The question to ask about The Italians

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This nonsense has got to stop Lemay. You are totally and utterly out of your depth here. Just clueless.

Vichy allowed the Germans the use of airbases in Syria. That was collaboration which was against their neutral status. But you think Vichy was an Axis ally????? Have a look at the US relationship with Vichy. You think they would have that relationship with an Axis ally after 10th December 1941?

Spain gave a degree of repair facilities and safe haven to u-boats - that was collaboration, against their mom-belligerent status - but you think they were German Allies????? Have a look at the US relationship with Spain and the supplies - especially food they gave to save them from famine. Again, you think the US saw them as Axis allies?

Sweden gave the Germans access to Swedish territory to allow troop movement - that was collaboration against their neutral status - you think Sweden was a German ally????

Some countries found themselves in situations that were highly uncomfortable - not wanting to be invaded and so needing to keep Germany sweet, but at the same time, not wanting to cheese the Allies off. They walked a difficult path. As a result there were things done by all countries caught in this situation. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM AXIS ALLIES. To suggest otherwise just shows a total lack of understanding and you are really embarrassing yourself here. Like with the trade embargoes and Japan, you don't even know your own country's WWII history.

At no point have I said that Vichy France was an Axis belligerent. A collaborator is an ally (small "a"). Stop twisting my words.

warspite1

This sort of response simply shames you more and more. You said that Vichy France was an Axis ally. Now, having been shown up yet again you seek to squirm your way out of it by playing yet more word games.

Once again, if I am wrong and you believe now there is a difference between belligerents and allies, please show me the examples of when you've referred to the Japanese and the Italians as Axis belligerents in this thread, and how many times you've referred to them as allies.

noun, plural al·lies.
a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

You say a collaborator is an ally. So you say Vichy was a German ally? You say Spain was a German ally? You say Sweden was a German ally? And you think the US were happy to trade with German allies? The British were happy to trade with German allies? You see Lemay, whatever word game you choose to adopt to cover your confusion and floundering around, you are still hopelessly wrong.

....and yet you suggest I'm twisting YOUR words???? Your response is disingenuous as always Lemay and continues to lower your stock here each time.

This is too idiotic to respond to. You're so desperate to say I thought Vichy France was a belligerent on the Axis side that you'll do anything to twist whatever I say to get there. No point in saying any more, since you'll just continue with this nonsense. But, if you thought I was ignorant enough to think that Vichy was an Axis belligerent, you shamed yourself.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




At no point have I said that Vichy France was an Axis belligerent. A collaborator is an ally (small "a"). Stop twisting my words.

warspite1

This sort of response simply shames you more and more. You said that Vichy France was an Axis ally. Now, having been shown up yet again you seek to squirm your way out of it by playing yet more word games.

Once again, if I am wrong and you believe now there is a difference between belligerents and allies, please show me the examples of when you've referred to the Japanese and the Italians as Axis belligerents in this thread, and how many times you've referred to them as allies.

noun, plural al·lies.
a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

You say a collaborator is an ally. So you say Vichy was a German ally? You say Spain was a German ally? You say Sweden was a German ally? And you think the US were happy to trade with German allies? The British were happy to trade with German allies? You see Lemay, whatever word game you choose to adopt to cover your confusion and floundering around, you are still hopelessly wrong.

....and yet you suggest I'm twisting YOUR words???? Your response is disingenuous as always Lemay and continues to lower your stock here each time.

This is too idiotic to respond to. You're so desperate to say I thought Vichy France was a belligerent on the Axis side that you'll do anything to twist whatever I say to get there. No point in saying any more, since you'll just continue with this nonsense. But, if you thought I was ignorant enough to think that Vichy was an Axis belligerent, you shamed yourself.

warspite1

Nice faux anger there Lemay. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Second Request

However, you did say:

Vichy France (now an Axis ally)

There, remember? So instead of talking in riddles why not make clear what you did say?

First things first:

a) what did you mean exactly when you said that Vichy France was an Axis ally (post 967)?

b) then how does that tie in with you saying "A collaborator (you will recall above that I recounted some of the things that neutral countries did under pressure to keep Germany from invading) is an ally (small "a")"?

c) You've raised ally (small 'a') as being a thing. Where is there a distinction between capital A and small a?

d) Why, when I stated that you'd called France an Axis ally, did you say "At no point have I said that Vichy France was an Axis belligerent". So why did you feel the need to bring in belligerent as opposed to ally? I asked you when you had referred to Italy and Japan as Axis belligerents as opposed to Axis allies but you didn't answer.

There is a reason you didn't answer. Because you've never previously said that. But you have called Italy a Germany ally (post 265) in exactly the same way in which you called Vichy an Axis ally (post 967).

So Vichy took part in some acts of collaboration and you say that makes them an ally, and you've referred to Italy as a German ally and Vichy as an Axis ally. You've never used the terms Axis or German belligerents before. So why have you got so angry because I simply taken what you yourself have written to mean what you yourself have written?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

The supply still gets there in two days. So, operations slow down, but they still get done eventually.

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...

All the above applies to Tobruk as well. The example clearly shows that whatever the variables were, it was adequate to take Tobruk. It's really that simple.

I refuse to believe that the roads in North Africa were in better condition than the roads in Spain. Spain had had a civil war years before. North Africa was undergoing a current war. And the tanks had gotten heavier since as well.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

Franco has a powerful bargaining chip: A Vichy Spain. And he won't be done in by Hitler if he isn't in Hitler's possession. (A condition of Vichy Spain).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

The supply still gets there in two days. So, operations slow down, but they still get done eventually.

warspite1

HALLEUJAH!!!!!!

He's got the point everybody!!!! Curtis Lemay has actually understood the point. Yes, supply issues affect operations. The effect of the issues will be dependent on many things of course. Why was that so difficult for you to accept????? Wow.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

All the above applies to Tobruk as well. The example clearly shows that whatever the variables were, it was adequate to take Tobruk. It's really that simple.

warspite1

Please, enough with the Tobruk fixation. Yes we know there was enough supply to take Tobruk from the green South Africans. If only you could understand that, in itself it means and proves nothing other than Rommel had enough supply at that time to take Tobruk. It's like living in the Twilight Zone....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I refuse to believe that the roads in North Africa were in better condition than the roads in Spain. Spain had had a civil war years before. North Africa was undergoing a current war. And the tanks had gotten heavier since as well.

warspite1

No, we know that. You won't believe the Germany Army from primary source material, you won't believe the US Army study...you won't believe anything I suggest, but we are supposed to take as read what you believe. Sure......that's equitable.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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?

I've never said that the Division can "supply itself". But it does have the trucks intrinsic to its TO&E to transfer those supplies, if they are at the supply head. The more divisions, the more trucks are available. Clearly, trucks in foot divisions have only one purpose: Supply. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a foot unit. It would be a semi-motorized unit.

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?

Wrong. The part of the TO&E of each division, including motorized ones, were dedicated to supply. Furthermore, several Italian motorized divisions had been converted to foot, to provide trucks for the supply lines. That's why the forces sitting on the Channel will donate some of their trucks to help out in Spain. They'll have plenty of supply trucks.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



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.

Franco has a powerful bargaining chip: A Vichy Spain. And he won't be done in by Hitler if he isn't in Hitler's possession. (A condition of Vichy Spain).

warspite1

I'll discuss a 'Vichy' Spain when you present a proper, considered suggestion for how it comes about. Billionth request

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Wrong. They show that a country can take heavy losses and be occupied by the enemy and still switch sides. That's exactly the situation Spain will be in. And, Franco can make a deal with Hitler without placing himself in Hitler's hands.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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?

I've never said that the Division can "supply itself".

warspite1

Yes, yes you did.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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?

Wrong. The part of the TO&E of each division, including motorized ones, were dedicated to supply. Furthermore, several Italian motorized divisions had been converted to foot, to provide trucks for the supply lines. That's why the forces sitting on the Channel will donate some of their trucks to help out in Spain. They'll have plenty of supply trucks.

warspite1

No its not wrong. And you appeared to understand the point in your post 1143 so why are you going back on it? But then reversing again at the end of the above paragraph? Curtis Lemay, you are simply all over the place.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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.

Wrong. They show that a country can take heavy losses and be occupied by the enemy and still switch sides. That's exactly the situation Spain will be in. And, Franco can make a deal with Hitler without placing himself in Hitler's hands.

warspite1

You just keep on about taking losses like that is all there is to it. What the hell????? This is not just about taking losses. This is about the whole situation. Your reading of the situation is just so off base its scarcely believable that you persist with it. Taking losses, like the miles a truck can travel is, of itself, meaningless. You ignore all other factors, context and throw real life concerns out of the window.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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??.....

Of course.

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.

It is taken out of context. In fact no context is given whatsoever. It is just a single sentence by itself - the very definition of "out of context". We would have to see the entire article to get the context, assuming it could even be found in that.

But we don't even need to see that. What you are claiming they meant requires us to disbelieve our lying eyes!! I repeat: There is a clear path taken by the Germans from Monastir to Athens (that's not on a 2020 map, that's on a 1941 map). There is another path on the west coast taken by the Germans as well.

QED

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




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??.....

Of course.

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.

It is taken out of context. In fact no context is given whatsoever. It is just a single sentence by itself - the very definition of "out of context". We would have to see the entire article to get the context, assuming it could even be found in that.

But we don't even need to see that. What you are claiming they meant requires us to disbelieve our lying eyes!! I repeat: There is a clear path taken by the Germans from Monastir to Athens (that's not on a 2020 map, that's on a 1941 map). There is another path on the west coast taken by the Germans as well.

QED

warspite1

But how can that sentence be taken out of context or mis-understood? Look at it this way:

A US military study confirms that supply for the Greek 1st Army was centred on the port of Salonika. What does that mean? Could that have been the sole port of supply?, the primary port? What? Well they go onto say that if Salonika was taken then that would cut off their supply. That would suggest that Salonika was either the sole supply port or the one that provided the vast majority of supply doesn't it?

Let's be honest here. I don't know. You don't know. So I've used this US military study as my supporting evidence. What do you do? Do you ask to see the military study? Have you shown the slightest interest in the study? No.

Okay, so why are you so keen to rubbish such a source without even seeing it yourself? Presumably you do that because you have evidence yourself that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? But you don't. You don't have any evidence from any military sources - whether Greek, British, German or Italian. You don't have any 3rd party sources either.

So what convinces you that the US military guys are total idiots who have no clue what they are putting their name to? Well, you have some maps from a WWII Atlas and from Wiki.... And that shows there was at least two roads that led from Athens that could take supply to the Albanian front - or at least pretty close....

You've also shown the route the Germans took in their charge south through Greece. Again, you've decided that if the Germans could move south along these routes, that must mean the Greeks supplied 1st Army through them - despite what those total bozos in the US Army think.

So effectively because you think you've supplied the could, that means the Greeks did. But you don't know that. The US military seems to believe they didn't. But let's stay with the Greeks could for a minute. Could they? I've told you about the distance between Athens and Albania (as opposed to Salonika and Albania). It's clear - both in distance and terrain - why Salonika would be more likely to be used.

We are talking about the supply of 14 divisions of a Greek Army. That's a lot of supply on a daily basis. Have you confirmed the Greek motor transport situation in 1941? Have you confirmed what rail links there were then? Do you know what amount of transport would be required, and over how many days, to get the same amount of supply to the Albanian front from each source? You see, there are lots of elements to the could. You providing a couple of maps doesn't really wash does it?

Now, how about you stop playing around with silly maps and actually provide some evidence that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? Until you do, I'll stick with what the US army professionals have concluded. Thanks.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

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

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

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

Franco.

and under what circumstances?

After conquest of Spain by the Germans.

What would it seek to achieve?

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

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

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

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

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

warspite1

And I'll have to keep giving the same response.

And to be clear, I am genuinely not unwilling to answer any question you put, but this is not my argument and I truly don't understand why this question was asked or, more importantly, what it even means:

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

It just doesn't make sense to me. As said, if you can go back and find out what was said, and by whom, to make you ask such a question then that may shed some light on it. Because I know you don't understand the complexities of Vichy, I have tended to not get involved in this area of debate with you, so I am pretty convinced this was an argument you were having with someone else - not me.

But I assure you, as soon as I understand the point being made - and thus why the question is being asked - I will be happy to answer.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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.

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

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

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

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

Franco.

and under what circumstances?

After conquest of Spain by the Germans.

What would it seek to achieve?

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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:


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????

Again, Spain would not be under German control in that scenario. That would limit what could be done.

I'll ask again: Are you using that study to insist that Spanish rail CAN'T be repaired? That Spanish roads CAN'T be used? Are we to disbelieve our lying eyes that the mountains in Spain have plenty of space around them?