Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 57

Thread: Alternate History - "What if France had continued the war in 1940" series of books

  1. #16
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The male kiwi eats roots and leaves
    Posts
    10,524

    Default

    When will we see Crossfires continued though?

  2. #17
    Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Washington
    Age
    39
    Posts
    14,069

    Default

    Maybe since most of our members are English speakers, you could give us the gist.

    I think that Vichy might have been occupied much earlier (if it ever came to be), the Brits wouldn't have destroyed the French fleet (in Oran? Can't remember at the moment) and the Italians and Rommel might have had an uncomfortable number of Frenchmen in their rear while they were tangling with the UK/Commonwealth in Libya and North Africa, esp. in 1941. The French fleet might have even prevented the North African campaign, who can say?

  3. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Nice to see Annie Lacroix-Riz has finally made her point .
    Woa dude how do you know Annie Lacroix Riz ? She was my contemporary history professor a few years ago. What a joke...

  4. #19
    Suspended for infractions
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,992

    Default

    Long story short, ALR was among the few that would be allowed as litterature in former-Albania. And despite her being a little doo-doo she has no axiological issue about her heuristics. Where it gets messy it is in her interpretations.

    Saw her actually twice in Brussels and Strasbourg on two different conferences. One about her book (Choix de la Défaite) and the other as part of a colloquim on European collaboration when she humiliated Daniel Barbu on all accounts notably when the latter called her biased and she tore down his part on the Black Book of Communism.

    It was a wonderful experience. Off course it went to show she was absolutely nuts, but she had a point, or two. But then again even broken clocks get it right twice a day, right?

    Yes, I am a Commie.

  5. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    31
    Posts
    3,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    The French fleet might have even prevented the North African campaign, who can say?
    Which might even have even benefited the Germans as they would have saved assets to use them on the Eastern front or later on in the defense of Italy.
    Yeah a lot of "might" in such alternative history stuff like always which makes it kinda useless.

  6. #21
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    33
    Posts
    10,667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    Maybe since most of our members are English speakers, you could give us the gist.

    I think that Vichy might have been occupied much earlier (if it ever came to be), the Brits wouldn't have destroyed the French fleet (in Oran? Can't remember at the moment) and the Italians and Rommel might have had an uncomfortable number of Frenchmen in their rear while they were tangling with the UK/Commonwealth in Libya and North Africa, esp. in 1941. The French fleet might have even prevented the North African campaign, who can say?
    The british didn't exactly "destroy" the whole fleet.
    They sank one Battleship and heavily damaged a destroyer and damaged the other battleships in the harbor, but those were repaired

  7. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Long story short, ALR was among the few that would be allowed as litterature in former-Albania. And despite her being a little doo-doo she has no axiological issue about her heuristics. Where it gets messy it is in her interpretations.

    Saw her actually twice in Brussels and Strasbourg on two different conferences. One about her book (Choix de la Défaite) and the other as part of a colloquim on European collaboration when she humiliated Daniel Barbu on all accounts notably when the latter called her biased and she tore down his part on the Black Book of Communism.

    It was a wonderful experience. Off course it went to show she was absolutely nuts, but she had a point, or two. But then again even broken clocks get it right twice a day, right?

    Yes, I am a Commie.
    That's crazy man, i thought i was the only one to know her. I had a few arguments with her in history class when she told us that Stalin hated cult of personality and that gulags were mostly a legend (!).

    She has now stopped teaching in Paris 7 even if she's still a member of the uni. I read somewhere that she was the heir of the Rizla smoking paper corporation and that she was living in some kind of mansion in le Vésinet.
    Dunno if it's true because the source is Alain Soral (Which isn't the most reliable dude), But i can tell that she was always dressed like a posh granma, with Carré Hermès and all. Talk about communism...

    Her class were funny and enraging at the same time because of the amount of bull**** she use to say. The worst is that half the class were very supportive, one even brought his mum (ex far wing activist) so she can admire the new prophet. God damn it I hate her, I lost one year of good history classes with that stupid 1960's style communist.

    End rant/

    On Topic: Those dystopian books are quite interesting. I read that the first is really good. About the second book, a friend told me that they are going further away in dystopia and that it was harder to believe. Probably going to read this one of this days.
    Last edited by Frenchdude; 08-13-2012 at 10:43 PM. Reason: typo

  8. #23
    Suspended for infractions
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,992

    Default

    But is it not what History classes are supposed to be? Teaching people how to use tools in opposition to becoming tools. The more BS your proffessor says, the more willing you become to disprove her later. Passion leads to zeal, zeal leads to minutia and *perissology* and that makes experts .

    She is not *stupid*, just stopped caring and is walking her own little way.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    43
    Posts
    12,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    Maybe since most of our members are English speakers, you could give us the gist.

    I think that Vichy might have been occupied much earlier (if it ever came to be), the Brits wouldn't have destroyed the French fleet (in Oran? Can't remember at the moment) and the Italians and Rommel might have had an uncomfortable number of Frenchmen in their rear while they were tangling with the UK/Commonwealth in Libya and North Africa, esp. in 1941. The French fleet might have even prevented the North African campaign, who can say?
    It proposes a point of divergence in June, 1940, when the French government convened to decide the course of action after the rupture of the frontlines. At this meeting, there were those who, around Reynaud, favored a continuation of the war from France's Algerian and North African possessions, and those, rallied by Pétain, who wanted to end the hostilities. In our timeline, Pétain's side got the upper hand and sought an armistice with Nazi Germany. In this series, Pétain doesn't command the same influence. Not only is the armistice option ruled out, he himself is arrested and the French government prepares to continue the war with as much military and industrial capabilities that can be gathered in Algeria and other colonial possessions.

    The first tome, "1940", deals with the organization of the transfer of French forces and industrial assets across the Med, as well as the Franco-British campaign against Italy in Africa and Sardinia. Political, diplomatic and industrial aspects of the war (from the French perspective) are also extensively presented.

    The second one, "1941-1942" deals with the continuation of the war.

  10. #25

    Default

    Thanks a lot Atlantic Friend, the book seems excellent.

    I ve started reading it and can barely concentrate on work.

    Now it begs the question (since we re on a different timeline where Reynaud and Cie got the upper hand), what if Weygand and Gamelin had been wiser, and the Sedan surroundings properly manned and defended...
    I dont think France would have prevailed, or even gotten a stalemate, but Germany's victory would have been way dearer, probably delaying and/or cancelling following operations.

  11. #26
    Doing Stupid Nyusu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    If France wouldnt have surrendered, then Germany could actually have won the war, because Hitler would think twice about opening eastern front until French would have been defeated.

  12. #27
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The male kiwi eats roots and leaves
    Posts
    10,524

    Default

    Yes, because the UK not being defeated also stopped him from attacking the USSR...

  13. #28
    Suspended for infractions
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiwi View Post
    Yes, because the UK not being defeated also stopped him from attacking the USSR...
    The UK did not have a 400+ km land border with Ze Germans.

  14. #29
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The male kiwi eats roots and leaves
    Posts
    10,524

    Default

    Yes, but in FFO, Germany has still occupied France itself so there is no land border there either.

  15. #30

    Default

    IMHO He would have attacked Russia and lost anyway, wasnt Hitler's idea of the Lebensraum in the east anyway? Taken from "slavic untermensch"?
    Always thought France's invasion and the UK's attack was just to get rid of us as an obstacle, nothing personal, whereas he did have a special hate for eastern europeans.
    I never bothered to read Mein Kampf though, so i might be wrong.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •