# Why in WW2 did the French scuttle their warships rather than turn them over to BritainF **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2015, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563 "2015-02-02T01:16:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2015, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/82 "2015-02-05T05:06:28Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > False dichotomy. All countries are geographical (and cultural) terms. France is indeed a country, and widely referred to as such by speakers of English (and of course French). Over the years there have been two French empires, five republics and I’ve lost count of how many kingdoms, but these are not different countries; they are different states, governments or constitutional structures which (making due allowance for the odd border change or territory grab) administered the same country - France - and the same nation - the French. > > Of all nations, the French are perhaps the least likely to think that their country has been extinguished, and a new country created, every time they revise their political constitution. No, countries are sovereign. France was not a country. France does not cease to exist as a country when it changes sovereign governments. It ceases to exist when it loses it’s sovereignty and is occupied by a foreign power. Such was the case in 1940. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/83 "2015-02-05T17:37:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, true, the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir was a act of war. But compared to what the Germans did to France- _it was a romp in the countryside with butterflies and bunnies._ Sure, but that war was ended by an armistice. Darlan was a military officer, not a politician. It seems obvious to us NOW, but at the time, cooperation with the Germans seemed logical. France signed an armistice. They’d agreed to end the war with Germany, and one of the conditions was that the French navy would remain in a sort of suspended animation. > [@](#): > > But before that occurred I want to point out this \*"Darlan expected Germany to win the war and decided that it was advantageous for France to collaborate with Germany. He distrusted the British, and after the armistice of June 1940 he seriously considered waging a naval war against Britain. What Darlan allegedly “expected,” “decided” and “considered” is of no consequence. What Darlan DID is what matters. He should be judged by his actions. > [@](#): > > Note that "_In a speech to Parliament, Churchill repeated that the French armistice with Germany was a betrayal of the Allied agreement that forbade each country from surrendering to the Germans without notifying its allies. "_ This is interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Darlan did not surrender to the Germans. His government did. [QUOTE=Grotonian] It ceases to exist when it loses it’s sovereignty and is occupied by a foreign power. Such was the case in 1940. [/QUOTE] With due respect, you don’t know what the word “country” means. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/84 "2015-02-05T18:09:37Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Sure, but that war was ended by an armistice. Darlan was a military officer, not a politician. > > What Darlan allegedly “expected,” “decided” and “considered” is of no consequence. What Darlan DID is what matters. He should be judged by his actions. > > . Both , actually: "_In February 1941, Darlan replaced Pierre-Étienne Flandin as “Vice President of the Council” (prime minister). He also became Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of the Interior, and Minister of National Defence, making him the de facto head of the Vichy government. On 11 February he was named Pétain’s eventual successor, in accordance with Act Number Four of the constitution. In January 1942, Darlan assumed a number of other government posts."_ Well, let us judge his actions. He ordered the French in North Africa to resist, even tho he had been discussing a separate surrender with the Allies for months. By chance, he was taken prisoner by a pro-Allied group in Algeria on the nite of the invasion. For two days, he refused to surrender North Africa unless given high Office in the French government. This caused over 1000 Allied casualties and over 3000 French, not to mention the sinking of a number of ships. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2015, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/85 "2015-02-05T22:24:44Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > With due respect, you don’t know what the word “country” means. Enlighten me, then. I’m particularly interested how a definition of “country” exists that does not include sovereignty, yet would allow that country to go to war, define “acts of war” against it, and charge or define “traitors” against it. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/86 "2015-02-05T23:18:29Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > No, countries are sovereign. France was not a country. France does not cease to exist as a country when it changes sovereign governments. It ceases to exist when it loses it’s sovereignty and is occupied by a foreign power. Such was the case in 1940. Well, no. It was not. France remained a sovereign nation state following the signing of the armistice on 22 June 1940. Yes, a large section of the homeland was occupied but French State and the French Empire continued as a recognised entity with an effective government. > [@Grotonian](#): > > Enlighten me, then. > > I’m particularly interested how a definition of “country” exists that does not include sovereignty, yet would allow that country to go to war, define “acts of war” against it, and charge or define “traitors” against it. After June 1940 the country of France continued to exist and the government in Vichy could claim the allegiance of all members of the French armed forces, both at home and across the empire. Whether a soldier or sailor likes his government is not normally considered an excuse for deciding to ignore their orders. At the end of the war the victorious Allies introduced the idea that military personnel were responsible for their own actions and had a duty to a higher concept of what was a legitimate order but this was not around in 1940. Yes, some people so disliked Petain and the armistice that they decided to remain in Britain and eventually formed the “Free French” but legally that made them traitors to their country. If Britain had made a deal with Hitler in the summer of 1940 - unlikely but not impossible - they would certainly not returned home as heroes. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/87 "2015-02-05T23:37:14Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Yes, some people so disliked Petain and the armistice that they decided to remain in Britain and eventually formed the “Free French” but legally that made them traitors to their country. Well, yesbut- the winners get to write the History books, and the French tried and convicted many Frenchmen of Treason for collaborating with the Nazis. > **[Pursuit of Nazi collaborators](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators)** > > The pursuit of Nazi collaborators refers to the post-World War II pursuit and apprehension of individuals who were not citizens of the Third Reich at the outbreak of World War II but collaborated with the Nazi regime during the war. Hence, this article does not cover former members of the NSDAP and their fates after the war. > There were a number of motives for the apprehension of suspected collaborators. The main motives were: revenge for those murdered, especially those murdered on ethnic gr... ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/88 "2015-02-05T23:39:26Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Well, no. It was not. France remained a sovereign nation state following the signing of the armistice on 22 June 1940. Yes, a large section of the homeland was occupied but French State and the French Empire continued as a recognised entity with an effective government. > > After June 1940 the country of France continued to exist and the government in Vichy could claim the allegiance of all members of the French armed forces, both at home and across the empire. Whether a soldier or sailor likes his government is not normally considered an excuse for deciding to ignore their orders. At the end of the war the victorious Allies introduced the idea that military personnel were responsible for their own actions and had a duty to a higher concept of what was a legitimate order but this was not around in 1940. Yes, some people so disliked Petain and the armistice that they decided to remain in Britain and eventually formed the “Free French” but legally that made them traitors to their country. If Britain had made a deal with Hitler in the summer of 1940 - unlikely but not impossible - they would certainly not returned home as heroes. Thank you. So Vichy France was Darlan’s country, he considered an attack on Vichy France an “act of war”, and he became a traitor to that country in 1942. That’s all I wanted to get straight. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2015, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/89 "2015-02-05T23:49:03Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Well, no. It was not. France remained a sovereign nation state following the signing of the armistice on 22 June 1940. Yes, a large section of the homeland was occupied but French State and the French Empire continued as a recognised entity with an effective government. And who recognized the Vichy govt as legit? Queen Wilhelmina and the Dutch government succeeded in escaping from the Netherlands before the surrender, where they formed a government-in-exile. The Allies recognized that government as legit. The Nazis recognized the _Reichskommissariat Niederlande_. So, the Dutch resistance (which was more effective than the French)- your idea is that _those_ guys were traitors- and thus the guys who joined the _Nederlandsche SS_ were patriots? :rolleyes:\* The Queen\* was a traitor? The point is- The Vichy government wasn’t legit. It was forced by gunpoint. Those who rebelled against it- the \* La Résistance française\* and the Free french in exile- were the patriots. Those who collaborated with the Nazis were traitors. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/90 "2015-02-06T00:06:39Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I frankly fail to understand what appears so mysterious to some posters. > > France just signed an armistice with Germany. Germany was at war with the UK. Handing over the fleet to the UK was obviously out of the question. > > And even ignoring this, a country won’t hand over its fleet to a foreign power engaged in a war it’s not part of (anymore in this case). It will keep it for the day when it will have an use for it. > > The only thing that conceivably could have happened is the fleet commanders deciding to defect from France to the UK, which seems an extremely unlikely decision. It is mysterious as we know the British Fleet would have fought on even if the Island had fallen. What the French did seems idiotic. The Navy could have fought with the Free French but chose or better with the UK but instead they did what they did. It was a dismal act and in many ways worse then the initial surrender. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2015, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/91 "2015-02-06T03:16:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And who recognized the Vichy govt as legit? The US, for one. We sent Admiral Leahy as ambassador. Canada. Australia. The Soviet Union. Most of the world. The Vichy government were bastards. But they were recognized by most countries as the legitimate French government until they were taken over by the Germans in 1942. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2015, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/92 "2015-02-06T05:07:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Queen Wilhelmina and the Dutch government succeeded in escaping from the Netherlands before the surrender, where they formed a government-in-exile. The Allies recognized that government as legit. The Nazis recognized the _Reichskommissariat Niederlande_. Something else to remember is the difference between the French case and the Dutch case, in that, in the case of the Netherlands, like you said, Queen Wilhelmina and the Dutch government escaped from the Netherlands and formed a government in exile. That didn’t happen in France. Most of the French government stayed in France. De Gaulle was the only member of Renaud’s government to successfully get to the UK, and he had just been a minister for ten days at that point. When Renaud resigned, the President made Petain Premier constitutionally. While Petain would go on shortly after to unconstitutionally end the Republic and set up a dictatorship, he had, until that moment, been acting as a constitutionally authorized head of government. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/93 "2015-02-06T20:27:40Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > Enlighten me, then. Do I actually have to point out that there are dictionaries online? Or to point out that English-speaking people routinely refer to non-sovereign countries as countries? Here’s the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry for Scotland: “Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers the northern third of the island of Great Britain.” ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2015, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/94 "2015-02-06T21:06:10Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Do I actually have to point out that there are dictionaries online? Or to point out that English-speaking people routinely refer to non-sovereign countries as countries? > > Here’s the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry for Scotland: “Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers the northern third of the island of Great Britain.” No duh. But that’s not how YOU used it. Show me where an “act of war” was committed against the country of Scotland, or someone was charged with treason against the country of Scotland, and you can then claim you weren’t referring to sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2015, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/95 "2015-02-06T21:51:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Admiral Auphan ordered the scuttling, not Darlan. Darlan was in Allied hands at that time. True, more ships were in Toulon, but by the time they were scuttled Darlan no longer was in command. So in other words, you admit you were entirely incorrect in asserting “the Allies had to sink most of the remaining ships during the Naval Battle of Casablanca”. You are really stretching credulity beyond the breaking point in your effort to crucify Darlan in stating that Admiral Auphan ordered the scuttling, not Darlan. I don’t suppose you happen to know why? [Because](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon#Technical_and_tactical_aspect): > [@](#): > > Crews were initially hostile to the Allied invasion but, out of the general anti-German sentiment and as rumours about Darlan’s defection circulated, this stance evolved towards backing of De Gaulle. The crews of _Strasbourg_, _Colbert_, _Foch_ and _Kersaint_, notably, started chanting “Vive De Gaulle! Appareillage!” (“Long live De Gaulle! Set sail!”). **In the afternoon of the 12th, Admiral Darlan further escalated the tension by calling for the fleet to defect and join the Allies**. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Darlan was in command at Casablanca, and had given general orders to resist, despite the fact that the Allies had been talking to him for months. Still it took him being captured at gunpoint, and being given enormous positions of authority for him to order the surrender. Many Allied men died in those two days, needlessly. > > The French at Casablanca opened fire first, due to Darlans orders and failure to surrender early. Horseshit. The French at Casablanca opened fire because they were being invaded. The Allies had not been talking to Darlan for months, the deal with Darlan was brokered on the fly because the Allies had pinned their hopes on Henri Giraud being able to rally the Vichy French in North Africa behind him, and unfortunately to the Vichy French forces in North Africa he was nobody and had no authority. Regarding your allegations of months the Allies spent talking to [Darlan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Darlan) and that Darlan ordered the resistance at Casablanca: > [@](#): > > On 7 November 1942, Darlan went to Algiers to visit his son, who was hospitalised after a severe attack of polio. What he did not know at the time of his journey was that the Western Allies would invade French North Africa the next day, November 8. > > During the night of 7–8 November, forces of a pro-Allied group in Algeria (not connected with Free France) seized control of Algiers in anticipation of the invasion. In the process, they captured Darlan. The Allies had anticipated little resistance from French forces in North Africa, instead expecting them to accept the authority of General Henri Giraud, who was extracted from France to take charge. But resistance continued, and no one heeded Giraud, who had no official status. To bring a quick end to the resistance and secure French co-operation, the Allies came to an agreement with Darlan, who as commander-in-chief could give the necessary orders. The Allied commanders recognized Darlan as commander of all French forces in the area and recognized his self-nomination as High Commissioner of France (head of civil government) for North and West Africa on 14 November. In return, on 10 November, Darlan ordered all French forces to join the Allies. His order was obeyed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2015, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563/96 "2015-02-06T22:32:10Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > You are really stretching credulity beyond the breaking point in your effort to crucify Darlan in stating that Admiral Auphan ordered the scuttling, not Darlan. I don’t suppose you happen to know why? [Because](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon#Technical_and_tactical_aspect): > > Horseshit. The French at Casablanca opened fire because they were being invaded. The Allies had not been talking to Darlan for months, the deal with Darlan was brokered on the fly because the Allies had pinned their hopes on Henri Giraud being able to rally the Vichy French in North Africa behind him, and unfortunately to the Vichy French forces in North Africa he was nobody and had no authority. Regarding your allegations of months the Allies spent talking to [Darlan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Darlan) and that Darlan ordered the resistance at Casablanca: Darlan had nothing to do with the scuttling. He had absolutely no authority over the French Fleet at that time. As for negotiating with Darlan: > **[France and Britain, 1940-1994](https://books.google.com/books?id=plygBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=Negotiating%2Bthe%2B%27Deal%2Bwith%2BDarlan&source=bl&ots=wCxRugIbkp&sig=g296nA78WbfJ8v3R4UoJhTcFE0E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yTzVVLiuLLeMsQTMx4CwBQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Negotiating%20the%20'Deal%20with%20Darlan&f=false)** > > This is the second volume in Philip Bell's study of Franco-British relations in the twentieth century It covers the period from the Fall of France in 1940 to the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Philip Bell views the half-century as a long separation -... He’d been talking with the Allies since\*\* Nov 1941. \*\* Note that the book goes on to say that Darlan only started negotiations once he saw the Allies might be winning. (Earlier he’d tried to seduce the Nazis). It’s true the Allies had pinned their hopes on Giraud, but that’s only because they couldn’t get Darlan to commit to anything until they actually held him at gunpoint. In any case, Darlan was the Commander at Casablanca and all of French North Africa. He had given general orders to resist. Note that many French did not obey those orders but came over and treated the Americans as friends and liberators. Once given the order to stop resisting they gave in gladly. They only opened fire due to Darlans general orders. The Buck stopped with Darlan. He was in command, the responsibility was his. He could have simply given orders to not resist the Americans- an order he gave quickly once the Allies agreed to his demands for personal aggrandizement. Why- if the French were just “resisting an invasion” did Darlan order that said resistance stop- once the Allies gave into his demands for personal aggrandizement? “OK, I’ll order my men to stop fighting, once you give ME what I want personally!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-in-ww2-did-the-french-scuttle-their-warships-rather-than-turn-them-over-to-britainf/711563.md?page=4)