The question to ask about The Italians

[Zovs]

Almost there...a little too late for this message for the Frenchies...



See the 6-6 French Armor Division? There are three of them plus a 3-4 Infantry in that hex, which is Paris.

[Zovs]

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

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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

No. The constrained frontage area would not continue once the Germans get past that constriction point. Then the frontage would expand across Spain.

Please explain how capturing Gibraltar closes the eastern Med?

Western Med.

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.

I mean that the arrows on the Map I provided are symbolic of the movement of front lines. The troops were not lined up, single file behind the arrow head.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




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.

I didn't realize I was writing a research paper.

"The Historical Atlas of World War II", John Pimlott. ISBN 0-8050-3929-5. 1995.

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.

So? It still had those "impassible" road grades!! [X(]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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?

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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].

[8D][8|]

I am glad that you are enjoying it. [:D]

In a car crash way only.

[:D]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe



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?

Flatland, you say? No need for Luftwaffe here.

[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.

[RangerJoe]

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.

Thank you for the insight.

[MrRoadrunner]

Remember the old war game adage?
No plan survives the first die roll! [8|]

RR

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Because of Spanish Honor...

France had no 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.

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.

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.

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.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

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?

[warspite1]

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.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

warspite1

Once again such crass responses simply undermines you and your credibility. To spell it out:

a) No you don't have to prove Mussolini offered troops to Hitler because its a fact. I am however pleased that you at least admit this now, unlike your original belief when you insisted that Hitler persuaded Mussolini to join.....[8|]

b) The question is whether Mussolini would have behaved totally differently to real life in 1940 and in so doing, decided to completely subordinate his army, his dreams and desires for Italy, to the wishes of Hitler.

If you believe that quotes, directives, diary entries etc are just words that are trumped by deeds even when those deeds in question didn't happen - because this is a counterfactual - then I simply don't understand where you are coming from. As has been made crystal clear to you, the circumstances that Mussolini and Italy found themselves in in June 1940 and a year later are chalk and cheese. You simply can't say Mussolini did x in 1941, therefore he would have done y in 1940. Life isn't that simple - and certainly wasn't simple for Mussolini after the events of Greece, Compass and Matapan (to name but three) that left Italy in a very different situation vis-a-vis freedom in choice of action a year after declaring war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

warspite1

Yet more side-stepping the answer to the real points.....

Sure, you can keep talking about rail repair (for some bizarre reason) while hoping that everyone forgets your statement about rail lines and how you 'proved' the Spanish rail network could transport unlimited amounts of supply for the German army by providing a Wiki article on US Railroads.....

But here is the line that really shows up that you simply don't understand the points being made - either because you can't (which I don't believe for one second) or because you don't want to (because you can't ever be wrong).

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

So let's be clear here. After everything that the German planners of Felix (you know the professionals) said about the Spanish rail system - old, small stock, insufficient numbers, poorly maintained, the state of the beds meaning they couldn't actually carry the loads they were designed for, different practices operated by the four companies - all of which led them to conclude that they could expect just 4 trains a day carrying a meagre 400 tons, you say all that is needed was some repair.

I mean you need to start getting real here. The track beds themselves need strengthening. You think that is minor repair work while the Germans are fighting the Spanish? How does some repair cure the issue of insufficient rolling stock? Do you not realise how thoroughly ridiculous these suggestions are?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

warspite1

I have to ask what has how quickly they surrendered have to do with anything? If a country continues fighting until they've almost run out of country, troops and Allies (like Norway), then the fact its two months doesn't matter. The point is, they have not made a decision to quit because their capital was taken, they made the decision to quit because there really wasn't much else they could do other than retreat further into the Arctic Circle with the few troops they had left.......

If, as in the case of Poland, the fighting ended very quickly (because again they literally ran out of country and men) again it doesn't matter because Poland never surrendered and look at the number of airmen, soldiers and sailors that got away to carry on fighting alongside anyone that gave them access to killing Germans - British, French or Soviet.

You have no primary source to support your claim and the secondary source (a wargame) doesn't count for the reasons you've been repeatedly told.

Could Spain have fallen after the capital was taken? Well that is what we seek to discuss and decide. But you using a war game as your initial primary source, was not clever and then, when you looked at other European countries, you drew entirely the wrong conclusions. Then, having drawn entirely false conclusions, instead of just admitting it, you seek to squirm your way out of it by trying to set some sort of arbitrary 3 month rule on whether the loss of the capital could be counted. I mean what the hell?

As for "twisting your words". When have I twisted your words in any part of this debate. I have not intentionally twisted anything and if I have - then this will be a genuine mistake so please confirm where I've twisted your words. If I have I will apologise - and no doubt you will apologise to me for taking my comments out of context by removing key sentences to make me look like I've said something else.