Franco and Hitler - just one pair between them

Started by Brazen, May 19, 2009, 05:56:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

Alatriste

#15
May 20, 2009, 05:50:22 AM
Extravagant? Gibraltar and French Morocco seem like very moderate demands to me, I have read far worse. Of course losing Morocco wouldn't please the French, but Franco could hardly be expected to enter a world war just to acquire a tiny little piece of rock like Gibraltar.

The part about the British fleet keeping on the fight from Canada is significative, I think. You see, even if Britain fell, Spain could be blockaded and starved from Alexandria, Malta and bases on North Africa & Canary Islands.

Siege

#16
May 20, 2009, 06:16:52 AM
Do you really think the british would have kept fighting after losing England?

I'm inclined to think that with the loss of Churchill, the brits would have accepted the first magnanimous offer Hitler would have done.



"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"

Viking

#17
May 20, 2009, 07:09:34 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on May 20, 2009, 05:50:22 AM
The part about the British fleet keeping on the fight from Canada is significative, I think.

Dunno about that... but Churchill did try his best to convince FDR that Germany might end up with the Royal Navy in case of a British Surrender.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Alatriste

#18
May 20, 2009, 07:23:54 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 20, 2009, 06:16:52 AM
Do you really think the british would have kept fighting after losing England?

I'm inclined to think that with the loss of Churchill, the brits would have accepted the first magnanimous offer Hitler would have done.

Who knows? After Barbarossa, probably. After Pearl Harbour, almost certainly. For starters, the Germans never had a realistic chance to invade England, making serious analysis next to impossible because the answer depends on which things we alter to make Seelöwe succeed.

But - and I'm surprised I have to signal this to you - magnanimity never was Hitler's thing. For example, in 1940 and 1941 he could have got France on his side very easily, Vichy authorities were perfectly ready to go to war against Britain and the USSR if Germany forgot that little 1939 mistake of theirs, but he didn't want to tie his hands. While as far as I know he never said or wrote anything definite, there can be little doubt he wanted to impose a harsh peace on France, one worse than Versailles.

Oh, and for the record I can't but understand the French. After Mers-el-Kebir, Dakar, Syria and Madagascar the least that can be said is, British had made a habit of attacking them long before Operation Torch...
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions