Comments on: Operation Catapult: Naval Destruction at Mers-el-Kebir http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:15:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Edwyn Rudge http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm#comment-704732 Edwyn Rudge Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:29:04 +0000 #comment-704732 I'm Afraid your anti-anglo attitude destroys any credibility you may have on this subject. England in 1939/40 was in a desperate situation. What else could Churchill have done to try and ensure the preservation of his fleet and his country. Britain may no longer be the power it used to be, but its strength during WWII allowed the world to survive the global holocaust that followed. As a New Zealander, I am proud of my English heritage, despite the errors the 'Poms' may have made over 500 years. What contribution did your ancestors make to the advancement of true civilization? I'm Afraid your anti-anglo attitude destroys any credibility you may have on this subject. England in 1939/40 was in a desperate situation. What else could Churchill have done to try and ensure the preservation of his fleet and his country. Britain may no longer be the power it used to be, but its strength during WWII allowed the world to survive the global holocaust that followed.
As a New Zealander, I am proud of my English heritage, despite the errors the 'Poms' may have made over 500 years. What contribution did your ancestors make to the advancement of true civilization?

]]> By: Rodrigo Novoa http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm#comment-362317 Rodrigo Novoa Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:42:15 +0000 #comment-362317 A laughable conspiracy?, no im not into that, just my opinion from reading more than a couple of books. After all it ended not having France any maritime power. And well, French and UK had more than one "problem" in the past, so i doubt that this was not part of it at all. Churchill needed to show that he was willing to do anything. Well he did. Tears? for gods sake.. From a man, that in a reply to a letter from India's Viceroy about the explosive situation there, only wrote, "is ghandi dead?" (Freedom at Midnight , Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre) Propaganda that french failed to show? a british tear over 1000 kills? are you serious? How would manage that propaganda if the killed where british? Of course i can believe what you want. A laughable conspiracy?, no im not into that, just my opinion from reading more than a couple of books.
After all it ended not having France any maritime power.
And well, French and UK had more than one "problem" in the past, so i doubt that this was not part of it at all.

Churchill needed to show that he was willing to do anything. Well he did.
Tears? for gods sake.. From a man, that in a reply to a letter from India's Viceroy about the explosive situation there, only wrote, "is ghandi dead?" (Freedom at Midnight , Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre)
Propaganda that french failed to show? a british tear over 1000 kills?
are you serious?
How would manage that propaganda if the killed where british?

Of course i can believe what you want.

]]> By: Major D http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm#comment-318170 Major D Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:38:47 +0000 #comment-318170 Even the Italians had the balls to try to get their fleet to safety after the armistice of 1943. The French, under their Nazi admiral Darlan, resisted. They got what was coming to them, poor sods. Churchill wept at the thought of causing the deaths of French seamen. This is something the French propaganda machine neglected to inform their citizens and something the French propaganda failed to rectify after the war. Somerville knew the awesome firepower that his fleet possessed and was loathe to use it. But he did his duty. The French of 1939 were not the French of 1914. There was no Foch, no Joffre; only the likes of the toadie Darlan. Even the Italians had the balls to try to get their fleet to safety after the armistice of 1943.

The French, under their Nazi admiral Darlan, resisted.

They got what was coming to them, poor sods.

Churchill wept at the thought of causing the deaths of French seamen. This is something the French propaganda machine neglected to inform their citizens and something the French propaganda failed to rectify after the war. Somerville knew the awesome firepower that his fleet possessed and was loathe to use it. But he did his duty.

The French of 1939 were not the French of 1914. There was no Foch, no Joffre; only the likes of the toadie Darlan.

]]> By: Andre Martinengo delle Palle http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm#comment-312377 Andre Martinengo delle Palle Tue, 27 Jul 2010 06:46:03 +0000 #comment-312377 That is an astounding story! I can not understand why the French would not sail to US ports, as that would seem like the obvious solution, that would appease the pro-nazi faction in France, prevent British possession of the Fleet and save some face. I guess the French commander was proud and stubborn as suggested in this article. So many people these days yawn at WWIII stories, but many of the events that took place were epic and unprecedented. The British commanders pain of being forced to fire on the French former ally stands out to me the most in this story (apart from all the dead sailors). Was it neccessary? The French did scuttle at Toulon as promised, but if Operation Catapult did not take place and things had gone differently in the war for Germany, it is not unreasonable to say the fleet may have fallen into German hands. That is an astounding story!
I can not understand why the French would not sail to US ports, as that would seem like the obvious solution, that would appease the pro-nazi faction in France, prevent British possession of the Fleet and save some face. I guess the French commander was proud and stubborn as suggested in this article.
So many people these days yawn at WWIII stories, but many of the events that took place were epic and unprecedented. The British commanders pain of being forced to fire on the French former ally stands out to me the most in this story (apart from all the dead sailors).
Was it neccessary? The French did scuttle at Toulon as promised, but if Operation Catapult did not take place and things had gone differently in the war for Germany, it is not unreasonable to say the fleet may have fallen into German hands.

]]> By: Rick McKay http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm#comment-124618 Rick McKay Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:07:07 +0000 #comment-124618 A laughable conspiracy theory Rodrigo. Why would Britain mind France having a large navy when they were allies?? At the start of the war Britain had aimed to keep its fleet at least twice the size of anyone elses. It was the strain of protecting the empire that proved virtually impossible. Given that situation was any sain person supposed to just take the word of a man who wouldnt even be there to ensure the orders were carried out? The risks were too high Whilst this was drastic action France had already capitulated & they were desperate to gain as favourable terms with Germany as possible - no doubt the fleet would have been a bargaining chip they would have used in their own interests. Sometimes you just have to accept that some decisions in life are extremely tough but need making all the same - when has indecision ever won a battle or war? Something you may choose to have forgotten is that when Churchill annouced to the House that he had taken this action he broke down & wept. Hardly the action of a man that had just got one over on the French. Still believe what you will A laughable conspiracy theory Rodrigo. Why would Britain mind France having a large navy when they were allies?? At the start of the war Britain had aimed to keep its fleet at least twice the size of anyone elses. It was the strain of protecting the empire that proved virtually impossible.

Given that situation was any sain person supposed to just take the word of a man who wouldnt even be there to ensure the orders were carried out? The risks were too high

Whilst this was drastic action France had already capitulated & they were desperate to gain as favourable terms with Germany as possible – no doubt the fleet would have been a bargaining chip they would have used in their own interests.

Sometimes you just have to accept that some decisions in life are extremely tough but need making all the same – when has indecision ever won a battle or war?

Something you may choose to have forgotten is that when Churchill annouced to the House that he had taken this action he broke down & wept. Hardly the action of a man that had just got one over on the French.

Still believe what you will

]]> By: ste http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm#comment-114428 ste Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:56:03 +0000 #comment-114428 does anyone know any books that are related to mers el kebir and churchills decision to aTTACK It? does anyone know any books that are related to mers el kebir and churchills decision to aTTACK It?

]]> By: Ron Sheesley http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm#comment-102846 Ron Sheesley Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:49:01 +0000 #comment-102846 I have searched for many decades for some type of intel regarding Hitler's reaction to Mers-el-Kebir. I t seems to me that a relatively small punitive force could have been landed by air & , later, by sea to march on Dakar & Alexandria. Once German troops started arriving at Tripoli , Tobruk & parachutists beyond (at the various desert forts), even the smug, belligerant Count Brodoglio couldn't have persuaded el Duce to stem the German tide. For, in a short matter of time, superior German leadership & troops would have won (as happened a year later with Rommel, et al) the confidence & hearts of the Italian forces. This was a perfect opportunity to answer the question of "What next?" after the fall of France. Even the brilliant FM Erich von Manstein, in his book, "Lost Victories" stated that the so-called "Mediterranean Solution" would have tied down large numbers of German troops & would not have resulted in success for the Third Reich. How he could have espoused this view, certainly having knowledge of the great gains Rommel made with so relatively few troops, still mystifies me. (Of course, their is no mention of FM Rommel is Manstein's book. Oversight? Professional jealousy? We may never know.) And, with the Axis troops winning the whole of North Africa, no matter how proud the Italian leaders were vis-a-vis THEIR conquering Alexandria & beyond, they would be persuaded to invite even MORE German troops--especially armor--to roll through the Near & Middle East & on to Afghanistan & India. The hundreds of thousand Italian troops would never have been captured by the Brits but would have fought on &, if nothing else, would have made very acceptable occupation soldiers. There would not have been the disastrous losses of Student's parachutists on Crete but rather ready to drop on Leningrad & Moscow a year later. Supplies & troops for a drive on the Caucausus from Syria, accomplished by the presence of German troops there & in Bulgaria, persuading perhaps 30 or 40 Turkish divisions to join in the dismantling of the USSR. With no British troop reinforcing the Greeks, an even speedier end to what el Duce probably have done anyways, in his October debacle. Perhaps a start date in early May, 1941 (as originally planned) with a capitulation of Leningrad in September/October & a surrounding of Moscow by October/November. Lets see what the great Zhukov could have done then with all his Siberians & prison troops! God knows where everything would have led after that... But one thing is for sure: the BIG mistake at Dunquerque would not have mattered, if the even BIGGER mistake of not retaliating against Churchill for Mers-el-Kebir would not have been the case. I have searched for many decades for some type of intel regarding Hitler's reaction to Mers-el-Kebir. I t seems to me that a relatively small punitive force could have been landed by air & , later, by sea to march on Dakar & Alexandria. Once German troops started arriving at Tripoli , Tobruk & parachutists beyond (at the various desert forts), even the smug, belligerant Count Brodoglio couldn't have persuaded el Duce to stem the German tide. For, in a short matter of time, superior German leadership & troops would have won (as happened a year later with Rommel, et al) the confidence & hearts of the Italian forces. This was a perfect opportunity to answer the question of "What next?" after the fall of France. Even the brilliant FM Erich von Manstein, in his book, "Lost Victories" stated that the so-called "Mediterranean Solution" would have tied down large numbers of German troops & would not have resulted in success for the Third Reich. How he could have espoused this view, certainly having knowledge of the great gains Rommel made with so relatively few troops, still mystifies me. (Of course, their is no mention of FM Rommel is Manstein's book. Oversight? Professional jealousy? We may never know.) And, with the Axis troops winning the whole of North Africa, no matter how proud the Italian leaders were vis-a-vis THEIR conquering Alexandria & beyond, they would be persuaded to invite even MORE German troops–especially armor–to roll through the Near & Middle East & on to Afghanistan & India. The hundreds of thousand Italian troops would never have been captured by the Brits but would have fought on &, if nothing else, would have made very acceptable occupation soldiers. There would not have been the disastrous losses of Student's parachutists on Crete but rather ready to drop on Leningrad & Moscow a year later. Supplies & troops for a drive on the Caucausus from Syria, accomplished by the presence of German troops there & in Bulgaria, persuading perhaps 30 or 40 Turkish divisions to join in the dismantling of the USSR. With no British troop reinforcing the Greeks, an even speedier end to what el Duce probably have done anyways, in his October debacle. Perhaps a start date in early May, 1941 (as originally planned) with a capitulation of Leningrad in September/October & a surrounding of Moscow by October/November. Lets see what the great Zhukov could have done then with all his Siberians & prison troops! God knows where everything would have led after that… But one thing is for sure: the BIG mistake at Dunquerque would not have mattered, if the even BIGGER mistake of not retaliating against Churchill for Mers-el-Kebir would not have been the case.

]]> By: kevin,england http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm#comment-65703 kevin,england Mon, 25 May 2009 21:48:38 +0000 #comment-65703 the vichy government was willing more or less to hand over the french fleet to the nazis..besides we had no option as we already lost quite a large amount of our air force during the battle of france..so we couldnt afford the germans gaining their navy too..if the french army had any courage they should of attacked germany in september 1939..as for their navy..what where they doing? the royal navy was the wall around britain..if the french were to let us down again..this was why we had to act..churchill proved to be the greatest man in history,as for france they will never be our allies..there collaboration during the war shows why you can never trust them..as even charles de gaulle was betrayed by his own [people.. the vichy government was willing more or less to hand over the french fleet to the nazis..besides we had no option as we already lost quite a large amount of our air force during the battle of france..so we couldnt afford the germans gaining their navy too..if the french army had any courage they should of attacked germany in september 1939..as for their navy..what where they doing? the royal navy was the wall around britain..if the french were to let us down again..this was why we had to act..churchill proved to be the greatest man in history,as for france they will never be our allies..there collaboration during the war shows why you can never trust them..as even charles de gaulle was betrayed by his own [people..

]]> By: Rodrigo Novoa http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm#comment-14052 Rodrigo Novoa Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:31:52 +0000 #comment-14052 Darlan gave his word to Churchil to scutle the ships before surrendering them to germany, this was an act of a desperate man to show his will to fight, and cost the lifes of hundreds of men, for what? Later when Vichy France was invaded they keep the word and scutled the fleet, showing that Churchill only wanted to kill france's fleet to be the biggest navy and denie france any kind of maritime power. Darlan gave his word to Churchil to scutle the ships before surrendering them to germany, this was an act of a desperate man to show his will to fight, and cost the lifes of hundreds of men, for what? Later when Vichy France was invaded they keep the word and scutled the fleet, showing that Churchill only wanted to kill france's fleet to be the biggest navy and denie france any kind of maritime power.

]]>