In the summer of 1940 Winston Churchill faced a terrible dilemma. France had just surrendered and only the English Channel stood between the Nazi’s and Britain. Germany was poised to seize the entire French fleet, one of the biggest in the world. With these ships in his hands, Hitler’s threat to invade Britain could become a reality. Churchill had to make a choice. He could either trust the promises of the new French government that they would never hand over their ships to Hitler. Or he could make sure that the ships never joined the German navy by destroying them himself.
Secrets of the Dead: Churchill’s Deadly Decision reveals the darkest side of Britain’s Finest Hour. Some call his decision a turning point in the war, others call it a terrible betrayal and a war crime. This is the story of what Churchill did next, and why; and how 1,300 French sailors died as a result in what the French still call ‘our Pearl Harbour’. In the words of French survivors, some of whom still regard Churchill as a war criminal, and one of the British sailors who opened fire on his former allies, this is the forgotten story of Churchill’s deadliest decision – to sink the French Fleet.
Produced by Furnace Limited for THIRTEEN in association with WNET.ORG, Channel 4, National Geographic Channel UK, ABC Australia, and ZDF.
Narrated by: Liev Schreiber
Written and Directed by: Richard Bond
Executive Producer, Furnace: Phil Craig
Executive in Charge: William R. Grant
Executive Producer: Jared Lipworth
© 2010 WNET.ORG Properites L.L.C.
I watched with great interest your detailed retailing of the Operation Catapult and the destruction of the French fleet in MersEl-Kebir.
I only regret that my father (then officer on the Bretagne and one of its rare escapees), who recently turned 99 and was interviewed by Life Magazine afterward, was not interviewed for this production.
We intend to celebrate the 70th anniversary of his survival, privately, on July 3rd, 2010
The spoken commentary throughout identifies the French warship Bretagne as
“Britannia.” This combines two egregious errors. First, names of warships are
not translated (by the same convention that discourages the translation of
personal names.) Secondly, other conventions authorize the translation of
place names (e.g. Torino = Turin, Sverige = Sweden.) But if we use this to
translate Bretagne into English it would be as Britanny, not Britannia. (Many
French capital ships were at this period named for important towns or provinces,
e.g. Dunquerque, Strasbourg, Britanny.)
To claim that the French scuttling ships in 1942 invalidates the justification of Churchill’s decision is totally illogical, on at least two counts. 1. Regardless of what the actions of the French might have been in 1940, those were clearly unpredictable at the time. This looking in hindsight and making value judgments based on after the fact knowledge is really poor historical analysis, albeit very common, even among those who call themselves professional historians. 2. By 1942, with Germany’s advance into the USSR stopped, the US into the war, Japan having failed to achieve the quick settlement it needed to have a chance, Italy’s failures, etc. etc. it was already clear that Germany would either be defeated, or at most the the war would have a negotiated settlement, Germany’s new world order was a lost dream by then. In 1940 things were vastly different, German appeared in a strong position to accomplish full victory in 1940. To assume that the French in that 1940 context would have acted as they did when it was becoming clear to all, including the French, that Germany would likely lose this war is not just illogical, it is stupid. Churchill acted in the only sensible manner under those circumstances, and in the uncertainty of the times.
Here’s some logic for ya. The premise was Churchill needed to keep these ships out of German hands… makes sense if the Germans were that hard up for naval vessels and absolutely needed them to finish off Britain which they didn’t since they were on a blitzkreig through Europe and WOULD HAVE INVADED BRITAIN WITH OR WITHOUT THESE SHIPS, UNLESS AMERICA JOINS THE WAR EFFORT AND STOPS THE NAZI ADVANCE! So keep trying to spin it you “pre-emptive” war mongers, SO MUCH FOR YOUR LOGIC.
Also there is no indication of French hostilities or previous attacks against Britain, thus why the French did not know what was going on. This was a hostile suprise attack on an “ally” the “logicians” keep forgetting, reminiscent of Pearl Harbour which this attack might have been the inspiration for the Japanese. Why didn’t the British just ask for French assistance in launching a devastating attack against a German held port and show their “resolve” that way? That makes more sense. Defending this war crime doesn’t make sense.
I am very, very disappointed because of these copyrights. I really was waiting this episode.
Scuttling the fleet is not the same as continuing the fight with your ally. The Free French Navy, Polish Navy, Dutch Navy and Norwegian Navy continued the fight against Nazi Germany after their countries had been invaded by Nazi forces. Had those fleets not been available to the Allies, and instead used by the Nazis may have altered the outcome of the second world war. Churchill’s decision was not one he gloated over, but it had to be made. The French commander, when faced with the situation should have cooperated, although I am sure the thought he was calling the British’s commander’s bluff.
As an American living overseas, I am very disappointed that the producers pulled the plug on this so we outside the continental U.S.A. cannot see this.
the french deserved it they broke the agreement and then turned down churchills options and didint take him seriously i dont feel bad for them at all its those stupid captians that got their ships sunk it was thier fault and again i have no sympathy for them
In what sense was HMS Hood the largest battleship in the world? Surely she was a battlecruiser (required to be so by the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty). I am quite certain that the largest battleship at the time was the Japanese vessel the ‘Yamato’.
Dominic, the HMS Hood held the title for about 20 years, as it was built during the First World War, the Yamato was built during the Second World War.
Don, I don’t believe “Bretagne” was deliberately translated into “Britannia” but merely a pronounciation of the original word by an English speaker.
I am 64 years old and it saddens me to see this continuation of the paucity of American historical scholarship. When an American wants to know what is going on in France or regarding France they turn to English historians. What do you think this gaggle of Churchill biographers and English speaking historians are going to say about this massacre? Why does no one in this report question any of the absurd statements made by these men? Several examples: What French “aircraft carriers”? They had one old ship the Bearn that they had converted into a flight deck. She flew biplanes to test out concepts. What German “armada”? The Germans had a very, very small surface navy and had lost all their modern destroyers in the Narvik campaign. The German navy was designed to be a submarine navy. They had two battleships and no carriers. Period. Why does the report say that if the French had handed over their ships the English would have had to surrender? Why? As every school boy knows the Battle of Britain was always going to won or lost in the air. Without air control and every ship of the French navy the Germans would have had nothing that could have put to sea. Shame on you PBS, a real shabby piece of historical research which did a good job of presenting the English view of this event.
Speaking of little known (perhaps) incidents of the Second World War when one time allies caused the deaths of numerous ex-Allies: mention should be made of the five hundred Americans, British and Free French killed in the North African landings in Algiers by the Vichy French forces. Casualties taken just because the French wanted to “preserve” their honour by “resisting” the invasion before surrendering. I would hate to know that one of my relatives had died so uselessly.
Sorry Steve, if you want to invade a neutral country you are going to get some casualties. The allies could have moved under the Free French banner but they wanted to keep DeGaul out of any sort of power.
Darlan made it really clear to the British that the French ships would stay in French hands and that they would only defend themselves, not take any aggressive moves against their British allies. The agreement between Germany and France would have been much different if the Germans were not worried about the French navy joining the British in the fight against Germany. Germany was willing to leave much of France relatively free of constraints in exchange for knowing that the French navy would not engage against it or it’s Itialian allies.
When Churchill ignored all of his naval advisors, he removed most of France’s trump card that was holding the Germans at bay. He also drove the ships that were way out of the reach of any Germans back to the Metropole where they were (much later) close to the German Army. Note that the sutuation at Alexandria was much more civilized. The French and British ships were anchored together as part of a joint task force. Instead of insisting on Churchills demands which were not compatible with the Treaty between the French and the Germans, the commander of the British fleet just asked that the French ships remain at anchor and not leave. They remained there until after the invasion of North Africa with no loss of life.
The British also sent Battleships and aircraft to sink the Richelieu in Dakar. She was almost complete when she left France and they were trying to complete her with very limited resources. She managed to put a 15″ shell in the bow of the HMS Barham which significantly reduced the British desire for conflict. On a later mission they did manage to hit her with an aireal torpedeo.
The US has always made poor choices in allies. DeGaulle was a poorly thought of mid level army officer. The British basically ignored him and fosted him off on the US. We chose to see him as the French Savior. The run of the mill French naval Officer saw him as a traitor to the established government. DeGaulle wanted all of the French Military to follow him. They would have to broken the treaty with Germany to do this and with their families under German control, this was a very scarry proposition to all of them as well as being completely against the very strong professionalism that was the hallmark of the French Navy. (The army was another story)
I wish the US had a much better understanding of the history they have created..
Clearly Churchill’s decisive action not only prevented a total take-over of the French Fleet by the Germans thus decreasing the Germans’ potential maritime advantage in WWII but also inspired his countrymen and the people of the USA to take the courageous stand necessary to avert Nazi world domination. Thank God for leaders like Winston Churchill. They are needed ever so much more now in 2010 than they were in 1940. God bless the United States of America and Great Britain and may God bring His everlasting peace to Jerusalem.
Having read extensively in original French histories about the horrible tragedy that unfolded in Mers El-Kebir on 3 July 1940, I looked forward to viewing this little examined event of WW2. Sadly, the first five minutes of this PBS video so grossly misrepresented the facts that I had no choice but to turn it off.
At least the PBS text above gave a more valid account….
“…… Germany was poised to seize the entire French fleet, one of the biggest in the world. With these ships in his hands, Hitler’s threat to invade Britain could become a reality. Churchill had to make a choice. He could either trust the promises of the new French government that they would never hand over their ships to Hitler. Or he could make sure that the ships never joined the German navy by destroying them himself.”
Why did the video not follow the same more correct line?
It should also be known that much of the French bitterness after the battle was due to the French Admiral Gensoul NOT reporting the British option to sail to French Antilles and sit out the rest of the war far from the Germans.
Sadly, this Greek-like tragedy unfolded the day that the newly constituted (soon-to-be called) “Vichy Government” was en route from Bordeaux to Vichy. Their radio equipment packed in trucks and not operating so there was no contact with the fleet in Algeria. French Naval discipline was such that a local Admiral would never make such a decision without direction from above.
The misleading history as was presented by this PBS episode is criminal, but alas, we have come to expect such skewing from PBS’ recurring left bias. The Western world, in fact the entire world, owes infinite gratitude to Winston Churchill, who, despite his numerous failings and failures, was right the one time it mattered most, in the summer of 1940 when he, almost alone, stood up to forces Hitler.
If Churchill had not had that insane courage, a “European Union” would have been created much earlier, with less controversy and with a much different agenda than that which exists today.
We are eternally shown imbecilic views of this naval action as if the British were somehow ‘cavalierly at fault’ for the sinking of the French ships. Reasonable alternatives were presented to the French by the British, which a REAL fighting ally would have eagerly taken; A) To join the British Fleet in continuing action against their common enemy, B) To intern their ships in Britain or the US or C) to move the fleets out of enemy reach to French West Indies stations.
The real murderers of the French sailors were their own benighted French high command, who refused to continue in the wartime alliance, according to the political agreements. The British acted honorably and openly in the affair and the French sailors were condemned to their deaths by the incompetence of their own high command, the same incompetence that caused the collapse of the French Army and destroyed their country during the opening days in the Battle of France.
Darlan’s contemplation of resisting the Anglo-American invasion of French North Africa shows this continued incompetence, dubious loyalty and misplaced sense of ‘honor’. Darlan’s early actions show he was of a class of officers who were not to be trusted, as they continually did not live up to their promises. It is of no importance that he finally ordered the scuttling of the French fleet a few years later, once it was becoming clear the Germans would lose. In the hour of decision, he was weak and unfit for command.
It is a disgrace, disingenuous and deliberate misinterpretation of history to continue to imply that the British are to be blamed as war criminals for refusing to let the French provide, by their incompetence, the means for Germany to conquer the British Isles as well. As a nation, the French need to grow up and blame the proper people, not those who fought bravely against tyranny and did not shrink from doing their duty, regardless of how distasteful it was to them. The French Army disgraced itself in the Battle of France and the French fleet, offered an opportunity to reflect gloriously on France, refused and was sunk to keep it from further disgracing the name of France in they eyes of the world.
I am sorry James, I do not follow your logic. It was OK for the British to plan and execute their retreat to Dunkirk, even to the point of refusing to board French troops, without consulting with their ally and leaving that ally to protect their perimeter indirect contravention of their signed treaty with France, but it was not OK for a France which had capitulated to Germany after France was overrun by German forces to honor the agreement they had signed with the Germans to be hence forth neutrals in the war? When the British ultimatum was put forward the nation of France was a neutral, not an ally. They had no intention to hand any part of their fleet to the Germans and those ships would have certainly not made a German invasion of England possible in any way. They were, after all, two battle cruisers, one old battleship and a bunch of destroyers. So please, let us stick to the facts here. If England wanted to fight the Germans they had every opportunity to do so. At no time in the war was an invasion of England planed nor were the ships and troops ever assembled to do so. No one has ever said, other than Churchill, that any such danger actually existed. No invasion ships existed and none were ever even started to be built. In the end, Churchill did what every English government except the WWI government always does. They paid and pushed others to fight their enemies on the continent for them as much as was possible. In WWII, Churchill kept English troops as far away from the main German armies as he could while the Russians and Americans did the heavy fighting for him. England sat on their island until the Germans lost the war in Russia. But, he was a great talker and, as he so eloquently predicted, he is well remembered in history because he was the man who would write the history.
The British were and are the world’s most self serving, duplicitous, and unprincipled people professing to abide by great values. Churchill epitomizes them; therefore they love him. They have never had loyalty to allies; they never owed responsibility to their colonial subjects who they brutalized, oppressed and impoverished while they could; and they are ready to do the worst possible as long as it puts some money in their pockets.
They are the ultimate shopkeepers; all transactions must produce personal gain. Their WW11 crimes against the French are well documented in this episode.
Churchill’s WW11 strategy is also responsible for 3 million starvation deaths in Bengal, India in 1943. Petrified by the abject surrender of the British soldiers to a heavily outnumbered Japanese force (3 Brits to 1 Jap) in Singapore in face of a “fight on to the end” order issued by him, Churchill wanted to stop the Japanese advance from Burma at all cost. The British therefore ordered confiscation of all means of transport in the Chittagong region and removed all food reserves. It was feared that these will fall in to the Japanese hands and expedite their advance in to India. Even though there was no crop failure or food shortage that year millions died of starvation because Churchill decided that rather they died than him having to surrender a few more cowardly British troops.
The British token attendance in the current “war on terror” is only to permit them hyphenation with the US. Incidentally the British provide less than one tenth of the NATO forces in Afghanistan while BBC contributes ten times the sound bites created by all the other NATO members. And as we recently learned through Wikileaks, in the opinion of the senior member of the hyphenated relationship, the British war strategy is dodgy and quality of soldiers and equipment inadequate and shoddy. Only the BBC was surprised at this revelation.
A former colonial power, the world’s most brutal oppressive and duplicitous regime in the 19th and the 20th centuries now relegated to a minor, third rate, redundant, power is prepared to latch on to any straw it can find in order to appear relevant. To gain a vestige of influence in the World and to ensure economic survival they are prepared to hang on to Uncle Sam’s coat tail and to the actual tail of the dragon which the British found too unpalatable until recently.
My 2 cents: If the French hadn’t been so busy panicking and kissing Nazi ass they just might have had the wherewithal to scuttle their fleet thus negating the necessity of Churchill having to do it for them.
After Actually reading the document signed by the French to the Germans, I think that Churchill not only had the RIGHT…but the MORAL OBLIGATION to demand those ships! THe French were too arrogant to take him seriously, and they got EXACTLY what they deserved!!! READ the document….how could they give their word that the French Ships would NOT pass into the hands of the Germans? Churchhill is a HERO…He did THE RIGHT THING!!!. The FRENCH had numerous options…they CHOSE….CHOSE….THE FRENCH CHOSE THEIR OWN FATE!!!!
Eamon,
The Germans did have plans to invade England. The code name was Sea Lion. They assembled troops, aircraft and yes, small amphibious craft such as they were to cross the channel from the Calais area.
Goring bragged that he could break the will of the British people with the Luftwaffe to prepare for the invasion, and thus the Battle of Britain ensued. Of course, the Luftwaffe failed in its mission and plans for the invasion were called off. At about this same time, Hitler made the fatal mistake of planning and then invading the Soviet Union.
And Eamon, I just couldn’t overlook the other ridiculous statements you made about the Brits sitting out the war while the Americans and Soviets fought it for them.
You do a great disservice to the tens of thousands of soldiers who died in Greece and then Crete, North Africa, where the Brits fought alone until 1943, Italy where the British 8th Army fought alongside the American 5th, and then Normandy where the British 21st Army Group fought and then eventually marched to the Elbe to link up with the Soviets.
All in all, approximately 384,000 soldiers from the United Kingdom died in WWII. That doesn’t include the 100,000 plus Commonwealth soldiers who also died in the above campaigns.
I am an ex Brit of German extraction and have lived in Australia for the past 40 years. I think Curchill made many mistakes during his posts in the British Government. His theory of the “Soft Underbelly of Europe” lead to the Galipoli mess in WW1 and the failed Crete and Greek campains in WW2. His reinforcing of Singapore with thousands of green ground troops with no air cover was a waste of men.
However I believe he had little option with the French Navy. What ever the French High Comand undertook to do in the event of the Germans wanting the fleet, there was no way the French COULD have stopped a German take over of the ships. An example is well executed neuteralization of the Belgian Fort Eben-Emael by German glider troops in a night operation on 10 May 1940 when their invasion of France began. As for treaties and agreements, these tend to go out the window at the critical moment. The German treaty with Russia served only to keep Russia at bay until Germany was ready to attack and when Their Italian ally surrendered to the Allied army, the Germans turned on them with a vengance.
While the actions with Russia and Italy were in the future, the German advances at the time would have appeared unstoppable. I believe Churchill’s decision was very difficult but nevertheless the right one.
Rebekah I woould say I agree with the majority of your statement, most of all the allocades, directed towards Winston Churchill. I would have to suggest that any and all lasting peace whether in Jerusalem or Botswana will only be acheived when men/women agree to settle our minute differences and champion our over- whelming simiarities. God it seems will have a very limited but much desired voice in any perfunctory attempts until that time. May the wind of change be at your back!
[...] me of one of my favorite shows, “Secrets of the Dead,” which took a closer look at Winston Churchill’s cold, calculated decision to destroy the French fleet (and kill any French sailors that stood in his way) after France [...]
[...] Watch Secrets of the Dead on PBS Category: movies online If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it! [...]
The French collaborated with the Nazis. Churchill did the right thing.
The Vichy French could not be trusted…………. end of issue…………. to assert that Churchill was a war criminal is to say that Hitler was just another over-aggressive Nationalist………………………………………………….. The Vichy French and Petain were more than willing to deport French Jews to an unknown destiny…………….
Isn’t it comfortable to be Monday Morning Quarterbacks of History? Morality is easily spouted from a safe distance of years.
The first half of the nineteen forties was obviously a time of denial. Chamberlain denied Hitler’s threat and sold out Poland; the US denied the necessity of entering the War and were willing to watch England fall; France denied they were honest-to-God defeated; the Germans denied they were losing the war and refused to surrender, causing countless thousands to die unnecessarily. Hitler was the only one around who didn’t deny; he was straight up open about planning to take over the world. And everybody else denied he could.
The decision makers of France were given warning by Churchill, their nation had fallen, but still they denied he would usurp their navy. And their sailors died; victims of the arrogance of their own leaders.
The world was chaos. Great men made lousy decisions, but they also made great decisions. Somehow, it all sifted out and the allies triumphed. Would any of us posters deny the blessing of that? We can debate in the comfort of our dens at our desks on our computers what the great men of those times did. It is a luxury they paid for.
Thank God some right people were there and we all survived. It’s time to apply our morality to Iraq and the morality of our current invasions. This is our time; these are our choices. What are we denying?
The most important thing that is over looked is… barring a completely unusual and catastrophic event, no Admiral (Commander) of any navy (whatever) should take military orders from a leader of a different country, unless instructed to do so by is own leadership.
Obviously, before the new French, pro-German leadership took power, the previous leadership should have had the fore sight to issue that order, and others, especially regarding its navy, which was more mobile. However, it goes with out saying, that from a military commander, on down to a single soldier, no one would let their military assets fall into the hands of the enemy, if at all possible. From a naval perspective, the scuttling of a ship is much, much easier than, say, destroying artillery at a rear base that was being over-run by the enemy.
Another thing that is over-looked is personality and mind-set. Churchill was so arrogant, that he actually thought he could give orders to another countries military, and that military was just suppose to follow those orders. Yes, his ‘orders’ were presented as choices, but still, choices that Churchill commanded to be followed, one or the other, ‘or else’. It can be noted, that his, ‘or else’, could be construed as a declaration of war, even before the first shot was fired. After all, Churchill’s subsequent threat to Admiral Gensoul (issued through Sommerville/Holland) was a ‘real’ threat, and an ultimatum. Make no mistake about it.
Also very important, is that, no leader should attack an Ally simply for self preservation. As for orders regarding the French military, Churchill could not be 100% sure he knew all orders issued by the French leadership, or its military commanders. He was acting strictly as a self preservationist. Just from those perspectives, Churchill is a coward and a war criminal. And, add the following. This would be pure speculation on my part, but I believe it to be true, and why wouldn’t it be true… Churchill would have never confronted the French Navy if his force to confront was not superior. Also, the event at Mers-El-Kebir was not a battle, it was a massacre. An act of a coward (and it can easily be stated, cowards). It was the Royal Navy shooting fish in a barrel. It was despicable, to say the very least.
Also, Churchill had the word of Admiral Gensoul, in writing, that his fleet would never fall into the hands of the Germans (enemy). A word that he should have accepted and believed, as truth. For Churchill to have doubts was his own human failure. Nothing else caused The Massacre at Mers-El-Kebir… except…
I believe that Churchill had the ‘blessing’ of Pres. Roosevelt to attack the French fleet, which would align Roosevelt as a conspirator of that war crime. There is enough evidence of this to draw that conclusion. Possibly, also, there could be evidence that has never been exposed, or that has been destroyed. Again, though, enough documentation exists to draw that conclusion.
As for Admiral Gensoul, there is no blame to be put on him, what so ever, for the The Massacre at Mers-El-Kebir. Yes, anyone can speculate that Admiral Gensoul could have done this, or could have done that. But, the bottom line of the whole event was that he was attacked, by an Ally, in a deliberate, vicious and unforgiving way. Surely, a person can find no blame in Admiral Gensoul for that.
A person can also argue it was war time, etc. Have no foul or unjust rationale for the event at Mers-El-Kebir, that would justify Churchill’s and the Royal Navy’s action. It will only cause further dishonor, insult and pain to the event of that day.
Thank you a lot for sharing this with all folks you actually know what you are talking about! Bookmarked. Please also visit my website =). We may have a hyperlink exchange arrangement between us
I cherished as much as you’ll receive carried out proper here. The sketch is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish. nonetheless, you command get got an shakiness over that you wish be handing over the following. unwell certainly come further earlier again since precisely the same nearly a lot frequently inside of case you protect this hike.
Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It in reality was a enjoyment account it. Look complicated to more added agreeable from you! However, how can we keep up a correspondence?
Thank you, I have just been looking for info about this subject for ages and yours is the greatest I have found out till now. But, what about the conclusion? Are you certain about the supply?|What i do not realize is in fact how you’re no longer actually a lot more smartly-liked than you might be now. You’re so intelligent.
I missed some of this episode on Tuesday. When will it be rebroadcast in the Seattle area?
thanks
I’ll take a ride , lets cruise along 2a in Lexington, go to Concord bridge and pretend to be Paul Revere.
Hi there! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new apple iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the superb work!
Hi everyone. My name is Gary and i am from Leeds in the UK. I started the fat burning furnace plan about two years ago. I was hugely overweight and my doctor pushed me to go on a diet. After reading many positive reviews of the fat burning furnace diet I decided to give it a go. Two years later and I have lost 4.5 stones in weight. I have now started boxing again after a ten year gap. I feel just amazing…
Sounds good, I was … Sounds good, I was reading about installing the rom and i just got confused.
Sit back and watch full movie films for absolutely free
You actually make it seem really easy along with your presentation however I find this topic to be really something which I feel I’d by no means understand. It kind of feels too complex and extremely broad for me. I am having a look ahead for your next publish, I will attempt to get the grasp of it!
Rondo couldnt “best” Wade on his career day. Cry me a river. Talk to the league? The best team will win the series, as usual.
Education is the process in which we discover that learning adds quality to our lives. Learning must be experienced. – William Glasser
HISTORY IS A PRACTICAL JOKE THAT SOCIETY PLAYS ON SENIAL OLD MEN WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!! Like studying bumps on patient’s head (Phenology, anyone?) the study of History has been, is, and will be—an utter waste of time. You mock me?!!!
Ask Sir Winston S. Churchill what was World War II about and he will thump his chest and pronounce “It was about GOD, Great Britian & her Commonwealth, the Americans and SOMETIMES THE FRENCH & THE RUSSIANS against SATAN, the Axis and SOMETIMES THE FRENCH & THE RUSSIANS. Bottom Line: GOD, thru his servants, won WWII!!!”
Now go ahead and ask HO Chi Minn what was World War II about and he will wipe his glasses and smirk: “It was about The Japanese Imperialists kicking out the French Imperialists who, with the help of the British & American Imperialists, restored the French Imperialists, who re-armed the soldiers of the Japanese Imperialists, to rule my country as a conquered people”!!! For us Vietnamese, WWII ended in 1975 with the unification and liberation of the people of Vietnam”.
OK, Sports fans—who has the best answer about WWII? ANSWER: THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT (and they were not opposing sides of the same conflict—Winnie was the British PM; Uncle Ho was a college student, short order cook and liberation fighter). See why I dispise HISTORY? There is no right answer. First, an Historical event can have multiple, conflicting interpretations from multiple participants (as in Who started WWI?). Second, years after the fact, the interpretations can be subject to re-interpretation (Prussian Militarism started WWII, to French Revengist feelings started WWI to it was nobody’s fault and back again). You are better off studying Astrology to predict the Stock Market than History to devine a future responce to a given situation.
What do I think PBS’s re-telling of the Mers-El Kiber tragegy of WWII? I was disappointed in it. PBS presented a LOPSIDED, Anglophillic ‘lovefest’ of a great man (Winnie) forced to do a not so nice thing in the name of self preseveration (attacking an ally/former ally). What PBS should have done is to state that Britian stabbed its former ally in the back in the name of self preservation and that Leaders, in history, had done such self-serving things throughout history. In 1939-40, the French and British had assembled troops to invade Sweden so as to fight their way to Finland to battle the invading Russians. When Finland fell, these troops were diverted to the equally stupid defense of Norway. In 1940, the French and British drew up plans to invade Belgium and Holland to protect the French Northern Flank (Pass thru permission only being given by a reluctant Belgium/Holland minutes before the Allied Invasion through same). This is why I have problems with the presentation of ‘greenhorn’ P.M. Churchill making a cold business decision to betray an ally—France and Britian had been employing such ‘Real Politic’ against other countries since the start of the war….in the instant case, it was France’s turn to play ‘the fall guy’.
Leaders do this sort of thing ALL THE TIME—it’s called STATESMANSHIP. Take President Obama and our ALLY on the Global War on Terror (GWOT) Pakistan. Correct me if I’m wrong but PAKISTAN is our DECLARED ally on the ‘Global War on Terror’ (GWOT). Yet, every 48hrs, Pres. Obama sends a cruise missle over Pakistani air space to kill Pakistani citizens inside Pakistan—wheither they like it or not!!! Ain’t that against the law?!!!
Worse, in 2011, Pres. Obama invaded the sovern territory of our ally Pakistan and ZODTZ’ed Sheikh Osama Bin Laden (a former American Ally) while he was in bed, with his four wives, in what country? Our Ally Pakistan. Is what Pres. Obama doing/did a war crime? Absolutely!!! We are attacking and killing citizens of a nation that we are not at war with and whose government is not threatening us. Is there anything Pakistan can do about it other than protesting at the UN and filing equally useless ARTICLE 138s UCMJ (inside joke)? I don’t think so!!! Pres. Manny ‘PineApple Face’ Noriega was a respected ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES in the War on Drugs when the United States invaded his country and took him to jail. On the wall of his Presidental Yaught was a signed autograph of Pres. Carter & Ronald Reagan PRAISING his help as an Ally—Oh, Well!!! Pres. Aristead of Haiti was an Ally of the United States on the War on Drugs when we packed him on a plane in his night clothes and wisked him out of Haiti. Pick a Nation in History and I can show you examples where they did dispicable things in the name of StatesCraft and Self Servival. Churchill had to do what Churchill had to do and Operation Catapult was a success.
Will the French EVER trust the British again? Do they trust the Britian NOW with the Greek Debt Crisis? Is Britian’s failour to support France & Germany’s demand for Euro Currency Stabilization the new Mers El Kebir Part Duex? What did I say previously about history…?!!!