The question to ask about The Italians

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

warspite1

Erm..... Curtis Lemay that answer is absolutely staggering [X(]. You appear to have not the first clue about Vichy France.... wow. How can you be comfortable suggesting things you clearly just don't even bother to try and understand?

What have I got wrong? The whole point of Vichy obviously was to keep the Germans out of much of France. What other benefit would there have been?

warspite1

Erm......

a) why would the British be occupying any part of French North Africa? That is a monumentally ridiculous question to ask - goodness alone knows what point you were trying to make or why you even thought that question in the slightest bit relevant to the situation under discussion....

Exactly, and just as ridiculous for the British to occupy the Canaries when they could have achieved the same on the mainland.

b) The Spanish wouldn't be allowing the British to occupy the Canaries would they?????? The Spanish have just been back-stabbed by their 'friends'. As is very common, we now have a situation where Spain's enemy's (Germany) enemy (Britain) has just become their 'friend'. Did the Greeks deny the British the use of Crete as part of their assisting Greece???? Once again you seem to have got confused over something really very simple.

Crete was very close to the battle area. The Canaries were not.

c) The British agree to do all they can to assist the Spanish, but can't do anything if Gibraltar is negated by bombing and ultimately captured. So they ask the Spanish to allow the navy the use of the Canaries as a Gibraltar replacement. In return the British give the Spanish as much assistance as possible (plus certain promises re the future). From this base, the Royal Navy can provide naval gunfire support, they can provide air support from Spanish Morocco.

By the time Gibraltar is under fire, Vichy Spain will be established.

The British will also be assisting getting troops from Spanish Morocco and the islands to the mainland.

Why would the Spanish need any more help with that than the French did from FNA? Why would they want the British to interfere with it?

You think the British Government wouldn't work with a reprehensible regime in order to fight Germany? The British were giving hefty bribes to Spanish generals and politicians to keep them onside. They would do what it took.

And let's face it, Britain (and the USA) allied with the USSR - I don't think dealing with Spain is going to trouble Churchill. Hell, the Greek Government the British tried to assist was hardly a model of democracy was it?

?? What was that about?

But of course its on the map. The Canaries were important to both Britain and Germany. This game you've based an entire scenario on and have said how realistic it is MUST have the Canaries in it.....

The game map. Why would it need the Canaries?

[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?

Because of the Spanish Code of Honor.

Here is an example:

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/90085562 ... l-salvador

Let's be clear: The French actually fought the Germans. The Spanish stayed neutral. Sounds like the French win in the honor department.

It is in Franco's interest to keep things the way that they are/were. No war, rebuild the country, get revenues from the importation of goods with re-export to Germany plus the importation of goods from Germany with re-export.

Well that option's gone! He's in war and if he doesn't make a deal, the Allies will put the Republicans in charge after the war.

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.

The Spanish Maqui were fighting the Nazi Germans, why would Franco want them back?

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.

He dealt with them by letting Germany deal with them. "Let you and him fight!" So no deal was fine with Franco.

Again, that puts the Republicans in charge post war.

Hannibal had it easy crossing the Alps against no enemy, didn't he? Germanyhad such a easy time sending troops, equipment, and supplies directly from Germany to Italy that they had to go through Switzerland - even though, at the time, Germany and Italy had a common border with road and railroad links.

The Alps! Do I have to explain that the Alps aren't hills, they're even beyond mere mountains. They would be rated Alpine. Supplies were shipped through the Swiss? A neutral? And the border between Italy and Germany was clearly crossed by the Allies in 1945 (link up at Brenner Pass).

How about this:

Mountain warfare refers to warfare in the mountains or similarly rough terrain. This type of warfare is also called Alpine warfare, after the Alps mountains. Mountain warfare is one of the most dangerous types of combat as it involves surviving not only combat with the enemy but also the extreme weather and dangerous terrain. Mountain ranges are of strategic importance since they often act as a natural border, and may also be the origin of a water source of (e.g. Golan Heights – water conflict). Attacking a prepared enemy position in mountain terrain requires a greater ratio of attacking soldiers to defending soldiers than would be needed on level ground.[1] Mountains at any time of year are dangerous – lightning, strong gusts of wind, falling rocks, extreme cold, and crevasses are all additional threats to combatants. Movement, reinforcements, and medical evacuation up and down steep slopes and areas where even pack animals cannot reach involves an enormous exertion of energy.
Contents[show]
.
.
.
It is generally accepted that the ratio required for the force launching an offensive to have a good chance of success is 3:1. In mountainous terrain, the required ratio is much more.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Mountain_warfare

Then read this and maybe actually even learn something:

FM 3-97.6 (90-6)
MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS
NOVEMBER 2000
HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-97-6.pdf

So RTFM!

We're talking about hills not mountains and most definitely not alpine terrain.

[RangerJoe]

When the Brenner pass was snowed in, the German used the Swiss rail lines. [8|]

The Alps are ALPINE? When did that happen! [X(]

Spain has the second highest mountains in Europe, that would also rate as ALPINE!

France gave up to retain the empire - at least, that is what was attempted. Spain did not go to war, it was honourable to assist the poor unfortunates fleeing Nazi oppression and death camps. Spain did not have to go to war. If you think that the Republicans in Spain are so nice, then you should read about why the Spanish Civil War occurred.

Remember, steep grades are a road obstacle. So are sharp curves. Combine to two and it is worse. Hill or mountains, it makes no difference.

There would have been no Med strategy until Italy came in. Maybe the Germans thought that the Italians could fight their way out of a wet paper bag if they wanted to. Many did not want to.

[warspite1]

.

[warspite1]

.

[warspite1]

.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

My point is that you are misinterpreting what the study really meant. That's obvious because the maps I posted make clear that the path from Athens to those lines were passable.

warspite1

Fine. I gave you my answer above. I believe the professionals in the US military know what they are talking about. I don't believe you have a clue. Nothing more to say on the subject of supply and the Pindus Mountains.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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.

Again, just words. And circumstances would be different if the Germans adopt a Med Strategy. Clearly Mussolini was trying to secure Suez. Securing Gibraltar would be just as important. The Germans have a plan for doing this. Why would he join Barbarossa but not this?

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?

I think winning the war and surviving would have been important. And the operations for Gibraltar and Suez definitely fit Italy's national interests.

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.

Again, he joined a German operation, and he was persuaded to reinforce it.

warspite1

Again, I've given my answer above. You don't believe that looking at historical records is important in seeking to determine what an historical character was about.

You have provided nothing to try and prove your point. You prefer to rely on the fact that you are always right.

I've made my case with historical evidence I believe that supports it. You've made your case by stating you are right and can produce not one quote or document that suggests Mussolini would entertain what you suggest in 1940.

I am happy to believe the evidence I've submitted shows Mussolini is more likely to have acted in the way I've suggested. I don't believe you have made your case. Nothing more to say on the subject of Mussolini allowing himself and his country to be mere lackeys of Hitler and Germany in 1940.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

Of course we are. How much repair is required is at issue. Did I mention yet that they have till 1942??

You have admitted yourself that the Germans need to beat the Spanish quickly.

That's not what I said.

Indeed you said they would as Germany vs Spain would be a simple 'blitz' operation.

I still think it will be very easy. The size and quality of the Spanish force trumps logistics and terrain.

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....

They do have plenty of time. And I don't think the repair will be equivalent to starting from scratch.

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).

Take North Africa: The distance from Tripoli to El Alamein was 1781 km. Axis truck convoys made the entire journey and back. Distance from San Sebastian to Gibraltar was 1130 km. So, the entire country is within road supply range if necessary.

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

I've never given a timeframe. But, clearly, they have plenty of time.

[/quote]warspite1

This response is simply confused and rambling (not just this post but all posts concerning Spain). I've asked you what you were talking about and you've come up with this. Despite the disingenuous answers above, yes you have said the Germans have until 1942 - "How long will it take? They have till 1942". And you also said "The Germans will be in a rush to get things done".

You seem to have confused yourself and give the usual one line answers in response - just minimal effort every time. Well I don't have the time to keep doing your job and trying to work out what you are talking about, when you can't even be bothered to be clear yourself.

Come back to me once you've decided what you mean with regards to Spain and can put together a meaningful paragraph or two.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Back full circle once again. So let's be clear on this:

- you don't pay any attention to the professionals in the US military

I disagree with your interpretation.

- you don't pay any attention to the professionals in the German Army

Again, not with your interpretation.

- you don't pay any attention to records, diaries, directives, and speeches made by historical figures (but do pay attention to certain actions undertaken by those characters even though they are different - and set in a different context - to what we are discussing)

Actions trump words.

- you simply ignore historical precedent
- you simply ignore (or don't know about - and don't then seek to understand) key historical facts that are completely relevant to this scenario

No idea what that means. Clearly, different circumstances will change what happened historically.

- you don't engage with Piteas, a Spanish forumite (we are discussing an invasion of Spain)
- you barely engaged with UP844, an Italian forumite (we are discussing the actions of Italy and what she would do in 1940)

I guess, since I'm an American, you will now defer to me on anything I say about America's possible actions.

- you do pay unerring attention to anything a professional wargame designer says (regardless of whether you understand the reason for the rule or not). Essentially you are saying this. If rule 15(b) says x happens, then x happens and that MUST be FACT.

No. I'm not saying it is a fact, but the opinions of those designers are material to the discussion.

- you do cling to a Wiki article as proof of something Japan would do, even though it proves nothing because the circumstances were different

It proved my point: Barbarossa was the trigger for Japan's aggressive actions in 1941.

- you are more than happy to rely on Wiki articles about rail roads that bear not the slightest relevance to what is being discussed

They are extremely relevant, even if they require modification to fit the European system.

warspite1

What?

How many ways can you interpret the quote from the US military study????

How many ways can you interpret what the German supply officers have said????

Actions don't trump words, they CAN'T trump words, when actions don't happen. Why is this so difficult to understand? This is a counterfactual, you are talking about an event that happened, under different circumstances a year later and expect that to be taken as proof. As per post 908, we are simply going round in circles and there is nothing more to say on this.

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.

Yep, those designers thoughts may be material to the discussion. But you have not a single clue as to their thinking behind rule '15(b)'. If I am wrong please provide their designers notes confirming their reasoning for the capital rule. If you don't know this then you are putting absolute faith in something you don't even understand. How can you think that is sensible?

Except you didn't make the modifications for Spain - because you didn't know them, because you don't believe in making an effort to understand what you seek to pontificate about is important. As said, you have added nothing to develop your argument over the last weeks. You simply repeat the same old stuff, responding with meaningless one liners that don't add any value, or ask me questions that I've taken the time and trouble to answer previously.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Use that time to blitz through Turkey and Spain.

Which they will.

There will be a rush to get Spain done - which will start long before September. But not Gibraltar.

Right. Where does that say anything about how long it will take? Of course they will want to get started as soon as possible and get finished as soon as possible. But I did NOT say it will be done quickly (or slowly). I haven't said anything about how long it will take. But they do have plenty of time.

warspite1

Of course they will - Curtis Lemay has decreed it. No evidence of course, no research, no effort expended. But Curtis Lemay knows it so it will be so.

Please see post 909. Once you've got your confused thoughts together on Spain let me know, try - as I've done - putting them into some sort of timeline for what could be expected to happen and why. Try and make clear what you are saying, develop your thoughts into a few paragraphs and we can take from there.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

At the very minimum there is a need to determine that a Gibraltar operation is feasible and that means a lot (as per historical) of intelligence missions with Spanish assistance. So long as Gibraltar is considered feasible the Spanish operation can start.

Again, why does doing this require that the Germans wait till after France? Why can't they get all discussions with Franco out of the way long before, since they know they are going to do a Med Strategy?

Hahahahaha nice little sly insertion of the thoroughly ridiculous rule 15(b) there..... Getting to Madrid, by itself, means jack. They also need to get to Barcelona in the northeast, they need to get to Corunna in the northwest, they need to get to Valencia, Malaga, Seville, Murcia... in other words, the Germans need to beat a very angry, very united, and very desperate Spanish population.

SPI says otherwise. And, let's be clear, the Spanish army is smaller than the BEF (which was only about 10% of the force the Germans were facing in France) and of much poorer quality. United? Republicans and Nationalists?

warspite1

Re the first point, for the nth time, I've set all this out. You can't be bothered to read what I've written so I have no inclination to spell it out for you again just so that you can ignore me again and ask the same inane question over and over.

Re the second point. Please see post 910 and let me see the designers notes confirming their thinking on rule '15(b)'. I assume you must have them as otherwise how could you know what their thinking was? Maybe it was game balance, game play, counter restriction? But you've been told all this. Once again. Where is the evidence to back up your comments?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

warspite1

Erm..... Curtis Lemay that answer is absolutely staggering [X(]. You appear to have not the first clue about Vichy France.... wow. How can you be comfortable suggesting things you clearly just don't even bother to try and understand?

What have I got wrong? The whole point of Vichy obviously was to keep the Germans out of much of France. What other benefit would there have been?

warspite1

Erm......

a) why would the British be occupying any part of French North Africa? That is a monumentally ridiculous question to ask - goodness alone knows what point you were trying to make or why you even thought that question in the slightest bit relevant to the situation under discussion....

Exactly, and just as ridiculous for the British to occupy the Canaries when they could have achieved the same on the mainland.

b) The Spanish wouldn't be allowing the British to occupy the Canaries would they?????? The Spanish have just been back-stabbed by their 'friends'. As is very common, we now have a situation where Spain's enemy's (Germany) enemy (Britain) has just become their 'friend'. Did the Greeks deny the British the use of Crete as part of their assisting Greece???? Once again you seem to have got confused over something really very simple.

Crete was very close to the battle area. The Canaries were not.

c) The British agree to do all they can to assist the Spanish, but can't do anything if Gibraltar is negated by bombing and ultimately captured. So they ask the Spanish to allow the navy the use of the Canaries as a Gibraltar replacement. In return the British give the Spanish as much assistance as possible (plus certain promises re the future). From this base, the Royal Navy can provide naval gunfire support, they can provide air support from Spanish Morocco.

By the time Gibraltar is under fire, Vichy Spain will be established.

The British will also be assisting getting troops from Spanish Morocco and the islands to the mainland.

Why would the Spanish need any more help with that than the French did from FNA? Why would they want the British to interfere with it?

You think the British Government wouldn't work with a reprehensible regime in order to fight Germany? The British were giving hefty bribes to Spanish generals and politicians to keep them onside. They would do what it took.

And let's face it, Britain (and the USA) allied with the USSR - I don't think dealing with Spain is going to trouble Churchill. Hell, the Greek Government the British tried to assist was hardly a model of democracy was it?

?? What was that about?

But of course its on the map. The Canaries were important to both Britain and Germany. This game you've based an entire scenario on and have said how realistic it is MUST have the Canaries in it.....

The game map. Why would it need the Canaries?

warspite1

What have you got wrong? Listen. I am tired of doing all the work around here. You believe you have the knowledge to be able to talk about Vichy? Well prove it. Stop asking stupid questions and set out your ideas. Here's an idea! How about you do some work and set out the circumstances of how a 'Vichy' Spain comes about? Do you think you can manage that? This isn't rocket science. You have someone stating that a 'Vichy' Spain is not going to happen. But you say it will. So, make your case. And no, making your case isn't a series of pithy one-liners, it's a reasoned, well thought out article to explain what you believe would happen to make a 'Vichy' Spain scenario possible. You can't simply say "Well France had one so I think Spain will get one too so there". That is not a reasoned argument. That is just you saying "I'm right".


So you think the British will sit there, allow Spain to be conquered and then, only when Gibraltar is attacked, will they make their move in the Canaries???? You need to think more about what you are saying - and the comment about Crete was a hoot.

[RangerJoe]

If/When Spain is attacked by Nazi Germany, the British would probably be welcomed into the Canary Islands.

There is a rush to get things done but there is no rush because the Nazi Germans have until 1942. [8|]

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

on rule '15(b)'.

Warspite, everyone that’s in the know, knows it’s rule case [34.57] for Pete’s sake!

[:'(][&:]

[34.57]
Surrender: Spain surrenders when Madrid
is occupied by Enemy units. Spanish units are then
removed from play. Spain becomes Axis when the
Political Point Level reaches 75.

Rule 15 is the Weather rules...[;)]

[Aurelian]

Why does it matter about what SPI said back in the 1970s? They're gone State of the art has moved forward over the decades. From what I understand with the game Warplan, taking the capital is not enough.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

on rule '15(b)'.

Warspite, everyone that’s in the know, knows it’s rule case [34.57] for Pete’s sake!

[:'(][&:]

[34.57]
Surrender: Spain surrenders when Madrid
is occupied by Enemy units. Spanish units are then
removed from play. Spain becomes Axis when the
Political Point Level reaches 75.

Rule 15 is the Weather rules...[;)]

Of course the weather rules. Could you imagine driving a vehicle in the mountains during freezing rain?

Or even walking some hills in that type of weather? Much less running them? Or trying to attack up these hills in full field gear? Yes, under fire!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

on rule '15(b)'.

Warspite, everyone that’s in the know, knows it’s rule case [34.57] for Pete’s sake!

[:'(][&:]

[34.57]
Surrender: Spain surrenders when Madrid
is occupied by Enemy units. Spanish units are then
removed from play. Spain becomes Axis when the
Political Point Level reaches 75.

Rule 15 is the Weather rules...[;)]

warspite1

For the purposes of this thread, all opinions on what would or wouldn't have happened that don't seek to provide any evidence in support, other than a war game rule book [8|], can be referred to as rule 15(b) [;)].

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Why does it matter about what SPI said back in the 1970s? They're gone State of the art has moved forward over the decades. From what I understand with the game Warplan, taking the capital is not enough.

warspite1

Don't be ridiculous Aurelian. EVERY European country surrendered when the capital was occupied. Curtis Lemay has said so. And if you don't believe him, then have a look at Rule 15(b). All the proof you need. End of Discussion [:)].

Back in the real world....

Yes, a lot of games don't set such an arbitrary rule for surrender. As an example in World In Flames, as a rule, a player needs to take out the production centres - in the case of Spain that would be Bilbao, Barcelona and Madrid.

But then I wouldn't seek to base any counterfactual on a rule in any wargame alone. Not unreasonably, I would want to see the thinking behind the rule at the very least.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If/When Spain is attacked by Nazi Germany, the British would probably be welcomed into the Canary Islands.

warspite1

Exactly and I just don't understand the totally muddled, fuzzy thinking employed here.

So what is being said here is that the Spanish, not unreasonably, are angry at the betrayal they've suffered at the hands of their supposed friends. Spain has a major problem with inadequate food and this action by Germany is going to tip that into famine. The Spanish have been stabbed in the back, they literally have nothing to lose. They are going to fight. BUT.....

...apparently, their willingness to fight, doesn't include allowing the British to help them. Despite the fact that the whole point of fighting is to defeat the Germans, they are not going to allow the British the thing the British need most in this situation - the use of a naval anchorage to replace Gibraltar. This is needed not only to assist Spain, but for the on-going war against the u-boats and - with the fall of Gibraltar - maybe the Italian navy too.

Yes, not allowing the British access to the Canary Islands makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But then Curtis Lemay's entire thinking around Spain is confused - and 'Vichy' Spain simply provides the cherry on the cake.