current view off international law they where a neutral country.
It was an unprovoked attack on a neutral country, which was a hanging offense at the Nuremberg trails.
If anything not trowing their lot completely with the Germans after it was a clear sign that they wanted to remain neutral and scuttling their fleet at Toulon in42 was a clear sing that they did mean it when they said they'd do the same with their fleet at Mers El Kebir.

>>61973239
Purely because the French were taking no measures to guarantee their ships would stay out of German hands. So long as Britain had naval dominance, they were immune to the threat of German invasion. They weren't going to compromise that and risk handing Germany a French fleet for free on the word of some arrogant and idiotic admiral, who was too hopped up on his pride to even meet the British liaison for being too junior an officer. They left the britbongs no choice and have seethed about it ever since.

>>61979778
>we pick the battles we can win
>leave the french to die alone
>um no you can't just peace out, you have to keep fighting for me as your country is under occupation and I myself have no army left after dunkirk(big victory btw) but trust me we'll win this in 5 years just wait and endure

>>61979796
>had they been in France's position they would have folded even faster.
Shoulda...coulda...woulda...didn't. Even little shitholes like Finland fought harder than France despite having an army of 5 alcoholics with hunting rifles.

>In France's mind they lost the war and sued for peace
This is the lie they told themselves which no one else even pretended to believe, yes. It doesn't really matter, anyway, because reality is dictated TO losers, not BY them.

>They kept trying to fuck them over and actually got them away from the big conferences.
They gave them their country back free of charge and allowed them the privilege of sitting at some conferences as an honorary peer. Where the French were blocked from having a say was due to them making no meaningful contribution to the war effort on the side of the Allies. They were treated with unprecedented magnanimity.
>>61979818
This. The Poles deserved far better than they got. Patton was right and nukes should have dropped on Russian cities.

>>61978388
>reeeee you made us choose our own ships, our own officers, our own battle plan, reeeeee
Our Italians.

>>61979818
The vast majority of the Polish armed forces surrendered. Only a minority went on to fight after the fall of Poland.
More Free French fought than Free Poles.
Just like the Poles the French formed resistance groups and just as the Poles they rose in open revolt once the allied forces approached.
It's just that the Germans retreated from Paris ect. and the allies could link up with the resistance instead of soviets "needing a pause" to let the Germans crush the polish uprising.
And it's not just the French and the Poles, that how it went in all the other countries the Germans invaded and conquered.
The bulk of the armed forces surrender a minority goes to keep fighting and the civilians form resistance groups

>>61979818
they kept fighting because the French and the Brits were both in the war back then and unlike for the western ally their war was for survival.
However by the fall of France there were no army left that could fight the germans because all the brits had was evacuated from dunkirk or in the colonies. The war was truly lost and that's why the brits kept trying to the soviets and the americans to join on their side. Hitler being a turbo-retard actually gave the brits what they wanted twice. No one expected Hitler to be this retarded after the fall of France, it was such a miracle that people probably believed he was a genius. Do you truly fucking expect that britain could fight germany alone had the soviets and americans not been involved? Are you this fucking retarded that you can put yourself in the mind of someone at the time with their lack of knowledge of the future?

>>61979839
>It was an unprovoked attack on a neutral country, which was a hanging offense at the Nuremberg trails.
Vae victis. French should've fought harder for either themselves or their Nazi overlords if they didn't like it, lol.

>>61979850
The British only left the French because the cowardly French ran away and begged Hitler for peace. If they'd had more fighting spirit, they might not have been conquered. But you can't make a coward fight for himself, and it's silly to give your life for him.

>>61979869
>More Free French fought than Free Poles.
Only in propaganda leaflets distributed to the English and Americans so they'd resent the French less while fighting their war for them.

>>61979866
yeah being a shithole helped Finland, do you think invading a forest with little to no infrastructure during the winter is easier than invading developed flatland countryside with mainly roads, gas stations and railroads? also the finns had to fight the soviets not the germans at their peak and the finns did fucking surrendered like most countries does once they know they lost the war. They lost land but not as much because they fought on but didn't force the soviets to burn down Helsinki, what do you think the soviets would have done if the Finns kept the war going until they had to reach Helsinki? More dead people and probably a worse outcome. Easy for you to tell people to die for your cause when you're safe behind the channel or behind your computer.

>>61979840
> no measures to guarantee their ships would stay out of German hands
you mean being in North Africa, hundreds of miles away fro the nearest German with the explicit orders (that they relayed to the Brits) they they should make sail to England or scuttle if the Germans tried.
You know those no measures taken, not taking the word of the men you just fought with side by side. Whom surrendered only after asking express permission form your nations leader having read the term including how your fleet would stay in French ports

>>61979897
The French military was superior to the German one, just gutless and led by cowards.

>>61979900
>with the explicit orders (that they relayed to the Brits) they they should make sail to England or scuttle if the Germans tried.
For which there was no reason to delay, if those were options they should have been enacted immediately.
Taking the word of the same pompous asshat that wouldn't even meet his counterpart due to his wounded pride is stupidity at it's highest and not something you want to risk compromising the safety of your nation over.

>>61979743
We ended up fighting fucking Vichies in Africa anyway, so their 'neutrality' didn't count for shit.

>>61979900
>hundreds of miles away from the nearest German
We chewed through 600,000 Axis troops in Africa. Shut up, retard.

>>61979921
because you invaded them
>>61979920
>For which there was no reason to delay,
>so do it before they even try
I'd kindly remind you of the Germans would have probably shot the families off every officer that agreed to it.
There was a reason why most free french, free belgians, free dutch, free poles ect fought unto a fake name.

>>61979869
>More Free French fought than Free Poles.
Bruh, lying on the internet? In 2000+24? When you can check facts in matter of minutes? Really?
>Free French: 100.000 in 1942; 350.000 in 1944
>Polish Army in the West: 230.000 in 1942 (ironically, that included ca. 85 000 that fought in France in 1940), 395.000 n 1945, 340.000 in 1947 when they were officaly disbanded

>>61973053
sexocat.jpg

>>61979925
yes, hundred of miles from where the fleet was.
hundreds of miles away from the border the Germans didn't cross until operation torch invaded the french north African territories.
you are a retard that know nothing more but the very very basics of the second world war

>>61979941
>just take our word for it bro
Yeah that would have been retarded, especially after that show of bad faith from Admiral Marcel-Bruno Gensoul. The French wouldn't cooperate and got blown the fuck out for it, shit happens in war.

>>61979945
I'm wrong about the number then but thank you for pointing out that more than a quarter million french fought in 1944

>>61979955
>bad faith
insisting on talking with the commanding officer?
is asking to talk directly with the other man in command bad faith now?

>>61979839
>recognized

Irrelevant, no government containing foreigners or acting on behalf of foreigners is or can be legitimate.

>>61978959
>To the french the brits had left the fight early in week two of what turned out to be a six week war.
the french army collapsed and left the british stranded, nearly resulting in the BEF being annihilated. people also forget that the british sent troops back into france later, only to find the french had no plan and no real will to fight. trying to put any kind of blame onto the british for the loss of france is pure cope.
>>61979236
>And the brit propaganda turned dunkirk into some epic victory lol
it wasnt considered a victory even at the time, but it was an increadible feat.

>>61979885
>The British only left the French because the cowardly French ran away
annon my memory is hazy perhaps you can help me on this, who evacuated their entire force form the continent. Was it the Brits of the French that kept fighting for more than a month.

>>61979956
...and about the same numbers as your 'Free French' (actually until 1942 it was more) fought - as volunteers in - Waffen-SS units

>>61979961
Refusing to meet with the highest ranking French speaking officer because you're offended by his low status is bad faith, yes. Either way the French weren't making moves to ensure the ships would stay out of German hands, forget British or American custody they could have taken them to the French West Indies. The reality is they left the British with no options and for some reason they still seethe about it to this day.

>>61979921
>launch a naval invasion of vichy france
>cry because they shoot back
They could have fought more but pretty much let the allies win without much blood being lost which prove Vichy France never wanted to be on germany side but tried to remain neutral out of honor. It came at the price that France fully lost their state back in mainland but this time the Germans also had to fight the Americans and the Soviets so the war was winnable.

>>61979977
>French weren't making moves to ensure the ships would stay out of German hands
So did the ships fell into German control? No? well seem like they did then

>>61979996
Did the bongs have a magic ball to see the future with? No? Seems like they made the right move by mitigating the risk then.

>>61980004
Did the French have a magic ball to see the future the future where the german(all of western europe) vs Britain(lost her land army) war would have ended up with a british victory because the Soviets(germany's friend since the molotov pact) and the USA(isolationist foreign policy) would have done all the heavy work to win the war? No? Seem to me the French made the move that meant less useless death from what they could have predicted then.

>>61979967
it didn't contain foreigners nor did it act on Germany's behalf before the Brits attack in Mers El Kedir.
I know this might be hard for you to understand but there is this thing called the flow of time. I know thirdies can struggle with this. But we have the date the Brits attack the fleet and we have the dates of the things you will bring ups as acting for the Germans and all of those acting for the German things happened after the attack on the fleet
>>61979974
The french army it didn't collapse, even as the evacuation was happening they where still fighting even when completely encircled (pulling away units need to attack the Duinkerke pocked in force).
they troops you speak off where two divisions with only one fully making it across. They landed a over hundred miles away from the front line, advanced a dozen or so of miles, stat there and then evacuated without making contact with the Germans.
no one is claiming that it was the Brits pulling out that lost France. But claiming the French where cowards while the Brits also ran is just pure hypocrisy.
The Brits wouldn't be back until after the Russians bled the Germans something fierce and the Americans had arrived in full force.
Their sole point of contact with the Germans was in North Africa where the Free French army fought side by side with them.
Heck the Brits even abandoned the channel islands to be occupied by the Germans.
No fight them on the beaches not even an evacuation effort for the civilians. Just bobbies politely opening car doors for German officers and saluting them.

>>61980030
Ergo you believe both sides were correct to act as they did. Good. You and other frogs can stop seething about Mers-el-Kébir then.

>>61979996
>shit wrecked, burned and sank by Bongs
>Germans just ignored rusting husks, which have no value for them
>It's a proof that French were doing everything to prevent their fleet falling into German hands, you see!
Jesus fuck, you are retarded, even for frog-lover standards

>>61979977
>Refusing to meet with the highest ranking French speaking officer because you're offended by his low status is bad faith
No he's french he expects the highest ranking officer to speak french. Or to come to him and speak via an interpreter.
Sending a lower ranked officer while the commanding officer stays at sea makes hints that you a) expect the people you are talking to to pull a fast one on you b) that the talks are a formality and that you fully intend to attack.
>weren't making efforts
then why where they out of German hands? If they didn't make any effort they'd have been in a Italian port by then.
>sailing the the west indies
was an option in case of a German move violating the armistice. Keeping the fleet there was a incentive for the Germans not to break the terms of the armistice. So simply sailing them off would have simply ended with full German control of France faster, reprisals against the officers that carried it out and a fleet now completely severed form the production base it needs to stay in a operational state.

>>61980053
Yes, that's why the Germans tried to take the other french fleet at Toulon and the french scuttled it. Because they where so desperate to just join the Germans right guys.

>>61980044
>look we stabbed you in the back after fighting side by side with you
>and you only get salty after we bring it up
>but please stop making a fuss out off it
bongs just admit you fucked up, it doesn't hurt or cost you a thing.

daily reminder that Gensoul was fucking ordered to do exactly as the British asked and sail to America in that exact situation but decided instead of disobey orders, lie to his direct superiors, and get hundreds killed

>>61976285
>leading to the capitulation of the UK
Wow! Their army getting Merc'd would've also destroyed the Royal Navy thus making invasion of Britain possible? I was not aware of this magic spell!

>>61980044
Then you admitted France was right to surrender as the war was lost and only was won in the end by something unpredicted. Thus confirming that France had no intention of switching side and thus was just trying to wait for the conclusion of the war with their fleet remaining in their hand.
Giving up their fleet is also like giving someone a loaded gun, do you trust that person to give it back once they don't need it and not use it against you since you have no way of enforcing the return of the fleet.

>>61980093
>exact situation
>if the Germans violated the armistice terms
>the exact situation of the bongs asking them to surrender the fleet or to sail into exile

>>61973053
>obvious anglo rage thread.
Why are bongs like this?

>>61980091
They did the only reasonable thing. They lost nothing by attacking Mers-el-Kébir but risked plenty by leaving the fleet intact. If the French had moved the fleet to the West Indies, none of it would have happened.

I would just one more time like to make clear that Churchill expressly stated that the french where right to surrender and that it couldn't be held against them. Had agreed to the French keeping control over their fleet, that the french had ordered ships in ports that would be occupied by the Germans to sail to ports under french control and that operating an other nations fleet was something next to impossible because you'd need to train a whole new crew for them, set up a new industrial base for them ect.

>>61980116
because they don't have anything left

Utlimately, French seethe about Mers El Kebir and Dunkirk is an attempt to obfuscate and hide the fact that the BEF skillfully fought the Germans to a standstill in Belgium while the French Army allowed itself to be utterly defeated by an enemy whose exact strategy they knew ahead of time.
The Belgians had captured two German staff officers who had in their possession the entire plan to attack through the Ardennes. Gamelin ignored this and fed his units one by one to stop what he thought was no more than a feint.

It’s even more of an embarrassment when you know the BEF was supposed to have defended that sector of the front by under French orders, they were sent charging into Belgium. So not only do they resent the British for fighting better than them, they also resent them for having faithfully followed their shitty plans and instructions.

>>61980134
no they lost a good bit by the attack.
several french colonies that where leaning towards supporting the Free French joined the Vichy regime
you also present sailing to the West Indies like there wasn't a cost attached to that.
the one thing that the french had to keep the Germans from violating the terms of the armistice was that they still had their fleet. If their fleet had sailed the Germans would have taken over all off France and then you'd have a fleet without the port facilities and the supply chain it needs on the wrong side of the world to have any effect.
Hitler feared the French fleet going over to the Brits that's why he waited with taking the rest of France until after operation torch and the french in North Africa joining the allies.

You only look at how the alternatives would have effected the Brits. But it wasn't the Brits that the French where concerned about.

>>61980163
oh boy
the BEF lost as many battles as it won and was giving ground just as the french where.
The BEF also didn't face the main German trust with German units probing but never massing to break trough the front manned by the BEF.
the general plan to rush north was also agreed to by the Brits whom helped to work out it's implementation. The BEF had been in France for long enough to raise objection with the plan if they felt it was bad, they didn't.

>>61979925
>We
You weren't there. You didn't do shit. Stop LARPING.

>>61980164
The British were facing the Germans in the Atlantic and the Italians in the Mediterranean alone, it was strategically unavoidable that the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir be taken out of the picture one way or another. The potential risks massively outweighed the costs and no losing the good will of what was already a subdued puppet state doesn't change that.
>You only look at how the alternatives would have effected the Brits. But it wasn't the Brits that the French where concerned about.
Because that's what ultimately led to the actions of the British and is what the French still seethe about to this day.

Anglos truly are the most disgusting "people" in the world.

>>61980198
More denying reality. The German attack was brought to a standstill in the British sector along the Dyle Canal. The French choked, lost their heads, and lost the war.

>>61980205
>British were in it alone
>leave your allies
>you are now alone
oh gee how could that be
the french where in a French port, told you that they where to scuttle of the axis tried anything.
if the french seethe about anything than it is the bongs stabbing them in the back but they don't want to know why?
no French man I've ever spoken to has brought it up.
The only thing that is exemplary is that the brights will never ever admit that they fucked something up and did something bad.
potato famine? irish asked for it. Banghal famine? the asked for it. The Boer concentration camps? those women and children where asking for it. and on and on
the inability of admitting that what was done was a dick move is a clear indication of how the Brits feel insecure and aren't able to deal with losing the empire (or the empire now taking them over)

>>61980239
>>61980198
this nègre is desperately scouring wikipedia right now trying to find proof the BEF was routed before the collapse of the French centre lmao.

>>61980260
>French collapse leaving the BEF encircled
>BEF evacuates rather than being totally destroyed
>waaahhh how could you ditch us you betrayed us!
You're being retarded on purpose.
>the french where in a French port, told you that they where to scuttle of the axis tried anything.
For which there was no guarantee. It was too large a risk to leave unaccounted and the French were given multiple options that didn't include joining the British or scuttling the fleet. They refused these options and left the British with no further options.
>rest of that retarded pant-shitting rant about imperial atrocities/loss of empire etc
I'm going to pretend you didn't even write all that shit because the irony of a frog preaching about the the British empire is too much to take seriously.

>>61980239
>British sector along the Dyle Canal.
against an attack made by two German infantry divisions with a third one in the area
oh wow two crops with mechanized and armored formations can hold the attacks made by 2 infantry divisions while holding a line behind a river
the Brits weren't on the line off advance for the main German trust. If they had been they'd have been smashed.

>>61980294
>talk about the naval situation
>muh dunkerq
running out off excuses so you have to start recycling them?
>no further options
like leaving them
the germans didn't have the means to reach them. The Italians could have but force at Miers el kebir could have taken the RM if it came to it
>I'm a frog
hahahahaha
I can grantee you that I'm not a frog, If I where It wouldn't be on an English speaking website
but the bongs are a bit like the turks in their insistence that they have never every done anything wrong
and just like the turk I assume it is because off deep sense of anxiety over lost glories
and it's only gotten worse since brexit

>>61980300
>the Brits weren't on the line off advance for the main German trust.
Because they were ordered into Belgium by French Generals, remember?
And now you’re seething they won as well lmao
>the BEF won so it doesn’t count! In my fictitious version of history they would have been overrun just like my 2nd rate 50 year old reservist divisions!

>>61980345
>ordered into Belgium by French Generals, remember?
they agreed to take part in the plan, the plan they helped to form.
I'd like to remind you off your original claim in >>61980163
>BEF skillfully fought the Germans to a standstill in Belgium
first off the BEF only held part of the line in Belgium and the other parts in Belgium also held their line. Until just like the BEF they had to retreat because their flank had been turned.
>skillfully
they faced of with two corps mostly motorized and armored against 3 infantry divisions while in solid defensive positions.
So superior numbers, superior materiel, defensive position.
but it's all down to skill. Never mind when British units where driven back or they couldn't drive back German toe holds across a river.
Had the Germans chosen to come trough Leuven at full force the BEF would have been smashed just like the french formations that faced the German main line of advance

>>61980334
>running out off excuses so you have to start recycling them?
You brought it up
>like leaving them
Which posed an unacceptable risk. A risk that could have been mitigated had they cooperated and moved the fleet to the West Indies. They refused and they got destroyed. Shit happens in war, strategic needs trump wounded pride.
>I can grantee you that I'm not a frog
Uh huh.

File: 1711776571149294.jpg (783 KB, 1913x1844)

783 KB JPG

>>61979287
That's my point yes, glad you could keep up there champ

>>61980403
>you brought it up
I've gone all the way up the response chain to the top of the tread and I didn't bring it up
> unacceptable risk
the Germans couldn't have maned and worked the fleet even if it did fall into their hands in mint condition.
The admiralty knew this, Churchill knew this, the Kriegsmarine know this and even Hitler knew this.
The only thing that the British had to fear was the French teaming up with the Germans.
So for this to make sense to the Brits than they must have assumed that the French where going to backstab them as soon as they could.
In which case why wasn't the fleet at Toulon where it would be safer and closer to the Germans. Why hadn't it and the Toulon fleet set sail to a Italian port to join the axis.
Or could it have been that the French relied on their fleets to be the grantee for the Germans not breaking the armistice.
Could it have been that sailing to the Caribbean would have resulted in the Germans breaking said armistice
could it bee that admitting they did a dick thing 80+ years ago is still to much or wound to national pride for the bongs to just fess up that looking back at the scuttling of the fleet at Toulon that yes they got it wrong.

>>61980461
>the Germans couldn't have maned and worked the fleet even if it did fall into their hands in mint condition.
Of course they could have.
>rest of that garbage
You're French, that much is clear. The fact is that the French refused to mitigate the risk of their fleet falling into German hands which would have posed a threat to the already stretched thin RN. The attack on Mers-el-Kabir was a strategic necessity, I'm sorry this still causes you so much asshurt after all these years.

>>61980461
>Or could it have been that the French relied on their fleets to be the grantee for the Germans not breaking the armistice.
The French needed a fleet to guarantee that the Germans wouldn't break their word, but the British were supposed to just take the French word at face value.

>>61980499
>Of course they could have
they'd need to have to train up the sailors not just to man a fleet but to men the french fleet. Meaning that all the machinery was french, the guns where french the very nuts, bolts where french and in good french tradition they where uniquely french.
So the Germans would have had to learn how to work a french fleet, supply it all the things in needs to operate in those uniquely french production standards or change them for German systems.
The only way to have any chance of doing so is for the french to have handed them the manuals then thought them and supplied them.
This would still have taken months giving the RN plenty of time to come and attack the fleet while this was in process.
And that once again assumes that the french had over the fleet in mint condition, which they wouldn't have.
As for the French not taking and measures to mitigate the risk of their fleet falling into German hands.
The french Atlantic fleet was still in the Atlantic ports soon to be part of the German occupation zone. The French sailed them to Toulon. I think even you can admit that this was a measure taken to assure that the Germans couldn't just nab them.
The only way that the French fleets posed a treat was if they had switched sides.
I'd also like to point out that the Brits didn't attack the fleet at Toulon. Since the fleet at Toulon wasn't attacked one can only assure that it somehow didn't pose the same danger to the UK. But it was just as powerful and the only thing between it and the Germans wasn't a sea but a few shattered units of the completely broken french army. So if the fleet at Toulon wasn't a danger worth sinking idle in port than why was the fleet at Mers. And if the fleet at Toulon wasn't at risk off falling into German hands than why was the fleet at the other side of the sea
>I'm french
Ik kan frans spreken en ik heb een franse over over groot moeder maar dat is het dan ook.
My family is actually from around Ypers

>>61980523
Yes, they where allies, they even asked the Brits if it was okay for them to tap out and for them to keep their fleet. Churchill accepted those condition and their surrender.
If the Brits objected they should have done so then. Given the French the time to set sail for the West Indies before the armistice

>>61980523
>>61980636
I just want to add that if the french had set sail for the West Indies before the armistice than that would have been a point of contention, but no breach of the truce.
But asking them to do so after the armistice you are asking them to break the terms of the armistice and thus inviting the complete occupation of France by the Germans.
The timing matters.

>>61980626
>all that cope to insist captured ships couldn't be used
They could and were. U-570 or as it was later named, HMS Graph, is one such example. Capturing a fleet and putting in the work to crew and maintain them was certainly a smaller hurdle than building a similarly sized fleet from scratch, which had the Germans solely focused their efforts on defeating Britain would have become a priority owing to the presence of the RN.
>The only way that the French fleets posed a treat was if they had switched sides.
This is cope.

So let me get this straight:
The British issue an ultimatum that the French fleet can’t stay in the med with several choices for the French government to choose from.

The French Admiral Gensoul not only doesn’t deliver the full message to the vichy regime with all the options proposed but actually goes ahead and orders for French ships to steam for Mers El Kebir to attack the British ships as soon as they can.

Now this same Admiral Gensoul orders his sailors to open fire on Skua seaplanes that are mining the harbour. So not only do we know the French shot first but Gensoul was stalling for time for the rest of his to arrive to ambush the British by saying he wants to speak to a higher officer than a "lowly captain" (this Captain being Cedric Holland, the commanding officer of the aircraft carrier Ark Royal).

So the French have shot first, Gensoul is stalling for time, and the British have intercepted the message that he’s ordered his ships to attack the British ASAP while also lying about the message the British gave him to convey.

Meanwhile the Italians and Germans are planning to seize the fleet like they would the ships docked in Tunisia later on (hundreds of miles away right? lmao)

Somehow, despite all of the above, the RN are the bad guys here, is that right?

>>61980669
>U-570
>a single ship
>with US backing
>went on patrol 3 times
>got retired because maintaining her was to hard
oh wow thanks for making my point
The US and the UK found that maintaining a single captured vessel to be to hard.
Now imagine if the Germans on their own had to man and maintain an entire fleet of ships several times or several dozen times her displacement
yes of course it's a cope to say that they Germans couldn't have pulled it off. It's not like they knew they couldn't do it. It's not like in the two years after the scuttling in Toulon they didn't even try to recover any of the sips that would have been so easy for them to use if they'd just raise them.
I also note that you didn't answer the problem presented to the necessity of the attack by the continued unmolested survival by the Toulon fleet.

>>61980724
Wait the French shot first?

>>61980734
Because it was studied extensively as it was more useful as a learning tool than a practical combatant, yet despite that it still saw service afterwards. Capturing the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir would have eliminated years of work needed to build up such a fleet independently. That was an unacceptable strategic risk and the consequences of eliminating it paled in comparison to the risk in leaving alone. That last part being most important and one you haven't been able to address, souring relations with a defeated nation was no consequence at all.
You're upset about that and that's okay, but your seething is not justified.

>>61980724
>can’t stay in the med with several choices for the French government to choose from
all of them breaking the armistice terms with the Germans. Churchill having visited France several times before it's singing and not objecting to French plans to keep their fleet.
>French Admiral Gensoul not only doesn’t deliver the full message
this is a fuck up on his part
>Now this same Admiral Gensoul orders his sailors to open fire on Skua seaplanes that are mining the harbor.
mining a harbor is an act off aggression in and off it's self.
if you want to go by who shot first it was the Brits mining the port. Once you start taking hostile action you should not be surprised that the french start calling in reinforcements. You know after the Brits start to mine the harbor.
>Gensoul was stalling for time for the rest of his to arrive to ambush the British by saying he wants to speak to a higher officer than a "lowly captain"
wanting to speak to the commander in charge isn't out of the ordinary.
>Meanwhile the Italians and Germans are planning to seize the fleet like they would the ships docked in Tunisia later on (hundreds of miles away right? lmao)
can you provide a source for this I haven't ready anything about this
>RN are the bad guys here
No, Churchill and his cabinet going against his prior approval to leave the French their navy.
While the RN did fumble a few things like mining the harbor while talks are still going on and not understanding that a French admiral might want to talk to the British admiral directly. In the end the RN is in the position that the politicians placed them in.

>>61980790
the Brits started mining the harbor while the talks where still ongoing.
Mining inside an other countries territorial waters (never mind one of their harbors) is considered an act of war.

>>61980790
Yes. They shot first, downing a few planes and killing their crews. The RN would only open fire hours afterwards.

>>61973053
The French have perfected the art of surrender like no other.
By the time Hitler got to Paris they'd changed the road signs to German.

This whole thing kinda sounds like france still wanted to be seen as a real player despite being a glorified rump state and they're upset the british showed them the truth of the situation in the most undeniable way possible

>>61980163
Echoes of WW1 where they resented the Americans for being better than them.

>>61980795
>would have eliminated years of work needed to build up such a fleet
As I have stated before learning how to work an other nations fleet is a long process and would have taken major investment. It did not pose an immediate risk to the UK. And here you are agreeing with me (without knowing), it would have saved the Germans years, but would have still cost them years. Years for the RN to make an other visit. Years for the UK's own ship building program, years to deal with the RM.
The fleet would have been exposed for all that time in harbor or it would have had to make sail with a German crew that hasn't had a chance to train on their ships, floating targets.
and once again you ignore Toulon.
The strongest French fleet was in harbor there on continental Europe with nothing but good will between it and the Germans.
And the British did nothing to try and take it out.
So why did the Brits just leave the stronger fleet that was easier for the Germans to get too if the weaker harder to get to fleet posed a mortal danger.

>>61980806
The Vichy ships in Bizerte, Tunisia were captured with ease by the Germans and Italians.
That was the entire point of moving the raid force to North Africa by Mussolini, to make it easier to capture than the heavily fortified port in Toulon. You are just fucking coping and shitting this thread up with excuses you got played by the fascists not once but twice. The fleet was supposed to stay moored per the armistice. So what if the harbour is mined by your real ally? The ships are supposed to stay bottled up. The mines are a way to guarantee that. Instead, you’ve been bitching and moaning about the British foiling Mussolini’s plan to steal your fleet from under your nose like he would do at Bizerte.

Jesus the only reason the French were able to scuttle the fleet at Toulon later in the war is because Toulon was an actual fortress, not an open air port like Mers El Kebir, which gave the sailors enough time to destroy their ships.

>>61980163
>The Belgians had captured two German staff officers who had in their possession the entire plan to attack through the Ardennes. Gamelin ignored this and fed his units one by one to stop what he thought was no more than a feint.
the best part is when they had recon planes reporting a 250 km long traffic jam through the ardennes and he still chose not only to ignore it but to keep this information from the british too. imagine if they'd been able to bring the raf and armee de l'air to bear on them it'd have been glorious.

>>61980876
>they would have had to do X and Y and Z and bla bla bla
And all of those things pose a far greater threat and a far greater risk than just attacking them in 1940 lmao. Which again could have been avoided if they'd just moved them to the west indies.

>>61978884
>after 22 June 1940
>fighting
lol. lmao even

>>61980877
>Bizerte
>1942
probably because the allies invaded northern france
and the main fleet of the French in Toulon was scuttled
>fleet was supposed to stay moored per the armistice. So what if the harbour is mined by your real ally?
why would your real ally start mining you harbor while you are still in talks.
doesn't it show bad faith, doesn't is strongly hint that they mean to destroy your fleet at harbor regardless of the talks.
Had the RN told the French that they where going to be mining the port and given the same reason as you did then who knows what would have happened. But they didn't tell the french they where going to start mining did they.
Bizerte was right next to the German and Italian jumping off points, Mers El Kebir is on the other side of Algeria well past the kasserine pass.
Toulon was fort but it being a fort didn't ply a part in the scuttling. the Germans took the French by complete surprise and captured the navel HQ and still the scuttling was carried out with every surface combating scuttling or sailing for allied prots.

>>61980876
>So why did the Brits just leave the stronger fleet that was easier for the Germans to get too if the weaker harder to get to fleet posed a mortal danger.
Because all of France's modern battleships (the primary concern) were in North Africa in July 1940: Dunkerque and Strasbourg at Mers-el-Kébir, Richelieu at Dakar, and the incomplete Jean Bart at Casablanca; along with numerous other warships large and small, including several WWI-era battleships. Given the battleship-centric naval doctrine of the early war period, it's no surprise that Britain concentrated her efforts on these fleet elements, rather than the less powerful force in harbor at Toulon, which was judged to be out of reach.

>>61980906
>again ignoring Toulon
yes, I get it you are just making excuses because admitting the brits might have fucked something up is to painful for your ego.
the problem with your reasoning being that sailing to the west indies posed a greater treat to the Vichy French than staying in port (not the sailors mind you they where fucked).
If you go and make demands you know the other guy will never accept you aren't there to make demands you are there to give an excuse.
That is where the British cabinet failed, not finding a political solution to the problem. After Churchill had agreed to the French keeping their fleet.

>>61980939
>why would your real ally start mining you harbor while you are still in talks.
Because. The. British. Intercepted. The. Message. You. Intend. To. Start. Shooting. As. Soon. As. Your. Ships. From. Oran. And. Toulon. Arrive.

Gensoul was lying through his teeth the whole time. You are lying as well with your disingenuous “oh he did a ‘fuck up' guys. Really just a little oopsie he didn’t mention option C at all and pretended he couldn’t get a hold of anyone."

>>61980970
I addressed it here >>61980940 after reading your post to completion. It's ironic you are claiming I ignored it whilst you are doing so right now.

>we need the ships to preserve our independence!
>get annexed anyways
>shocked pikachu face

>>61980940
that's an answer at least
but the French element at Toulon still included 3 battle ships and would have been well in range for a fleet that set sail form Malta or Gibraltar and most of the fleet elements would have been able to make it from Cairo.
It would have been more exposed to the RM but it could still be done.
And exerting all that effort to get the battleships in north africa and then not even trying to bomb the fleet at Toulon.

>>61980988
because I didn't refresh before posting.
>>61980983
how would you respond if someone knocks on your front door and points a gun at you demanding you give up all your guns or else.
of course you are going to fight back.

>>61981017
>why didn't they just attack everything
Because Royal Navy, limited in size by two decades of naval arms limitation conferences, was stretched wafer thin. Could the Royal Navy, in addition to fighting a global naval war against Germany and dealing with Italy's entry into the war, realistically spare the resources to simultaneously attack and blockade not only the forces in North Africa but also the less accessible and less threatening forces at Toulon? Within the context Churchill (and presumably the RN) reluctance (or perhaps inability) makes perfect sense. I don't believe there's anything more to be inferred from it than that.

>>61981079
true, but given that the French didn't pose a direct treat to the RN even if the Germans had made a play on them because it would have taken them a lot of time to get those fleets into action (and their naval forces where stretched even more thinly and on the other side of the continent).
Wouldn't it have made more scene to conserve forces and not risk your fleet by making a play on the French. Especially since Churchill didn't object to the French surrender and to the French retaining their fleet.
Personally I think that the main driving factor was to impress on the Americans that the Brits would go all the way. Fucking you old ally in order to court a new one. Still a very dick move but you can understand the politics of it. Attacking and risking reprisals from a country that has already lost to gain support from a country that doesn't want to join the war.

>>61981216
>the French didn't pose a direct treat to the RN
>Wouldn't it have made more scene to conserve forces and not risk your fleet by making a play on the French
That's obviously debateable, but it's important to note that an attack was only one possible eventuality and definitely the least desirable. At Portsmouth, Plymouth and Alexandria the ships had either been seized or disarmed without a hitch (with the exception of Surcouf). There was no reason to believe the situation at Mers-el-Kébir should have played out any differently to say Alexandria, where the Admiral chose demilitarization. Interesting to note this fleet went on to later join the allies in 1943. The fall of France put Britain in an uncertain position, as I emphasized the RN was already spread thin by both Germany and Italy, the possibility of those battleships falling into Axis possession was untenable. It was strategically necessary AND morally questionable, I think both can be true but the reality is that the latter doesn't usually win against the former during wartime.

>>61981216
>Personally I think that the main driving factor was to impress on the Americans
This is often touted. That the attack was just the British making a statement about their intention to stay in the war but again I think the fact that attacking was only a last resort option shoots holes in that. The British ultimatum essentially gave the French the options of (1) continuing the fight against the Germans alongside the British, (2) internment in a British port, (3) demilitarization of the ships to the satisfaction of the British, or, failing these options, (4) destruction. As you can see, the "statement" may never have been made had the French agreed to one of the other options set out in the ultimatum. As I said previously, the Admiral commanding the French fleet in Alexandria chose demilitarization, thus avoiding a similar fate to the fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
And while yes we now know that the attack on Mers-el-Kébir was interpreted by some in the US leadership as a statement of British resolve to continue the fight, it easily could have been interpreted differently. Attacking your ally who's just sued for peace doesn't send great messages to potential allies at the very least. And if the attack was staged by Churchill as a PR move, it was an incredibly risky gamble that severely strained relations between Britain and France for some time afterward (though I imagine political concerns to that effect were muted).

>>61981216
And last thing I'll add is that if the attack on Mers-el-Kébir was mainly a PR move it wasn't a great target for that. The most powerful body of the French fleet was at Mers-el-Kébir. It was not an easy target attacked by Britain solely to make a statement. The Royal Navy faced down the most powerful powerful French force in existence at the time (granted, on terms favorable to the British force), along with others at Dakar, Alexandria and, more peaceably, in Britain. I just don't believe that we can infer from Britain's reluctance (or inability) to attack the fleet in Toulon that the attack on Mers-el-Kébir was mounted to demonstrate Britain's intention to stay in the war, which seems to be the point you were making

>>61981311
I agree with military needs coming before moral desires in time of war and the uncertain position the Brits found themselves in.
But the attack really did a number on anglo-french relations, turned the Vichy regime to collaboration and drover several colonies that where considering joining the free french firmly into the Vichy mindset
A part of this is me being a waffle and being able to read the french sources.
By the time of the attack happened politics was moving fast and weird in both armistice France (with people from all over the political spectrum joining the Vichy regime) and the colonies.
Taking the ships in British ports is one thing but going after a french fleet in a french port was something else.
A there are few things the Brits could have done that would have improved their odds and not cost them anything tough.
Send a commanding officer that spoke french, preferably one that had met Gensoul before (the personal connection was very important to getting the force in Alexandria to stand down).
offering the option of the same armistice controls on the fleet as those at Toulon as an option (minimal feul, reduced crew ect) and a small RN contingent to check on those. That would have kept the French within the armitace agreement, given the brits (limited) access to the ships and the fleet in a condition that it would take a few days before it could set sail.
Get admiral René-Émile Godfroy to endorse one of the options via radio or even better try to fly him over.
Appeal to the crews of the ships directly (crew where a lot more likely to want to join the Free French).
Don't start mining the harbor in full view off everyone.
Doing those last two would have put pressure on Gensoul because other officers and the crews might just decided to declare for one of the options.
Don't start mining the harbor in front off everyone with just a couple of planes, you'd never get a minefield up but you are pissing every one off.

>>61981368
the problem the British option for de militarization was sailing to the west indies. Doing so would have look to the Germans as siding with the Brits and would have resulted with the resumption of hostilities in France.
The "statement" was indeed contingent on the response of the French. But in both a french positive response and a negative response would have bolstered the British position as a side worth backing.
If the french agree to the terms than the Brits look like they are stronger and a safer bet. If the French refuse and you sink them you show how determined you are
>>61981396
I wouldn't say it was a pure PR move.
You had the military reason of trying to gain or neutralize a military force (hello Copenhagen, the RN sure does love tradition).
But the PR would have outweighed the fucking things over with the French part off it.
In my personal opinion few things are done because there is a singular reason for it.

>>61979287
Unless you're jewish, you lost too.
If you are jewish, congratulations.

>>61979630
>the Free French (whom had less legitimacy than the Vichy regime having been backed by less elected members of parliament and ministers)
The Free French, despite being led by a dumbass, were more legitimate than Vichy because they weren't collaborating with their invaders.
Shooing at your liberators during Torch was inexcusable.

>>61979743
>France honored their word by not letting the germans get their fleet once they finally invaded Vichy France
Barely.

>>61979831
>the polish volunteers
how were they getting to Warsaw?

>>61973053
>be french navy
>land army overrun
>can literally sail away
>no we're good
>AH FUCKING ENGLISH WHY DO YOU BOMB US FOR NOT FIGHTING YOUR WAR

>>61980087
List the French order of battle at Toulon that morning. I dare you.

>>61978959
The only relevant post ITT.
Thanks anon.
To be called arrogant and other names by bongoloids is always extremely uncanny.

>>61976285
You're an idiot, even with a decimated army Germany would not have been able to make a landing on Britain

>>61983279
Who said anything about Germany's army being decimated?

>>61979839
Yes, and the Quisling government was legitimate, too!

Bunch of seething Anglos in this thread mad that French Government had the sense to know when they were beat and agree to an armistice.
Unlike the retarded Anglo who decided to fight to last; ruin their economy and gain nothing but the loss of their empire after the war.

>>61982323
>be frog at Casablanca
>the nearest german is some 2000km away across shit roads
>some burger lands and starts shooting at me
>Imbeingliberated.jpg
The Americans bungled the diplomacy trying to get the French to join and then stormed defended beaches.
If there are people shooting at you you don't stop to have a talk about their intentions, you shoot back.

>>61982412
you clearly seem to know it so why don't you give it?
It' hardly relevant tough because the germans where able to storm the naval HQ but the crews still carried out the scuttling without an admiral telling them to do so.
>>61983400
I think that annon is referring to the British army being decimated. Because the Germans didn't have the navy or transport ships to carry out a landing off sufficient force to take on even the few division left in England.

>>61983944
No, Quisling was appointed by the german occupation force and had no legitimacy.
The Vichy regime was formed by majority of the French government that signed the armistice treaty. If they are legitimate enough to surrender France they are legitimate enough to rule parts of it.
The main problem is that 3 days after Mers El Kebir Petain asked and got the end of the third republic from a united sitting of the french lower and upper house. Thus disbanding themselves and giving Petain dictatorial powers.
But the Vichy regime was still recognized by the world at large with only the British and her dominions recognizing the Free French.
The only people to recognize Quisling and his ilk where other axis members.
the legitimacy of a government isn't about if you like their policy. But if they came to power by legitimate means and if other countries governments recognize them as the legitimate ruling body of the state. Having both houses of parlement vote you in as the one ruling entity kind of does that.