|
warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/4/2020 3:20:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Back to Greece:
Note the third map of the Greek campaign I've now provided.
Note the two maps of routes from Athens to Albania that don't go through Salonika.
Of course, I'm going to be told that those routes didn't exist in 1941. But the first map counters that. You can trace the arrows back from Athens all the way to Monastir. There is no way a path from Salonika to the Albanian front can be traced without crossing that line of arrows.
This shows, once again, how easy it is to misunderstand a snippet of text in a book.
[image]local://upfiles/14086/810C239344834442987E2DA50B46E1F4.jpg[/image]
[image]local://upfiles/14086/81218BDC8A3846029A4FE2574ED24CDD.jpg[/image]
[image]local://upfiles/14086/7BAA36048EB94E4AA4F28FC49640792C.jpg[/image]
warspite1
Uh oh, the maps are out. Right, third request. Please tell me which bit of the professionals of the US army saying the following was taken out of context by me:
"The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions".
Which bit did I mis-understand or take out of context?
It's only a single sentence without any context whatsoever.
And the maps prove that it can't mean what you think it means. The maps clearly show that the Germans moved from Monastir to Athens without going through Salonika. So, there has to be a path from Athens to the Albanian border if there is one from Salonika.
QED
warspite1
Firstly, do you think your argument is won because you write QED??.....
Of course.
quote:
Secondly and this is the FOURTH REQUEST at least, please show me where that sentence is taken out of context or mis-understood. Let me try it this way. The US military study says the 1st Greek Army was supplied through Salonika and if Salonika was taken then they would be cut off from supply. What could possibly be mis-understood, what could possibly be taken out of context? There is nothing to mis-understand, there is nothing to take out of context and so you are happy to effectively say the US military are a bunch of idiots who don't know what they are doing.
It is taken out of context. In fact no context is given whatsoever. It is just a single sentence by itself - the very definition of "out of context". We would have to see the entire article to get the context, assuming it could even be found in that.
But we don't even need to see that. What you are claiming they meant requires us to disbelieve our lying eyes!! I repeat: There is a clear path taken by the Germans from Monastir to Athens (that's not on a 2020 map, that's on a 1941 map). There is another path on the west coast taken by the Germans as well.
QED
warspite1
But how can that sentence be taken out of context or mis-understood? Look at it this way:
A US military study confirms that supply for the Greek 1st Army was centred on the port of Salonika. What does that mean? Could that have been the sole port of supply?, the primary port? What? Well they go onto say that if Salonika was taken then that would cut off their supply. That would suggest that Salonika was either the sole supply port or the one that provided the vast majority of supply doesn't it?
Let's be honest here. I don't know. You don't know. So I've used this US military study as my supporting evidence. What do you do? Do you ask to see the military study? Have you shown the slightest interest in the study? No.
Okay, so why are you so keen to rubbish such a source without even seeing it yourself? Presumably you do that because you have evidence yourself that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? But you don't. You don't have any evidence from any military sources - whether Greek, British, German or Italian. You don't have any 3rd party sources either.
So what convinces you that the US military guys are total idiots who have no clue what they are putting their name to? Well, you have some maps from a WWII Atlas and from Wiki.... And that shows there was at least two roads that led from Athens that could take supply to the Albanian front - or at least pretty close....
You've also shown the route the Germans took in their charge south through Greece. Again, you've decided that if the Germans could move south along these routes, that must mean the Greeks supplied 1st Army through them - despite what those total bozos in the US Army think.
So effectively because you think you've supplied the could, that means the Greeks did. But you don't know that. The US military seems to believe they didn't. But let's stay with the Greeks could for a minute. Could they? I've told you about the distance between Athens and Albania (as opposed to Salonika and Albania). It's clear - both in distance and terrain - why Salonika would be more likely to be used.
We are talking about the supply of 14 divisions of a Greek Army. That's a lot of supply on a daily basis. Have you confirmed the Greek motor transport situation in 1941? Have you confirmed what rail links there were then? Do you know what amount of transport would be required, and over how many days, to get the same amount of supply to the Albanian front from each source? You see, there are lots of elements to the could. You providing a couple of maps doesn't really wash does it?
Now, how about you stop playing around with silly maps and actually provide some evidence that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? Until you do, I'll stick with what the US army professionals have concluded. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
