Aye, and the French are still angry because of that :P

Well, the French may still be angry about it, but given their country's collaboration with the Germans, specifically the Vichy government, I would say that the British had very considerable reason to be concerned over the French ships, and as tragic as it was, it was the correct decision to destroy them.

While the concern of the British about the french fleet was understandable, it was subsequently proved to be wrong: when the Germans actually tried to capture the French fleet (November 1942; operation Lila, part of the larger operation Anton), the French scuttled the ships in Toulon.
More in theme with the initial post, the wikipedia entry reports the case of the French ships in Alexandria: "The French ships in Alexandria [...] were blockaded by the British [...] and offered the same terms as at Mers-el-Kébir. After delicate negotiations [...], the French Admiral agreed on 7 July to disarm his fleet and stay in port until the end of the war. They stayed there until they eventually joined the Allies in 1943."

But the French were being "French" and were stubborn and not paid the "respect" they felt they deserved, because of this many people needlessly died. The Brits did nothing wrong!

I think it was a horrible decision by the British government, and an historical embarrassment on them. I don't understand the hasty resolve of the British government. Of course they should have issued such terms, but sinking the ships could have created a much more dangerous situation. Destroying the fleets gave Germany diplomatic credibility which they could've used to mobilize the Vichy and/or start a French civil war.

The French weren't being "French" and stubborn. They were a nation under duress. Although the Vichy government was cooperating with the Germans, there was no reason to believe that they would allow the Germans to use their warships. They were already hostages, why would they want to become enemies between 2 hostile nations? If further German hostilities were to take place, such as the German takeover of their fleets, then the British could've counted on French support (except maybe for a small faction of Vichy supporters), as was seen by the German takeover of the port at Toulouse. There is always a better reaction to a nation under duress than attacking them, especially so quickly.

wow, what part of the British demand did you not agree with? Seriously, what part made no sense or what part do you think the French could not accept? It made perfect sense and the demands had several options, all quite fair. That is unless the French were simply being French! They refused the ultimatum and were destroyed as promised, quite simple really!

and for those who did not read it, the demand was as follows:



It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German enemy. We are determined to fight on until the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers, and that our common enemy is Germany. Should we conquer we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;

(a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans.

(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.

If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.

(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance – where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.

If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.

Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German hands.

so, the British had a right to such demands? These ships were part of a now fallen government with new ties to the enemy. They understood the ships were considered allies and wanted to simply assure they did not fall into enemy hands, and exactly who controlled the ships? Vichy France or who? No, the Brits very politely made a demand that made sense and even gave options. The majority of other French ships went through this same process with no issues (very few anyway). The French instead refused to back down, and as such became an enemy. The British did exactly as promised, they gave fair and understandable warning.

What some other fleet did at a later date played no role in this particular demand. You suggest the British should have simply waited for the Germans to take over the fleet and THEN hope the French rebelled and if not, oh well? That's not how it works now is it????

oh, nad reading more about this, the French were even more wroing than it seems here. After many negotiations (like the French had any real negotiating position to begin with) it was determined by both sides things were going nowhere. The British then air dropped anti ship mines to keep the French fleet where they were. The French took this as an act of war and shot down the British plane dropping the mines killing the two man crew. THEN the British consulted with Churchill and he gave the green light to eliminate the now enemy fleet!

Source on that part about the plane, please. Sounds interesting. I might want to read it.

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=96

Why am I not surprised that Raro sees France as a victim here and Britain as a villain? Shocking I tell you.

The British Admiral had a decision to take. Does he go himself to deliver a very blunt and rather harsh ultimatum, risking capture for ransom to the Germans *and* the possibility that he might offend the French by not speaking their language properly, or does he send a subordinate (not a lackey, but a senior officer - an aircraft carrier captain in fact) that speaks fluent French. Either way the Frenchies were going to take offense and try to leverage the situation when they had nothing to bargain with. That almost sounds like the way Raro plays Diplomacy.

The British had every reason to suspect and fear the loss of the French fleet, and that said fleet eventually did cooperate ignores the fact that it had little choice to or face further destruction and loss. The terms were not harsh at all. Embarrassing perhaps, but they were fair given the extreme circumstances. Did you not read the very first option given to the French, Raro?

"(a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans"

Once they turned that down, there was every reason to suspect them of collaboration with Germany. But it gets better. The French were not content to leave it at them being cowards, afraid to fight Germany, but they also rejected the next option:

(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.

And then failing that, they also refuse a third extremely reasonable request to sail out of theater to French ports overseas away from German control where the ships could be rendered demilitarized.

The point of the conversation aside from the military aside was to illustrate how delicate negotiations can be at times, and how issuing ultimatum can be rsiky, chiefly because you never know when you'r dealing with Admiral Pierre de Raro, who is going to get all butt hurt over a procedural slight, and put thousands of men under his command at absurd risk just to prove that he has a leg to stand on even when he does not.

I think war forces us to make decisions we all regret, even if they were necessary. I'll defend neither the French nor the British actions. I can understand how each side might have felt their actions were justified.
We must remember the past in order to learn how to avoid repeating it. As such, we ought to bury the hatchet. The lesson has been learned. The damage was done. The war is over. There is no more to be said.

nope, not buying that position. Was Britain in the right or in the wrong, there is no middle ground position. France had agreed they would not let their fleets turn to German hands yet the government had already turned and "assurances" are not be confused with "guarantees" the government was a non-entity and not an ally of GB. Most seem to think Britain was in the right to make the demand and the multiple options were more than fair. The French DECIDED to call Britain's bluff and sadly found it was indeed no bluff. If you want to argue the French fleet posed no threat to the Brits, wrong, added to the existing German fleet, the Germans would be the largest. Assurances from a non-existent government and HOPE that the French would resist the Germans, these are nothing that help make GB safer are they? Face it, the French were being "French"

My position is that I would rather discuss this issue than argue about it.

discuss away but take a side, there really is no middle ground here. Britain was right or they were wrong, you are not taking a side.

It's true that France did destroy their navy when Germany tried to take it but I think Britain did the right thing. There's possible that Britain thought France would hand over their navy to Germany because they were the Vichy regime and cooperated with Germany.

How delighted I am to see that Ruffhaus would use this issue to impugn my diplomacy. Can't say that I didn't see it coming. Ruffhaus, the brilliant war tactician and diplomat amongst 10 or 20 mostly adolescent foes hath spoken. Sorry to sink your ship Ruffhaus, but real world diplomacy is slightly more involved than a crafty tale and a couple mouse clicks. There was a lot more at stake than some Dpoints. I've got something to say on this matter, but it must wait until tomorrow at least...

Well, Raro, your Diplomacy is what it is: poor analysis, compounded by absolute stubbornness even to the point of abysmal failure. You are the French admiral in this scenario. It's small wonder that you support him. Your defense of his stupidity is unsurprising, as is the frailty of your argument. You haven't sunk my ship, and certainly not by insulting the competition here. I can hold my own against far better players than you.

Sorry guys, but I think the real question that "diplomats" should be discussing is not "who was 'right'?", but "what went wrong?". I mean, why is it that Cunningham managed to convince Godfroy in Alexandria, whereas Somerville failed to convince Gensoul? Was it just "stubborness" on the french part, or was there some fatal miscue by the British?
We cannot really know, but if you read the wikipedia entry in detail, it looks like there were both: Somerville made several faux pas (sending the ultimatum through a subordinate, sending out torpedo bombers to deploy the mines while negotiations were ongoing - how could the French realize that they were not intended to torpedo their ships? - ), and Gensoul probably disobeyed orders by his own government ("removing the fleet to American waters" was considered acceptable by navy minister Darlan).

A few things you are assuming...
The mines were deployed after many hours of failed negotiations. The demands were quite clear and non-negotiable yet the French attempted to negotiate anyway. It was a colossal waste of time, the subordinate sent spoke French while the commander in charge did not, not to mention WHOM was sent is immaterial in this situation, that is unless you want to buy into the French felt insulted (again, the French being French) and the the person sent was a high ranking officer in charge of an aircraft carrier, not some petty officer! Lastly, the mines being dropped were magnet mines and not torpedoes, to assume a naval commander doesn't know the difference is a bit much isn't it!? Magnet mines were there to keep the fleet from moving while torpedoes are IMMEDIATELY known (ships start to blow up real fast after those are dropped).
...keep trying to support the French position, so far you aint got nothin'

Yes the last option was changed, that was wrong on the British part but didn't change the situation now did it?

Tom, I am not trying to support the French, nor the British. I'm trying to get the facts straight.
I agree with much of what you say about Gensoul, except that you don't even mention what I believe is his main fault: to disobey his orders. He behaved stupidly on other matters, but that's a relatively minor issue.
But I disagree about the British being "innocent": first of alll, sending an officer with a lower rank than Gensoul was a totally unforced error. And it didn't take a genius to realize that as soon as the French would see torpedo bombers heading in their direction, they might take the "scramble the fighters" rather than the "sitting duck" approach. This was another unforced error on the British side.

Nope, taking offense to the rank of officer sent to deliver the demands is nothing more than being full of ones self and to make an issue of that, that is "being French" and this foolish behavior led to over 1000 dead sailors!

As far as the torpedo's again, you are assuming this. Do you not think the French knew exactly what was being deployed? the type of aircraft, what armaments were seen on the planes undercarriage, the flying patterns, etc? And the decision to fire on the planes was incredibly foolish as well. They knew they were outgunned and the results shows how foolish this was, the ONLY British casualties were the two pilots while France lost the entire fleet! What incredible stupidity and arrogance!

and this last point pretty much sums it up doesn't it?
The French knew this was a no win scenario, they knew they would lose yet they attempted negotiate from a position of power they did not have. Surrender or die (and "surrender" under several well intentioned and reasonable options to pick from) yet the French CHOSE to die now didn't they? That is not a British mistake but rather a French one.

Tom, what REALLY annoys me in all this discussion is that you (and others) are not talking about the actions of individuals, but of the actions of the FRENCH (and, to a lesser extent, the BRITISH), and you are putting them in a way that fits your pre-conceived idea about them (you might call it anglo-saxon superiority complex).

For example, in your opinion the french should have blindly trusted the british when they saw torpedo bombers heading towards their harbour; the reason they did not is that they are stupid french. At the same time, the british were smart in not trusting that the french will not give their fleet to the germans, and you justify this belief even after the 1942 Toulon facts showed that they meant every word of it. [just to remove extra misunderstandings: I'm saying this only for comparing your attitudes to two trust-involving events, and NOT saying that the british decisions were stupid, given what they knew at the time]

Apart from that, I think that Gensoul was stupid; but we are talking about Gensoul, not "the french". Given the actual orders he received from Darlan, I think it's very likely that a different commanding officer might have avoided the fighting entirely.

Finally, two more "technical" issues.
First, the emissary: my point is not that Gensoul was right, my point is that there was no reason to irritate your counter-part by not using every persuasion method available, including flattery.
Second, about torpedo bombers, you are right that in part I am making assumptions. But 1) the Swordfish planes used to deploy mines are actually torpedo bombers (just give a look to the Taranto raid, some 3 months later) 2) if they were to deploy mines, they would stay at very low altitude 3) if the task was to "drop magnetic mines in the path of the French ships' route to sea", that likely meant that the mines would be dropped within the harbour itself, i.e. extremely close to the ships [this is not foolproof, because it strongly depends on the exact wording of a sentence on wikipedia] 4) point (2) (perhaps reinforced by point 3) means that the flying pattern of the Swordfish was extremely similar to the one usef for an attack mission - torpedo bombers typically launched from low altitude, and from distances of hundreds of yards from the target 5) the decision to scramble the fighters was likely taken as soon as the british planes were sighted... realistically, when they were still at some miles from the harbour (especially if the french had radar; I don't know if they did): do you really think that they could distinguish the exact armament onboard from such a distance? 6) according to wikipedia, the plane that was shot down was one of the escorts, not one of the torpedo bombers: this means that the french pilot might have been unaware of what the Swordfish were doing.

Diatarn, you can get all wound up about it if you want, but the fact remains that Admiral Gensoul's actions only serve to reinforce the stereotypes of French arrogance, incompetence, and collaboration with the enemy. Getting all wound up over Anglo-Saxon superiority complexes is silly, and it's not there it's not like there isn't a equal amount of Gallic/Francophile/whatever you want to term it arrogance with respect to Britain. The French and British have been rivals for over a thousand years. It's not going to stop just because you're bent that the most recent history favors the British.

I didn't put the incident up for discussion to dig at the French, although they certainly deserve it. I put it up as a lesson (although apparently I should have checked for Raro's approval of my competence and credibility first) for folks here that Diplomacy takes on many forms and that the way you engage with people, the words you choose, and the manner with which you embrace or shun elements like flexibility, strengths, weaknesses, leverage, power, ego, history, emotions, etc. can all have wide ranging consequences. In this case the breakdown of effective Diplomacy led directly to tragic loss of lives.

As for the specifics of your attempts to defend the French action by painting the British as aggressive (i.e. with the use of Swordfish aircraft), that's just pointless. Sommerville delivered an ultimatum to Gensoul, which multiple paths to peaceful resolution. Gensoul rejected all three, effectively declaring his fleet hostile to the British fleet. After reviewing all of the facts, and the context of this incident occurring during a world war where Frenchmen were already aligning with Germany only a raving lunatic or an utterly unobjective Frenchman could find in favor of Gensoul in this matter. I think Raro falls into the first category, and you must fit the second one.

I was correct about stating this as French vs English. Each individual was acting on behalf of their government. If a US warship goes rouge and bombards Sydney Australia, then the United States attacked Australia! Of course the US would try to mitigate the circumstances but the warship her is US and it would be a US attack. Same in this history example, it was a FRENCH fleet, not Gensoul's fleet, it was the BRITISH who sunk the fleet, not the commander of that fleet. You are playing with words trying to claim this was an individual position.

The British were in every way correct to do what they did, nothing was guaranteed, they had "assurances" only and from whom? The nation that 'supposedly" controlled the fleets was Vichy France, yes the navy paid them no mind ...so exactly who are the British to listen to? They politely gave several options and were rebutted.

as far as my saying the French were acting "French"
You can argue with that statement but the French were (and still are) quite arrogant! I stand by that 100% But that is the FRENCH (as in nation), not the individual Frenchman.
You can make the exact same claim about the USA and while it hurts me a bit as an American, it's certainly true as well! Does that make everyone in the US and France arrogant? Of course not!!!!! But the two nations most certainly are arrogant in their positions, I tend to overlook this as far as America goes and a Frenchman likely overlooks it from a French perspective (I assume you are French?) but it doesn't change the facts now do they?

So I stand by everything I said. And you keep going on about the plane dropping torpedos, no, it was mines being dropped and the French knew what was being dropped, to claim they thought they were being torpedoed ...no, that simply does not fly! Again, the French officers know what type of plane does what, they know what kind of flight pattern does what type of drops, they know a torpedo will not be dropped in firing range of a ship while mines WOULD be dropped in closer proximity. The French did not defend themselves in the least, they took exception to the Brits dropping mines that would keep them where they were and the French started the conflict, not the British!

Time for me to assume...
Do you really think the French were not alerted by the British that they would be dropping mines? You think that was a simple out of the blue maneuver? That is so highly unlikely my assumption is pretty sound.

and as far as Gensoul acting like a pompous arrogant ass,
did you catch the part:

While Gensoul was unlikely to have conceded in any case, dispatching Captain Holland to deliver the message caused Gensoul to also dispatch an officer of equal rank, Bernard Dufay, to receive it, thus causing delay and further confusion. It was also worth noting that Gensoul never sent a copy of this text to French Navy Minister Admiral Darlan.

Gensoul was a fool!
He acted on his own, he also started a battle against a superior opponent while in an inferior position, he simply could never win, but his utter arrogance got the better of him and his actions sealed the fate of over 1000 fellow sailors!