The question to ask about The Italians

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know how long the Germans planned for the destruction of Gibraltar? Two weeks? Three weeks? How long were the Germans going to hang around without any need to rush?

Why does Gibraltar have to be ready before Spain can begin????

warspite1

What has that question got to do with my quote? You said matter of factly that Spain needed to be conquered quickly but the Germans could take their time over Gibraltar. I would like to know why you believe that? What is the rationale? And I would like to know what you believe to be the Germans timescale for reducing Gibraltar.

warspite1

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Not at all. They will all be fresh. The time it will take to deal with the political/diplomatic aspects, the training of the Kuebler's XLIX Corps and the intelligence work on the Rock - this operation won't be ready until late 1940 at the earliest.

Why? Why can't the political stuff take place earlier, if the grand plan is to do a Med Strategy from the get go? Why does the Spain operation have to wait for Gibraltar to be ready?

warspite1

For the reasons I've gone to great trouble and time to set out. I've actually set out what happened in real life and what was occupying the mind of Hitler since the start of the war. I've put effort into trying to make a case. And then you ask that question...[8|]

warspite1

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes, its obvious to anyone that one would need both sides of the Straits to truly be able to traverse from the Med to the Atlantic without fear of mines, coastal batteries, aircraft etc. That is why - despite the unsubstantiated verbiage that Curtis Lemay comes out with, Hitler was going to order an armoured and motorised division into Spanish Morocco - and why there would always need to be a German garrison of some description there.

I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys.

warspite1

Two things:

a) with the greatest respect, and not wishing to be rude, I don't care what you think. I do however very much care what evidence you have gathered to make you think what you do. You never mentioned 'Vichy' Spain originally, so what have you sourced to make you think this an option. Please provide and we can discuss. How does it come about, on who's insistence, what does it mean exactly and how does a 'Vichy' impact the war with Britain?

b) So you expect the British to wait the very minimum of six weeks - and that is a very, very minimum - for the Germans to conquer Spain and Gib and only then, not until a new regime has been installed do the British set about occupying the Canaries....? Come on Curtis Lemay, you are taking the mickey, you can do better than that surely?

warspite1

And no response (other than to Ranger Joe) and this quite extraordinary comment....

Germany violated France as well. Still got a Vichy France. How could a Vichy Spain not be more likely than a Vichy France was? Franco was a potential Axis member.

Do you actually know what Vichy was? Do you understand anything about how such a creation came about and considered why no other country was treated in this way? Do you know who was behind it? Do you know the benefits to France/Germany and what each sought from it?

You seem to have picked up on this 'neat' idea because France 'got one' [8|] without bothering to understand anything about it - and without feeling it necessary to explain anything in support of your notion that it would be appropriate for Spain.

That was bad enough, but the even bigger surprise was your comment in bold. I've asked you to explain just why the British would be violating Spain and your silence was deafening. I mean come on Curtis Lemay, this is actually important stuff in terms of how the Spanish operation pans out - and you simply can't be arsed to comment or you realise just how silly that comment was and, like so many comments, you'd rather just sweep under the table????

Day 1 Germany invades Spain. The British have a plan in place for seizing the Atlantic islands of Spain and Portugal in the event Spain joins with Hitler - but presumably you knew this right?*

You really think that the British will not be sending those Royal Marines straight to the Canaries in this scenario? Then what? Having taken the Canaries to counter the loss of Gibraltar, you think - and I can't even believe I'm writing this - that the British would then hand the island back to Spain because Spain surrendered ('Vichy' Spain or not)? And then, the British would re-invade thus 'violating' Spain????

You don't see that this is completely and utterly ludicrous?


* Out of interest how does your war game treat the Canaries? What actions are available to either the Germans or British upon the Germans invading Spain?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Piteas

A great discussion.
Just a comment as spaniard...

I understand why Franco didn´t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn´t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas.

On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too.


Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn´t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn´t end in Madrid.

warspite1

Thank you Piteas for your thoughts - particularly welcomed as a Spaniard. I hope you will hang around for more debate.

warspite1

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

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

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

Finally, when the Germans do win - and ultimately they would - is there an obvious candidate as a German puppet to take the place of the deposed (and by now, very dead), Franco?

Thank-you.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Piteas

warspite1

warspite1
Finally, when the Germans do win - and ultimately they would - is there an obvious candidate as a German puppet to take the place of the deposed (and by now, very dead), Franco?

Yes, Milord, there is. He has experience as a puppet ruler.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Because of Spanish Honor...

France had no honor?

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

plus the fact that they are Nationalists and are assisting Germany. Then they are attacked by Germany. The Spanish do not have a colonial empire to try and keep unlike the French.

All the more reason to make an deal. If Franco depends upon the Allies, they will put the Republicans in charge after the war. And they have Spanish Morocco - much the same as French Morocco.

It has been explained why Franco and the Nationalists would make no deal yet your refuse to except it.

BTW, How are your pharmaceuticals holding up? Are they doing what they are supposed to do?

Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists.

Again, all the more reason for Franco to make a deal.

Why would Franco make a deal because of this? The Spanish Maqui invaded Spain in 1944 after most of France was liberated. So why would Franco make a deal with Nazi Germany then? The few guerillas in Spain could be and were relatively easily handled by the Nationalists, why did Spain need the German Army to help.

BTW, if the powers that be have ever let you drive, did you only drive in flat land country or have you driven in the mountains? Or have you even been on mountain roads?

Please keep pushing that road grade idiocy. And hills aren't mountains. I'm trying to think of any army in history that was stopped by road grades on hills - not enemy defenders in hills, just road grades. Coming up empty.

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Piteas

A great discussion.
Just a comment as spaniard...

I understand why Franco didn´t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn´t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas.

On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too.


Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn´t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn´t end in Madrid.

warspite1

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

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

Thanks!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

However things are not looking so good for North Africa and the Italians...

warspite1

Hi Zovs. I am a little confused by this picture - I think its the colours (the Italians are British coloured and the British are French coloured [:)]) but I am assuming this is the summer or autumn of 1940.

But more to the point is that this picture seems to indicate there are five British divisions and three of these are armoured divisions. If this is so, this bears no relation to reality - in terms of numbers and the values (when compared to the German divisions in the picture above).

Just to be clear, is this the game that Curtis Lemay is basing his Spanish order of battle off? I know he produced a map of a board game but the values of the counters look similar.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So no response to this. We've been discussing the supply of the 2nd Greek Army for weeks and your total disregard for a US military study - you then, seemingly for absolutely no reason - decide to bring Yugoslavia into it. I asked you why, as part of the debate, and your response is to ignore the question?

For the nth time, I am debating more than just you. There is literally a claim that the Germans somehow got through Yugoslavia and Greece without encountering hills.

[Zovs]

Warspite,

Yes the colors are a little misleading, I am using the SPI counter colors from 1976, back then for wargames pastel colors were just coming into vogue. The CW are white font on medium blue, French are black font on light blue and Italians are black on orange. There is an option in the game to switch to using the DG 1999 colors.

This is from late 1940 (afk but I think the 10th cycle or the week before October), I shipped two of the British armor units to North Africa IIRC, and only put three 8-10 CW infantry divisions in France along with one 3-8 armor brigade, all were lost in France including all the CW air point save one. I also lost two 3-8 armor brigades shipping them to NA. I kept every British major and minor port garrisoned with a 8-10 to sway the Axis from Sealion and or to shift to Spain. As the Axis I am doing the best Med Front strategy, but decided that Spain is just too costly, in doing so I have had the Italians activate (was expecting) and once both Norway and France surrendered and were garrisoned have Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria activated as Axis allies. If I invade Spain the I’ll loose support of these Axis allies and they may revert or surrender. So it’s just not worth the risk. To go into the Med I need to go through Yugoslavia and Greece, but mud is soon approaching and mud literally sucks wads in this game, so I may have to wait til Spring 1941.

Oh yes this is the computer version of that game, Computer War in Europe II, or CWIE2.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Once again such crass responses simply undermines you and your credibility. To spell it out:

a) No you don't have to prove Mussolini offered troops to Hitler because its a fact. I am however pleased that you at least admit this now, unlike your original belief when you insisted that Hitler persuaded Mussolini to join.....[8|]

He joined a German operation. Conclusion: He could be entices by German plans.

He was persuaded to reinforce those troops. Conclusion: He was persuadable.

b) The question is whether Mussolini would have behaved totally differently to real life in 1940 and in so doing, decided to completely subordinate his army, his dreams and desires for Italy, to the wishes of Hitler.

No. He would follow Italy's interests, but those interests would be impacted by Germany's adoption of a Med Strategy.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sure, you can keep talking about rail repair (for some bizarre reason) while hoping that everyone forgets your statement about rail lines and how you 'proved' the Spanish rail network could transport unlimited amounts of supply for the German army by providing a Wiki article on US Railroads.....

I was talking about rail lines in general. That the Spanish lines would need repair was standard for military campaigns.

So let's be clear here. After everything that the German planners of Felix (you know the professionals) said about the Spanish rail system - old, small stock, insufficient numbers, poorly maintained, the state of the beds meaning they couldn't actually carry the loads they were designed for, different practices operated by the four companies - all of which led them to conclude that they could expect just 4 trains a day carrying a meagre 400 tons, you say all that is needed was some repair.

Compare to Russia. Germans get to the gates of Moscow - against much sterner opposition.

I mean you need to start getting real here. The track beds themselves need strengthening. You think that is minor repair work while the Germans are fighting the Spanish? How does some repair cure the issue of insufficient rolling stock? Do you not realise how thoroughly ridiculous these suggestions are?

Why would they need Spanish stock if they are going to repair the lines to the European Standard? They will use their own trains. How long will it take? They have till 1942.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I have to ask what has how quickly they surrendered have to do with anything? If a country continues fighting until they've almost run out of country, troops and Allies (like Norway), then the fact its two months doesn't matter. The point is, they have not made a decision to quit because their capital was taken, they made the decision to quit because there really wasn't much else they could do other than retreat further into the Arctic Circle with the few troops they had left.......

If, as in the case of Poland, the fighting ended very quickly (because again they literally ran out of country and men) again it doesn't matter because Poland never surrendered and look at the number of airmen, soldiers and sailors that got away to carry on fighting alongside anyone that gave them access to killing Germans - British, French or Soviet.

You have no primary source to support your claim and the secondary source (a wargame) doesn't count for the reasons you've been repeatedly told.

Could Spain have fallen after the capital was taken? Well that is what we seek to discuss and decide. But you using a war game as your initial primary source, was not clever and then, when you looked at other European countries, you drew entirely the wrong conclusions. Then, having drawn entirely false conclusions, instead of just admitting it, you seek to squirm your way out of it by trying to set some sort of arbitrary 3 month rule on whether the loss of the capital could be counted. I mean what the hell?

As for "twisting your words". When have I twisted your words in any part of this debate. I have not intentionally twisted anything and if I have - then this will be a genuine mistake so please confirm where I've twisted your words. If I have I will apologise - and no doubt you will apologise to me for taking my comments out of context by removing key sentences to make me look like I've said something else.

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

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Why does Gibraltar have to be ready before Spain can begin????

warspite1

What has that question got to do with my quote? You said matter of factly that Spain needed to be conquered quickly but the Germans could take their time over Gibraltar. I would like to know why you believe that? What is the rationale? And I would like to know what you believe to be the Germans timescale for reducing Gibraltar.

warspite1

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

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

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

I have yet to see any reason why Franco can't be handled in advance of France or why the Spanish operation has to wait till Gibraltar is ready.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you actually know what Vichy was? Do you understand anything about how such a creation came about and considered why no other country was treated in this way? Do you know who was behind it? Do you know the benefits to France/Germany and what each sought from it?

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

Day 1 Germany invades Spain. The British have a plan in place for seizing the Atlantic islands of Spain and Portugal in the event Spain joins with Hitler - but presumably you knew this right?*

You really think that the British will not be sending those Royal Marines straight to the Canaries in this scenario? Then what? Having taken the Canaries to counter the loss of Gibraltar, you think - and I can't even believe I'm writing this - that the British would then hand the island back to Spain because Spain surrendered ('Vichy' Spain or not)? And then, the British would re-invade thus 'violating' Spain????

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

* Out of interest how does your war game treat the Canaries? What actions are available to either the Germans or British upon the Germans invading Spain?

Not on the map.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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

Why should Spain have more?

All the more reason to make an deal. If Franco depends upon the Allies, they will put the Republicans in charge after the war. And they have Spanish Morocco - much the same as French Morocco.

It has been explained why Franco and the Nationalists would make no deal yet your refuse to except it.

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

Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists.

Again, all the more reason for Franco to make a deal.

Why would France make a deal because of this? The Spanish Maqui invaded Spain in 1944 after most of France was liberated. So why would Franco make a deal with Nazi Germany then? The few guerillas in Spain could be and were relatively easily handled by the Nationalists, why did Spain need the German Army to help.

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

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

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So no response to this. We've been discussing the supply of the 2nd Greek Army for weeks and your total disregard for a US military study - you then, seemingly for absolutely no reason - decide to bring Yugoslavia into it. I asked you why, as part of the debate, and your response is to ignore the question?

For the nth time, I am debating more than just you. There is literally a claim that the Germans somehow got through Yugoslavia and Greece without encountering hills.

warspite1

For the nth time, this map and Ranger Joe's response is on another post. There is absolutely NO REASON why you can't debate this point with him using his post - it has nothing to do with me. Fighting in hills, all things being equal, favours a competent defender. The German army was more than capable of fighting in such terrain but would, quite clearly suffer more compared to fighting on open ground. Nothing controversial about what I've said whatsoever.

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Once again such crass responses simply undermines you and your credibility. To spell it out:

a) No you don't have to prove Mussolini offered troops to Hitler because its a fact. I am however pleased that you at least admit this now, unlike your original belief when you insisted that Hitler persuaded Mussolini to join.....[8|]

He joined a German operation. Conclusion: He could be entices by German plans.

He was persuaded to reinforce those troops. Conclusion: He was persuadable.

b) The question is whether Mussolini would have behaved totally differently to real life in 1940 and in so doing, decided to completely subordinate his army, his dreams and desires for Italy, to the wishes of Hitler.

No. He would follow Italy's interests, but those interests would be impacted by Germany's adoption of a Med Strategy.

warspite1

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

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

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

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

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

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

But please, carry on ignoring history safe in the knowledge that you are always right.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sure, you can keep talking about rail repair (for some bizarre reason) while hoping that everyone forgets your statement about rail lines and how you 'proved' the Spanish rail network could transport unlimited amounts of supply for the German army by providing a Wiki article on US Railroads.....

I was talking about rail lines in general. That the Spanish lines would need repair was standard for military campaigns.

So let's be clear here. After everything that the German planners of Felix (you know the professionals) said about the Spanish rail system - old, small stock, insufficient numbers, poorly maintained, the state of the beds meaning they couldn't actually carry the loads they were designed for, different practices operated by the four companies - all of which led them to conclude that they could expect just 4 trains a day carrying a meagre 400 tons, you say all that is needed was some repair.

Compare to Russia. Germans get to the gates of Moscow - against much sterner opposition.

I mean you need to start getting real here. The track beds themselves need strengthening. You think that is minor repair work while the Germans are fighting the Spanish? How does some repair cure the issue of insufficient rolling stock? Do you not realise how thoroughly ridiculous these suggestions are?

Why would they need Spanish stock if they are going to repair the lines to the European Standard? They will use their own trains. How long will it take? They have till 1942.

warspite1

Once again, a series of comments that simply beggar belief. Truly, they just beggar belief.

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

You have admitted yourself that the Germans need to beat the Spanish quickly. Indeed you said they would as Germany vs Spain would be a simple 'blitz' operation. But now, you seem to believe the Germans have time to take ground, then rip us the existing railroad and essentially start afresh on new track....

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

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


Curtis Lemay please. What are you talking about?