Mers-el-Kebir, the war between friends.

World War II Other Military Units
#21

Imagine yourself as a commander of a French ship with that option.

If you hand over the ship even to a neutral country, will your family in France be persecuted by the Germans, or the Vichy government, in retaliation?

Will the same happen to the families of all members of your crew?

Or do you just follow your government’s orders, as is your duty, and hope for the best?

Anyway, why would a non-belligerent country like the US or Ireland want to attract unnecessary attention from the Germans by accepting these ships at a time when it looked like Germany had a good chance of winning? There was nothing in it for them, and especially for the US whose corporations were making useful profits out of the European war from Germany until the end of 1941.

As for any lingering bitterness over the by then ancient Trafalgar event, as pdf27 indicated that should have been wiped out by French gratitude for Britain’s efforts in WWI.

#22

Not to mention the lack of any real incentive aside the moral one. The soldier’s loyalty belongs to his government, and it is not up to him to choose whether one likes the governments choice of alliance or not. He might be able to resist committing war crimes, but as long as the orders stay within the laws, he has absolutely justification to say no.

Aside from his role as an instrument of the Government, the captain has absolutely no right to his ship, so when his government tells him to fight the British or bring the ship into a French harbour, who is he to say no?

#23

Rising Sun, surely you jest. You think helping the French from 1914-18 makes up for the Napoleonic Wars, French Revolutionary Wars, American Revolutionary Wars, Seven Years War and the War of the Austrian Succession? These are just Franco-British conflicts that I can think up offhand but doubtless there are more that have happened. Perhaps helping the French once would make up for one of these wars but surely not all of them.

Also, I thought the reason for Britain entering the war in 1914 was the violation of Belgian neutrality. I don’t think the British were committed to protecting France itself.

#24

A major reason that Britain joined WW1 was that the German Empire was building its own powerful navy, and, to a certain extent, they wanted to prove that they were still the lords of the sea.

#25

The British suffered massively more casualties in WW1 than in ALL the other wars mentioned. Oh, and you missed a few biggies like the Norman Conquest and the Hundred Years War…

Reason given to the public. The reality is that they were not going to accept German hegemony on the continent, and accordingly allied themselves with France to prevent this.

#26

You’re exaggerating…

#27

Go crunch the numbers. The UK population at the time of most of those wars was about the same size as the casualties we took in WW1. Furthermore, the Norman Conquest is the only one to reach UK soil - so the majority of the casualties would have been non-UK nationals.

#28

As far as the argument in regards to legality, I’d like to explore what the actual legality of the Vichy Regime was - and how the Free French forces under Degaulle and the FFI, made a legal argument of sorts for their continued resistance after capitulation…

I haven’t researched this or anything, but I do know that the elected head of state, Paul Reynaud, was in favor of continuing the War. Even if it meant doing so from the colonies and Britain…didn’t his overthrow almost amount to a coup?

#29

He was forced to resign as he had lost the support of his political allies.
Petain, as far as I’m aware, was appointed head of state in a legal manner according to the French political system.
De Gaulle and the FFI, on the other hand, had no legal authority under the rules of the French political system.

ps; At the time of Mers-el-Kebir the French and British were no longer Allies, as under the terms of their alliance both agreed that neither of them would seek a separate peace with the enemy without the permission of the other. The French broke this agreement, so the alliance had ended.

#30

I think there is a legal or constitutional debate about that. I’ll try to dig up something on it.

#31

Google has a long way to go. Or maybe I need to refine my search terms. 'Coz I can’t find what I was looking for.

Anyway, my recollection is that there was an issue about the absence of members of the French parliament which raised doubt about whether the votes of those present amounted to a valid act in appointing Petain.

#32

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the British declaration of war did in fact follow violation of Belgian neutrality and that the British had previously indicated that they would enter the war if this occurred. Speculating to their actual motives is fine but I don’t see how people can be sure they would have entered the war in different circumstances.

#33

AIR, there were not the numbers in Petain’s group, and his “Government” only established “legitmacy” via recognition by Germany, Japan, Italy.

As such, it is very easy to argue that De Gaulle’s lot had as legitmate a claim, to be the Government of France, by virtue of recognition by Holland, Britain, Canada.

Reynaud seems to have been very quickly sidelined by Petain’s lot, so I’m not certain any pronunciamento of his would be regarded as having either validity or legitimacy, despite his legalised position.

Thus, one could argue that under existing International Law at the time, neither “Government” was a legally constituted one, and that both were in effect the results of coups d’etat. For the sake of convenience, it has always been historically accepted that both “Governments” were legitimate within their respective spheres, their very shaky legal basis notwithstanding.

Regards, Uyraell.

#34

Part of the “shaky” legal argument against Pétain is that he nearly tried Reynaud, then handed him over to the Germans for internment…

#35

No. Most neutral nations also recognised Petain’s government, the most important one to do so was the United States Of America

#36

Be that so, then I gladly accept the reproof, with Thanks, redcoat. :slight_smile:

I was going by memory, which I admit is not always wise.

The fact is, the vast majority of the hundreds of reference sources I once had at hand no-longer exist in my possession, due to My collection having been disbursed beyond recovery, without my permission.

To return to topic.
I have several times over the years revisited the question of legitimacy of governments, not least when the issue resurfaces through the media detailing this or that government of various former colonies having issues domestically.

Thus it is, that France, Spain, and certain of the Balkan states enter My thoughts again, in terms of the legalities I was taught in High School, regarding states and their governments.

While I agree a case can be made for the Petain regime, I have always adopted the conventional historiographic axiom of dual legalities applying to the cases of alternate governments under Petain and De Gaulle.

Regards, Uyraell.