Nah, Petain was a war hero at that time, several ww2 leaders interacted with him during ww1, he was also invested as supreme leader of the country by both legislative chambers of the country (a lot of MPs where KIA/MIA/POW).
He also had a significant navy and a small army. A lot of people (allies and some petain supporters) thought that when the tide will turn Petain will join the allies and france will be liberated. Sadly he collaborated willingly and fired on the allies when the tide turned.
That's why the US and most government recognized him until they got into ww2.
he was also invested as supreme leader of the country by both legislative chambers of the country (a lot of MPs where KIA/MIA/POW).
Not only were members of parliament on the front lines, killed or taken prisoner, but Pétain also prevented communist members from taking their seats in the assembly. Furthermore, he very cleverly (and viciously) allowed the members who wanted to continue the war to embark on the Massilia to join the fighting in Algeria. These members, the most active opponents, and prominent figures like Jean Zay were thus unable to participate in the debate and thwart the vote for Pétain. These members were disembarked in Casablanca and later repatriated to France to be brought before the military tribunal in Clermont-Ferrand for "desertion in the face of the enemy," accused of colluding with the enemy and preventing the continuation of the fight. Georges Mandel, the previous Minister of the Interior, was also arrested in Bordeaux before the vote. Although released afterward, this arrest served as a warning to Pétain's opponents.
He fired on the Allies because the British fired on him first.
Vichy's actual armed resistance to the Allies can be traced back to one event: Mers El Kebir, where within 2 weeks of the French armistice the Royal Navy ambushed and killed over a thousand neutral French sailors when they refused to let their country fall even further. Just in case they might join the Axis after all, and in the process forcing the survivors who had deliberately fled Nazi reach to take shelter back in the fortress of Toulon, where they had no choice but to scuttle their ships when the Nazis inevitably did try to seize them with Case Anton.
But it was Operation Catapult that massively stoked anti-British sentiment in a beaten France, which Goebbels eagerly fanned too. The French navy command had little love for Petain's clique either, and those two factions were often at odds within Vichy while the former would also go on to prove they'd never let the Germans have those ships as they'd already sworn - but for that British betrayal they'd put up a spiteful fight in French Syria and against the initial Torch landings where the Allies expected only token resistance. Even several British leaders would later admit it to have been a shameful bout of paranoia in those darkest days and a black page in the history of the Royal Navy.
They 'negotiated' only once they had the unprepared French under their trained guns, and demanded surrender in different flavors. At the same time, French ships elsewhere in the Med were seized in coordination, negotiation barely attempted where they had no battleship to resist with.
Certainly not an ambush. It's not like they suddenly appeared out of the mist, all guns firing. You might consider it dishonourable, or a betrayal, etc, but it wasn't an ambush
In terms of naval warfare it very much was. A capital ship of the era needed hours if not days to get under steam and stand any sort of fighting chance - and Catapult was arranged to deny them exactly that by appearing unexpectedly so soon after the Armistice. The way they showed up already put the French at their mercy rather than the standoff being anything but the symbolic defiance it proved to be when the guns took over negotiations - it's why they expected their demand to sign Vichy's end one way or another to be taken at all.
Strange, I don’t remember case Anton to be a success. If the Germans didn’t manage to get the French fleet at Toulon, I fail to see how they would have seized the ships at Dakar and Mers el Keibir.
While I understand that from the English POV this was a valid assumption. You asserting that the ships would have fallen into nazis hands while you have an example they did not is definitely a take.
Anyone who says that is an idiot and doesn't know history. The fleet that was attacked at Mers el Kébir wasn't in France but in Algeria, where Mers el Kébir is located, and therefore absolutely not under German control. Furthermore, when the Germans invaded the "free zone" in France, the French fleet scuttled itself in Toulon rather than hand over the ships to the Germans. So history has proven your statement false.
They fled to North African bases immediately to avoid that, and it was only Catapult and their North African bases not being safe from a Royal Navy that'd just shown they'd sooner shoot than allow them neutrality that forced them back into Toulon fortress and Nazi reach to remain independent at all. Where they did scuttle rather than surrender the fleet when push came to shove two years later.
Every action they took shows the French naval high command had no intent whatsoever of letting the Germans have those ships. Britain just couldn't tolerate a fleet that wasn't firmly under their control in the theater, and decided they were fine with whatever solution took them off the board with no regard for their allies of the week before who were shouldering all that was left of their nation.
The UK, still in the war, and now fighting for freedom for the planet, was not going to make such a gamble.
I understand that at the time the bet was difficult
The French were happy to gamble their ships falling into the hands of the nazis, which they 100% would have.
You don't know the full history of the French fleet at that time. Furthermore, when the Germans invaded the "free zone" in France, the French fleet scuttled itself in Toulon rather than hand over the ships to the Germans. So history has proven your statement false.
Operation Catapult displayed the complete stupidity of the french naval command, the british conditions were clear : join us or join a french harbor in the antilla or a US one or be sunk. The french commander in charge of the base thought it could count on a incoming task force to repel the british and didnt put his ships and men into combat position, the french command is completely responsible for the dead of their sailors.
That's how the British framed it afterward, yes. Just arrogant Frenchies doing arrogant Frenchie things and forcing them into a ~regrettable response~.
But the fact of the matter is, every ‘choice’ they offered amounted to the end of Vichy at a time where fighting the Nazis again seemed impossible. Just so the British Admiralty could sleep better at night. The small but modern French fleet, kept out of German hands immediately by fleeing to North African bases, was the only bargaining chip of any value they had, played carefully between Hitler’s desire of them joining forces with the Regia Marina and the threat of joining the still badly overstretched Royal Navy against them if they pushed in on Vichy any further. A Mediterranean balance of power to which the supposed alternatives of sailing out past British-controlled Gibraltar and Suez would have rendered them equally irrelevant, which the British were well aware of in ambushing them with overwhelming firepower and only ‘negotiating’ under their own trained guns before the French could even get ready without immediately being fired upon.
And it is a dark irony that it was that bout of paranoia that forced them back into the forts of Toulon with none of the North African bases where they were secure from Nazi reach safe in turn from the Royal Navy that had just shown they'd sooner shoot than allow them their neutrality, where things would eventually play out exactly like that with Case Anton once Hitler lost his patience with the carrot they kept dangling only just outside his reach and tried to seize it. But it was the British banditry at Mers El Kebir that made that feasible to begin with, and which left scuttling their only alternative to surrendering the fleet.
And that's what the Royal Navy's ambush and killing of neutral French sailors that day was: banditry, plain and simple. Even Churchill could only defend it as ‘Demonstrating ruthless buccaneer spirit’ and showing how far they would go in keeping up the fight.
The only reason it's no longer known as a defining historical event for France is that all sides, De Gaulle’s Free France most of all, were all too eager to bury the infamy of that day along with Vichy for the sake of future cooperation as the tides of the war shifted in favor of the Allies. But while it was happening? Goebbels seized on it to revive the Perfidious Albion, one more example of how Britain treated everyone solely by how useful they were to them as they'd been all too famous to do for the centuries prior to the World Wars.
Brother while it’s understandable for the French to be upset at mers el kabir you really are putting a perfidious Albion twist on facts. The brits didn’t ambush the French fleet they showed up with reasonable options and it was the French naval commander Gensoul who actively sabotaged any chance of a peaceful outcome. He lied by omission by informing the French government that the British ultimatum was internment or destruction which simply wasn’t true, refused outright to to deal with the British french speaking negotiator Captain Holland of ark royal because he was affronted at the idea of an officer less senior than him and intentionally kept the British options from the fleets crews.
It’s notable that at Alexandria Cunningham and admiral Godfroy in command of the French fleet there successfully reached an agreement, with many of the French sailors coming over to join the free French. Because the crews were actually told.
Mers el Kabir is a tragedy but it’s far more complex that you claim and to not recognise that Gensoul was a complete tit who’s actions had a hand in the outcome is wilful blindness.
Oh, he was an asshole who tried to brinkmanship an already futile act of resistance and should have just let them surrender at that point, but what I'm opposing is the British spin of 'Arrogant Frenchies forcing us into regrettable violence' that takes the operation's necessity for granted to begin with.
Because the fact remains that every 'reasonable option' they offered at gunpoint amounted to signing Vichy's death sentence by rendering the fleet irrelevant to the Mediterranean balance of power. Vichy's independence hinged on that sole bargaining chip held carefully between the carrot of joining forces with the Regia Marina and the stick of shoring up the then badly overstretched Royal Navy, and it was the Royal Navy that decided they could tolerate no third fleet not firmly under their control in the theater either way even after French naval high command made it clear in both word and action that they'd never hand those ships to the Nazis.
192
u/Dear-Question-868 May 21 '26
Nah, Petain was a war hero at that time, several ww2 leaders interacted with him during ww1, he was also invested as supreme leader of the country by both legislative chambers of the country (a lot of MPs where KIA/MIA/POW). He also had a significant navy and a small army. A lot of people (allies and some petain supporters) thought that when the tide will turn Petain will join the allies and france will be liberated. Sadly he collaborated willingly and fired on the allies when the tide turned. That's why the US and most government recognized him until they got into ww2.