The question to ask about The Italians

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



The web site provided the times. I only wanted the distances. The times are irrelevant. And all the above was true in the Desert as well - they still took Tobruk.

warspite1

Speaking of irrelevant - so is the distance and so is the taking of Tobruk.

Wrong on both. The distance shows that trucks can project supply further than Tripoli to Tobruk (further than any distance in Spain). Taking Tobruk shows that that supply was sufficient to take Tobruk from the Commonwealth (vastly superior to the Spaniards).

warspite1

As per post 1082, you appear simply unable to even understand the point. Well I'm not going to continue going around in ever decreasing circles trying to explain it. But perhaps this simplistic example will help.

Let's say a division contains one truck. Lets say that division needs one full truck load per day to maintain supply levels.

If that truck can do a round trip of 200 miles in a day then if the division is 200 miles away then happy days. Luvverlllly jubbllyyy and everyone's a winner.

Now.

Let's say the division advances. It is now 400 miles away but it still needs a full truck load daily.

Do you see any problem here? No? Well I'll explain, firstly the division now hasn't got enough trucks and needs to call on a corps reserve.

Do you also see that there are other problems? We've not allowed for breakdown, we've not allowed for the effect of enemy action (aircraft, road obstacles, sabotage). We've not allowed for weather causing delays, we've not allowed for the possibility that the second 200 miles contains different terrain and so perhaps 200 miles a day is not actually possible.

Do you really not see why your ideas - that seem to say a) is there a road? and b) can a truck move a given distance - simply don't take the necessary variables into account.

According to you, Rommel had enough supply from a truck to take Tobruk and therefore you've proved everything about..... err Spain...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




I'm saying the circumstance of losing thousands to and being invaded and conquered by - then switching to that other side is the same.

warspite1

Yes I know WHAT you are saying. I have no idea why you would think its appropriate. I mean in World War II Britain and Japan were in exactly the same circumstances weren't they. They were both islands and both had an empire. There. Exactly the same [8|]

Clearly, these examples show that taking losses and being invaded and conquered is no impediment to joining the conquering side.

So, German conquest of Spain would not be an impediment to making a deal with the Axis. And, since Franco has no where else to turn, why wouldn't he make that deal?

warspite1

These examples clearly show nothing. You look at everything through a very simple lens. Spain 1940 and Romania 1940-1944 are not similar and DO NOT explain the point being made. Try thinking real life, think realpolitik, think what was actually happening. The fact that you think Franco comes out of this alive to make bargains with Hitler is astonishing.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know anything about the taking of Tobruk? Clearly not, but that is not important. What is important:

Why are you fixated on Tobruk - you know this was nowhere near their goal and that Tobruk is in Libya right?

So if the Germans had enough supply to take Tobruk from the green 2nd South African Division, that proves all your arguments about supply.... in Spain?????

It proves how far supply can be projected by truck from a supply head.

Did Rommel have an army group in Libya? No, so that is not a comparison - I ask again, what does this one isolated case have to do with Spain?

Again, each division has its own supply assets - including supply trucks. So, it's irrelevant how much force is being supplied by truck, so long as the supply head has enough for all. And, it would, since that head is in France and part of the European rail net.

warspite1

Yes it shows how far, but no it does not, of itself, tell us anything else. You've simply ignored all variables other than distance.

Your second paragraph is actually laughable. So, regardless of distance, regardless of terrain, enemy action, or anything else, each division, in all circumstances can supply itself yes?

So you've totally and utterly ignored the fact that in North Africa the German divisions needed their organic trucks, the reserve and additional trucks too? You totally and utterly ignored that the motor-transport capacity needed for the Afrika Korps was 10 times as much proportionally as that required initially for the Soviet Union?

Again, your thinking just doesn't seem to be allow for anything other than this totally myopic view of what constitutes supply capability.

Let me make it clear. No, in North Africa, the distances and the terrain meant that a division could not supply itself from its own resources. The same would be true of Spain - but even more so.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Back to Greece:

Note the third map of the Greek campaign I've now provided.

Note the two maps of routes from Athens to Albania that don't go through Salonika.

Of course, I'm going to be told that those routes didn't exist in 1941. But the first map counters that. You can trace the arrows back from Athens all the way to Monastir. There is no way a path from Salonika to the Albanian front can be traced without crossing that line of arrows.

This shows, once again, how easy it is to misunderstand a snippet of text in a book.

warspite1

Uh oh, the maps are out. Right, third request. Please tell me which bit of the professionals of the US army saying the following was taken out of context by me:

"The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions".

Which bit did I mis-understand or take out of context?

It's only a single sentence without any context whatsoever.

And the maps prove that it can't mean what you think it means. The maps clearly show that the Germans moved from Monastir to Athens without going through Salonika. So, there has to be a path from Athens to the Albanian border if there is one from Salonika.

QED

warspite1

Firstly, do you think your argument is won because you write QED??.....

Secondly and this is the FOURTH REQUEST at least, please show me where that sentence is taken out of context or mis-understood. Let me try it this way. The US military study says the 1st Greek Army was supplied through Salonika and if Salonika was taken then they would be cut off from supply. What could possibly be mis-understood, what could possibly be taken out of context? There is nothing to mis-understand, there is nothing to take out of context and so you are happy to effectively say the US military are a bunch of idiots who don't know what they are doing.

Now, try and answer my previous questions about the Greek supply situation since you obviously know this. I mean you must know this in order to be able to confidently say what the Greeks were doing in 1940. SECOND REQUEST.

If you won't take the US military study as confirmation then fine. Try this. Present your evidence to show how the Greeks supplied their first army in 1940. No. That doesn't mean you present some stupid Google map showing there is a road in 2020. I want you to provide sources from the Greeks (or anyone else that has studied the campaign) to show how the Greeks supplied 1st Army.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

And still you won't do the simplest of things. This is your scenario, this is your case to make. All I've asked you to do on a number of occasions now is to provide an outline, a timeline, of how a 'Vichy' Spain comes about. Show us who you think instigates the idea? What does it seek to achieve? Why is it accepted by both sides?

Truly, if your explanation for the reasoning behind Vichy France and it's creation is "The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied" then I suggest you have much reading to do on the subject before you can even begin to talk about 'Vichy' Spain.

As for the question - apologies I don't even recall you asking me the question. You may delight in "rubbing my nose in it" but, for the avoidance of doubt, I am always more than happy to answer any question. Before doing so however, you would need to let me know what it means please. I don't really understand why you are asking why the Germans would agree to stay out of Vichy. Are you sure this is not a question for someone else? Ranger Joe perhaps? I genuinely can't remember the background to this or where it comes from at all.

warspite1

Well? I thought you were going to "rub my nose in it" (whatever that means). So when I asked you to explain what your question meant, so that I could answer it, you decide not to respond....

So do you want me to answer this question or not?

I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy France wasn't to keep the Germans out of an enclave of their country, why would the Germans have agreed to keep out of it? Clearly, no access to Vichy territory is a bad deal for the Germans. The French must have made it a vital provision of Vichy!

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.

My challenge to you to set out how you think a 'Vichy' Spain comes about remains current. Please answer fully. Who would propose it, and under what circumstances? What would it seek to achieve? Why would both parties be happy with it? What would it look like?

Clue. Saying well France had a Vichy so Spain could have one to, is perhaps acceptable if you are 8-years old. For the purposes of this discussion, no, it is not acceptable.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This says much. You think its been a good debate about supply?

Yes. And you should pay attention. You could learn something.

Well let's see what you brought to the party:

- You've got your facts about rail supply totally and utterly wrong because you used a wiki article on 21st century US rail roads to 'prove' what the war-ravaged Spanish rail system in 1940 could provide and concluded that the rail system could handle all the German requirements and more....

It was 1940 rail. Someone said that European rail was somewhat less robust. But it still showed that the European rail lines could provide an enormous stream of supply. I never mentioned the Spanish rail system.

warspite1

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

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

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.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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:

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 who conducted numerous reconnaissance and intelligence missions inside Spain during the negotiations.

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You also effectively state the US army team that wrote a study of the Balkan Campaign are a bunch of incompetents...

You're interpretation of an out of context snippet is what is in question.

...who don't have the skills you do in being able to do a google map search [8|] and you've 'proved' supply was possible from Athens because:

a) you've produced maps with a lot of arrows of German forces heading south.....

Yep. If the Germans could do it why couldn't the Greeks?

b) you've produced modern day maps showing roads between Athens and Albania.

Again, yes. And the map with the arrows on it follow those roads.

But as ever, in your simplistic and myopic view, you've given no consideration to the distance from Athens to Albania (compared to Salonika to Albania) and whether supply considerations could also have been affected by availability of trucks or rail lines. Do you know the Greek logistical situation in 1940? Has that even crossed your mind? There were 14 divisions of the 1st Greek Army to supply. That is a lot of provisions daily. But you see that sort of detail is just unimportant to you. So long as you prove there was a road between Athens and Albania in 2020 then all other considerations - including the conclusions of the US Army - are simply not worth considering.

About 500km or so. Well within truck supply distance. And there was a rail line to the north for part of the way.

warspite1

We've been here so many times. Listen, you want me to believe you - a man who thinks the distance a truck can travel proves the answer to everything, who hasn't got a clue about the Greek supply situation, the state of the railway, the number of trucks available or anything else, over the professionals of the US Army.

I'm going for the professionals.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

You said the British were going to possess the islands. But now you play word games with possession and incorporation???? What is the difference?

Here's some of your quotes to help you:

What is that possession or 'incorporation'?



.... or is that incorporation????

But regardless of the infantile word games, why would the Spanish demand the Royal Navy leave anyway? They will be happy for the Royal Navy to leave once the war is won - because that means Spain is no longer occupied by the Germans. In the absence of Gibraltar the Royal Navy need the Canaries.

No idea what you are talking about the British being on the mainland. But I'm sure it means something to you, but if you mean British troops on the mainland (and that's not a likely scenario) wouldn't that mean possession so Franco won't let them in anyway? [:D]

I still have no idea why you keep bringing French North Africa into the conversation.

warspite1

Well? Do I get the courtesy of a response or not?

You're the one playing infantile word games. I repeat, they're not going to make the Canaries British territory, but they still won't get out if the Spanish ask them to. That's a reason why the Spanish wouldn't want them in the Canaries when they can accomplish the same thing on the mainland.

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.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Well? I thought you were going to "rub my nose in it" (whatever that means). So when I asked you to explain what your question meant, so that I could answer it, you decide not to respond....

So do you want me to answer this question or not?

I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy France wasn't to keep the Germans out of an enclave of their country, why would the Germans have agreed to keep out of it? Clearly, no access to Vichy territory is a bad deal for the Germans. The French must have made it a vital provision of Vichy!

warspite1

As I said, I've got no idea where this particular argument came from and to be honest, having read your 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 our 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.

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.

If he even can get to the library and is allowed inside to get some books.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Franco has the Commonwealth, plus most of South, Central, and North America to turn to. Why would he turn to the country that betrayed him for help?

Because those democracies are never going to put him back in power.

warspite1

Have you ever read what Hitler thought of Franco for turning him down? Your absurd notion that Franco is going to live through this does you no favours. The only chance that Franco lives is, having made the choice to fight the Germans, he sees it through. He could survive by setting up a Government in Exile from the Canaries or he could choose to stay with the Spanish people and fight the invader to the last - and he would not allow himself to be captured. Would he take the option you've suggested? Well anything is possible in theory isn't it? But no, if one thinks about it for more than a couple of minutes its really not very likely is it? [8|]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1



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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Franco has the Commonwealth, plus most of South, Central, and North America to turn to. Why would he turn to the country that betrayed him for help?

Because those democracies are never going to put him back in power.

How about the dictatorships?

What dictatorships are going to be controlling Spain if the Allies win?

But you state that the United States of America would never put a Free Spanish government back into power if it conquered Spain? What would the United States of America do? Annex Spain? [8|]

That's exactly what they would install: A democracy. That leaves Franco out in the cold.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




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.

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There would be an initial Luftwaffe presence just to eliminate the Spanish AF. After than, they only need an amount sufficient to handle the tiny Spanish army. Those 800 planes are your figure for Gibraltar only. They will only be needed upon the assault on Gibraltar.

warspite1

You've already been told the source for the 800 aircraft is not my figure - 800 aircraft plus 3,000 vehicles (incl. 3 heavy and 3 light AA battalions) was agreed by the Luftwaffe following a meeting between the CoS of the VIII Air Corps and the staff of XLIX Corps on the 16 November 1940.

And why don't you ever bother to think things through? If those aircraft were needed for Gibraltar in a Spain friendly scenario (which included neutralising the RN) then clearly some of those aircraft will be needed during the Spanish campaign if the RN try and provide support through NGS or supply.

Some of them. Not 800. The 800, assuming we accept your figure as gospel, would only be required for the actual assault. Gibraltar is a very small target. How long can it last? And it's not gospel, since France 1940 has caused a reassessment of British 1940's combat strength.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Well? Do I get the courtesy of a response or not?

You're the one playing infantile word games. I repeat, they're not going to make the Canaries British territory, but they still won't get out if the Spanish ask them to. That's a reason why the Spanish wouldn't want them in the Canaries when they can accomplish the same thing on the mainland.

There you go, insulting someone again. [X(]

Retaliation in kind is not an insult. The instigator is the villain.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

AARRRGGHHHH!!!!! But this comes right back to the heart of the scenario and what was said almost from the outset. If you have everyone on the Axis side acting with hindsight and all the Allies unable to react to what is going on, then yes, you can make a case for a German victory. But what the hell is the point of that? Where is the fun, the challenge in that?

Right let's re-do WWII but the British start the war with 20 divisions and the French replace Gamelin with someone who is not fighting WWI and has given the French army an offensive doctrine. Right, that's the war over in 1939. Wow that was interesting wasn't it........

The hypothetical only has to consider alternatives that could be induced by the hypothetical. Does Germany adopting a Med Strategy induce the British to expand their army? How, when they wouldn't even know about it? Does it illuminate the French about Blitzkrieg? How? Again, they don't even know about it.

warspite1

And your irrelevant answer had exactly what to do with my point??????

It's precisely relevant. The alternatives you suggested would not be induced by the hypothetical. Therefore, the hypothetical doesn't have to consider them.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There would be an initial Luftwaffe presence just to eliminate the Spanish AF. After than, they only need an amount sufficient to handle the tiny Spanish army. Those 800 planes are your figure for Gibraltar only. They will only be needed upon the assault on Gibraltar.

warspite1

You've already been told the source for the 800 aircraft is not my figure - 800 aircraft plus 3,000 vehicles (incl. 3 heavy and 3 light AA battalions) was agreed by the Luftwaffe following a meeting between the CoS of the VIII Air Corps and the staff of XLIX Corps on the 16 November 1940.

And why don't you ever bother to think things through? If those aircraft were needed for Gibraltar in a Spain friendly scenario (which included neutralising the RN) then clearly some of those aircraft will be needed during the Spanish campaign if the RN try and provide support through NGS or supply.

Some of them. Not 800. The 800, assuming we accept your figure as gospel, would only be required for the actual assault. Gibraltar is a very small target. How long can it last? And it's not gospel, since France 1940 has caused a reassessment of British 1940's combat strength.

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.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




The hypothetical only has to consider alternatives that could be induced by the hypothetical. Does Germany adopting a Med Strategy induce the British to expand their army? How, when they wouldn't even know about it? Does it illuminate the French about Blitzkrieg? How? Again, they don't even know about it.

warspite1

And your irrelevant answer had exactly what to do with my point??????

It's precisely relevant. The alternatives you suggested would not be induced by the hypothetical. Therefore, the hypothetical doesn't have to consider them.

warspite1

...what is clear from this 'debate' is you don't consider anything you don't want to believe. Yet another pointless response that never sought to answer my initial point.