The question to ask about The Italians

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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.

Again, never mind about the capitols. It is a fact that every country they faced was quickly occupied. And SPI - a secondary source - says the fall of Madrid causes Spain to surrender. That's the opinion of professional wargame designers.

warspite1

Back full circle once again. So let's be clear on this:

- you don't pay any attention to the professionals in the US military
- you don't pay any attention to the professionals in the German Army
- you don't pay any attention to records, diaries, directives, and speeches made by historical figures (but do pay attention to certain actions undertaken by those characters even though they are different - and set in a different context - to what we are discussing)
- you simply ignore historical precedent
- you simply ignore (or don't know about - and don't then seek to understand) key historical facts that are completely relevant to this scenario
- you don't engage with Piteas, a Spanish forumite (we are discussing an invasion of Spain)
- you barely engaged with UP844, an Italian forumite (we are discussing the actions of Italy and what she would do in 1940)

BUT

- you do pay unerring attention to anything a professional wargame designer says (regardless of whether you understand the reason for the rule or not). Essentially you are saying this. If rule 15(b) says x happens, then x happens and that MUST be FACT.
- you do cling to a Wiki article as proof of something Japan would do, even though it proves nothing because the circumstances were different
- you are more than happy to rely on Wiki articles about rail roads that bear not the slightest relevance to what is being discussed

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And, no, I didn't say Spain needed to be conquered quickly.

warspite1

Well actually you kind of did.....

Use that time to blitz through Turkey and Spain.

There will be a rush to get Spain done - which will start long before September. But not Gibraltar.

...but I've long since ceased to expect consistency in your arguments.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

warspite1

Third request. Well? You said the Germans needed to beat Spain quickly but would be happy to take their time over Gibraltar. Where did that come from? What study have you made of German plans for Gibraltar such that you can confidently state this?

Let me ask again: Why does Gibraltar have to be ready before Spain can begin? And, no, I didn't say Spain needed to be conquered quickly. I think they will be, because Madrid can be reached without any Spanish rail - supply by truck will be in range. But I don't know just what the timeframe will be for sure.

warspite1

At the very minimum there is a need to determine that a Gibraltar operation is feasible and that means a lot (as per historical) of intelligence missions with Spanish assistance. So long as Gibraltar is considered feasible the Spanish operation can start.

Hahahahaha nice little sly insertion of the thoroughly ridiculous rule 15(b) there..... Getting to Madrid, by itself, means jack. They also need to get to Barcelona in the northeast, they need to get to Corunna in the northwest, they need to get to Valencia, Malaga, Seville, Murcia... in other words, the Germans need to beat a very angry, very united, and very desperate Spanish population.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well? Have you given my comments the basic courtesy of being read? You've asked the question, a question I've taken the time and trouble to answer in some detail already. Have you bothered to read this yet?

I have yet to see any reason why Franco can't be handled in advance of France.

warspite1

Then we are at an impasse. I've explained why. Now what you could do is raise specific arguments against the points I've raised, but of course, as has been said before, that would mean you reading what I've written and then actually apply some effort into countering with a timescale of your own.

If you think Franco would be 'dealt with' ahead of France then I can't say anymore. I've set out in detail why - if we look at what is likely, at what is reasonable given everything that was going on - this just couldn't have been done.

Clearly its much easier to simply say "I have yet to see any reason why Franco can't be handled in advance of France". Because of course that approach requires minimal effort, there is no thought required in either refuting the points I've made, or indeed actually making any of your own. Effectively - and as you've done the whole way along - you simply say "I'm right".

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I would say that the obvious point of Vichy was to create an large enclave within France that didn't have Germans occupying it. Spain would have the same desire.

warspite1

Erm..... Curtis Lemay that answer is absolutely staggering [X(]. You appear to have not the first clue about Vichy France.... wow. How can you be comfortable suggesting things you clearly just don't even bother to try and understand?

Vichy was an arrangement peculiar to France and clearly there were reasons for that. So when you decided a 'Vichy' Spain would be a swell idea, I asked a number of questions regarding how Vichy came about, at who's request, and what the benefits were to each to see if you could understand why a 'Vichy' Spain wasn't at all likely - and that is what you've come up with

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

What part of French Northwest Africa did the British occupy prior to Vichy? Why on Earth would the Spanish allow them to occupy their territories that were not in combat? They would have insisted that the British - if they were going to assist - do so IN SPAIN!! (Just as they did in France).

warspite1

Erm......

a) why would the British be occupying any part of French North Africa? That is a monumentally ridiculous question to ask - goodness alone knows what point you were trying to make or why you even thought that question in the slightest bit relevant to the situation under discussion....

b) The Spanish wouldn't be allowing the British to occupy the Canaries would they?????? The Spanish have just been back-stabbed by their 'friends'. As is very common, we now have a situation where Spain's enemy's (Germany) enemy (Britain) has just become their 'friend'. Did the Greeks deny the British the use of Crete as part of their assisting Greece???? Once again you seem to have got confused over something really very simple.

c) The British agree to do all they can to assist the Spanish, but can't do anything if Gibraltar is negated by bombing and ultimately captured. So they ask the Spanish to allow the navy the use of the Canaries as a Gibraltar replacement. In return the British give the Spanish as much assistance as possible (plus certain promises re the future). From this base, the Royal Navy can provide naval gunfire support, they can provide air support from Spanish Morocco.

The British will also be assisting getting troops from Spanish Morocco and the islands to the mainland.

You think the British Government wouldn't work with a reprehensible regime in order to fight Germany? The British were giving hefty bribes to Spanish generals and politicians to keep them onside. They would do what it took.

And let's face it, Britain (and the USA) allied with the USSR - I don't think dealing with Spain is going to trouble Churchill. Hell, the Greek Government the British tried to assist was hardly a model of democracy was it?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Not on the map.

warspite1

But of course its on the map. The Canaries were important to both Britain and Germany. This game you've based an entire scenario on and have said how realistic it is MUST have the Canaries in it.....

[Zovs]

Warspite,

I answered you on post 869. Got lost in the shuffling...

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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

Why should Spain have more?

Because of the Spanish Code of Honor.

Here is an example:

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/90085562 ... l-salvador

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.

Not a convincing explanation. I just explained (above) why it would definitely be in Franco's interest to make a deal.

It is in Franco's interest to keep things the way that they are/were. No war, rebuild the country, get revenues from the importation of goods with re-export to Germany plus the importation of goods from Germany with re-export.

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.

The Spanish Maqui were fighting the Nazi Germans, why would Franco want them back?

Why would France 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.

He wouldn't be handling them easily if his forces have been wiped off the map. So, if he wants to deal with them, he needs to make a deal.

He dealt with them by letting Germany deal with them. "Let you and him fight!" So no deal was fine with Franco.

So you have only driven on flat lands, if you have even been allowed to drive at all. You also have never been in the mountains. So you can't comprehend what I am referring to. I suggest that you have someone do some research for you so you will believe them. But 7% grade or more is a road obstacle. So are sharp turns. Combine the two and have fun.

I'll ask again: Where is the historical example of any army being ground to a halt by road grades in hills - sans enemies.

Hannibal had it easy crossing the Alps against no enemy, didn't he? Germanyhad such a easy time sending troops, equipment, and supplies directly from Germany to Italy that they had to go through Switzerland - even though, at the time, Germany and Italy had a common border with road and railroad links.

How about this:

Mountain warfare refers to warfare in the mountains or similarly rough terrain. This type of warfare is also called Alpine warfare, after the Alps mountains. Mountain warfare is one of the most dangerous types of combat as it involves surviving not only combat with the enemy but also the extreme weather and dangerous terrain. Mountain ranges are of strategic importance since they often act as a natural border, and may also be the origin of a water source of (e.g. Golan Heights – water conflict). Attacking a prepared enemy position in mountain terrain requires a greater ratio of attacking soldiers to defending soldiers than would be needed on level ground.[1] Mountains at any time of year are dangerous – lightning, strong gusts of wind, falling rocks, extreme cold, and crevasses are all additional threats to combatants. Movement, reinforcements, and medical evacuation up and down steep slopes and areas where even pack animals cannot reach involves an enormous exertion of energy.
Contents[show]
.
.
.
It is generally accepted that the ratio required for the force launching an offensive to have a good chance of success is 3:1. In mountainous terrain, the required ratio is much more.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Mountain_warfare

Then read this and maybe actually even learn something:

FM 3-97.6 (90-6)
MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS
NOVEMBER 2000
HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-97-6.pdf

So RTFM!

BTW, How are you current pharmaceuticals working? Have enough? Taking too many?

[Piteas]

One thing I am keen to understand more about are your thoughts on the various divisions in Spain, not just the rival political groups but also the rival regional groups - the Basques and the Catalans being perhaps the most important?

How would these be likely to react to a German invasion - i.e. were any of them likely to be pro-German in return for autonomy, or would the hatred of Germany trump any immediate nationalistic or Political issues? (as per the Ukraine, there would perhaps be little likelihood for German willingness to grant autonomy, and I would think it unthinkable with regard to the Basques as the German need to occupy the coastal areas in the north, west, and south)?


Spain has three other countries within; Galicia, Catalonia and the Basque Country (Euskadi in basque).
Everyone has their own language and culture. In these regions there are and were legal political parties and movements in favor of independence, but not in Franco's dictatorship. He was a "unifier" of Spain. His motto was "Spain, One, Great and Free". People could only speak in Spanish. So Catalonia and the Basque country suffered severe repression, less in Galicia because Franco was galician, but she also suffered a lot. A German invasion respecting basque and catalan rights could receive some support in these regions, but Germany had supported Franco (Gernika was a german operation and the basques didn´t forget). Surely there would be revenges if the wermacht entered these regions and everything would change.

Also how much do you know about Franco's own position within the Government and how secure he would be - personally I can only imagine his position strengthening as a result of standing up to Germany?

Franco had doubts in autumn 1940. He wanted to keep his good relationship with Hitler and "gain territory" because he dreamed of the spanish empire in 15-18th centuries, but fuel and grain that arrived by sea from Argentina, Canada and the United States was vital for the regime's survival. The alignment of Spain with Germany would put that supply in danger: a British naval blockade would ensue that would increase the famine that gripped the country after the civil war.
So Germany had to promise a lot of territory for Spain to go to war and, mainly, guarantee the same food supplies. It did not. Also, after the fall of France, Spanish troops took control of the international city of Tanger, in Morocco. The maneuver did not please Germany, much less Vichy, which controlled most of the Maghreb, and Italy, which harbored colonial ambitions in the area.
Hitler hoped to get Marshal Pétain's France to back him up, both in the assault on Great Britain and in North Africa. And if he had to choose between France, a colonial power with a powerful army, even if it had been defeated, and Spain, beset by famine after a civil war and with disorganized and antiquated armed forces, he preferred to stay with the former. Moreover, Germany at that time considered the war won, and Spanish aid was negligible. However, Hitler wanted Gibraltar and once again insisted that Spain enter the war (autumn 1940), but Franco resisted: on the one hand, due to the lack of specificity regarding obtaining the territories and the economic and military aid requested; on the other, because Great Britain continued to resist and, therefore, to control the seas. One incident upset all plans. Italy attacked Greece. So disastrously that a joke that recommended enlisting in the Greek army if you wanted to visit Rome became fashionable [;)]

The Italians could hardly take the Suez Canal to close the eastern gate of the Mediterranean, so it was necessary to attack Gibraltar to control the strait as a western passage. Hitler, still without a Spanish response, launched Operation Felix with his staff. Gibraltar was planned to be attacked in mid-January 1941. The German Ministry of Defense urged the Foreign Ministry to reach an agreement with Spain as soon as possible.
At the beginning of December, Admiral Canaris met in Madrid with Franco and explained the plans for Operation Felix. It was planned that on January 10 the German troops would arrive in Spain, and, consequently, that the country would enter the war. Franco rejected it, among other reasons because the military situation was not the same as in June.
That same day, Italy had suffered a serious setback in North Africa from the British. Given the lack of agreement and the worsening of the situation in the Balkans and North Africa, Hitler ordered the freezing of Operation Felix and the suspension of the planned shipment of batteries to southern Spain, the Canary Islands and northern Morocco.
Even so, the pressure from Berlin did not abate, increasingly causing the government to fear a German invasion. The German unrest was only partially calmed with the dispatch of the Blue Division to Russia in the middle of the year, and with the supply of raw materials to Germany, the provisioning of its ships, submarines and planes, and support in intelligence matters. If anything saved Spain from involvement in the war, it was the absorption of German forces on the Balkan front, in aid of Italy, and later on the Russian.
In 1943, The progressive defeats of the Axis led Franco to maneuver towards the Allied side. He had an interview with the President of Portugal, Oliveira Salazar, in order to establish contacts with the allies. So Franco's regime changed course to survive forty years.


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?


Yes, in 1941 the general of the Blue Division in Russia, Agustín Muñoz Grandes. Hitler admired him. Franco learned of the content of the talks Hitler-Muñoz Grandes and decided to dismiss Muñoz Grandes as head of the division. However, Hitler's pressure on Franco delayed his dismissal as head of the division for several months, due to Hitler's interest in increasing Muñoz Grandes' military prestige.Finally, in December 1942, he was dismissed and replaced by General Emilio Esteban-Infantes, a conservative military man who did not share many of the views of his predecessor.

[Piteas]

Apart from the political points I raised previously Piteas, I would also be grateful if you could give us the benefit of anything you can provide on the military situation. It seems that the Spanish army was 250,000 strong in July 1940 and Franco had started to put in place measures to increase the numbers, but these would have only just been started and because of the financial situation may not have been possible.

I've also read that as a precautionary measure Franco ordered the border with France to be reinforced in case Hitler did decide to get silly. Can you provide any detail on that?

The border was reinforced. The spanish army after the civil war was large, but it was poorly equipped and would not withstand a german attack. However, the geography of the country (the second most mountainous in Europe after Switzerland), a sure guerrilla and the british support via Portugal and spanish harbours would help against the german invasion. This is how the Spanish General Staff thought about a german invasion.
Another Napoleon, another hit-run war and british guests in home.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Warspite,

I answered you on post 869. Got lost in the shuffling...

warspite1

Thank-you [:)]. That explains the overly large British presence. Just a couple of observations/questions. The British armour looks too strong (compared to a 1940 German panzer division).

How did you lose two brigades at sea?! [X(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Piteas



One thing I am keen to understand more about are your thoughts on the various divisions in Spain, not just the rival political groups but also the rival regional groups - the Basques and the Catalans being perhaps the most important?

How would these be likely to react to a German invasion - i.e. were any of them likely to be pro-German in return for autonomy, or would the hatred of Germany trump any immediate nationalistic or Political issues? (as per the Ukraine, there would perhaps be little likelihood for German willingness to grant autonomy, and I would think it unthinkable with regard to the Basques as the German need to occupy the coastal areas in the north, west, and south)?


Spain has three other countries within; Galicia, Catalonia and the Basque Country (Euskadi in basque).
Everyone has their own language and culture. In these regions there are and were legal political parties and movements in favor of independence, but not in Franco's dictatorship. He was a "unifier" of Spain. His motto was "Spain, One, Great and Free". People could only speak in Spanish. So Catalonia and the Basque country suffered severe repression, less in Galicia because Franco was galician, but she also suffered a lot. A German invasion respecting basque and catalan rights could receive some support in these regions, but Germany had supported Franco (Gernika was a german operation and the basques didn´t forget). Surely there would be revenges if the wermacht entered these regions and everything would change.

Also how much do you know about Franco's own position within the Government and how secure he would be - personally I can only imagine his position strengthening as a result of standing up to Germany?

Franco had doubts in autumn 1940. He wanted to keep his good relationship with Hitler and "gain territory" because he dreamed of the spanish empire in 15-18th centuries, but fuel and grain that arrived by sea from Argentina, Canada and the United States was vital for the regime's survival. The alignment of Spain with Germany would put that supply in danger: a British naval blockade would ensue that would increase the famine that gripped the country after the civil war.
So Germany had to promise a lot of territory for Spain to go to war and, mainly, guarantee the same food supplies. It did not. Also, after the fall of France, Spanish troops took control of the international city of Tanger, in Morocco. The maneuver did not please Germany, much less Vichy, which controlled most of the Maghreb, and Italy, which harbored colonial ambitions in the area.
Hitler hoped to get Marshal Pétain's France to back him up, both in the assault on Great Britain and in North Africa. And if he had to choose between France, a colonial power with a powerful army, even if it had been defeated, and Spain, beset by famine after a civil war and with disorganized and antiquated armed forces, he preferred to stay with the former. Moreover, Germany at that time considered the war won, and Spanish aid was negligible. However, Hitler wanted Gibraltar and once again insisted that Spain enter the war (autumn 1940), but Franco resisted: on the one hand, due to the lack of specificity regarding obtaining the territories and the economic and military aid requested; on the other, because Great Britain continued to resist and, therefore, to control the seas. One incident upset all plans. Italy attacked Greece. So disastrously that a joke that recommended enlisting in the Greek army if you wanted to visit Rome became fashionable [;)]

The Italians could hardly take the Suez Canal to close the eastern gate of the Mediterranean, so it was necessary to attack Gibraltar to control the strait as a western passage. Hitler, still without a Spanish response, launched Operation Felix with his staff. Gibraltar was planned to be attacked in mid-January 1941. The German Ministry of Defense urged the Foreign Ministry to reach an agreement with Spain as soon as possible.
At the beginning of December, Admiral Canaris met in Madrid with Franco and explained the plans for Operation Felix. It was planned that on January 10 the German troops would arrive in Spain, and, consequently, that the country would enter the war. Franco rejected it, among other reasons because the military situation was not the same as in June.
That same day, Italy had suffered a serious setback in North Africa from the British. Given the lack of agreement and the worsening of the situation in the Balkans and North Africa, Hitler ordered the freezing of Operation Felix and the suspension of the planned shipment of batteries to southern Spain, the Canary Islands and northern Morocco.
Even so, the pressure from Berlin did not abate, increasingly causing the government to fear a German invasion. The German unrest was only partially calmed with the dispatch of the Blue Division to Russia in the middle of the year, and with the supply of raw materials to Germany, the provisioning of its ships, submarines and planes, and support in intelligence matters. If anything saved Spain from involvement in the war, it was the absorption of German forces on the Balkan front, in aid of Italy, and later on the Russian.
In 1943, The progressive defeats of the Axis led Franco to maneuver towards the Allied side. He had an interview with the President of Portugal, Oliveira Salazar, in order to establish contacts with the allies. So Franco's regime changed course to survive forty years.


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?


Yes, in 1941 the general of the Blue Division in Russia, Agustín Muñoz Grandes. Hitler admired him. Franco learned of the content of the talks Hitler-Muñoz Grandes and decided to dismiss Muñoz Grandes as head of the division. However, Hitler's pressure on Franco delayed his dismissal as head of the division for several months, due to Hitler's interest in increasing Muñoz Grandes' military prestige.Finally, in December 1942, he was dismissed and replaced by General Emilio Esteban-Infantes, a conservative military man who did not share many of the views of his predecessor.

warspite1

Thank-you. What I was looking for re the last point, was whether there was anyone in the political establishment (yes, or military) early autumn of 1940 (around the earliest practical time for a German attack) that would be only too happy to play German puppet?

[Shellshock]

Wow, still going?.....This thread may go on longer than the war. [X(]

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Thank-you [:)]. That explains the overly large British presence. Just a couple of observations/questions. The British armour looks too strong (compared to a 1940 German panzer division).

How did you lose two brigades at sea?! [X(]

In the original game the CW armor divisions (and US) have a combat value of 9, the Germans is 10. I am playing with an option that changes the Allies combat values during 1939-42 and there real vale is currently 6.

Since the CW lost so much air, I am husbanding it, the Germans put 5 on sea duties and those two CW brigades were interdicted.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

My point - as well you know - concerned the supply of the 2nd Greek Army and a US military study that showed their supply was via Salonika. If you want to answer that - WITHOUT reference to Yugoslavia(!) then fine. If you don't want to debate any further or stick with your avowed position that the US military don't know what they are taking about, then that's also fine. I will go with the US military study over your war game map, a Wiki map and a war game rule set anytime.

My point is that you are misinterpreting what the study really meant. That's obvious because the maps I posted make clear that the path from Athens to those lines were passable.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Again, another point that we've come full circle on. You won't budge because you don't like historical quotes, speeches, directives and diary entries etc. [X(] Well I can't make you agree, and clearly neither of us are going to budge on this issue.

I have provided examples of Mussolini's comments that confirm what Italy's role was in the war as he saw it. I have provided quotes from both Badoglio and Mussolini on their opinion of Germany and Italy relying on German help at the outset of the war. I've shown how Mussolini was determined to fight a parallel war for the glory of Italy.

This isn't my opinion - this is all on historical record.

Again, just words. And circumstances would be different if the Germans adopt a Med Strategy. Clearly Mussolini was trying to secure Suez. Securing Gibraltar would be just as important. The Germans have a plan for doing this. Why would he join Barbarossa but not this?

But you think Mussolini was happy to subordinate all of Italy's plans to German will, you believe Mussolini would be happy to allow Hitler to determine where the Italian Army would be deployed (secondary roles).

You still believe this despite the fact that Mussolini had seen first hand (after the fall of France), that Germany decides how the spoils are carved up and Italy got nothing. Given the reasons Mussolini went to war, you don't think that is important?

I think winning the war and surviving would have been important. And the operations for Gibraltar and Suez definitely fit Italy's national interests.

And why are you happy to believe this? Because Mussolini offered Italian troops to Hitler for Barbarossa.... You've totally ignored the position Mussolini was in when he made that offer. I see you've now rather slyly introduced "He was persuaded to reinforce those troops" (no doubt referring to the creation of 8th Army rather than the point you were originally proved wrong on (initial Italian contribution). Very disingenuous but this still doesn't help you - in fact it makes your argument even weaker. Hitler only asked for more troops because of the losses suffered by the German Army and the need to plug the gaps. Mussolini agreed (against his generals wishes and the wishes of the Italian population) because he was, by 1942, totally reliant upon Hitler for his own survival.

Again, he joined a German operation, and he was persuaded to reinforce it.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As the Germans made absolutely clear in preparing for Felix (a friendly Spain scenario) we are not talking about simple repair of railroads.

Of course we are. How much repair is required is at issue. Did I mention yet that they have till 1942??

You have admitted yourself that the Germans need to beat the Spanish quickly.

That's not what I said.

Indeed you said they would as Germany vs Spain would be a simple 'blitz' operation.

I still think it will be very easy. The size and quality of the Spanish force trumps logistics and terrain.

But now, you seem to believe the Germans have time to take ground, then rip us the existing railroad and essentially start afresh on new track....

They do have plenty of time. And I don't think the repair will be equivalent to starting from scratch.

There is one rail line and you are now saying the Germans won't be using it at all while they re-gauge the single rail line. You are ignoring the need to get artillery and ammunition down to Gibraltar (not to mention supplying the troops fighting the Spanish). You've (presumably) bothered to read the German concerns about the width of the roads, their winding nature, the sheer number of tunnels and bridges that can easily be sabotaged (and no, digging out a caved in tunnel is not the work of a moment).

Take North Africa: The distance from Tripoli to El Alamein was 1781 km. Axis truck convoys made the entire journey and back. Distance from San Sebastian to Gibraltar was 1130 km. So, the entire country is within road supply range if necessary.[/quote]

But how long will this take? Well you've now completely changed your mind and said the Germans have until 1942!!!!!!!

I've never given a timeframe. But, clearly, they have plenty of time.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Back full circle once again. So let's be clear on this:

- you don't pay any attention to the professionals in the US military

I disagree with your interpretation.

- you don't pay any attention to the professionals in the German Army

Again, not with your interpretation.

- you don't pay any attention to records, diaries, directives, and speeches made by historical figures (but do pay attention to certain actions undertaken by those characters even though they are different - and set in a different context - to what we are discussing)

Actions trump words.

- you simply ignore historical precedent
- you simply ignore (or don't know about - and don't then seek to understand) key historical facts that are completely relevant to this scenario

No idea what that means. Clearly, different circumstances will change what happened historically.

- you don't engage with Piteas, a Spanish forumite (we are discussing an invasion of Spain)
- you barely engaged with UP844, an Italian forumite (we are discussing the actions of Italy and what she would do in 1940)

I guess, since I'm an American, you will now defer to me on anything I say about America's possible actions.

- you do pay unerring attention to anything a professional wargame designer says (regardless of whether you understand the reason for the rule or not). Essentially you are saying this. If rule 15(b) says x happens, then x happens and that MUST be FACT.

No. I'm not saying it is a fact, but the opinions of those designers are material to the discussion.

- you do cling to a Wiki article as proof of something Japan would do, even though it proves nothing because the circumstances were different

It proved my point: Barbarossa was the trigger for Japan's aggressive actions in 1941.

- you are more than happy to rely on Wiki articles about rail roads that bear not the slightest relevance to what is being discussed

They are extremely relevant, even if they require modification to fit the European system.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Use that time to blitz through Turkey and Spain.

Which they will.

There will be a rush to get Spain done - which will start long before September. But not Gibraltar.

Right. Where does that say anything about how long it will take? Of course they will want to get started as soon as possible and get finished as soon as possible. But I did NOT say it will be done quickly (or slowly). I haven't said anything about how long it will take. But they do have plenty of time.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

At the very minimum there is a need to determine that a Gibraltar operation is feasible and that means a lot (as per historical) of intelligence missions with Spanish assistance. So long as Gibraltar is considered feasible the Spanish operation can start.

Again, why does doing this require that the Germans wait till after France? Why can't they get all discussions with Franco out of the way long before, since they know they are going to do a Med Strategy?

Hahahahaha nice little sly insertion of the thoroughly ridiculous rule 15(b) there..... Getting to Madrid, by itself, means jack. They also need to get to Barcelona in the northeast, they need to get to Corunna in the northwest, they need to get to Valencia, Malaga, Seville, Murcia... in other words, the Germans need to beat a very angry, very united, and very desperate Spanish population.

SPI says otherwise. And, let's be clear, the Spanish army is smaller than the BEF (which was only about 10% of the force the Germans were facing in France) and of much poorer quality. United? Republicans and Nationalists?







[/quote]

[RangerJoe]

Imagine this, Axis truck convoys under attack by partisan forces so they have to be heavily escorted. Still, snipers kill drivers, destroy tires, and/or wreck engines. With API ammo, they the the fuel tanks transporting fuel. A German gas BBQ anyone? Not to mention 50-60mm mortars in the mountains or 3 inch or 81 mm mortars elsewhere. Not to mention bridges being blown along with the approaches. Fun times were had by all.

BTW, the Spanish had German weapons already so all that they would have to do is to capture some German supplies - even just taking it off the dead Germans.

Meanwhile, the USSR is re-equipping the armoured forces with T-34s and KV-1/2s, the air regiments with MIG-3s plus training the men and officers.

The US is supplying the United Kingdom with lots of equipment and supplies. Latin America is unable to trade with Germany so they trade with the US and the British Commonwealth. Latin America would also be supporting Spain.

The Vichy Fleet may have even been induced to meet some US tankers/oilers and then make their way to French possessions in the Americas. Being escorted, of course, by elements of the US Navy.

Meanwhile, Turkey is expanding the military and buying equipment from wherever it can - including older tanks from the USSR which will work fine on defense in Asia.

There is no reason for the Germans to have a Med strategy until Italy enters the war. There is no reason for Spain to even consider joining the Axis until France is occupied.