|
Alfred -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (8/16/2020 10:50:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
[Turns to face camera] Well, that was an interesting set of posts wasn’t it boys and girls?
I note the following in particular:
quote:
All I see in this thread is thought bubble after thought bubble thrown out. None based on any reality. All demonstrating extreme amateur understanding of military considerations, completely overlooking the political, economic and geographic constraints which good professional military planners incorporate into action.
I was involved in a what-if back in the day in the WITP-AE thread and had this type of comment levelled in my direction. Funny because having so stated my shortcomings, the poster then proceeded to write his view which almost entirely copied what I’d said….
So the same in this thread. I am accused of:
quote:
“…completely overlooking the political, economic and geographic constraints”
I am not really sure how many times I can raise these points in this thread – I am not going to go back and give every example of what I’ve discussed because you’ve not had the courtesy to acknowledge them at this stage so have no reason to believe you would do so, even when pointed out. But once Curtis Lemay came in with the ‘blitz’ post, I’ve been raising these issues (Posts 64, 77, 80, 85, 89, 90, 95, 102, 106, 108, 117, 122, 124 and 132 as well as mentioning them while this thread dealt with Italy initially).
quote:
“The funniest thing in this thread is the oft repeated claim that commercial war game designers support this fantasy and therefore it isn't a fantasy”.
Not a claim I have in any way shape or form made. If you are going to pick up on people’s points then kindly take it up with them. Indeed I registered my disagreement to this methodology in Post 90.
There is a section headed Spain and a load of questions. As per post 134, having got at least a start of a timeline rather than some vague notion, I asked Curtis Lemay for his comments and he has not yet had a chance to answer (assuming of course that he wishes to).
But you’ve gone ahead anyway, and sought out questions yourself, which of course is absolutely fine – but in doing so please don’t suggest many have not been raised by me previously (with others to follow if Curtis Lemay responds). I mentioned in Posts 89 and 106 that all that has been given is a ‘broad brush blitzkrieg through Spain and Turkey’. I’ve asked for details and a case to be made.
quote:
“In 1940, a German attack on Spain can only be launched from the very narrow strip of French Atlantic coastline occupied by the Germans under their agreement with Vichy France”.
Please see Post 134. Point 6. But there is now a potential problem. For Operation Felix the thin corridor in Western France was no issue for a German army being invited in to Spain. But for the German blitz, that means a very narrow, mountainous front for the Spanish to defend. Thoughts?
quote:
“Assume against the facts, that the Iberian peninsula is fully captured (that includes Gibraltar) before the end of 1940. That definitely leaves the Azores. Madeira, Cape Verde Islands, and the Canaries out of German reach, Wouldn't be long before they were under British control”.
I have mentioned this (Post 89 amongst others) – and how the loss of Gibraltar isn’t necessarily the game changer people think it would be (it depends how Gibraltar is lost and whose side Spain is on).
As for Portuguese territory that would depend on how this plays out (mentioned in Post 102).
quote:
“Suggestion has been made that Spain would be pillaged…..Then there is the question of tungsten which Germany was heavily dependent on Spanish production”.
I’ve raised both the resources from Portugal/Spain (Post 85) and Turkey’s Chromium (Post 102)
quote:
“Things like food and petrol. Funny thing about a population which lacks food. The civilians tend to get very angry. These years are known in Spain as the hungry years for very good reason”.
I don’t know in how many posts I’ve raised food as an issue – both for Spain and indeed Vichy – Posts 89 and 124 being but two.
quote:
“utilising naval mobility”
Please see Post 134. Point 8. The Canaries and the Balearics could be occupied by British troops, aircraft and a naval presence. This is also why the German anti-shipping squadrons – and their employment – is so vital in any discussion (Post 132 and others).
So, please don’t be so arrogant as to suggest that only you know what you are talking about when it comes to World War II.
[quote]None based on any reality. All demonstrating extreme amateur understanding
Well you’ve repeated a lot of what I’ve said so if all I’ve written is amateurish and unrealistic, then I guess you are in good company.
warspite1,
This is so typical of you.
1. Not once have I mentioned your name.
2. Have I missed a claim from you that your comments are supported by commercial wargame designers? I don't think so which brings up the interesting psychological question; why are you taking credit for someone else's statement otherwise on what possible logical grounds can you find personal offence. That's 1 to me, 0 to you.
3. Not once did I say I'm the only one who knows WWII. However I will say this for the first time ever. Overall you certainly don't know more than me. Actually, you don't know more than many who post. Perhaps there exists a feeling of insecurity. It would explain your regular repetitive postings.
4. You don't hold copyright to ideas. Especially when you don't flesh them out with extensive specific supporting details. Perhaps you have not yet found them in a book. Augment your book reading with a visit to Spain to see first hand the terrain.
5. Essentially you believe you have been plagiarised. Well my post does not constitute how plagiarism works, not in academic circles and most certainly not on an internet forum. As any good novelist/playwright will admit there are only 7 stories in the world. How many novels and plays have been written over the millennia in all the different languages and cultures, all apparently by plagiarists according to your interpretation.
6. Yes, I remember that AE thread very well. You took umbrage at things which were not directed at you, and when your error was pointed out, for the only time I can recall on the Matrix forums, you did not insist on having the last word (which you always do repeating yourself if necessary) and quietly left the forum without an apology or any kind of follow up post. Too embarrassed to be caught out. Oh, and the thread was not at all how you present it; no one in that thread took any of your ideas. A real man does not sulk away when they are at fault.
7. The post of mine you quote is not full of questions. Quite the opposite. But for the sake of argument, let's say it is full of questions. That would be just like your own posts. Hypocrisy at play here. That's now 2 to me, 0 to you.
8. Sum of us try to be concise, whilst still being thorough, in our communications. I for one am certainly not paid by the word, however as Charles Dickens was paid by the word I can't discount the possibility that you are similarly paid. It would certainly explain the verbosity of your repetitive posts. Yes, report writers are trained to be as concise as possible as it helps to convey information to the reader. Nothing worse than reading a report by some who is trying to emulate the style of Joyce. The objective of trying to be concise is not advanced by specifically quoting every post in this long thread. You might care to take this objective onboard. A very good exemplar of concise writing in this very thread is found in the poster who has simply said in several of his posts that they must be good pharmaceuticals. See, very concise and very clearly conveys to the reader that posters view on the subject.
9. Several posters have made comments not a million miles from your own comments. Why the lack of petulance at them? You certainly haven't accused them of being arrogant. The answer is undoubtedly found in the allusions found in this post. They do not reflect well upon you.
Alfred
|
|
|
|
