Started by CubaLibre, September 10, 2012, 10:29:44 PM
Quote from: tbone0106 on September 20, 2012, 03:47:01 AMYou can't be serious.Churchill hated Stalin as much as he hated Hitler. It is beyond imagination that he would ever make voluntary peace with either. England making a separate peace with Germany (actually the Axis) is unimaginable.In any case the Nazi "plan" to ship all the pesky Joos to Madagascar was never a realistic scenario. Shipping six million broke refugee people to an island with a population under 20 million is an exercise in fantasy. Even today, 90 percent of the folks on Madagascar live on less than $2 per day; it was even worse 70 years ago. At the time, the whole plan depended on the complete defeat of Great Britain, and the confiscation of its naval fleet. Germany literally could not transport that many people overseas in any reasonable time frame.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 20, 2012, 04:21:55 AMHe might have despised both but he had a significant portion of his own government that wanted peace with Germany. And remember, after Dunkirk making peace with Germany would have been the smart move. As far as Great Britain would have seen that would have ended the war in Europe. It would have meant that all those governments in exile could have also signed treaties and gone home. And part of those treaties would have been an agreement on the part of the Dutch, French, Norwegian, Danish and British fleets to transport the Jews. These countries were almost as anti-Semetic as the Germans. As for conditions on Madagascar, why do you think the Europeans would have cared. And do you think Madagascar is any better than Israel? If they Jews could make he desert bloom, I'm sure they could do that where ever they were dropped.
Quote from: tbone0106 on September 20, 2012, 11:43:26 AMGiles, you weasel!Yes, making peace after the fall of France would have been the smart move -- from the viewpoint of you and me talking about it in 2012. But any way you cut it, making peace with Nazi Germany was the kiss of death. Czechoslovakia -- kiss me, baby! Austria -- kiss me, baby! Norway -- kiss me, baby! Finally the Soviet Union -- kiss me, baby!Hitler believed -- and he was correct -- that unless he came into control of England, his western flank would always be in danger. His attacks, which came to be known as the Battle of Britain, were designed to pave the way for Operation Sealion, a literal boots-on-the-ground invasion of the island. What would those governments-in-exile have gone home to? We know about Vichy France, but what would a tamed Poland look like? Or Czechoslovakia? Norway? Holland? You're claiming that at some point, say late 1940, Hitler could have just said, "Enough." And that would have been that.Nah.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 23, 2012, 03:04:07 AMWe both look back from 2012, and have decided how evil the Nazis were, nothing like a little 20/20 hindsight. In reality much of Europe didn't see that. And was the Royal Navy simple supposed to disappear if the Nazi's succeeded in shooting down much of the RAF - which by the way was out of range of the Luftwaffe. Sealion? The Nazis were planning to transport their troops across the English Channel in barges and ferries. Look at the fleet the allies used on D-Day - how many barges and ferries did you see. I'm claiming that once Hitler became involved with a war in the East, western Europe became far more valuable as neutrals than they did as conquered territories. Seeing that would have required a different Hitler, than the one who actually existed, but that doesn't make it less true. A neutralized western Europe not only means whole armies available for use on the Eastern Front, but working industries available - and willing - to produce for the Germans. European workers looking for a paycheck are superior to slave labor. And as I noted, it would have allowed Hitler to solve his "Jewish problem" at little cost to himself and without the bad publicity. Heck, he might even have paid the neutrals doing the transporting out of the wealth confiscated from the Jews.
Quote from: tbone0106 on September 28, 2012, 01:09:20 PMI don't see Nazis or Nazism as inherently evil, any more than I do liberalism or progressivism. A thing can be wrong or impractical or unworkable without being evil.For the record, on D-Day, most of the American troops didn't spill onto shore from the decks of frigates and destroyers and cruisers. They were ferried in glorified barges, not significantly different from the landing craft Hitler had assembled along the coast of France for Sealion. As for the RAF being "out of the range" of the Luftwaffe, well partly true, partly, painfully, not. RAF Bomber Command was, at that time, safely out of range of the Luftwaffe. But RAF Fighter Command was concentrated in the south and east of England, purposely in harm's way to defend the island and London. Far from being "out of range of the Luftwaffe," the fighters were doggedly kept IN range of the Luftwaffe, scattered all over southern and eastern England, where they could achieve maximum effect. As for your theory about "taming" western Europe, turning those nations into "neutrals," given the times and the circumstances, even Herr Hitler couldn't have pulled that one off, and he was pretty damn good. Merely consolidating what Der Fuhrer considered natural German territory involved capturing sovereign territory from France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and most especially Austria.I don't think so.