French Surrender, Good or Bad? - Page 21 - Historum

Frog33inUK · July 1st, 2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

Must entirely agree with our Redcoat here.

BTW, what is your opinion (any Historumite) about Noakes & Pridham suggestion (purportedly based on the diaries of both the commander of the German Army Group A & of the OKH chief of staff Jodl) that the halt order was actually given not by the Führer but by General Von Rundstedt, presumably due to the vulnerability of his exposed flanks?

Freiser has shown that from 20th May, the OKH knew they had no longer anything to fear in this respect.

Frog33inUK · July 1st, 2012, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

Seeing he had no means to make the UK his primary target that's a given.

Don't pretend you don't understand what I meant.
Destroying France had always been a clear objective for Hitler, but at the same time he did everything he could to charm the UK and keep them out of the war against him, which almost worked.

The meeting between Göring and Dahlerus on 6th May shows what was planned: Offers of generous and general peace when the Wehrmacht reaches Calais, if refused, peace conditions will be harsher after German victory.
The Germans reached Calais on 23rd May.

Crushing the BEF straight away would have made all hopes of convincing the Brits to be "reasonnable" vanish, while having them stuck between the Wehrmacht and the sea was a much more advantageous situation. Evacuation was not envisaged by anyone on the German side, let alone such a successful one.

Hitler's primary goal was to get rid of Churchill, who was impeding his attempts to discuss with more "reasonnable" people like Halifax and ultimately reach his goal: keeping the UK out of the war.
Even Sealion was nothing more than a piece of paper, which only aim was to affect British morale (particularly political elites) and destabilise Winston whose position was still fragile.
Blumentritt, Von Rundstedt and co. never took it seriously and in early August Hitler told Von Rundstedt he had no intention to carry out this project. Seelion became officially what it had always been, bluff.

Destroying the British army was not part his fundamental plans, and a military victory at Dunkirk agains the Brits would not have served his broader plans.

sylla1 · July 1st, 2012, 10:34 AM

IMHO the still highly controversial issue on the specifics of the halt order that probably prevented the BEF & co. from being crushed by the Panzers at Dunkirk would no doubt deserve its own ad hoc thread, at is ostensibly not too related with the OP proper here.

Frog33inUK · July 1st, 2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

IMHO the still highly controversial issue on the specifics of the halt order that probably prevented the BEF & co. from being crushed by the Panzers at Dunkirk would no doubt deserve its own ad hoc thread, at is ostensibly not too related with the OP proper here.

Indeed, although everything is inter-linked and it is hard to discuss one event without mentioning others related in one way or another.

**redcoat** · July 1st, 2012, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frog33inUK

Hitler's primary goal was to get rid of Churchill,

So his primary goal was to remove someone from power who was not even in that position of power when he ordered the attack

Frog33inUK · July 1st, 2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

So his primary goal was to remove someone from power who was not even in that position of power when he ordered the attack

As Churchill was the voice of hardliners, if not the only real one, potential candidate for PM, yes.

Frog33inUK · July 1st, 2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

IMHO the still highly controversial issue on the specifics of the halt order that probably prevented the BEF & co. from being crushed by the Panzers at Dunkirk would no doubt deserve its own ad hoc thread, at is ostensibly not too related with the OP proper here.

I have started a new thread dedicated to the subject, so that this one doesn't get polluted too much !

**Spartacuss** · July 1st, 2012, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

So his primary goal was to remove someone from power who was not even in that position of power when he ordered the attack

With you there, redcoat. If I remember my readings correctly, all through the period of time from when Hitler became chancellor to the invasion of Poland, Churchill was a consistent, often vehement, critic of him as well as the British policies that he saw as coming to no good end. But throughout it all, the general attitude of the government was, "Oh that Winnie! Always looking for the boogy-man." To be fair to Diced's point, this certainly could not have escaped Hitler's attention over the years, but I don't believe he was defanging the beast before it was born.

Oops... I meant Frog33's point.

pugsville · July 1st, 2012, 08:13 PM

You got to remember that Churchill had no party and few supportters, a maverick who operated mostly outside the party system. He could only be made PM if a large amount of the elites decided to install him. The decion to install PM was one by which one can view that a large amount of the political elite had decided on taking a fairly hardline with the War against Hitler. Churchill was not installed by himself seizing control or massive popular support but by the Political Elites decided he was the best man for their policy, he was the embodiment, but the Policy change must exist to enable his becoming PM. Everyone had a fair view of what policy he stood for, his installation meant a large amount of the Political Elite had come around to his point of view.

Italian Commando · April 9th, 2013, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaffo

yet the Polish army was weaker than the Frech - but unlike the puss French they fought!

call it what you wish. its clear the Frech are pusses.

history notes - no amount of revisisionism can remove the facts.

blah blah.......fact is the French are like the Italians - spinless.

while the Poles, Russians fought and bled.

Si c**o pazzo del m***a, what is this BS I'm seeing spilled everywhere?! For one, why is no one defending Italians here, just French? & more importantly, what's with this rascist Bull s**t?! Italian were incredibly brave & fought to the last bullet!! It took the British a month what the Italians took in freken' week!!! *flips you off*