July 3, 1940. After only 54 days into office, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered his Navy to take control of French ships, or destroy them if the French refused to relinquish control. What led to this unprecedented and controversial attack was a dramatic series of events that saw France being overrun by the Nazis in a matter of weeks, Roosevelt fearing that Britain would fall just as quickly, and Churchill needing a way to prove otherwise.
THIRTEEN’s Secrets of the Dead explores the dark side of Britain’s fight against the Nazis in Churchill’s Deadly Decision, premiering nationally on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 8 p.m. (ET) on PBS (check local listings). With eye-witness accounts and testimonies from British and French sailors who were involved in the attack, recently unclassified documents between Churchill and Roosevelt, and actual notes from British War Cabinet meetings, the film takes viewers through the harrowing chain of events that led up to the attack, and into the crucial hours during which it actually took place. Actor Liev Schreiber (Taking Woodstock and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) narrates.
Preview this episode:
“This is one of the long-forgotten stories of World War II, and one that was ultimately integral to America’s involvement into the war,” says Jared Lipworth, executive producer of Secrets of the Dead. “It solidified the relationship between Churchill and Roosevelt, but was also a classic example of the difficult—and deadly—moral decisions that leaders often have to make during wartime.”
The situation began when the French, despite assurances to their British allies that they would never capitulate to the Nazis without British approval, signed an armistice with the Germans. As part of that deal, the French agreed to recall their Navy to French ports, where the ships would remain for the duration of the war. Churchill, worried that one of the world’s great navies would end up in German hands, asked the French to turn the ships over to the British instead. The French refused, but Admiral Darlan, commander of the French fleet, swore that he would sink his own ships if the Germans ever tried to take control.
Meanwhile, Churchill had been trying to convince Roosevelt to give the British 50 old American warships, which they could use to defend themselves against the inevitable Nazi attack on the United Kingdom. But Roosevelt, fearing that the green British Prime Minister didn’t have the backbone to stand up to the Germans, worried that his ships would just end up in German hands when Britain fell.
Backed into a corner and not trusting the French admiral to live up to his promise, Churchill took matters into his own hands. He launched Operation Catapult to capture the French Fleet before it returned to French waters. A number of the most powerful French battleships were docked at a naval base in the French-Algiers port of Mers-el-Kebir. Churchill issued the French an ultimatum: Give up the vessels to the British, sail them to Allied ports, or face attack from the Royal Navy.
The French stalled, hoping for the arrival of reinforcements. The deadline passed, and the British attacked with devastating force, destroying a number of French ships and killing 1,300 French sailors—more than the number of French soldiers killed by the Germans at that point in the war.
France declared the action a horrific act of mass murder. Germany used it to release anti-Britain propaganda in Europe. Britain stood firmly by its leader and supported Churchill’s decision. But most importantly, Roosevelt saw the attack as a confirmation of British resolve, and soon supplied Britain with the 50 destroyers it so desperately needed.
Secrets of the Dead: Churchill’s Deadly Decision was produced by Furnace Limited for THIRTEEN in association with WNET.ORG, Channel 4, National Geographic Channel UK, ABC Australia, and ZDF. Richard Bond is writer/director. Phil Craig is executive producer for Furnace. At THIRTEEN, Jared Lipworth is executive producer. William R. Grant is executive-in-charge.
This is a very important part of History.
An important story of Guts, Foresight, and Courage!
“and killing 1,300 French sailors—more than the number of French soldiers killed by the Germans at that point in the war.”
Where did THAT nonsense come from? By the time of the French / German armistice, between 55,000 and 85,000 French soldiers had been killed in combat with the Germans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_france#Allied).
The review says 1,300 French sailors were killed. The 55,000 to 85,000 refer to soldiers NOT sailors.
Please read the whole sentence. The review clearly says “1,300 French sailors—more than the number of French soldiers killed by the Germans”, which is incorrect by about 50 times.
This is another gray area of understanding what led up to WWII. Looking at history you need to search the time line before the event. Germany and Japan started their exploitations in the late 20’s. Germany to recover the blow of the Treaty of Versailles of WWI and Japan to find its own source of oil in China. All of this was foreseeable, but everyone refused to believe it could happen. Leaders so have to make drastic decisions. Remmember regardless of any Treaty signed by Germany, France or England, Hitler’s plan was to invade.
1. The French broke their agreement with Britain by surrendering to the Germans, making French Admiral Darlan assurances less than reliable.
2. British Admiral James Somerville of Force H had delivered an ultimatum to the French which they rejected.
3. The failure of Admiral Gensoul to agree to one of the ultimatum’s choices resulted in the attack on his fleet at Mers-el-Kébir and the loss of his own sailors’ lives.
It was a tough decision, but England should be forever greatful there was a Winston Churchill to make the choice that he was right in making at that time.
I do not recall ever hearing, reading or seeing of this in the past. I was an eleven year old in Scotland at that time and a month later was on my way to Canada as an evacuee.
It is still not clear to me why the French neglected to steam into British ports as soon as possible. If the French Admiral claimed to be a reliable ally, he should have gotten his fleet over to Britain to fight against the Nazis. One would have thought they would be eager to join Britain yet they did nothing. In fact, the French Admiral was obstructive to communication with the British, displaying spectacular hubris.
Since the French proved 2 years later that their ships would not end up in german hnds. Those sailore died in vain.
The French were given more than an ample opportunity to sail their fleet into British ports but instead stalled until
there was no longer any options but to lose them to the Germans. All of those lives lost because of an
arrogant senior officer.
Anybody who would trust the French is in SERIOUS trouble! Go look at the history of French warfare!!
French Warfare—–One need not look any farther back then WW1 to see that the French will stand and fight. Up to the time of Verdun, the French did most of the hard fighting. To my way of thinking, they must have had a death wish, as the Hun killed them by the thousands, and still they came on. After Verdun, being worn down, sick and disheartened, the heavy lifting was done by the Brits, but still they fought. When one looks at the French lose of the Great War, it’s easy to see why some worked with the Germans after its fall in 1940. WW1, the best thing to ever happen to WW2. One more thing, the French at times irk me, but without their help during The American Revolutionary War, England would have most likely won. July 4 1917— Colonel C. E. Stanton. “What we have of blood and treasure are yours,” Stanton intoned. “In the presence of the illustrious dead, we pledge our hearts and our honor in carrying the war to a successful conclusion.” And then the final line of his speech: “Lafayette, we are here!”* It is right that he did so
Apparently Churchill was backed against a wall with no support from the French or Americans. He couldn’t risk losing the French fleet to the Germans. The French didn’t comply with a prior agreement between the two countries as far as surrender. He gave the French ample time to do the right thing but they dilly dallied so he was forced to take matters into his own hands and did so courageously. The French realizing later that Churchill then had the US on board saw that Churchill was serious about defending Europe and then sank their own ships right before the German Army had a chance to take them. They DILLY DALLIED. Churchill understood war more than any other leader in the world at that time and he correctly recognized what was at stake and made the hard decision to turn the tide of war at any cost. That takes balls.
Little is said about the outcome of the captured French ships. In the best situation the British would use the ships. In a neutral situation, the ships would not be used by either side. In the worst situation, the Germans would use them. Darlan’s assurances would at best make them useless, with the risk they could be lost to the Germans. Churchill did the right thing. This is a sad story, but to me the most dissapointing thing is the advice of Kennedy.
I did not see this. I wish I could have. But it would appear that Churchill was wrong to attack his ally. With friends like that you do not need enemies. You do NOT attack your allies. It is never justified.
Personally I do not think much of Churchill.
Addendum: In fact if I were FDR I would not Churchill. He might attack us.
If I were the French I would hold a trial in absentia, in a way, for war crimes.
His website denies this next charge– that he let Coventry England burn, failed to order the town evacuated, because he did not want to alert the Germans that they had broken their code. I actually had this action in my Applied Ethics class in college. They believe it to be true.
The Ends never justifies the means.
This story is very close to my heart as my Dad was a French sailor during WW2. His ship the “Volta” was at Mers-El-Kebir and was one of the ships that survived and was not destroyed. My Dad saw many of his friends die a terrible death in the water burned alive by the fuel. This tragedy stayed in my Dad’s memories all his life.
He wrote a book about it and stayed in contact with the survivors.One of his friends on the ship was a photographer and my Dad has numerous poignant pictures of the French ships been destroyed. When Churchill make this outrageous decision, the Admiral in charge at the time wanted no part of it. So Churchill took an old admiral out of retirement to execute his plans. Throughout the centuries there has always been a lot of competition between the French Navy and the British Navy (think of the Napoleon wars!). The French Navy did not trust Churchill and Churchill did not trust the French.French Admiral Darlan was a good sailor, a respected Admiral and very loyal to his French Navy: he meant it when he said that he would never let the Germans take the French ships! So what did Churchill accomplished: nothing, except almost ruined the start of “the Allies”. What a stupid decision from an egotistic man. After killing 1300 sailors and killing the fleet, he still did not get to use any of the French ships. What did the survivor ships do: certainly not proceed to the British ports!!!!
So when a decade ago some idiot in the French government wanted to raise a statue to Churchill in Toulon (a French Navy port in the South of France) my Dad mobilized “his troops of survivors” and many sailors and vehemently objected all the way to the presidency to prevent a statue of the man responsible of many sailors’ death.
My Dad won. For many years De Gaulle and later on President Jacques Chirac tried to sweep the story of Mers-El-Kebir under the rug. As a matter of fact many believe that when Admiral Darlan was killed, De Gaulle had a lot to do with it!
Too bad my Dad passed away five years ago at the age of 85. He would have been so interested in this program and very pleased that the story did not die.
History has a long list of leaders who think their power authorized them to make decisions and justify their actions regardless of human consequences.
Our politicians should look back at history and learn a lesson.
Sad sad very sad. Hard to say what is the right decision. I think the French should have gone to British ports to continue the fight against the Nazi’s. What good would those ships do stuck in port for the entire war?
Hitler would no doubt have gone after those ships for use by the Germans. Sit in port for four years and nothing done to them? I don’t think so. All of those sailors being fed and supported by the Germans during WWII, I don’t think so.
What happened was sad, but war is hell. The Free French Navy, formed from ships that did make it to Britain were very helpful in the war effort, and much more useful than those that were scuttled. Not all America wanted Britain to succeed.
In fact, American companies still did business with Nazi Germany at least until the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbour after which America declared war on Germany Dec 11, 1941. In fact, the Union Banking Corporation , an investment bank which the George Bushs’ father and grandfather Prescott Bush happened to be a director wasn’t seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act until October 1942. From what I understand, some electronics from General Electric were used for guidance systems on German Bombers bombing England and IBM sorting and collating machines were used to tally concentration camp inmates. It is definitely convenient and profitable to do trade with both sides of a world war. . .
By the time of the attack the French government had signed an armistice with the Nazi regime. France itself was out of the war. The duty of every French sailor was to respect the orders given by their government or to resign. France had won and lost wars before. She had always come back. What Churchill showed was that he was willing to kill large numbers of quite defenseless neutrals. How brave of him. How English. What if he had attacked neutral America in order to show how tough he was? Oh, that would have been different. Better yet, why did he not attack Germany to show how tough he was? Oh, that would have been risky. The Germans would have been in a position to hit back. His government went on to allow the Russians to fight the Germans for three full years while the English all but hid on their island in relative safety. Traditional English foreign policy in time of war. Let others fight the enemy while England protects her empire.
Eamon Anderson wrote:
”
Traditional English foreign policy in time of war. Let others fight the enemy while England protects her empire.
”
Quite right, however, it is not English foreign policy, but good capitalist foreign policy… where the pursuit of profit supersedes everything, even turning on allies. That is also the reason why the Western capitalist democracies, USA and UK, delayed opening up a western front against the capitalist dictator Hitler, while the anti-capitalist USSR was nearly bled to death. The capitalists democracies were hoping the capitalist dictator and socialist dictator would bleed themselves to death and leave the world to the capitalist democracies.
That is good capitalist foreign policy, in my opinion…
Hello,The Subject of your blog is very good to me, I hope more alternate with you this Motive.
Don’t forget that at the time there was much talk in the United States that Brittan would not continue the fight to the bitter end and many Americans in Congress and elsewhere were hesitant to help them for fear that they would surrender soon. This act galvanized the American response solidly behind the British by helping the Americans to realize that Britain had the resolve to fight to the bitter end. Many suggest that the Admiral naturally should have committed treason by accepting surrender and taking the French fleet to British ports. If he had, history probably would have vindicated him, but how is one to know which act of treason will be vindicated in advance? It is easy to by an armchair historian and with full knowledge of what occurred say what each person or country should have done. This is not a useful exercise, nor does it accurately reflect what people of the time at the time knew or felt when making these decisions.
Hitler at that time was almost certain to take over all of Europe. England, was fearing for it’s very life. It was thought that if Hitler captured the French ships then England would no doubt fall. The stakes were huge and to take the word of one man was too much of a gamble. Had Hitler taken over England we all might be speaking German today…. this is how much the allies had at stake.
Well, you have certainly bought into the Churchill line, hook, line and sinker. The French ships would not have given the Germans air superiority, without which no capital ships could enter the Channel. The English always know they have the Channel which can not be crossed without control of the sea. These few French ships could not tip any balance without air superiority over the Channel. In the end, this was just an English leader taking a very safe shot at a defenseless French fleet in a harbor. What could have been cheaper? Churchill spent the whole war letting the Russians, Americans and British Empire troops do 90% of the serious fighting. In that important sense, he was a great leader for England.
The truth of the matter is simple and far more prosaic
At this point in History Britain faced the Axis alone. America whilst very happy to supply the British War machine at a price declined to help and had vowed not to get involved. Not surprising when you realise that certain very senior US Business Men had vested interests in Nazi Socialism which they had bankrolled. It was not until the Japanese hit Pearl Harbour that America was forced off the bench and into play needing the British Commonwealth Forces particularly Australia and New Zealand to ensure a logistical foothold for its war in the Pacific.
America charged the UK for every piece of hardware they provided. The second world war turned the US into a superpower simply because they profited spectacularly from the lease lend program. The last payment on that was just a couple of years ago and was £50 million. The economic boost to the depressed US economy of the War can not be understated and some have speculated that this fact alone explains the close ties of US businessmen to the rise of Nazi Socialism.
Faced with a ready made Navy less than 30 miles from the British Coast and a collaborator government in France the sinking of the French Fleet was a simple expedient any sensible military commander would take.
My comments here however vis a vis America do not relate to the servicemen who gave their lives but to their Government and Businesmen. Those who fought have my gratitude and respect. They paid the ultimate price as do all soldiers. This is the true cost of war and it is the debt of corrupt old men who start them paid for in the innocent blood of those who die in them.
So in conclusion I do not support Churchill’s decision on the grounds of Patriotism but on the grounds of military logic based on the fact that the French Navy represented an enemy resource that needed neutralising. Facing a war on two fronts without the support of the US the resource the French Navy represented was significant.
Why not attack the Germans? Oh, that would be risky. Easier to attack those not ready to fight back. By the way, it is Pearl Harbor, not Pearl Harbour. Just because you are English does not give you the right to kill neutrals or change proper names.
Churchill was a total piece of shite.
Would someone explain why the French did not take their ships to English ports? I think the whole matter comes down to that one fact. Everything else is static.
It seems the French could not admit defeat and the only face-saving option would have been to destroy their own ships. Would the English, facing the same difficult decision, have sailed their navy to Canada lest it fall into German hands? I believe they would have.
Of course, Canada was largely English. To the French, the English were long standing enemies; WWII was a distraction from their centuries old hostilities and wars…the Norman invasion and all that.
So, here’s a thought; why didn’t the French turn their navy over to the Americans? The United States and France have been allies more often than not; and to the French, ANYBODY would have been better than the English!
The French decision makers were simply arrogant and stupid. Churchill had no proof the French ships would be destroyed; why should he have risked his own people when all evidence indicated the French leaders would, at best, wait until the last minute? Obviously, he gave them more than enough warning. I am surprised that he was as patient as he was. England was out of time.
I think one thing everybody can agree on; it’s always the “little guys”, the everyday sailors, armies, and the families who love them who suffer. The big guys survive to debate the finer points of strategy.
Of course, I’m a Quaker. All wars begin and end the same.
After nearly seventy years we can review the decisions objectively, leaving emotions, national pride and national anger aside.
Nations prepare themselves on the “enemies” capabilities, not intentions or possibilities. Since France had signed a surrender pact it was therefore with the Germans. The ships would therefore have been with the Germans – the enemy. Objectively speaking, they should have been destroyed. Or should have been fighting against the Germans.
Admiral Darlan’s decision seems a ego decision. Not strategic. General De Gaulle decided differently from Darlan; he continued his fight for his country and against the enemy. Darlan’s peaceful capitulation was just the opposite. The German’s gained from that decision. Seventy years of history supports De Galle. Darlan is a forgotten man. Bad Generals (or Admirals) have killed far more that the 1,300 sailors that Darlan’s decision put to death.
The event is poignant and sad.