The question to ask about The Italians

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So can you give me some (quality) sources that call Sweden, Spain and Vichy France German allies please?

For Vichy France, I did: Petain was sentenced to life, and his cronies were labeled collaborators.

Once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Fourth Request

Where would I have needed to? Are you seriously claiming that there is no difference between members of the Axis who have not entered the war, and those that have? Japan is an Axis Ally (large "A") once she signs into the alliance. She doesn't, historically, become a belligerent till 12/7/1941. Same with Italy: Ally upon signing up. Belligerent upon invading France.

You remain so desperate to justify your vile insult. Here's a suggestion: Stop hurling insults!!!!!!!!!!

warspite1

I have no wish to be stubborn for no reason. If you provide proof I will accept it. Now, once again, please provide quality sources that call Sweden, Spain and Vichy German German allies. I will accept any of the recognised historians.

Thank you for confirming you never used the term belligerents. Please now confirm where 'A' and 'a' are an accepted 'thing'. Again I am happy to accept if you provide proof. And no, you saying something is true does not constitute proof.

As for the vile nonsense. I've asked you repeatedly, I am happy to reign back if you do the same. You totally ignored the offers because of course you are never wrong.

Thanks

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Why do you have to be so black and white to the point of absurdity????

Why would ALL Spanish roads go through mountains? Please show me where I so much as suggested such a load of nonsense?

Edit: Sorry this seems to be a response to RangerJoe but had some of my posts. My comment is in response to your last comment only.

Your 'study' insists that the German supply paths must go through the mountains. So, there must be no roads around those mountains. So, it's saying the Spanish are idiots.

warspite1

Again why do act like a 5-year old?

I'm not the one spewing insults right and left!!

Why would the Germans do that? you just make yourself look rather silly with that sort of comment.

For the last time these are primary source documents from German logistic guys that studied the terrain (you know actually studied it rather than look at some poxy google map). The German planned route obviously used existing Spanish roads. The Germans worried about part of the road network (as described previously).

And so, despite the quality of the book and the source materials that support its findings, you would rather just ignore it because it doesn't fit with your in depth 'staff study' that proved the Germans would blitz through Spain and Turkey. you prefer to rely on a board war game and a few google maps.....

Let's see: This "study" claims that the Spanish rail can't be repaired and no Spanish roads go around mountains (according to you, of course). Yeah. I definitely question that "study".

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1


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.

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. Fourth request.

For the third time, see the post I bolded.

warspite1

Getting monotonous now. I've answered the point you bolded more than adequately.

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.

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. Fifth request.

Yes, it is getting monotonous. For the fourth time, see the post I bolded.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 76mm


Yes, there was a ferry there before the bridge, so a one-time crossing would have been feasible. Are you suggesting that it is as easy to run supply operations over ferry as over a bridge?

Apparently it was for the Germans!

warspite1

So let's be clear what you are saying here.

When you talk about 'the Germans' taking that route, you haven't once given any more detail. The Germans you refer to was a motorised infantry regiment. This unit was deployed as part of the operation to cut off the 1st Greek Army's escape route and then, loaded with as much provisions as they could carry, headed south.

You equate that, with a Greek supply effort for its 1st Army?

No I don't. The Greek problem was much simpler: Shorter route, assisted by a rail line. With the Greeks just sitting in place. The Germans were on the offensive and had much longer supply lines.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.

warspite1

Yet again, you want people to believe your absurd notion about a 'Vichy' Spain. Please take some time out to read and moreover, understand the complexities of Vichy France, then come back and try and make a case for 'Vichy' Spain once you've grasped at least the basics.

It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.

warspite

Well if you are so sure then all you have to do is make a case as to how it comes about. As said, providing 4 lines comprising less than 50 words can't possibly do it. It will take effort but you are so certain of it, of how it could come about, of who would propose it, why it would be accepted, what territories it would contain etc etc. I've said its totally absurd, you say its not - it's your claim so make it. Then we can discuss.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




And I never said that they DID supply themselves by those routes. I said they could have.

warspite1

So you've been arguing like a stubborn mule over something you don't understand - but moreover don't even believe - just for the sake of it???? Wow.....

So let's be completely clear. You won't believe the findings of the US Military study on how the Greek supplied their 1st Army via Salonika (a quicker, flater, shorter route), but now (after about 30 pages of nonsense about how they supplied them from Athens) you admit you don't know how the Greeks did actually supply them. But although you don't know that you are still going to insist that the US military planners don't have a clue.......????

Erm...... okay......

Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.

Belgrade to Thessaloniki with a stop in Skopji.

But the Germans were short of trucks and had difficulties making more.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



The line to the Spanish border is a single line. I was referring to that - and, obviously, to any sections of Spanish rail that were repaired to the European standard. Again, I did NOT mention the Spanish rail system.

warspite1

Funny isn't it? You never mention Vichy was an Axis ally, you never mentioned the Spanish rail system, you never mention the supply of Greek 1st Army..... all that you've never done and yet you've been wittering inanely on for 40 pages.....

But no matter, your credibility is shot here anyway so you just keep posting things you haven't said after saying them for post after post after post....

I still defy you to find anyplace where I referred to the Spanish Rail system - other than that it would be repaired.

warspite1

I have no intention of doing so. You are playing infantile word games. This tactic has come up now on about four different occasions. You argue and argue and argue..... and then say "I never said that".

Listen Lemay, if you weren't trying to prove that the Spanish rail network was capable of supplying all of Germany's needs and more (which you did say) then just what point were you actually making?

And you bring up rail repair and are making a big thing of this to deflect from what is happening. So tell me this. According to you Spain is going to be a blitz - a walk in the park. So if Spain is going to be over that quick just how much rail repair do you think is going to get done???????

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yet again, you want people to believe your absurd notion about a 'Vichy' Spain. Please take some time out to read and moreover, understand the complexities of Vichy France, then come back and try and make a case for 'Vichy' Spain once you've grasped at least the basics.

It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.

warspite

Well if you are so sure then all you have to do is make a case as to how it comes about. As said, providing 4 lines comprising less than 50 words can't possibly do it. It will take effort but you are so certain of it, of how it could come about, of who would propose it, why it would be accepted, what territories it would contain etc etc. I've said its totally absurd, you say its not - it's your claim so make it. Then we can discuss.

I've made the case for it. You're the one who wants to use 50 words when 5 will suffice. I can't correct where you're going wrong if you don't spell out what you object to. I'm not a mind reader.

[RangerJoe]

. . . On any given day, at least a third of the tonnage shipped on the German railway system consisted of coal and coal derivatives.69 The functioning of the entire economy depended on the capacity of the railway system to maintain these deliveries. Between 1929 and 1938, the Reichsbahn had suffered almost a decade of systematic neglect.70 Whilst money from the railways was diverted to build the autobahns and to fund investment in an expansion of bus and truck transport, the Reichsbahn's rolling stock was allowed to deteriorate. Between 1933 and 1937, the railway purchased less than 2,000 new goods trucks per annum, a fraction of what would have been needed to offset wear and tear. As a result, the number of serviceable freight cars declined from an average of over 670,000 cars in the late 1920s to less than 575,000 in 1937. The Reichsbahn did its best to compensate by making more efficient use of its shrinking fleet, but from 1937 onwards the gap between the volume of traffic and the capacity of the railway system widened inexorably.
In 1939 the normal seasonal problems were compounded by the mass movement of troops, first to their jumping off positions along the eastern border and then to the western frontier. Bottlenecks and jams radiated across the system. Crashes multiplied, with two major disasters just before Christmas claiming the lives of 230 people and shaking public confidence.71 Over the winter of 1939-40, Gestapo informants on plat- forms across the country reported public outrage at delays and arbitrary cancellations.72 The rail administrators struggled to ease the problems of freight traffic by cutting passenger services wholesale. But even drastic measures could not prevent a crisis. By early 1940, tens of thousands of freight cars were frozen in kilometres of traffic jams. By January, turn-around times had risen to more than a week. The effective carrying capacity of the Reichsbahn's rolling stock plummeted and the immediate result was an interruption to coal supplies. By December, the mines were warning of an impending 'transportation calamity'. In the freezing city of Berlin, coal ran so short that even a leading armaments firm such as Rheinmetall could not protect its deliveries from requisitioning by the desperate municipal authorities.73 Meanwhile, at the pitheads in the Ruhr, the mountains of undelivered coal reached dangerous levels, forc- ing the mines to slow down production. In total, in the early month of 1940 almost 10 per cent of German armaments plants were affected by the coal shortages.74 In the central industrial district around Kassel the figure was as high as 27 per cent. In January 1940 Goering described transport as the problem of the German war economy.

https://ia800102.us.archive.org/14/item ... conomy.pdf

pages 371 to 372 of the pdf. On page 372 there is a chart.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




And I never said that they DID supply themselves by those routes. I said they could have.

warspite1

So you've been arguing like a stubborn mule over something you don't understand - but moreover don't even believe - just for the sake of it???? Wow.....

So let's be completely clear. You won't believe the findings of the US Military study on how the Greek supplied their 1st Army via Salonika (a quicker, flater, shorter route), but now (after about 30 pages of nonsense about how they supplied them from Athens) you admit you don't know how the Greeks did actually supply them. But although you don't know that you are still going to insist that the US military planners don't have a clue.......????

Erm...... okay......

Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.

warspite1

Firstly, where did I say the Greeks couldn't have supplied 1st Army from Athens? [:D]

Secondly, why do you keep talking about German supply and trying to say if the Germans could do it the Greeks could? You keep doing this in argument after argument. You come up with totally off the wall comparisons e.g. Spanish Army vs 2nd South African Division [8|]

If the Greek capabilities were the same as the German Army then they would have ejected Italy from Albania.

And remember, all this is argument from you isn't even being made because you seek to prove the Greeks did supply 1st Army from Athens. Apparently to you its MASSIVELY important to show they could..... and at the same time rubbish the US Military study that said supply was centred on Salonika. I mean... why?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Funny isn't it? You never mention Vichy was an Axis ally, you never mentioned the Spanish rail system, you never mention the supply of Greek 1st Army..... all that you've never done and yet you've been wittering inanely on for 40 pages.....

But no matter, your credibility is shot here anyway so you just keep posting things you haven't said after saying them for post after post after post....

I still defy you to find anyplace where I referred to the Spanish Rail system - other than that it would be repaired.

warspite1

I have no intention of doing so. You are playing infantile word games. This tactic has come up now on about four different occasions. You argue and argue and argue..... and then say "I never said that".

Yes. And that's because it's the truth: I never did say that! And you still haven't shown where you claim that I did!

Listen Lemay, if you weren't trying to prove that the Spanish rail network was capable of supplying all of Germany's needs and more (which you did say) then just what point were you actually making?

That the European Rail Network could: applies to the rail line to Spain, and any line repaired to that standard subsequently. Also applied to the line to Turkey.

And you bring up rail repair and are making a big thing of this to deflect from what is happening. So tell me this. According to you Spain is going to be a blitz - a walk in the park. So if Spain is going to be over that quick just how much rail repair do you think is going to get done???????

Of course it is: the size and quality of the Spanish army (tiny and crappy) assures it. And rail repair of the lines is not really necessary because all of Spain is within truck supply distance from the German supply head at the Spanish/French border.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Your 'study' insists that the German supply paths must go through the mountains. So, there must be no roads around those mountains. So, it's saying the Spanish are idiots.

warspite1

Again why do act like a 5-year old?

I'm not the one spewing insults right and left!!

Why would the Germans do that? you just make yourself look rather silly with that sort of comment.

For the last time these are primary source documents from German logistic guys that studied the terrain (you know actually studied it rather than look at some poxy google map). The German planned route obviously used existing Spanish roads. The Germans worried about part of the road network (as described previously).

And so, despite the quality of the book and the source materials that support its findings, you would rather just ignore it because it doesn't fit with your in depth 'staff study' that proved the Germans would blitz through Spain and Turkey. you prefer to rely on a board war game and a few google maps.....

Let's see: This "study" claims that the Spanish rail can't be repaired and no Spanish roads go around mountains (according to you, of course). Yeah. I definitely question that "study".

warspite1

....and you can't see why I say you are acting like a 5-year old????

Tell me exactly where the German planners said the Spanish rail couldn't be repaired.

Tell me exactly where the German planners said that no roads go around mountains.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



For the third time, see the post I bolded.

warspite1

Getting monotonous now. I've answered the point you bolded more than adequately.

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.

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. Fifth request.

Yes, it is getting monotonous. For the fourth time, see the post I bolded.

warspite1

Well once again you make incorrect statements that mis-represent what I say. You're a disgrace. I shan't bother responding to this line of questioning any more in case I'm seen to be as childish as you. When you want to show where I claimed anything remotely like what you're suggesting about the Spanish Army then we can discuss. Until then this part of the discussion is closed.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

So you've been arguing like a stubborn mule over something you don't understand - but moreover don't even believe - just for the sake of it???? Wow.....

So let's be completely clear. You won't believe the findings of the US Military study on how the Greek supplied their 1st Army via Salonika (a quicker, flater, shorter route), but now (after about 30 pages of nonsense about how they supplied them from Athens) you admit you don't know how the Greeks did actually supply them. But although you don't know that you are still going to insist that the US military planners don't have a clue.......????

Erm...... okay......

Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.

warspite1

Firstly, where did I say the Greeks couldn't have supplied 1st Army from Athens? [:D]

Just as soon as I said that they could!

Secondly, why do you keep talking about German supply and trying to say if the Germans could do it the Greeks could?

Because that's an obvious conclusion. The Germans were being supplied over those same roads (offensively) without assistance from a rail line, why couldn't the Greeks do so (defensively) with the assistance of a rail line.

You keep doing this in argument after argument. You come up with totally off the wall comparisons e.g. Spanish Army vs 2nd South African Division [8|]

The Spaniards can't possibly compare to the quality of the force Germany defeated at Gazala in taking Tobruk.

If the Greek capabilities were the same as the German Army then they would have ejected Italy from Albania.

Which they were in the process of doing.

And remember, all this is argument from you isn't even being made because you seek to prove the Greeks did supply 1st Army from Athens. Apparently to you its MASSIVELY important to show they could..... and at the same time rubbish the US Military study that said supply was centred on Salonika. I mean... why?

Oh! So now it's just "centered" on Salonika. A strategic retreat.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Apparently it was for the Germans!

warspite1

So let's be clear what you are saying here.

When you talk about 'the Germans' taking that route, you haven't once given any more detail. The Germans you refer to was a motorised infantry regiment. This unit was deployed as part of the operation to cut off the 1st Greek Army's escape route and then, loaded with as much provisions as they could carry, headed south.

You equate that, with a Greek supply effort for its 1st Army?

No I don't. The Greek problem was much simpler: Shorter route, assisted by a rail line. With the Greeks just sitting in place. The Germans were on the offensive and had much longer supply lines.

warspite1

Just too boring. Prove otherwise to counter the US Military study and I will consider. Just simply continuing to regurgitate the same old stuff is just pointless. Try something new. Try a new angle. Actually bring some evidence (other than wiki and/or game maps) to the debate.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.

warspite

Well if you are so sure then all you have to do is make a case as to how it comes about. As said, providing 4 lines comprising less than 50 words can't possibly do it. It will take effort but you are so certain of it, of how it could come about, of who would propose it, why it would be accepted, what territories it would contain etc etc. I've said its totally absurd, you say its not - it's your claim so make it. Then we can discuss.

I've made the case for it. You're the one who wants to use 50 words when 5 will suffice. I can't correct where you're going wrong if you don't spell out what you object to. I'm not a mind reader.

warspite1

But that is a ludicrous response. I've spelt out what is wrong. Everything. It's absurd, you simply don't have any understanding of Vichy France and how and why it came about - but you think you can just give Spain one cos it's real neat. Well no, it's not. Vichy France was an outlier amongst German conquests. There are very real reasons for that. You don't understand that but you don't seem to realise that you need to understand Vichy France to be able to suggest something similar for Spain. And then when you do educate yourself about Vichy France you will stop this total absurdity that is Vichy Spain because you will realise its total cobblers.

[Buckrock]

Is this the right room for an argument?[:'(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




I still defy you to find anyplace where I referred to the Spanish Rail system - other than that it would be repaired.

warspite1

I have no intention of doing so. You are playing infantile word games. This tactic has come up now on about four different occasions. You argue and argue and argue..... and then say "I never said that".

Yes. And that's because it's the truth: I never did say that! And you still haven't shown where you claim that I did!

Listen Lemay, if you weren't trying to prove that the Spanish rail network was capable of supplying all of Germany's needs and more (which you did say) then just what point were you actually making?

That the European Rail Network could: applies to the rail line to Spain, and any line repaired to that standard subsequently. Also applied to the line to Turkey.

And you bring up rail repair and are making a big thing of this to deflect from what is happening. So tell me this. According to you Spain is going to be a blitz - a walk in the park. So if Spain is going to be over that quick just how much rail repair do you think is going to get done???????

Of course it is: the size and quality of the Spanish army (tiny and crappy) assures it. And rail repair of the lines is not really necessary because all of Spain is within truck supply distance from the German supply head at the Spanish/French border.

warspite1

Hahahahahahahaha - Comedy Gold, absolute comedy gold. I swear you actually believe what you're writing.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Is this the right room for an argument?[:'(]

Yes. Join in anytime.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.

warspite1

Firstly, where did I say the Greeks couldn't have supplied 1st Army from Athens? [:D]

Just as soon as I said that they could!

Secondly, why do you keep talking about German supply and trying to say if the Germans could do it the Greeks could?

Because that's an obvious conclusion. The Germans were being supplied over those same roads (offensively) without assistance from a rail line, why couldn't the Greeks do so (defensively) with the assistance of a rail line.

You keep doing this in argument after argument. You come up with totally off the wall comparisons e.g. Spanish Army vs 2nd South African Division [8|]

The Spaniards can't possibly compare to the quality of the force Germany defeated at Gazala in taking Tobruk.

If the Greek capabilities were the same as the German Army then they would have ejected Italy from Albania.

Which they were in the process of doing.

And remember, all this is argument from you isn't even being made because you seek to prove the Greeks did supply 1st Army from Athens. Apparently to you its MASSIVELY important to show they could..... and at the same time rubbish the US Military study that said supply was centred on Salonika. I mean... why?

Oh! So now it's just "centered" on Salonika. A strategic retreat.

warspite1

What retreat? Wow you are desperate. I haven't changed anything. Supplied from Salonika, centred on Salonika, whatever, I have made no movement to my position the whole way along. I believe the US Military guys know what they are talking about and will stick with that until you provide evidence to the contrary. Your dumb maps and arrows are not evidence.

As for Spanish Army vs 2nd South African Division that wasn't mentioned because I was interested in hearing what you have to say about their relative merits. I mentioned it because of the absurdity of the comparison.