RE: The question to ask about The Italians (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 6:59:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

- In addition you have effectively rubbished the professional supply officers of the German army who planned Felix, as a bunch of amateurs (you've written off and dismissed just about everything they've said about going to war - even with Spain as an ally). As an example their concerns about the state of the roads for the 1,200kn march were "barely adequate; narrow, winding and laid through passes 2,000 metres high, where ice and fog would present difficulties. Wagner reckoned with major demands on drivers and equipment (particularly engines, tyres and brakes)..."

But you know better apparently and said:

quote:

See the physical map of Spain I attached. Overlay it with the Spanish path shown and you'll see that the mountainous regions are bypassed. There are hills, but no mountains. The mountains are not continuous across Spain, only in spots. So it is easy for supply columns to bypass them.

What did those stoopid German officers who surveyed the ground know anyway? If only they had access to a google map.....


Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.


warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????


Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?


The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?
warspite1

Why do you have to be so black and white to the point of absurdity????

Why would ALL Spanish roads go through mountains? Please show me where I so much as suggested such a load of nonsense?

Edit: Sorry this seems to be a response to RangerJoe but had some of my posts. My comment is in response to your last comment only.


Your 'study' insists that the German supply paths must go through the mountains. So, there must be no roads around those mountains. So, it's saying the Spanish are idiots.
warspite1

Again why do act like a 5-year old? Why would the Germans do that? you just make yourself look rather silly with that sort of comment.

For the last time these are primary source documents from German logistic guys that studied the terrain (you know actually studied it rather than look at some poxy google map). The German planned route obviously used existing Spanish roads. The Germans worried about part of the road network (as described previously).

And so, despite the quality of the book and the source materials that support its findings, you would rather just ignore it because it doesn't fit with your in depth 'staff study' that proved the Germans would blitz through Spain and Turkey. you prefer to rely on a board war game and a few google maps.....




warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 7:02:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I've told you exactly the source of the 800, I've told you the publication and the primary source - and you still say that. The reassessment following France 1940?? So you don't understand that May/June 1940 is before November 1940?

Of course its only some of the 800. Who said otherwise?? It's you that said all 800 would only be needed for Gibraltar.

So you don't believe any primary sources now? You are looking increasingly desperate in a bid to cover up for your lack of knowledge. Well done Lemay. Well done indeed.


Let's take it at it's face value: Clearly, the Germans thought they had sufficient shells and etc. for the Gibraltar operation. And, for sure, Gibraltar is worth it! The payback for taking it would be huge in the Desert War.

It's the conquest of Spain that is new. And that army remains tiny and low quality.


Actually, the Germans were running out of artillery shells, much like in 1914.


This man is not "happy to take German primary source material at face value". Oh dear!
warspite1

Well a shell shortage never came up in the German Military Strategy and Spain, so you can take that up with RangerJoe


Oh no!! We'll have to throw out that entire study as fraudulent!!
warspite1

Not helping yourself Lemay. I think you need sometime away from the keyboard. You have a lot of reading to do anyway to try and get yourself up to speed with WWII so why not run along and do that. If you keep posting like this, you will just show yourself up more and more.




warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 7:03:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I just think you are still looking at this as a simple wargame. No logistics required. The whole point of this scenario from a German perspective is that it will put them in a better position than they were in in June 1941 historically. If not then its no good. The better start position in Turkey (if indeed that is achievable) will be squandered it they don't manage this properly.


And if they possess Gibraltar, Suez, and the Turkish border with the Russians they will be in a much better position.

The whole thing comes down to just how tough the Spanish and Turkish operations are going to be. You're trying to build them up into supermen. They aren't.
warspite1

....and you re-appear on the thread just to take us right back to where we started....[8|]

If, if, if..... and I've asked you to make a proper case, and you not only refuse to do so, but what little effort you have put in has been largely based on incorrect information, questionable - and in some cases frankly bizarre - assumptions, and a refusal to believe the professionals of the German army (though you believe them when it suits you).

Re the bit in bold, once again a complete lie that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. First request.


quote:

The rate you have the German army going through supply trucks, oil and ammunition just to take Spain...


Supermen!

Reality: The supply cost of taking Spain will be directly proportionate to the size and quality of the Spanish Army. To review: Tiny and puny. The supply costs will be light because of this.
warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

However, re the bit in bold, this still stands as once again you've made a completely untrue statement that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Second request.


My part in bold.
warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

However, re the bit in bold, this still stands as once again you've made a completely untrue statement that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Third request.


I didn't say you called the "supermen". I said you were building them up into supermen. And that's exactly what the post I bolded was attempting to do.
warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

Please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Fourth request.


For the third time, see the post I bolded.
warspite1

Getting monotonous now. I've answered the point you bolded more than adequately.

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

Please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Fifth request.




RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 7:09:16 PM)

A fifth? Of WHISKEY?! [sm=party-smiley-012.gif]




warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 7:09:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

- In addition you have effectively rubbished the professional supply officers of the German army who planned Felix, as a bunch of amateurs (you've written off and dismissed just about everything they've said about going to war - even with Spain as an ally). As an example their concerns about the state of the roads for the 1,200kn march were "barely adequate; narrow, winding and laid through passes 2,000 metres high, where ice and fog would present difficulties. Wagner reckoned with major demands on drivers and equipment (particularly engines, tyres and brakes)..."

But you know better apparently and said:

quote:

See the physical map of Spain I attached. Overlay it with the Spanish path shown and you'll see that the mountainous regions are bypassed. There are hills, but no mountains. The mountains are not continuous across Spain, only in spots. So it is easy for supply columns to bypass them.

What did those stoopid German officers who surveyed the ground know anyway? If only they had access to a google map.....


Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.


warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????


Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?


The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?


Some of them did, the roads went through tunnels. It happens all over the world.

So now you are insulting all Spaniards? Or just all civil engineers? Or just the civil engineers who know that road grades above 7% are obstacles? Not to mention sharp curves being obstacles?

No. I'm insulting his stupid study that he insists on holding up as gospel.
warspite1

His stupid study..... I think you meant to say German Military Strategy and Spain in World War II (Burdick) where every single page is referenced with primary source material.

Like with the US Military Study on the Balkan Campaign, you show absolutely no interest in what it says and indeed anything about it. By why would you be interested? After all, neither work contains a modern day google map or a board game rule set [8|]




warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 7:15:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Once again, and I repeat, why would the Spanish ask the British to leave before the war is won? If the war isn't won then Spain isn't going to be free and the Government in Exile isn't going home to Madrid anytime soon.

So let's be clear:

- Did Denmark refuse the British and Americans use of Iceland because they never thought they would be able to evict them?
- Did Greece refuse the British the use of Crete because they never thought they would be able to evict them?

What is so special about Spain (apart from the fact you've said something and can't ever be wrong)? Please try and think things through when responding and provide a well constructed, thought out response as to what the motivations would be.


For the nth time: Franco is a fascist dictator. He is going to be suspicious of the Allies' attitude towards him.
warspite1

What the....? And what was Metaxas - a liberal democrat? [8|]

warspite1

And?




Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 9:11:50 PM)

argh...when will the insanity end? ? ?

Can we get back to the second question, again?

And no to the other lunacy ... must be a shift in the moon for Pete's sake ...

Warspite could you capture that one post you wrote after trying to turn the ship around again?




RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 10:19:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

argh...when will the insanity end? ? ?

Can we get back to the second question, again?

And no to the other lunacy ... must be a shift in the moon for Pete's sake ...

Warspite could you capture that one post you wrote after trying to turn the ship around again?


It is like giving the butterbar the only map and no one else is allowed to see it . . . [:(]




Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 10:40:39 PM)

[:D] [:D]

We had some doozies....lol




RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/6/2020 11:05:46 PM)

How about when a LT was in a jeep guiding a M901 ITV to an overwatch position on the East-West German border. The LT comes to a "Y" in the road and takes a left. The private driving the ITV tells the SSG TC that they were supposed to go to the right and does not move the vehicle. The SSG says nothing. The jeep with the LT comes back and the private says "Sir, we are supposed to go that way" and points to the proper direction. The LT says nothing but the jeep drives down that road with the ITV following it. Nothing was said, good or bad, to the private about his behavior.

[sm=tank2-39.gif]




Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 2:29:45 AM)

All I am going to say about that is that as the second best tank driver in the platoon, I got the short end of the straw and was the LT's tank driver. I can say I listened more to my gunner the Corporal (name withheld to protect the innocent) and my loader more than I did the LT while driving, he tended to get us into some doozies otherwise...[:D]

Now back the the Italians with PzKw IV's and Mussolini granting Hitler access to Albania via Greece, and Germany invading Spain and Turkey....




warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 2:55:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Check the map that goes with that one. Somehow, the Germans took that very route in 1941!!

Yes, there was a ferry there before the bridge, so a one-time crossing would have been feasible. Are you suggesting that it is as easy to run supply operations over ferry as over a bridge?

Apparently it was for the Germans!
warspite1

So let's be clear what you are saying here.

When you talk about 'the Germans' taking that route, you haven't once given any more detail. The Germans you refer to was a motorised infantry regiment. This unit was deployed as part of the operation to cut off the 1st Greek Army's escape route and then, loaded with as much provisions as they could carry, headed south.

You equate that, with a Greek supply effort for its 1st Army?




warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 2:56:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Can we get back to the second question, again?

Warspite could you capture that one post you wrote after trying to turn the ship around again?
warspite1

Can you clarify please Zovs old boy?




Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 4:53:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Can we get back to the second question, again?

Warspite could you capture that one post you wrote after trying to turn the ship around again?
warspite1

Can you clarify please Zovs old boy?




Yes, at one point you posted a great summation of an outline that described the general hypothetical scenario and asked a great bunch of questions or starting points. I can't recall if it was on page 35, 25 or what, lol.

Anyway, I thought it was a great summary for discussion and you led it off nicely.




warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 6:45:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Okay, no point flogging a dead horse so I'll give it one more try to see if there is any interest out there.


I will jot down a Med First counterfactual and would welcome thoughts and insights so that we can come to a consensus on what we think may have been possible (recognising that our knowledge is necessarily limited (we are not historians!) but that, as war gamers with a keen interest in what we play, many of us will have at least some knowledge to impart).

I'll make a start on it and see what, if any, interest it attracts.

The essentials will be:

- Hitler is persuaded to employ a Mediterranean-First strategy to weaken the British (or ideally get them to surrender) before an assault on the Soviet Union is made in the Summer of 1942.

- This plan will involve the taking of Gibraltar and Hitler will be so persuaded by the plan, that he will - as a last resort - even be prepared to invade Spain

- A second prong of this scenario is a declaration of war against Turkey (if she can't be brought into the Axis camp) and thus a pincer move to take Egypt from the west and north.

- Moving Hitler's thinking in this way is a pretty big alteration to reality so I think we need to sensible in terms of trying to ensure we keep other key players in the scenario acting in line with their character. This doesn't mean everyone is hidebound to do what they did in WWII obviously - everyone can react to changing circumstance - but we just need to be sensible.

Hopefully this will be a bit of fun and I would like to think that there are enough war gamers in our community with WWII knowledge that would be happy to join in and give their 2 cents, or GBP 0.02 or Euro 0.02. Probably need 4-5 minimum contributors to make it viable. Who knows? Someone might even make a war game from it [;)]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the very first question we need to have a consensus on is when, realistically, Hitler would have decided a Med strategy is the way to go.

My view is that such a strategy should not be considered until June - and this would have been after the armistice is signed. I say this for three main reasons:

1. Going for any strategy - be it a Med strategy or a Soviet strategy or a Sea Lion strategy - is totally superfluous to Hitler's thinking until such time as Poland and France are defeated. After all, who - least of all Hitler - is going to imagine how the war will pan out in September 1939.

2. Only once Hitler knows Mussolini has joined the war, does the Med even come onto anyone's radar.

3. During May and June 1940 Hitler has his hands full trying to beat France, Britain and their Allies. To suggest that at this time Hitler is going to be diverted from this major operation (Case Yellow) to start thinking earnestly about Spain, and having in-depth conversations with Mussolini and Franco, while France has yet to be resolved, just seems highly unlikely.

Why is this important and the place to start? Well for two reasons:

a) it governs how quickly, after France, an attack on Spain would take place - and that is really important in terms of the knock-on effect elsewhere, the preparedness of the various belligerents etc

b) it also governs what Hitler may or may not have ordered during his time of indecision after France surrenders.

So that's my thoughts, but what do others think? So when, realistically, do we think Hitler would have had his light-bulb moment? To be clear this is simply when Hitler decides that a Med First solution is to be planned and not when the planning is finalised - that comes next....
warspite1

Okay so I'm going with what I think is the realistic situation. Hitler and his staff have NO thoughts whatsoever in 1939 about Gibraltar. Frankly he has too many more immediate concerns such as the British guarantee to Poland, then getting the NS Pact signed, then taking his biggest gamble to date - Case White.

This goes well and the British and French fail to react. Poland is beaten and, thanks to his 'pact with the devil' Hitler no longer faces a two front war.

But he is impatient. No sooner has Poland fallen than he turns to the not inconsequential matter of defeating France. No hindsight allowed. This is going to be tough and many of his generals think its madness to even try. But Hitler is not waiting around and wants this campaign begun in the autumn.

Again there is no time to be thinking about operations in places he's not even considered. Mussolini refused to join the war, there is no Mediterranean theatre.

Hitler is potentially saved by the weather and the assault on the French doesn't happen. His army was in no state to undertake such an operation so soon after Poland. Then, in early 1940 his attention is taken away by events on his northern flank - and this is brought to a head by the Altmark affair. Hitler prepares to deal swiftly with this problem ahead of the campaign in the west. Again he has no time to be thinking about issues that aren't even on his radar; and given practically no one is expecting a win in France anytime soon, the Mediterranean is not on any one else's mind either.

But... not only does Hitler's audacious move in Scandinavia prove successful, but he throws a double six - repeatedly - in the French campaign. So much so that, after the BEF are removed from the continent and Germany is well into the next phase - Case Red - Mussolini starts to fear he's going to be left out.....

On the 10th June 1940 the Duce takes his country to war. He has no plan, there are no thoughts of quick victories against key targets while he has surprise on his side. His 'thinking' is simply that, the war is essentially over and in order to claim the prizes, he needs to be in the game.

And so now, for the first time, with France being routed and a Mediterranean front opened up, I think its the very earliest opportunity for any consideration to be given to Gibraltar.

But given the personalities involved, given the way Hitler and Mussolini work, what is possible here? (Remember the only key alteration at this point is that Hitler can and will be persuaded to adopt a Med-first strategy. But how, realistically could this have come about?

- When?
- From whom?
- What about Spain?

Remember to that at this point, Italy has simply entered the war and Germany do not yet know what France will do.....So from 10th June 1940 how does the early summer pan out?





loki100 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 7:58:59 AM)

You can add more delays to the decision making loop I think.

Not only does the possibility of a Med vs the British Empire strategy emerge in June for the first time there is a secondary question of what will attract Hitler to it.

Or in other words ... what rocked his boat?

In economic terms he wasn't aiming for complete control over the conquered nations (sticking to the West here), but complete subservience to the needs of Germany. Equally, he engaged in very few territorial adjustments. Yes every state was ruled by a sympathetic regime but Stahel's edited book Joining Hitler's Crusade is interesting on the tensions that existed even in the most pro-Nazi parties in the occupied countries and the Germans (& most were governed/administered by more conventional fascist/nationalist right individuals).

Reason for raising this is that conquest of Spain is an odd departure. Ignore Gib it raises the question why? Its not peopled by ethnic groups the Nazis believed should become proper Germans (Scandinavians/Dutch etc), its not a historic foe that its always nice to trample on (France) and its not particularly resource rich (& what is there is tradeable). We know he had hopes of some sort of partnership with the British Empire (clearly with a change of who was the dominant partner) - picking up on German late 19C thinking.

We know he felt that a direct invasion of the UK was the needed step to bring a recalcitrant UK to heel.

So its a huge reframing of the decision to decide the way to bring the UK to heel is via Gibralter (I doubt he played much World in Flames). That sort of process takes time - never mind the need to then turn the idea into military plans.

Or ... to stress, any acceptance of Med first means Hitler is convinced that Gib can be taken and will get the UK where he wants it. He also probably knows that Spain has a long history of tieing down large armies of occupation - and we can assume he's not suddenly decided that Bolshevism is a fun idea and he wants to share the world with Stalin.

So lets assume these decisions are seen to be worth making, are framed, are put together, are converted into operational plans. We are easily into late autumn 1940 - not a good time to invade Spain. So operational delays may well push the whole thing into Spring 1941?




truch1984 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 8:52:25 AM)

Thanks a lot for this wonderful information. It was really helpful.




loki100 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 9:04:22 AM)

You can add in what floats Mussolini's boat as he is going to have a say.

He had no beef with Franco, as conventional fascists they found much readily in common on an ideological basis.

If Mussolini had a grand strategy (debateable) it was around reclaiming previous Italian dominated regions (& some vague idea of recreating the Roman Empire). Versailles gave Italy some of this - all those odd ex-Venetian enclaves along the Adriatic. He had an obsession with undoing the Italian defeat in Libya in 1919 - this dominated his military actions from say 1923-33 (& he had a large problem holding down a very restive region). His invasion of Ethiopia can be framed as putting right historical wrongs so there is a theme here.

If this came together into some sort of vision, it was Italy as an E/C Med power - Tripoli from France (to repay the historic French power grab there), coastal Yugoslavia, islands, Egypt. The 1940 invasion of Greece was as much about getting control of what had been Venetian/Genoan in the middle ages, whether he aimed for territorial control over mainland Greece after winning is debateable.

I don't think there was any focus on Spain as a target (either the core state or its colonies), so again to turn to Spain as an operational target is a huge shift in decision framing - and, again, these things take time.




RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 11:41:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truch1984

Thanks a lot for this wonderful information. It was really helpful.


I think that this spammer is referring to Curtis Lemay . . . [8|]




RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 11:48:35 AM)

Actually, Spain would be even more of a liability to the Germans even though some Germans did settle in what is now Spain. Those were the Vandals, and probably others, but the Vandals were the ones invited to attack Rome through North Afrika by the governor there.

But after taking France, German did not have enough fuel for the French agricultural sector and milk spoiled because it was not collected from farms.

Here is an interesting read:

the wages of destruction

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+wages+of+destruction+pdf&FORM=QSRE8

Full text of "Tooze, Adam The Wages Of Destruction The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy"

https://archive.org/stream/ToozeAdamTheWagesOfDestructionTheMakingAndBreakingOfTheNaziEconomy/Tooze%2C%20Adam%20-%20The%20Wages%20of%20Destruction%20The%20Making%20and%20Breaking%20of%20the%20Nazi%20Economy_djvu.txt




Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 11:48:35 AM)

Thanks to both Warspite1 and Loki100, these both are very interesting views into this discussion. I need to chew on both of your comments for a few days, not sure I have much to add, but thank you.





RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 11:55:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Thanks to both Warspite1 and Loki100, these both are very interesting views into this discussion. I need to chew on both of your comments for a few days, not sure I have much to add, but thank you.


The best way to chew on comments is with alphabet pasta:



[image]local://upfiles/52896/DDC9428A959341FE9448D112AADF9381.jpg[/image]




RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 11:57:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Actually, Spain would be even more of a liability to the Germans even though some Germans did settle in what is now Spain. Those were the Vandals, and probably others, but the Vandals were the ones invited to attack Rome through North Afrika by the governor there.

But after taking France, German did not have enough fuel for the French agricultural sector and milk spoiled because it was not collected from farms.

Here is an interesting read:

the wages of destruction

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+wages+of+destruction+pdf&FORM=QSRE8

Full text of "Tooze, Adam The Wages Of Destruction The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy"

https://archive.org/stream/ToozeAdamTheWagesOfDestructionTheMakingAndBreakingOfTheNaziEconomy/Tooze%2C%20Adam%20-%20The%20Wages%20of%20Destruction%20The%20Making%20and%20Breaking%20of%20the%20Nazi%20Economy_djvu.txt


Here is a downloadable pdf:

https://ia800102.us.archive.org/14/items/ToozeAdamTheWagesOfDestructionTheMakingAndBreakingOfTheNaziEconomy/Tooze%2C%20Adam%20-%20The%20Wages%20of%20Destruction%20The%20Making%20and%20Breaking%20of%20the%20Nazi%20Economy.pdf




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 3:28:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Apparently it was for the Germans!

No, not necessarily.

Just to summarize, are you suggesting that the German invasion of Greece was supplied through Albania?

Not at all. In fact, I expect the German rail head was much further back into Yugoslavia - which they had just blitzed through. And, let's note that the Greeks had a rail line - all the way to their northern border.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 3:38:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So can you give me some (quality) sources that call Sweden, Spain and Vichy France German allies please?


For Vichy France, I did: Petain was sentenced to life, and his cronies were labeled collaborators.

quote:

Once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Fourth Request


Where would I have needed to? Are you seriously claiming that there is no difference between members of the Axis who have not entered the war, and those that have? Japan is an Axis Ally (large "A") once she signs into the alliance. She doesn't, historically, become a belligerent till 12/7/1941. Same with Italy: Ally upon signing up. Belligerent upon invading France.

You remain so desperate to justify your vile insult. Here's a suggestion: Stop hurling insults!!!!!!!!!!




RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 3:39:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Apparently it was for the Germans!

No, not necessarily.

Just to summarize, are you suggesting that the German invasion of Greece was supplied through Albania?

Not at all. In fact, I expect the German rail head was much further back into Yugoslavia - which they had just blitzed through. And, let's note that the Greeks had a rail line - all the way to their northern border.


The Germans were very short of rolling stock and I don't think that capturing Western Europe completely fixed that.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 3:40:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As I said, I've got no idea where this particular argument came from and to be honest, having read your 'clarification' comment above, its not something even worth giving a moment's consideration to. You think the PURPOSE of Vichy France was to keep Germans out of Vichy - and then there's some weird question about the German's agreeing to stay out of Vichy or some old cobblers.... I can't make head nor tail of it to be honest and I'm pretty sure it didn't come from me. If you can make clear what you are asking and what I've said to make you even ask that question of me then I'll take another look.

Re Vichy generally, erm.... as I've said to you previously, you really need to get yourself down to the library and dig out some books.


I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy wasn't to create an enclave within France that they Germans stayed out of, then why would the Germans agree to such a condition!!!!!!!

quote:

My challenge to you to set out how you think a 'Vichy' Spain comes about remains current. Please answer fully. Who would propose it,


Franco.

quote:

and under what circumstances?


After conquest of Spain by the Germans.

quote:

What would it seek to achieve?


Restoration of Franco to control of Spain and a protected enclave within Spain that the Germans stay out of.

quote:

Why would both parties be happy with it? What would it look like?


Franco gets restored to power in Spain and Germany gets Gibraltar and a peaceful Spain (which was all they wanted).
warspite1

I'll respond to this later when I've stopped laughing.

Edit:
Started to respond (even though I said I wouldn't do your job for you) and then thought better of it. I've asked for a proper case to be made and you produced what? four lines and less than 50 words.....

As I said in a previous post, you actually seem to delight in debating in such a fashion. It doesn't do you any favours.

But fine, but I'm still not going to do your job for you. If you can't actually be bothered, then nor can I.

What you have high level 'outlined' is laughable. You haven't got a clue what Vichy was about, but despite that you think it would be great if the Spanish had one too and you come up with those four lines.

Try again - but this time how about you make some effort? Read about Vichy first, understand what that was about and then see if you can really apply this to Spain.


You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.
warspite1

Yet again, you want people to believe your absurd notion about a 'Vichy' Spain. Please take some time out to read and moreover, understand the complexities of Vichy France, then come back and try and make a case for 'Vichy' Spain once you've grasped at least the basics.


It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 3:43:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More lies to hide your total lack of knowledge....

So we were talking about Spain at this point and indeed you said:

quote:

This is ridiculous. It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them.

Every urban area has marshalling yards where trains can be held while unloaded. Of course such locations would be behind front lines.


Which part of that comment was you not referring to the Spanish rail system being able to more than handle anything required by the Germans? Reprehensible behaviour on your part Lemay.


Did I really need to state that the Spanish lines would have to be repaired - just as they have to be in every military campaign?!?! And, even in your quote above, I still do not mention the Spanish rail system. The French rail system will get the supplies to the rail head at the border and then trucks can deliver the supplies the rest of the way.
warspite1

Thank-you for this post. If you ever try and suggest that you have the moral high ground in ANY debate I will have this to hand.

Lets be completely clear here. You said:

"I never mentioned the Spanish rail system".

I said that was untrue and that you did. To evidence this I provide a post from you that says:

"It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them".

And how do you respond to that?

"I still do not mention the Spanish rail system".

So in saying that a rail line can handle vast amount of supplies and that it can supply more than enough for the Spanish campaign, you would have us believe that you were not suggesting that the Spanish rail system could supply the Germans with all it needed???? But that was the whole point of you providing that irrelevant Wiki article on US railroads in the 21st Century - because you were seeking to prove that the Germans could use the Spanish rail network.

I am surprised you allowed yourself to type this response out. Not your finest hour Lemay. Pretty shocking to be honest - along with the post about the Axis allies, you've really shown your level here. You are so desperate to be right over every single point, that you've resorted to this....[sm=nono.gif]

The line to the Spanish border is a single line. I was referring to that - and, obviously, to any sections of Spanish rail that were repaired to the European standard. Again, I did NOT mention the Spanish rail system.
warspite1

Funny isn't it? You never mention Vichy was an Axis ally, you never mentioned the Spanish rail system, you never mention the supply of Greek 1st Army..... all that you've never done and yet you've been wittering inanely on for 40 pages.....

But no matter, your credibility is shot here anyway so you just keep posting things you haven't said after saying them for post after post after post....


I still defy you to find anyplace where I referred to the Spanish Rail system - other than that it would be repaired.




RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 3:46:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As I said, I've got no idea where this particular argument came from and to be honest, having read your 'clarification' comment above, its not something even worth giving a moment's consideration to. You think the PURPOSE of Vichy France was to keep Germans out of Vichy - and then there's some weird question about the German's agreeing to stay out of Vichy or some old cobblers.... I can't make head nor tail of it to be honest and I'm pretty sure it didn't come from me. If you can make clear what you are asking and what I've said to make you even ask that question of me then I'll take another look.

Re Vichy generally, erm.... as I've said to you previously, you really need to get yourself down to the library and dig out some books.


I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy wasn't to create an enclave within France that they Germans stayed out of, then why would the Germans agree to such a condition!!!!!!!

quote:

My challenge to you to set out how you think a 'Vichy' Spain comes about remains current. Please answer fully. Who would propose it,


Franco.

quote:

and under what circumstances?


After conquest of Spain by the Germans.

quote:

What would it seek to achieve?


Restoration of Franco to control of Spain and a protected enclave within Spain that the Germans stay out of.

quote:

Why would both parties be happy with it? What would it look like?


Franco gets restored to power in Spain and Germany gets Gibraltar and a peaceful Spain (which was all they wanted).
warspite1

I'll respond to this later when I've stopped laughing.

Edit:
Started to respond (even though I said I wouldn't do your job for you) and then thought better of it. I've asked for a proper case to be made and you produced what? four lines and less than 50 words.....

As I said in a previous post, you actually seem to delight in debating in such a fashion. It doesn't do you any favours.

But fine, but I'm still not going to do your job for you. If you can't actually be bothered, then nor can I.

What you have high level 'outlined' is laughable. You haven't got a clue what Vichy was about, but despite that you think it would be great if the Spanish had one too and you come up with those four lines.

Try again - but this time how about you make some effort? Read about Vichy first, understand what that was about and then see if you can really apply this to Spain.


You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.
warspite1

Yet again, you want people to believe your absurd notion about a 'Vichy' Spain. Please take some time out to read and moreover, understand the complexities of Vichy France, then come back and try and make a case for 'Vichy' Spain once you've grasped at least the basics.


It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.


It has been explained to you that Franco could have turned to both the Commonwealth and the Americas. There would never be a Vichy Spain since Vichy is in France and the Spanish government would not relocate there.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (10/7/2020 3:48:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

[image]local://upfiles/14086/810C239344834442987E2DA50B46E1F4.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/14086/81218BDC8A3846029A4FE2574ED24CDD.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/14086/7BAA36048EB94E4AA4F28FC49640792C.jpg[/image]



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.


I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!
warspite1

My goodness!!

What is wrong with you. Are you actually trying to be wrong on every point?

quote:

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving.


Why don't you stop spouting rubbish that betrays you are totally and utterly out of your depth and try reading some history? Try reading something, anything about the Greco-Italian war and you will understand how thoroughly absurd that comment is.

quote:

The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater.


Oh dear..... Please re-read that and come back when you've realised what a total load of rubbish you've spoken. If you can't then I'll point you in the right direction - but I'm a fair man and so will give you a chance.

quote:

Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!


Do you even understand basic English????? Read my post again. There is a difference between Could and Did. Yes? When you've found out what the Greeks did then you can provide that evidence here. Until then I'll listen to the professionals in the US Army who have given their understand of what the Greeks Did during their study of the Balkan Campaign.


And I never said that they DID supply themselves by those routes. I said they could have.

warspite1

So you've been arguing like a stubborn mule over something you don't understand - but moreover don't even believe - just for the sake of it???? Wow.....

So let's be completely clear. You won't believe the findings of the US Military study on how the Greek supplied their 1st Army via Salonika (a quicker, flater, shorter route), but now (after about 30 pages of nonsense about how they supplied them from Athens) you admit you don't know how the Greeks did actually supply them. But although you don't know that you are still going to insist that the US military planners don't have a clue.......????

Erm...... okay......


Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.




Page: <<   < prev  40 41 [42] 43 44   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.53125