Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NAZIS AT CHANNEL, TRAP ALLIES IN BELGIUM; FRANCE CAN’T DIE, REYNAUD TELLS PEOPLE (5/22/40)
Microfiche-New York Times archives, McHenry Library, U.C. Santa Cruz | 5/22/40 | George Axelsson, Harold Denny, P.J. Philip, Felix Belair Jr., Robert P. Post, G.H. Archambault

Posted on 05/22/2010 5:30:09 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Homer_J_Simpson; PAR35
Homer: "That sounds as though Hitler really preferred to use political means, rather than military, where Britain was concerned."

I agree: what Hitler really wanted from Britain was permission for a free hand in Eastern Europe, most especially against Hitler's then ally, Stalin.

In exchange for Britain's permission, Hitler was willing to leave the British empire untouched.

And that is the core of Pat Buchanan's argument, as well as our own PAR35 -- that Britain should have at least given Hitler what he wanted in the East, if not actually join him in defeating the "real enemy," Stalin.

I'd say one problem with this argument boils down to two words: Churchill and Roosevelt.
Both men had been high government officials during the First World War, and from that, both considered Germany their natural enemy and Russia an ally.

That Russia was now Communist disturbed Churchill greatly, but Roosevelt not in the least.
Roosevelt didn't know about, or didn't consider Stalin's mass murders an important fact in the global geo-strategic environment.

In Roosevelt's mind, Stalin was a potential ally to be won over to our side, not an enemy to be feared more than Hitler.

Churchill was for years conflicted over which was the greater threat -- Hitler or Stalin.
But in the end, Germany was by far the closer enemy, and the more aggressive, while Stalin represented an absolutely necessary ally to defeat Hitler.

Therefore, Hitler's attitude and approach towards Britain was nothing short of delusional.
And it was neither the first nor the last delusion to afflict Hitler's brilliant mind.

And "delusional" is also my description of Pat Buchanan. ;-)

21 posted on 05/24/2010 2:37:55 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I do believe that had it not been for The Blitz, that over time more Brits would have favored making the deal with Hitler, and probably would have voted out Churchill, in favor of a leader who favored making the deal.


22 posted on 05/24/2010 2:40:54 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: henkster
"Nothing to worry about here..."

You're right -- Proskurov is just crying "wolf," becoming increasingly annoying, probably a tool of British disinformation, will have to be replaced at some point.

Hitler is Stalin's real friend. Mustn't listen to those Brits... ;-)

23 posted on 05/24/2010 2:48:15 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

“It is as if the time had been to short to learn to hate the Germans, and today it is too late. The Germans soldiers are nice, correct young fellow. The officers flash past in cars gray with the dust of many of the roads of Europe. The German authorities until now have been matter-of-fact and business like, in no way tyrannical. There measures are obviously motivated by military and strategical calculations alone.

None of the many decrees yet has shown any indication or desire to impress upon the Nether land people the loss of their freedom. What ever does not hinder or harm Germany’s goal can remain. but the Netherlands must subordinate itself to this goal, since it lost the battle of arms.

Another battle now begins, which must win hearts. The people feel sure of their resurrection and prepare by work and thought to take up their place once more in a new world as soon at the guns are silent. In these hours, when the dead have not yet been counted, this world cannot yet be envisaged.”

Interesting...........


24 posted on 05/24/2010 3:08:55 PM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
"I do believe that had it not been for The Blitz, that over time more Brits would have favored making the deal with Hitler, and probably would have voted out Churchill, in favor of a leader who favored making the deal."

Do you mean, if Hitler had exercised self restraint, and not returned bomber-blow for bomber-blow against Britain?

Do you mean, if Hitler had not planned for Operation Sealion, or had abandoned his efforts to starve Britain through U-boat sinkings?

And the chances of all these things were more or less than a snowball's in h*ll, do you think?

25 posted on 05/24/2010 3:37:01 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

That was my point, Hitler made a big mistake, he listened too much to Von Ribbentrop. With France defeated, England wasn’t going to be enough of a threat, they were already pretty much neutralized where there wasn’t anything they could do to stop the Germans from pursuing their plans in the East.

I also believe that once Germany did attempt to invade England, America gets into the war, and so now that can of worms opens up.


26 posted on 05/24/2010 5:12:04 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
PeterPrinciple quoting something unidentified:
"...The Germans soldiers are nice, correct young fellow.

"The officers flash past in cars gray with the dust of many of the roads of Europe.

"The German authorities until now have been matter-of-fact and business like, in no way tyrannical.

"There measures are obviously motivated by military and strategical calculations alone..."

PeterPrinciple: "Interesting..........."

"Interesting"?

Interesting what?
Interesting Nazi propaganda?
Where did this come from?

27 posted on 05/25/2010 5:33:13 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
BroJoeK: "Interesting what? Interesting Nazi propaganda?"

Sorry, didn't see item #17 above.

That was NY Times' Oscar Mohr, reporting the usual "fair and balanced" from inside enemy occupied territory.

28 posted on 05/25/2010 5:48:43 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson