DESTRUCTION OF FRENCH FLEET

Introduction

Winston Churchill decision to attack France is one of the forgotten moments of the Second World War. On July 3, 1940, British prime minister ordered the British Navy to take over the French ships.[1] In Fact, Winston ordered the Navy to destroy the ships if the French navy refused to give up control.[2] Winston started an operation that was called operation Catapult to take control of the French Fleet before it returned to French territory.[3] As a result, many French vessels were docked at a navy base in Algiers port of Mers-el-Kebir.[4] Winston gave the Frenchmen a direct order to give the ships and dock the in the Allied territories, or they would face a military confrontation with the British army. The French refused to give in to the British with the hope that reinforcements would come. The deadline that was given by Winston passed, and the Frenchmen were attacked by the British army killing more than 1200 French sailors. Therefore, this paper will evaluate whether Winston Churchill was a war criminal because of his actions at the French-Algiers port of Mers-el-Kebir.

Evaluation of Sources

Collier, Basil. 1967. The Second World War: a military history; from Munich to Hiroshima. New York: Morrow.

Collier Basil explores various historical and war records to paint a picture of the order of events of the Second World War. Collier who served in the Royal Airforce during World War II uses his experience in the army to provide an empirical overview of what happened on July 3, 1940. Collier in this book reveals that destruction of the French Fleet was one of the most controversial events of the Second World War because both countries were allies and Winston Churchill had only lasted for 54 days. Colliers also incorporates views of other people who participated in the war. Collier says that the destruction of the destruction was necessary because it neutralized the rapid conquest of the German forces. The book gives a holistic overview of reasons and propaganda that shaped the Second World. Collier argues that Britain attack on French Vessels attracted potential allies such as the United States who changed the dynamics of the Second World War. Collier added that the attack passed the British stand on Hitler to the world laid down the foundations of defeating Hitler. Collier acknowledges that there are people who feel that the assault on July 3, 1940, was a case of mass. This source will be used to evaluate whether Winston was a war criminal because of his actions at the French-Algiers port of Mers-el-Kebir.

Kimball, Warren. 1984. Churchill and Roosevelt: The Complete Correspondence. 3 Vols. Princeton, NewJersey: Princeton University Press.

Kimball provides an empirical overview of information from the circles of Churchill and Roosevelt. According to Kimball, the two leaders had a special relationship that shaped the dynamics of the Second World War. Kimball outlines the fundamental principles that shaped the destruction of the French Fleet. Kimball says that Winston was wanted to enhance their relationship Roosevelt and it made him give orders to attack the French Fleet. In this case, Winston felt that the attack would show Britain’s stand on Hitler and the Axis forces. Winston wanted to show the United States that they were in control of the situation. Kimball also reveals that Winston wanted to thwart the threat of the Germans taking over the French Nervy and he also wanted military assistance from the United States.  Kimball who has a Ph.D. in historical studies provided a practical reference point for the role of the United States in the destruction of the French Fleet. Therefore, this source will be used to evaluate was a war criminal because of his actions at the French-Algiers port of Mers-el-Kebir.

Background of Attack on France

On July 3, 1940, Winston Churchill ordered the most controversial military confrontation in the Second World War. The military move was controversial because Winston had only lasted for 54 days in office. The primary reason behind the military action was that were the French actions of the Nazis which saw them being overrun by the Germans in a matter of weeks.[5] Principally, the Britain had an agreement with France that the French would never take any military capitulation with Germans without Britain’s approval.[6] As part of the agreement, France agreed to recall their Navy to their territory where the naval vessels would remain during the war. However, Winton felt that the French Navy would end up control of the Germans. Therefore, He ordered the French Navy to surrender the vessels to the British Navy. The French refused to adhere to the British orders by saying that they would sink their ships if the Nazis tried to take control. French refusal to give in to the Britain made Winston Churchill take matters into his own hands and attacked French vessels in French-Algiers port of Mers-el-Kebir.

Why Churchill Is Not a War Criminal

France and Britain belonged to the allied forces and were up against the Nazis or the Germans who belonged to Axis.[7] For that reason, Britain raised a contentious debate in many corners with different parties arguing that Britain’s were a form of betrayal to their allies.[8] As a result, some people referred to Churchill as a criminal of war because of his orders. However, historical data show that the move was strategic and it was one of the primary reasons behind the Allied forces victory.  The attack on French Navy was a move by Churchill to show his military superiority to Theodore Roosevelt who was the president of the United States.[9] In this case, Theodore Roosevelt had watched the French Navy being overrun by the Nazis, and he felt that Britain’s Navy would follow the same path. In other words, President Roosevelt felt that the Britain’s Navy would fall as quickly as the French Navy. Since the United States was a close ally to Britain Winston Churchill needed a way to convince the Americans that they were in control of the situation.[10] Therefore, Churchill made a move to attack the French navy as a way of keeping the United States on their side.[11] In fact, most historical studies have indicated that Winston Churchill orders were one of the primary reasons behind the United States involvement in the war which resulted in the victory for allied forces. In addition to that, Winston Churchill action on the French Navy was a move to convince the United States to give Britain 50 old warships that would protect the Allied forces against the Germans.[12] Although the French government termed the attack on their vessels as horrific, Roosevelt felt that it showed Britain resolve and agenda for the war and gave them the naval destroyers.

Additionally, according to historical reports, Britain attack on their allies was not a crime, but it represented moral decisions that leaders must make during war. Winston Churchill was countering the profound uprising of the axis.[13] Therefore, Winston felt that to continue in the war he had to prevent the Axis from taking over the French Naval base. In this case, Winston knew that if the Germans and the Italians took over the French Naval base, it would deplete Britain’s naval supremacy. In other words, a combined navy of French, Italian and German vessels would take over the Mediterranean Sea.[14]  For that reason, Churchill wanted to tilt the French Navy to his favor. Primarily, Germany had invaded France and took over the French region of the south. Hitler told France that if they accepted the Germans terms to end the war, his troops in the southern region would retreat. Hitler’s conditions were that the French Navy should the French Fleet should be withdrawn from the sea and returned home under Germans supervision.[15] When Churchill found that the France had surrendered to the Germans, he felt betrayed, and he saw the move as a game changer.[16] In fact, according to Winston’s Biographer, Winston was frightened, and he could not believe that there was a probability of the German taking over the French Fleet. Although the French Navy commander guaranteed Britain that they would never let Germany take over their vessel Winston knew that a stern action needed to be taken.[17] Therefore, Britain attacked France to prevent the maiden victory of Germany. Many historians have argued that the destruction of the French fleet at Mers el Kebir was a necessary evil that changed the dynamics of the Second World War and laid the ground for defeating the Nazis.

Principally, some historical reports have argued that the real war criminals were the French leaders who went to bed with enemies. In this case, if the France had not surrendered to the Nazis then the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers el Kebir would not have happened. Primarily, France had allied with Britain to defeat Hitler and his allies. Therefore, the Frenchmen betrayed the agreement worked with the enemy. In addition to that, Britain had given the French a practical ultimatum that would have prevented the events of July 3, 1940. Britain through Winston told France to bring their ships to Britain and join the Royal army in fighting the Nazis. Moreover, some French troops who were present in the act say that the Winston Churchill’s move was a consequence of war. Andre Jaffre, one of the French sailors, said that it was sad that their allies had sunk nut there is never an intelligent war v. He continued to say that in war some strategic decision must be made and the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers el Kebir was one of them. Andrew Lambert, a Professor of Naval History, believes that although the attack on France seemed hostile in had profound effects on the outcome of the Second World War.[18] According to Adam, the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers el Kebir showed the world the Britain’s resolve in defeating Hitler.

On the flip side, there is a side that argues that the events of the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers el Kebir were horrific and can only be referred to as crimes of war. Some survivors of the attack say that Winston Churchill was unjustified and the death of their comrades landed on his feet. In fact, a section of people who support the notion that the Winston Churchill was a war criminal has continually stated that the destruction of the French Fleet was a mass murder that history would never forget.[19] Le Roux’s one of the survivors say that the events of that day were pure terror and the saddest thing was that they came from their friends. Le Roux’s continued to say that he saw bodies flying around, stomachs were blown and other people were losing their limbs.[20] Le Roux’s says that more than 1000 of his comrade’s sailors died that day. In addition to that, humanitarians have regularly argued that French sailors lost their lives because of Winston Churchill’s egotistical maneuvers. According to humanitarians report Britain had killed more Frenchmen more than the Nazis they had murdered in the entire war. However, the claim that Winston was a criminal of war does not hold water because the results of the destruction of French fleet were a real turning point for the war against the Nazis. Winston move was strategic, and it laid the foundation of defeating the Germans in the Second World War. Therefore, Winston was a decisive leader who had to make moral decisions that must be taken in war and not a criminal of war.

Reflection

The above topic invited a deep reflection of the nature of the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers el Kebir. After a deep evaluation of the facts, I concluded that the attack on the French Fleet was a strategic and not a criminal move. Various studies that have been conducted to evaluate this topic have incorporated a deep evaluation of the facts. The surveys have made me learn that every historian should explore primary and secondary sources to avoid misinterpretation of facts. In this case, the role of a historian is to interpret historical events in an unbiased way. Additionally, every historian must look for historical problems and collect as much information as possible regarding their area of interest.  Principally, Primary sources are the best in validating various historical facts. For instance, to prove that Winston was not a criminal of war scholars used various interviews from survivors to prove their point.  In addition to that, Historians should evaluate the reliability of sources by checking if the author or the content is backed by substantial evidence. Also, the information in the materials must be parallel to other independent sources. In this case, the biggest challenge that faces historians is to look for relevant and validated information.

Conclusion

In light of the above, we can conclude that the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers el Kebir cannot be classified as a crime of war. In fact, the military surge against the French Navy was justifiable, and it represented rational and moral decisions that must be taken in wars. Primarily, the attack on French Fleet neutralized the uprising of the Nazis, and it set the foundation for the defeat of the Germans and their allies. In addition to that, the move attracted potential allies such as the United States who played an enormous in the defeat of Hitler and his comrades. On the flip side, there is a section that believes that the destruction of the French Fleet was a case of mass murder. The reason behind this school of thought is that the attack resulted in a bloodbath and Britain killed more French sailors than the Nazis they had murdered in the entire war. However, the counterclaim is weak because the French betrayed their friendship and collaborated with the enemy.

Our professional History Writing Help team provides a wide range of academic writing services including:
– History Dissertation Help
– History Dissertation Writing Services
– History Essay Writing Services
– American Higher History Assignment Services
– History Research Paper Writing Services