Understood, but the British knew going in that was a potential result of their demands; if the goal was to keep the French ships away from possible seizure by the Axis, they failed miserably, other than with Bretagne, considering that Dunkeque and Strasbourg both ended up closer to Axis-held...
So if the OP requires the Germans to act stupidly, doesn't that strike you as a trifle unrealistic and even ahistorical?
If that's what the OP intended, then simply handwave it all and give the RN Trident SLBMs...
Best,
As opposed to the Germans ramming their heads into the sand in 1900 over a war for Samoa?
Either both sides are equally rational or both sides are equally idiotic. Setting up one and not the other in either case is rather unrealistic, is it not?
Best,
Okay, but do you see where the suspension of disbelief problem comes in? Why are the Germans in 1900 so reckless, other than "just because?"
If the answer is its the OP's post, and they get to set the ground rules, than why bother? Isn't the whole point in discussing these ideas to, you know...
I asked what was meant by "lose" and where the alleged border was, including whether Maryland and Virginia both seceded or not, since there was no detail in the OP; the OP responded, and I responded to that. How the hell is that "crushing discussion?"
Best,
So the Germans are reckless enough to risk a war with Britain over Samoa without allies is worth considering, but a Germany that is prudent enough to line up an alliance that is all of one nation off from the DreiKaiser alignment is not?
Yeah, okay.
Best,
The question is why wouldn't this supposed Anglo-German confrontation ALSO be settled diplomatically? The Samoan crises were historically (the hurricane helped) and the Germans weren't stupid.... At least not in 1900.
Best,
There's some useful posts above, but there's an elephant in the room - the American revolutionaries knew they were winning, as their decisions to turn down the various British peace offers in 1775-81 makes clear.
Ironically, if the British had been willing to offer what they did DURING the war...
Procellaric?
As in, Ocean of Storms?
Given that Magellan had next to no knowledge of the Pacific, landfall in Australia makes about as much sense as in the Phillippines.
Best,
No, just stating fact. Attacking the French was a stupid thing to do. If the objective was to "remove the French as a fleet in being" than they pretty match failed, considering the number of warships that were concentrated in southern France, that much "closer" to being under Axis control than...
Sap has the black confederates meme going right now; this time they're Zulus assigned to the Army of Northern Virginia at Gettysburg. No, seriously.
That would seem to speak volumes, but what would you call that, AIGF?
The equivalent is the IDF attached to the SS at Bastogne.
Best,
There's also the reality that "much better" for the French and British is the British avoid the incident in the first place by not making the attack. The fallout of the attacks were a) terrible relations with Vichy and b) forcing the Feench withdrawal of the ships to a location where, if the...