Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It was not obviously wrong (see above). Even Norway was fully occupied if it did not officially surrender.

warspite1

Sorry, what are you talking about? We are talking about whether a country automatically surrenders because the capital has been captured. Norway's capital was captured right at the outset of the campaign in April, but the Norwegians fought until they almost ran out of country at Narvik and were deserted by their Allies in June. What point are you trying to make now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Again, so disingenuous. You completely side step the fact that what you said the Spanish rail road could carry was total and utter garbage in terms of what it could actually carry. I am not talking a little bit I am talking night and day, chalk and cheese. But you can't even bring yourself to say, "yep, fair cop gov, I was completely wrong on that one" but instead change the point to hide yet another false 'fact'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The example of Barbarossa showed that Mussolini could be enticed by German plans. German adoption of a Med Strategy would have impacted his decisions.

warspite1

You just keep repeating yourself without providing any evidence, any quotes, any directives, any diary entries any..... absolutely anything at all. You said it, so it must be right, yes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Wrong, it would continue. The Spanish Maquis were already in France and crossing the border. Later in the war they captured Irun.

quote:

Please explain how capturing Gibraltar closes the eastern Med?

quote:

Fronts? You mean weather fronts? Or Soviet Army fronts? Tanks were destroyed with turpentine, that is not rubbish.

Remember, anything over a 7% grade is an obstacle. Those have to be taken into consideration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I was talking about the map you originally showed. But the Wiki map serves just as well. It doesn't matter what is on that map. The Germans didn't travel to the Greco-Albanian border according to what you presented. But I am not going to waste any more time on this.

So I provide a military study that sets out the problems for the Greeks facing the Italians (if Salonika is taken). This is a study written by professionals in the US military.

You provide a game map and a map from Wiki that you say PROVES that Athens was a viable supply point for those Greek troops in the northeast.

I have no idea where you are coming from and I have nothing more to add on this, other than you've done yourself no favours whatsoever.

The Wiki map clearly showed the Germans moving across the spine of the Greek mountains. That means the Greek supply columns could have done so as well.

Here's another map from another source showing a little more detail. Clearly, the Italians dealt with the Greeks in the area your talking about. So the Germans had no need to go there.

Also, note the text at the top and how it describes the German armor getting into the rear of the British lines via "impassible" terrain!

The arrows on maps such as this should not be read as troops moving in single file. They are symbolic of the movement of fronts. All of Greece would have been fought over, including the hills.

warspite1

Once again I will ignore the nonsense about fighting on hills. I still haven't said the Germans couldn't do that and you still answer my posts as though I have. Boring.

But back to what we were talking about and...... once again, It appears we are talking about two entirely different things - or at least two completely different parts of Greece - or in this case Yugoslavia! Unbelievable. What the hell has the Germans entering the Monastir Gap from the north got to do with what we have been talking about????

I like how you post a picture of a book that has no name for the book not the author. That is acceptable, right? I am sure that an English or a History professor would accept something like that in a research paper.

quote:

I noticed that the book said something about "impassible" terrain. The French thought that the Ardennes was "impassible" to armoured units as well. But that is not in Greece which had fully mobilized, that was Yugoslavia which was barely into the process of mobilizing when it was attacked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys.

According to you, Germany has already violated Spain. The United Kingdom would welcome Spain into the Alliance and provide assistance. Even assistance from the United States not to mention Latin America could be forthcoming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys.

According to you, Germany has already violated Spain. The United Kingdom would welcome Spain into the Alliance and provide assistance. Even assistance from the United States not to mention Latin America could be forthcoming.

Germany violated France as well. Still got a Vichy France. How could a Vichy Spain not be more likely than a Vichy France was? Franco was a potential Axis member.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

I'm wearing a mask whenever I read this thread now.

It seems quite virulent and vitriolic. And exhausting.

[we need a mask emoticon].

I am glad that you are enjoying it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys.

According to you, Germany has already violated Spain. The United Kingdom would welcome Spain into the Alliance and provide assistance. Even assistance from the United States not to mention Latin America could be forthcoming.

Germany violated France as well. Still got a Vichy France. How could a Vichy Spain not be more likely than a Vichy France was? Franco was a potential Axis member.

Because of Spanish Honor plus the fact that they are Nationalists and are assisting Germany. Then they are attacked by Germany. The Spanish do not have a colonial empire to try and keep unlike the French. Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists.

BTW, if the powers that be have ever let you drive, did you only drive in flat land country or have you driven in the mountains? Or have you even been on mountain roads?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Piteas

A great discussion.
Just a comment as spaniard...

I understand why Franco didn´t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn´t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas.

On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too.


Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn´t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn´t end in Madrid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Because of Spanish Honor...

quote:

plus the fact that they are Nationalists and are assisting Germany. Then they are attacked by Germany. The Spanish do not have a colonial empire to try and keep unlike the French.

quote:

Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists.

quote:

BTW, if the powers that be have ever let you drive, did you only drive in flat land country or have you driven in the mountains? Or have you even been on mountain roads?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I was talking about the map you originally showed. But the Wiki map serves just as well. It doesn't matter what is on that map. The Germans didn't travel to the Greco-Albanian border according to what you presented. But I am not going to waste any more time on this.

So I provide a military study that sets out the problems for the Greeks facing the Italians (if Salonika is taken). This is a study written by professionals in the US military.

You provide a game map and a map from Wiki that you say PROVES that Athens was a viable supply point for those Greek troops in the northeast.

I have no idea where you are coming from and I have nothing more to add on this, other than you've done yourself no favours whatsoever.

The Wiki map clearly showed the Germans moving across the spine of the Greek mountains. That means the Greek supply columns could have done so as well.

Here's another map from another source showing a little more detail. Clearly, the Italians dealt with the Greeks in the area your talking about. So the Germans had no need to go there.

Also, note the text at the top and how it describes the German armor getting into the rear of the British lines via "impassible" terrain!

The arrows on maps such as this should not be read as troops moving in single file. They are symbolic of the movement of fronts. All of Greece would have been fought over, including the hills.

warspite1

Once again I will ignore the nonsense about fighting on hills. I still haven't said the Germans couldn't do that and you still answer my posts as though I have. Very poor form.

But back to what we were talking about and...... once again, It appears we are talking about two entirely different things - or at least two completely different parts of Greece - or in this case Yugoslavia! Unbelievable. What the hell has the Germans entering the Monastir Gap from the north got to do with what we have been talking about???? When, in the previous posts, did Yugoslavia come up in connection with this map???? This is happening too often. The argument was about the provision of an entire Greek army on the Albanian front. You present a map that shows the Germans moving into positions from the south - troops that by the time they get into that position, would be supplied from the north - possibly from Bulgaria via Salonika.

But you choose, for absolutely no apparent reason, to bring Yugoslavia into it?!?!?!? Why? What relevance does this have - other than a pathological desire not to be seen to be wrong.

As said, I have a choice between you and your wiki/game maps vs a US Military study. I'll stick with the professionals if its all the same.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Piteas

A great discussion.
Just a comment as spaniard...

I understand why Franco didn´t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn´t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas.

On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too.


Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn´t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn´t end in Madrid.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The example of Barbarossa showed that Mussolini could be enticed by German plans. German adoption of a Med Strategy would have impacted his decisions.

warspite1

You just keep repeating yourself without providing any evidence, any quotes, any directives, any diary entries any..... absolutely anything at all. You said it, so it must be right, yes?

No evidence? I have to prove to you that Italy joined Barbarossa? Quotes, directives, diary entries: Just Words. Trumped by deeds. What did they actually do? They joined a German operation. That proves my claim above: they can be enticed by German plans.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Again, so disingenuous. You completely side step the fact that what you said the Spanish rail road could carry was total and utter garbage in terms of what it could actually carry. I am not talking a little bit I am talking night and day, chalk and cheese. But you can't even bring yourself to say, "yep, fair cop gov, I was completely wrong on that one" but instead change the point to hide yet another false 'fact'.

I've never said that the Spanish rail line wouldn't require repair. That's standard for any campaign.

And, note that they forces for Spain wouldn't really be needed again until about June, 1942. There's plenty of time for extensive repairs.

quote:

The Spanish lines will need some repair, that's all.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It was not obviously wrong (see above). Even Norway was fully occupied if it did not officially surrender.

warspite1

Sorry, what are you talking about? We are talking about whether a country automatically surrenders because the capital has been captured. Norway's capital was captured right at the outset of the campaign in April, but the Norwegians fought until they almost ran out of country at Narvik and were deserted by their Allies in June. What point are you trying to make now?

I'll try again, since no matter what I say, my words will be twisted by you: Whether they surrendered upon capture of their capitols or not, they were swiftly reduced to full occupation.

And, SPI says that Spain's forces are removed upon the fall of Madrid. I don't rely on just that wargame, but it is a valuable secondary source.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know how long the Germans planned for the destruction of Gibraltar? Two weeks? Three weeks? How long were the Germans going to hang around without any need to rush?

Why does Gibraltar have to be ready before Spain can begin????

warspite1

What has that question got to do with my quote? You said matter of factly that Spain needed to be conquered quickly but the Germans could take their time over Gibraltar. I would like to know why you believe that? What is the rationale? And I would like to know what you believe to be the Germans timescale for reducing Gibraltar.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They rested and refitted after the Fall of France because they could - no other reason. If France had lasted longer, they would have carried on as long as it took. Take Barbarossa: continuous combat from late June to the end of October, with perhaps four weeks stopped. Take the Allies in France in 1944: From early June to the end of September before any pause. There is no requirement to rest entire divisions because tanks need repair. You just pull individual tanks out of the line, service them, and send them on to catch up once they're back in condition.

warspite1

We've covered this. No one is denying that sometimes (in fact very often) units are kept in the field too long out of necessity - because circumstances dictate. That doesn't make it right and not something an army chooses to do for obvious reasons, and no one chooses to start a whole new campaign with understrength, tired units.....

Circumstances will dictate for Spain too. And, as I've said before, there will be a standard distribution of fatigue in the German units. Those that are freshest can be used in Spain. Those that have seen the heaviest action will form the deception on the Channel.

warspite1

Not at all. They will all be fresh. The time it will take to deal with the political/diplomatic aspects, the training of the Kuebler's XLIX Corps and the intelligence work on the Rock - this operation won't be ready until late 1940 at the earliest.

Why? Why can't the political stuff take place earlier, if the grand plan is to do a Med Strategy from the get go? Why does the Spain operation have to wait for Gibraltar to be ready?

warspite1

For the reasons I've gone to great trouble and time to set out. I've actually set out what happened in real life and what was occupying the mind of Hitler since the start of the war. I've put effort into trying to make a case. And then you ask that question...

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes, its obvious to anyone that one would need both sides of the Straits to truly be able to traverse from the Med to the Atlantic without fear of mines, coastal batteries, aircraft etc. That is why - despite the unsubstantiated verbiage that Curtis Lemay comes out with, Hitler was going to order an armoured and motorised division into Spanish Morocco - and why there would always need to be a German garrison of some description there.

I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys.

warspite1

Two things:

a) with the greatest respect, and not wishing to be rude, I don't care what you think. I do however very much care what evidence you have gathered to make you think what you do. You never mentioned 'Vichy' Spain originally, so what have you sourced to make you think this an option. Please provide and we can discuss. How does it come about, on who's insistence, what does it mean exactly and how does a 'Vichy' impact the war with Britain?

b) So you expect the British to wait the very minimum of six weeks - and that is a very, very minimum - for the Germans to conquer Spain and Gib and only then, not until a new regime has been installed do the British set about occupying the Canaries....? Come on Curtis Lemay, you are taking the mickey, you can do better than that surely?

quote:

Germany violated France as well. Still got a Vichy France. How could a Vichy Spain not be more likely than a Vichy France was? Franco was a potential Axis member.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Piteas

A great discussion.
Just a comment as spaniard...

I understand why Franco didn´t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn´t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas.

On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too.


Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn´t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn´t end in Madrid.

warspite1

Thank you Piteas for your thoughts - particularly welcomed as a Spaniard. I hope you will hang around for more debate.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Piteas

warspite1

warspite1
Finally, when the Germans do win - and ultimately they would - is there an obvious candidate as a German puppet to take the place of the deposed (and by now, very dead), Franco?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Because of Spanish Honor...

France had no honor?

Some Frenchmen did as in De Gaulle but not Petain. The government gave up, so yes, no Honor.

quote:

plus the fact that they are Nationalists and are assisting Germany. Then they are attacked by Germany. The Spanish do not have a colonial empire to try and keep unlike the French.

All the more reason to make an deal. If Franco depends upon the Allies, they will put the Republicans in charge after the war. And they have Spanish Morocco - much the same as French Morocco.

It has been explained why Franco and the Nationalists would make no deal yet your refuse to except it.

BTW, How are your pharmaceuticals holding up? Are they doing what they are supposed to do?

quote:

Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists.

Again, all the more reason for Franco to make a deal.

Why would Franco make a deal because of this? The Spanish Maqui invaded Spain in 1944 after most of France was liberated. So why would Franco make a deal with Nazi Germany then? The few guerillas in Spain could be and were relatively easily handled by the Nationalists, why did Spain need the German Army to help.

quote:

BTW, if the powers that be have ever let you drive, did you only drive in flat land country or have you driven in the mountains? Or have you even been on mountain roads?

Please keep pushing that road grade idiocy. And hills aren't mountains. I'm trying to think of any army in history that was stopped by road grades on hills - not enemy defenders in hills, just road grades. Coming up empty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Piteas

A great discussion.
Just a comment as spaniard...

I understand why Franco didn´t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn´t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas.

On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too.


Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn´t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn´t end in Madrid.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

However things are not looking so good for North Africa and the Italians...

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So no response to this. We've been discussing the supply of the 2nd Greek Army for weeks and your total disregard for a US military study - you then, seemingly for absolutely no reason - decide to bring Yugoslavia into it. I asked you why, as part of the debate, and your response is to ignore the question?