We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Operation Catapult led to the British bombardment of the French fleet at the Algerian port of Mers el-Kébir and the death of 1,297 French naval personnel. The previous chapter illustrated how strategic, moral and symbolic factors shaped the operational boundaries for Catapult. This chapter examines how the operation unfolded. It draws on press publications and statements to illustrate how strategic language was used to create or challenge a sense of national legitimacy.
Pétain’s government condemned the bombardments as an attack on neutral territory. British statements drew on historical imagery to justify the brutality of the operations. Images of past military victories (many against the French) were a reminder of British resilience. They suggested that British victory was something of an historic certainty. British press statements also delegitimised Pétain’s government by implying its unpopularity amongst the French public. Desmond Morton, Churchill’s personal assistant, mandated that the British press refers to the metropolitan government as the ‘Vichy Government’ or the ‘Pétain Government’, but never the French government.
War of Words argues that the conflicts that erupted over French colonial territory between 1940 and 1945 are central to understanding British, Vichy and Free French policy-making throughout the war. By analysing the rhetoric that surrounded these clashes, Rachel Chin demonstrates that imperial holdings were valued as more than material and strategic resources. They were formidable symbols of power, prestige and national legitimacy. She shows that having and holding imperial territory was at the core of competing Vichy and Free French claims to represent the true French nation and that opposing images of Franco-British cooperation and rivalry were at the heart of these arguments. The selected case studies show how British-Vichy-Free French relations evolved throughout the war and demonstrate that the French colonial empire played a decisive role in these shifts.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.