# Talk:French battleship Strasbourg

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on French battleship Strasbourg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829135609/http://www.bobhenneman.info/DunkerqueClassHistory.htm to http://www.bobhenneman.info/DunkerqueClassHistory.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:French battleship Strasbourg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is in good shape. A few comments from me:

in the lead, suggest "and later the Germans"→"and was later seized by the Germans"
How about "taken" instead of repeating "seize"?
"attempting to produce a satisfactory design to fill 70,000 tons as allowed by the treaty" does this mean to accommodate two or three ships within the 70K or something else?
Yeah, the intention was to build multiple ships - the 17,500-tonners would have allowed 4 ships to be built within the allotted tonnage
How about "attempting to produce a satisfactory design which would allow several ships to be built within the 70,000-ton limit allowed by the treaty"? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. Parsecboy (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
link battlecruiser
Done
suggest sigfig=2 for the protected cruiser gun conversions
Fixed
drop the second conversion of 305 mm
Done
knots in full and linked at first mention
Done
convert the 330 mm guns
Done
link ship class
Done
suggest "final Dunkerque"→"final Dunkerque-class design" there is another instance of this
Works for me
suggest sigfig'ing the beam conversion to get rid of the decimal place
Fixed
the secondary battery description in the infobox isn't clear
Fixed
perhaps describe the layout of the rear quad turrets, as this seems a unique set-up
Good idea
suggest stating that the twin turrets were on the sides just forward of the funnel
Done
if you convert 330 mm earlier, you could drop the conversion of the turret armour
Done
More to come. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

it is a bit off-putting that both 280 mm and 270 mm round to 11 in, could you go an extra sigfig?
Good catch
you could link desk (ship) but perhaps it is too common a term
Nah, that's a good link
"That day, she was docked" dry-docked? and link?
Good idea
link Brittany?
Done
suggest linking light cruiser and destroyer
Good catch
"pocket battleship"s→"pocket battleships"
Fixed
"ordered his ships to return to point" port?
Good catch
link Béarn and say what sort of ship she was
Done
suggest linking heavy cruiser
Done
suggest being consistent with the diacritic on Mers-el-Kébir
Fixed
say who Darlan was and link
Good catch
"On 5 November, Strasbourg, all all of the cruisers"
Fixed
"She had to be docked for repairs" dry-docked?
Sure
suggest "The vesselStrasbourg appeared to be undamaged"
Done
Seaforth Punblishing
Whoops!
the licensing of File:Croiseur de bataille Strasbourg 03-07-1940.jpg isn't right
I don't know about that - it appears to have been uploaded by the creator's descendant, and they'd be the holders of the copyright for a private photo, so they can release it as far as I'm aware.
Doh. Totally missed that. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
is there a source for the ship movement/attack info on File:Attack on Mers-el-Kébir map-es.svg?
It's very clearly based on the map Jordan & Dumas have in their book, I've added it to the description page.
That's me done. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by an appropriately licensed image with an appropriate caption. Passing. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

From what little I know edit summaries are supposed to describe what has been done in an edit. Some recent ones such as [1] and [2] do not look to be doing that but rather should be part of a topic discussed on talk. SovalValtos (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss; someone is/was attempting to push pro-British POV into the article, and they've been reverted. That's it. Edit summaries of course serve multiple purposes, and simply describing the edit is only one of them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Im not attempting too. But Wikipedia is a place for facts not opinions. You can debabte from both sides if what happened was wrong or right but articles need to take a non bias point of view. By removing the one word it takes neither the British nor the French side and gives a neutral point of view. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It’s not the French side, it’s a simple fact. The terms of the French surrender did not permit the Germans to seize the ships. The British thought they did. They were wrong in thinking that the Germans would take them. We should be clear about it. Again, this is a simple fact. And no, you can’t point to Case Anton as justification; as Sturmvogel already pointed out, that was 2 years later, under entirely different circumstances (and last I checked, there were no Germans in Mers el Kebir in 1940).
To minimize the British incorrectness is an attempt to apologize for their action, which IS pushing a pro-British POV. We won’t tolerate it here. Parsecboy (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not pushing a pro British Pov. The situation is more complicated then just putting mistakenly. The article currently promotes a pro French point of view. Putting correctly would be a pro British point of view but removing mistakenly makes it a neutral point of view. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
No it doesn't. This is a binary situation; either the British were right to believe what they did, or they were wrong. The benefit of hindsight and a fuller understanding of what actually happened tells us that they were wrong. Further, you haven't provided any sources that support the idea that their belief was a valid one. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Attila_(World_War_II)
Germans had plans to capture the French fleet back in 1940. While in December it still proves the point the germans wanted the French fleet. While the Germans had agreeed with vichy France not to capture its fleet. The germans had already made multiple agreements pre war that they had broken. IE mistakenly was not needed in the article as there was a probability that Germany would of tried to capture the fleet. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. The French fleet in Toulon was theoretically vulnerable to German seizure. We are not talking about that here. The bulk of the French fleet was in France's African colonies, and in 1940, there were no Germans anywhere in Africa.
And what's more, let me repeat myself: the French scuttled the ships when the Germans tried to seize ships in Toulon. Which is what they told the British they would do if the Germans attempted it. So the British belief that they wouldn't was...say it with me now...mistaken. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/87722/1/Varley-Hurst-2024-Legitimising-violence-in-the-British-attack-on-the-French-fleet-at-Mers-el-Kebir.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjgw7afkueKAxU5QEEAHU-EEfsQFnoECDcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0YunqOCEK66yWQdwekTW94
I know youll it biased but at the end of the day Vichy France was a Nazi puppet state. Even the risk of the capture or control over the French fleet would of been a threat to British interest in the Mediterranean. Therefore it was a legitimate military targett. Its not something the UK should be proud of but its war and war isnt nice. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't say I'm particularly impressed with that chapter; in arguing to justify the British use of force, it assumes without question the assertion that Britain had a reasonable belief that the French fleet could fall into enemy hands, and that those enemies could have realistically put the ships to use, neither of which are remotely reasonable conclusions.
Ironically, the chapter you cite plainly states it: Ultimately for Churchill, however, it was the desire to show that the British government would stop at nothing in the pursuit of victory that lay behind Operation Catapult. Churchill had been aware that the French fleet would be demobilized in North Africa, and that the French were prepared to scuttle them as early as 29 June, and he went ahead with the operation anyway. By citing feats of German seizure of the ships, he was either wildly incompetent or a liar. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Let me put it another way: if you want to change the article, you need to find a reliable source that explains how it was at least a rational fear for the British to believe that the Germans or Italians would seize the ships, when the closest ground forces were hundreds of miles away, and when the British already knew that the ships would be retained in North Africa, and that preparations had been made for scuttling. And the source would then have to go on to explain how the Germans and Italians would cope with all of the logistical challenges of manning the captured ships, training the new crews on foreign equipment, and providing them with fuel when the German and Italian fleets suffered from chronic fuel shortages through the war. If you can find a source that reasonably addresses all of those points, we can change this article. But given that all of that is absolute rubbish, we'll stick with the assessment of Jordan & Dumas. Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Not even the main article about the attack on Mers-el-Kébir states it was a mistake. I just listed a source and apparently that's no good. This article isn't about the attack on Mers-el-Kébir it's about the battleship Strasbourg. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
What the article on Mers-el Kebir states is irrelevant; you are aware that many British editors such as yourself make it a habit to edit articles about British-related topics, yes? And are you here to justify British actions? Why do you think those who edit that page would be any different?
Did you read the source you provided? It uncritically accepts the British position (which is a flaw I have pointed out to you already), and is focused more on the success (or failure) of the propaganda efforts surrounding the attack. And even then, it lays bare the fact that Churchill wanted the attack for political reasons, not legitimate military ones. Why have you ignored that? Is it because it's inconvenient for your argument? Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
If you watch the Drachinifel video on Attack on Mers-el-Kébir. He goes into depth about the issue. He's a respected in the field and clearly explains the British POV for the attack on Mers-el-Kébir. I'd you'd like we can use a mediator to help solve the discussion and work out what is best for the article. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Lol, Drach is a youtuber who started out by feeding Wikipedia articles through a machine reader - I literally called him out on it after I realized a few of his videos sounded an awful lot like the wording I'd have used. More than once. Until he stopped doing it. While he creates better content now, he's not an expert, and not a reliable source. Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
We can still use a mediator to sort out the issue on the article as you're making the article bias but putting mistakenly. Me trying to promote a pro British bias would be me adding correctly but by me removing mistakenly it puts the article on a neutral point of view. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not a bias; it's a simple statement of fact, which you have not refuted (and realistically, cannot, for the reasons highlighted here, which you have completely ignored). If you can't respond to the points there, I see no reason to involve others. Parsecboy (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I have refuted. The UK had a valid military Reason to Attack the French fleet with the information known at the time. Events later in the war help support the British attacks as the Germans did indeed try to seize parts of the French fleet and French Vessels did fire on Allied ships. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Nonsense. You haven't provided a source that actually examines the issue and comes to the conclusion that British fears were justified. You can make all of the other arguments you like about irrelevant topics like Case Anton, but your opinion is completely irrelevant, as is mine. What matters is what reliable sources state. Parsecboy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
If you read the Article 8 it says the fleet will be demobiblized or disarmed under control of Germany or Italy respectively. There for giving reasons that's either country could take control of the ships. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
And if you bothered to read the source that is cited in the article, you will see that they explain why your interpretation is wrong. In other words, mistaken. Parsecboy (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The source provides there take on the issue but other source would provide a different take on it. Can you provide multiple sources saying it was completely and undeniably a mistake and the UK had no justification to strike the French fleet. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll reproduce it for you:
"A crucial ambiguity lay in the use of the French word contrôle, which was (wilfully?) mistranslated. Pound, Churchill, and the English press interpreted it as meaning that the ships would be under German and Italian "control" - a key point in the subsequent discussions by the British War Cabinet - whereas the context makes it clear that the word refers to the process by which the deactivation of the ships would be verified and monitored, and it is therefore more appropriately translated as 'supervision'. In agreeing this clause the French were accepting that German and Italian officials would be charged with monitoring the state of readiness of French ships and any proposed deployment of the few vessels permitted to remain active for exercises, the rotation of those deployed overseas, etc."
Given that the British had spent quite some time in the 1920s on the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control, they surely knew what "control" meant in context. Parsecboy (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The UK was meant to take an agreement written by Germany who previously broken other agreements as gospel? ItsMeCH11 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
You are exasperating. We have now come full circle to this point: how exactly were the Germans going to seize ships in Mers-el Kebir? Can you stop wasting my time here? Your arguments are ignorant and repetitive, and belie your obvious bias. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you show me the source that the article uses to justify that the attack was a mistake? Ive had a quick look and cant find any clear point it states is was a mistake. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
If you have the book, try reading pages 71 through 73. Parsecboy (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It states as most Article do justification from both sides. It doest not clearly state the attack was a mistake. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Then I have to question your reading comprehension. That Jordan and Dumas regard Churchill and the War Cabinet to have been wrong is plainly obvious.
Fun fact: apparently, Cunningham believed Catapult was a mistake at the time, and told Pound as much. Most of the officers on the scene knew that it was a mistake. See, for example, the chapters on Catapul in Brown's The Road to Oran: Anglo-French Naval Relations, September 1939-July 1940. Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
While the officer thought it was a mistake it wasn't on legal grounds but moral of attacking a former ally. Looking at the source they state for the book states a french article that would again promote a french bias. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I said I was happy to use a mediatior to help solves this easier that youd ignored. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)