史學家如果有錯會有另外的史學家反駁。另外正因為你沒真正讀過史家（比如Paxton）才以為法國海軍會被希特勒“染指”，讀了

就知道不可能

Let's 繼續讀 Paxton:“At Toulon, the French High Seas Fleet was scuttled in the early morning of November 27, as German troops forced their way into the naval base. No formal order to escape was transmitted. Submarines were instructed to sink themselves outside the harbor, however, and three of the ten submarines took this opportunity to sail to Algiers, and another to Barcelona. Except for these four vessels, all the ships at Toulon were destroyed rather than violate neutrality”

 

所有跟帖： 

• 這個我承認啊。我看書的確就是娛樂，一般跟著NYT bestseller書單來讀，是麵向普通大眾的，不是你說的“真正”史書 -糯米粥- ♀ (390 bytes) () 08/02/2022 postreply 07:12:07

• 按你的描述你那本書就是誤人子弟啊。再說翻案的是對曆史事件的解釋，不是事件本身。相信你自己也有分析能力，才不至於人雲亦雲 -papyrus- ♂ (0 bytes) () 08/02/2022 postreply 07:17:39

• 嘻嘻， 咱們這一係列關於二戰的瞎聊，有一條圍繞“責任”的暗線. 我要是小結一下： -糯米粥- ♀ (570 bytes) () 08/02/2022 postreply 07:56:33

• “唉，昨天還……”，我感覺到你的歎氣無奈了；“再說翻案的是對曆史事件的解釋，不是事件本身……”，這不就是我上次講的 -土豆-禾苗- ♂ (678 bytes) () 08/02/2022 postreply 11:31:34

• 哈哈，知我者土豆也 -papyrus- ♂ (151 bytes) () 08/02/2022 postreply 12:53:38