British bombing of the French fleet

I have two questions:

1) Could the British bombing of the French fleet in Morocco and else where could have been avoided?

2) Is this water under the bridge now, or is there still anger at the British over this event?
 
Not sure if it really could have been avoided after all.

I believe the reasons put forward by Churchill (the ruthless politician as he was) were valid in terms of a political solution rather than from a strictly military perspective.

What di Churchill want to achieve:

US Recognition as still fighting

The military aspect is a bit debatable. Were the units in African ports a real threat to RN? Not without its French crew and that was another unknown (how many wanted to go with Britain, how many wanted to go home).

Could Germany just take it over? no they couldn't.

Even if they did, a battleship is a bit more intricate than borrowing the neighbor's car.

Spares, French labelling, ammo, operating manuals on equipment, etc etc.

So, why did Churchill decide to do it? did he not realise that the French would be slight unhappy about this?

I think he was fully aware of it, but whether the French (*and the Free French were not a force yet) got miffed or not was of little consequence. The only one power on his radar was US.

So, if it did cost some hundreds of French lives, well, too bad.

Is it possible to admire Churchill's ruthles ways? admire might be a big word, but surely to recognise that he did have his priorities straight more often than not.

Ivan
 
Top