The question to ask about The Italians

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Even more clueless than the previous posts. I love a robust debate, but your comments are almost troll like now, to the point of being so lame, so witless, there is no point debating. You simply can't believe what you are writing so I guess you are just doing this for a laugh.

Call me a troll and follow it up (in the same sentence) with a barrage of insults!

The Italians would get away easily for the reasons I listed.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I want to repeat my Pyramid example, because it's so appropriate: "The Pharaoh wants his pyramid as soon as possible - but it still takes 20 years to build."

The Pharaoh doesn't know how long it will take to finish the pyramid. But it still gets built. Same here. I don't know how long the campaign will take. But it will still get done.

warspite1

Mmmmm kinda missed the point yet again haven't you Curtis Lemay. You see timescales are actually kind of important in a situation like this. But why set timescales? I mean seriously, why put ANY effort in at all? You haven't so far so I must confess, you didn't disappoint.

[/quote]
What timescale did the Germans have for Poland or France? How did it work out? The only timescale necessary is that it will be done before 1942. Probably long before that, of course, but that's the only date that really matters.

And none of that was the point (which you've lost). The point was that I never gave any timescale, contrary to your claims.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

And funnily enough, no apology from you after this crass, dishonest response.....

You've got to be kidding!! Every post from you is filled with venom. You're a Troll with a capitol "T".

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Romania and Bulgaria are exactly to the point. You claim that Spain wouldn't flip to the Axis side because of the casualties they would take in an invasion. Yet that's exactly what Romania and Bulgaria did, under the same circumstances (conquest).

warspite1

Again, I don't understand the simplistic nature of your responses. I know less about Bulgaria, but know something of Romania in WWII. So the only reason you think the Romanians switched to the Soviets side, almost four years after joining the Axis, was because under the Germans they took heavy casualties? I mean.... I don't know where to even start with this.

But you think Spain (1940) and Romania (1940-1944) are operating "under the same circumstances"? Why? Please provide a paragraph just setting out how the situations are the same.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I've told you my thoughts on Vichy: The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied. And I'll ask you again: Why would the Germans ever agree to stay out of Vichy if that wasn't the French purpose of Vichy? And I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in that till you answer, because there isn't any answer, except that that was the purpose of Vichy!!!

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Vichy France (now an Axis ally)

warspite1

I think I've been asking the wrong question. The correct question should have been:

Is there anything that you DO actually understand about World War II????

"Philippe Pétain was charged with treason in July 1945. He was convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad, but Charles de Gaulle commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. "

Apparently the Allies didn't agree with you. Vichy officials were considered "collaborators".

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

What constitutes a favorable deal before invasion and what constitutes one after conquest are two different things.

warspite1

... is of course very true. Now. How does Franco look to his government and to the country if 7 days previously he could have got deal x and now - purely to save his own skin* at the expense and monumental suffering of Spain itself - he begs for deal Z. Remember in doing this it wasn't as though he didn't know what was going to happen. Franco would be just about the most hated, the most stupid and the most cowardly person on planet Earth at this point.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Once Spain is conquered, Franco would see a return to power as a very favorable deal.

warspite1

* You still persist in the quaint notion that Franco survives this. I just don't get it.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So the very first question we need to have a consensus on is when, realistically, Hitler would have decided a Med strategy is the way to go.

My view is that such a strategy should not be considered until June - and this would have been after the armistice is signed. I say this for three main reasons:

1. Going for any strategy - be it a Med strategy or a Soviet strategy or a Sea Lion strategy - is totally superfluous to Hitler's thinking until such time as Poland and France are defeated. After all, who - least of all Hitler - is going to imagine how the war will pan out in September 1939.

2. Only once Hitler knows Mussolini has joined the war, does the Med even come onto anyone's radar.

3. During May and June 1940 Hitler has his hands full trying to beat France, Britain and their Allies. To suggest that at this time Hitler is going to be diverted from this major operation (Case Yellow) to start thinking earnestly about Spain, and having in-depth conversations with Mussolini and Franco, while France has yet to be resolved, just seems highly unlikely.


Why is this important and the place to start? Well for two reasons:

a) it governs how quickly, after France, an attack on Spain would take place - and that is really important in terms of the knock-on effect elsewhere, the preparedness of the various belligerents etc

b) it also governs what Hitler may or may not have ordered during his time of indecision after France surrenders.

So that's my thoughts, but what do others think? So when, realistically, do we think Hitler would have had his light-bulb moment? To be clear this is simply when Hitler decides that a Med First solution is to be planned and not when the planning is finalised - that comes next....

Perhaps before starting your group discussion to resolve those questions, it may be better to create a new thread lest you find yourself in this current one fighting a two front war that we know from history rarely turns out well. If not, my money is still on 1000+ pages.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So the very first question we need to have a consensus on is when, realistically, Hitler would have decided a Med strategy is the way to go.

My view is that such a strategy should not be considered until June - and this would have been after the armistice is signed. I say this for three main reasons:

1. Going for any strategy - be it a Med strategy or a Soviet strategy or a Sea Lion strategy - is totally superfluous to Hitler's thinking until such time as Poland and France are defeated. After all, who - least of all Hitler - is going to imagine how the war will pan out in September 1939.

2. Only once Hitler knows Mussolini has joined the war, does the Med even come onto anyone's radar.

3. During May and June 1940 Hitler has his hands full trying to beat France, Britain and their Allies. To suggest that at this time Hitler is going to be diverted from this major operation (Case Yellow) to start thinking earnestly about Spain, and having in-depth conversations with Mussolini and Franco, while France has yet to be resolved, just seems highly unlikely.


Why is this important and the place to start? Well for two reasons:

a) it governs how quickly, after France, an attack on Spain would take place - and that is really important in terms of the knock-on effect elsewhere, the preparedness of the various belligerents etc

Anyone could have concluded that a cross-channel invasion was a fool's errand. Once that point is reached, the obvious next option to get to the British is Egypt. That adds other advantages as well, regarding Middle Eastern oil. They could have come to that conclusion well in advance. And Italy's involvement can easily be anticipated and prepared for. That's what plans are for: to handle contingencies.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Even more clueless than the previous posts. I love a robust debate, but your comments are almost troll like now, to the point of being so lame, so witless, there is no point debating. You simply can't believe what you are writing so I guess you are just doing this for a laugh.

Call me a troll and follow it up (in the same sentence) with a barrage of insults!

The Italians would get away easily for the reasons I listed.

warspite1

I have given you the charge sheet re some of the disingenuous ways you've treated my posts and treated me. I am not going to repeat it. But I put the T word in because, despite perfectly polite requests for you to explain your scenario, and make your case, you simply refuse - and seem to delight in not doing so. Not helpful or friendly.

I've no idea what the Italians have to do with it.

[Zorch]

Sadly, I feel this is appropriate.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

What timescale did the Germans have for Poland or France? How did it work out? The only timescale necessary is that it will be done before 1942. Probably long before that, of course, but that's the only date that really matters.

And none of that was the point (which you've lost). The point was that I never gave any timescale, contrary to your claims.

warspite1

And yet again you don't seem to be able to make the distinction between different scenarios. It's like a one size fits all deal. The timescale for Poland was asap as they needed to get troops to the western front (in case Gamelin ever grew a set).

The timescale in France was asap because the German economy wasn't equipped for a long war. But just beating France was not something that many on the German general staff even thought possible. For the continuation of the war Germany had to beat France.

But for your scenario a timescale is very much required and is absolutely vital. The timescale here you say is anytime before 1942. That is just such a mind-blowingly fatuous comment. The Germans are invading the Soviets in 1942 - and that is non-negotiable for Hitler, before that they are invading Turkey, the Middle East, possibly France (depending on the Syrian response), they are invading Egypt, they are assisting the Italians in Libya, and possibly Greece and Yugoslavia - all in 1941. The Germans don't know what the Soviets will do either and so have to guard against any action in the east. NO the Germans haven't got until 1942, and to airily state they do is not clever and shows a complete lack of understanding of war and warfare - not to mention economics.


Have a look at the point in bold and tell me where I said you have provided a timescale? I've been asking you to provide one repeatedly (as you need one for your scenario). In fact I see you've cut off most of that chain. What I said was:

"Of course you don't attempt a timeframe - that would mean putting some effort into what you say".

So where does that make sense with "The point was that I never gave any timescale, contrary to my claims"?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So the very first question we need to have a consensus on is when, realistically, Hitler would have decided a Med strategy is the way to go.

My view is that such a strategy should not be considered until June - and this would have been after the armistice is signed. I say this for three main reasons:

1. Going for any strategy - be it a Med strategy or a Soviet strategy or a Sea Lion strategy - is totally superfluous to Hitler's thinking until such time as Poland and France are defeated. After all, who - least of all Hitler - is going to imagine how the war will pan out in September 1939.

2. Only once Hitler knows Mussolini has joined the war, does the Med even come onto anyone's radar.

3. During May and June 1940 Hitler has his hands full trying to beat France, Britain and their Allies. To suggest that at this time Hitler is going to be diverted from this major operation (Case Yellow) to start thinking earnestly about Spain, and having in-depth conversations with Mussolini and Franco, while France has yet to be resolved, just seems highly unlikely.


Why is this important and the place to start? Well for two reasons:

a) it governs how quickly, after France, an attack on Spain would take place - and that is really important in terms of the knock-on effect elsewhere, the preparedness of the various belligerents etc

Anyone could have concluded that a cross-channel invasion was a fool's errand. Once that point is reached, the obvious next option to get to the British is Egypt. That adds other advantages as well, regarding Middle Eastern oil. They could have come to that conclusion well in advance. And Italy's involvement can easily be anticipated and prepared for. That's what plans are for: to handle contingencies.

warspite1

Well, history suggests otherwise doesn't it? For if anyone could, then what was Sea Lion all about? Quite clearly, anyone didn't did they?

Middle Eastern oil wasn't going to be available anytime soon - even after capture of the destroyed wells and facilities

Italy's involvement was likely, but given Mussolini's up and down mood swings, who knew when that would be. And yet you are suggesting that plans are made and plans progressed for operations despite not even knowing when or if Italy was coming in.

I agree that plans are prepared for contingencies. But as said contingencies are rarely developed into detailed plans - and certainly not at a time when the leadership of Germany and the army have got their minds fully concentrated elsewhere.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The comment re Piteas and UP844 was about as childish as it gets. No, you don't DEFER to these gentlemen because of their nationality, but you can seek to engage with them to understand more about their views which, given their nationality MAY prove of interest to the debate. But apparently that thought never occurred to you - but then it wouldn't would it? You are Curtis Lemay and you are always right and neither believed what you were saying to be correct.

You seem to think I should defer to anyone Spanish about Spain and anyone Italian about Italy.

warspite1

Which part of the English language do you not understand?????? I've said exactly the opposite and in posting that you simply make yourself look cheap. Not for the first time your debating style is dishonest and you seek to accuse me of saying things I haven't said. Apology please.

[/quote]warspite1

And funnily enough, no apology from you after this crass, dishonest response.....

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You've got to be kidding!! Every post from you is filled with venom. You're a Troll with a capitol "T".

warspite1

Every post? Are we feeling a little melodramatic today?

It's not venom. Frustration, mixed in with disappointment that you accuse me of things and yet are more than happy to debate in such a dishonest way. Look again at the example above. You specifically accuse me of stating the very opposite of what I said. But you think you are the paragon of virtue??

But as said, I've set out my grievances previously, you ignored them then, and I can't be bothered to set them out again because you will simply ignore them again.

Frankly I am more interested in trying to have an honest, sensible debate on an interesting counterfactual.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Vichy France (now an Axis ally)

warspite1

I think I've been asking the wrong question. The correct question should have been:

Is there anything that you DO actually understand about World War II????

"Philippe Pétain was charged with treason in July 1945. He was convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad, but Charles de Gaulle commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. "

Apparently the Allies didn't agree with you. Vichy officials were considered "collaborators".

warspite1

Again, it's just like watching a 1960's cowboy film. Don't tell me, the bad guys wear black hats and the good guys wear white hats...... Real life is more complicated than that.

The reasons for Vichy officials being treated the way they were were complex. France was humiliated in the eyes of the world in June 1940 - but to proud Frenchmen, this humiliation was almost unbearable because it was compounded by an armistice and a Vichy Government, rather than France fighting on from French North Africa. Vichy was a stain that had to be erased. And how best do you do that if not executing the "traitors". The complexity stems, not least, from the argument over whether the Vichy government was actually properly appointed from a legal point of view. Certainly the appointment of Petain was legal. But other areas of action are less certain.

But no, collaboration was not the same as being a German ally. Get real.

Even today, the way Vichy is viewed is not unanimous. Some see Petain as an honourable man doing the best for his country in a rubbish situation, to preserve the country and its empire as much as possible, while getting the best deal for its population, in what was likely to become a German dominated Europe post war. Others see the Vichy Government as a bunch of right wingers, little different from the Germans, who would have loved nothing more than being given Germany's blessing to join the Axis. The truth? It's probably somewhere between the two.

Vichy France was NOT an Axis ally. That is ridiculous. You need to start reading more.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Sadly, I feel this is appropriate.

warspite1

I love World War II history and love to debate it. If people see what I write and believe me to be an idiot because of it, then I'll take it on the chin - and who knows, they actually may be right.

[Piteas]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Tripoli to Tobruk: 1257 km (and that's bypassing the Jabal Akhdar - using it totals 1450km).
Tripoli to El Alamein: 1784 km.
San Sebastian to Gibraltar: 1130 km - shorter that any route above. And nothing in Spain is further than that.

The spanish territory is very different from Libya.
On this map, there are three ways for the Germans. In the three ones they would have to cross several wide rivers, at least two mountain ranges and a lot of enemy cities in difficult flanking or siege areas. Dozens of small Tobruks.
Of course, they could win. But it would not be a walk along the Libyan coast.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Sadly, I feel this is appropriate.

warspite1

I love World War II history and love to debate it. If people see what I write and believe me to be an idiot because of it, then I'll take it on the chin - and who knows, they actually may be right.

I'm not calling you an idiot. I'm saying you seem to be a little bent out of shape over Curtis' responses (or non-responses).
Peace, and lower blood pressure to you [:)]

[warspite1]

You're NOT calling me an idiot? Well that's a first [;)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Whoops Curtis Lemay's credibility has finally fallen through the floor..... You consistently credit me with saying things I haven't said. You are thoroughly dishonest.

Where did you get that rail repair in impossible in Spain. No weasel words, or ignoring the post, please show me where I've said rail repair is impossible.

Where did I say that you did? I posted a rhetorical question. Because you certainly were implying it. But, now it's clear, the Germans can repair the rail lines.

Again you use the most ridiculous of examples - North Africa - to try and make your case in Spain.

Not only is it not a ridiculous example, it's the stake in the heart for the Spanish campaign. Rail repair isn't even necessary. North Africa proves it.

Minimum needs? For an entire army group.... erm..... To be fair, you obviously know more than the US Military and so I guess its only to be expected you know more than the logistics and supply guys that took the German army to the gates of Moscow and the Caucasus.

No. I only need to know as much as the logistic guys that took the German army to Tobruk and El Alamein.

Tripoli to Tobruk: 1257 km (and that's bypassing the Jabal Akhdar - using it totals 1450km).
Tripoli to El Alamein: 1784 km.
San Sebastian to Gibraltar: 1130 km - shorter that any route above. And nothing in Spain is further than that.

I don't know where you get those driving times from. The military travels slow unless it is returning from an FTX - especially for the Class VI items. But in Spain you have to slow down for those hills and mountains plus the tight curves - remember that any grade above 7% is an obstacle. The drivers and crew need rest, sustenance, plus the vehicles need fuel and maintenance. A lot of vehicles will break down, what happens with those? You can't leave them alone. Those convoys need escorts, so those members and vehicles also need to be taken care of.