Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5647
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Ironmachine » 18 Aug 2020 07:37

ljadw wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
ljadw wrote:Look at the title of the thread : Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance.
There are no threads with as title : some thoughts on the French, US, British,etc Army's performance .
Thus : why the thread ?
In fact, there are such threads, as you could have seen if you had simply bothered to look for them:
"Red Army casualties and performance": viewtopic.php?f=55&t=100893&p=887276&hi ... ce#p887276
"Evaluation of the Performance of the U.S. Army": viewtopic.php?f=54&t=78618&p=706131&hil ... e#p706131
"Poor performance of the French" (not only WWII, but still): viewtopic.php?f=22&t=58941&p=529808&hil ... e#p529808
"German and allied performance comparison": viewtopi ... e#p368892
and a number of threads about the performance of different branches of the German military:
"The Combat Performance of the Fallschirmjäger": viewtopic.php?f=50&t=4839&p=38622&hilit ... e#p1919310
"Performance of Heer and Waffen-SS in the Bulge": viewtopic.php?f=50&t=194015&p=1742518&h ... #p1742518
and even generals:
"Unsatisfactory performance from Germans generals?": viewtopi ... #p1671657
All those just from a quick seach for the word "performance" in title threads...
Apples and oranges .
And (you're going) bananas.
There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see.
ljadw wrote: 1 Rommel was presented as a military genius
2 Rommel was defeated .
3 As excuse for 2 ,the Italians were blamed .
In fact, if I really understand your ramblings, the argument is more like:
1. The British were defeated.
2. As excuse for 1, Rommel was presented as a military genius.
3. Later, Rommel was defeated.
4. As excuse for 3, the Italians were blamed.
Why is there a need to blame the Italians? Would it not have been far simple, and far more satisfying for those devilish Anglo-Saxon historians, to claim that Rommel was finally defeated because, even if he was a genius, at the end the British were even better?
On the other hand, how are those Anglo-Saxon historians you mention reconciling points 1 and 4? First, the British were defeated, but the Italians were already there. So we know what you think is the Anglo-Saxon historians' lobby stance on the issue of Rommel's defeat, but what is their point of view about Rommel's victories? Were the British defeated by Rommel despite the Italian presence? Was Rommel so great a genius that he was able at first to overcome the severe handicap that were the Italians, but in the end they were so bad that not even Rommel could win with them on his side? Were the Italians fairly good at first but became worse later? Have the Anglo-Saxon historians no concern about the internal consistency of their arguments?
Last edited by Ironmachine on 18 Aug 2020 15:46, edited 1 time in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12364
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 18 Aug 2020 13:40

Why do you think that that much ( too much ) importance is given to the convoys to NA and the amount of supplies that were transported, lost, that arrived at the harbors of NA,while everyone knows that their importance is very small ? Because the transport of the supplies was the work of the RM and the Italian merchant fleet ,and that one needed/still needs a scapegoat for the defeat of Rommel .
When Rommel obtained a success (Tobruk ) ,the role of the RM was hidden .
When Rommel had to retreat, it was the fault of the RM.
The defeat of Rommel/the Axis in NA was inevitable the moment he arrived in Libya/the moment Italy declared war on Britain + France .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12364
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 18 Aug 2020 13:50

Apples and Oranges : this thread, as all threads about Italy in WWII, starts with the claim that Italy was not good,evolves in such a direction, finishes in this direction .
See Post 4 .
This is the difference with threads about the performance of Britain, USSR, Germany, etc,etc.There,there is a justification,an excuse for every setback.Italians have no right on a justification, on an excuse.Their cowardice, their ineptness is a given and a necessity ,a necessity to condone,to excuse Rommel's setbacks .
As Kesselring said: the average Italian was not qualified to even carry a weapon .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9670
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Sid Guttridge » 18 Aug 2020 14:03

Hi ljadw,

You continue to make assertions without offering evidence.

You may or may not be right, but until you are able to provide substantive evidence your opinion amounts to little.

I, for one, will believe pretty much anything if the evidence is there, but you are just not providing it when challenged

Four times I have asked you the same question abour one of your claims, and each time you have avoided addressing it.

Cheers,

Sid.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 18 Aug 2020 14:53

Sid Guttridge wrote:
18 Aug 2020 14:03
Hi ljadw,

You continue to make assertions without offering evidence.

You may or may not be right, but until you are able to provide substantive evidence your opinion amounts to little.

I, for one, will believe pretty much anything if the evidence is there, but you are just not providing it when challenged

Four times I have asked you the same question abour one of your claims, and each time you have avoided addressing it.

Cheers,

Sid.
Ljadw was do exact same as gutteridge.

Look at message 4 on topic. Much assertions and opinions and was not write no historical datas or evidences.

Look how many times gutteridge was be ask for to give historical datas and evidences.

Gutteridge may or may not be right, but until gutteridge are able to provide substantive evidence gutteridge opinion amounts to little.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12364
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 18 Aug 2020 16:26

Sid Guttridge wrote:
18 Aug 2020 14:03
Hi ljadw,

You continue to make assertions without offering evidence.

You may or may not be right, but until you are able to provide substantive evidence your opinion amounts to little.

I, for one, will believe pretty much anything if the evidence is there, but you are just not providing it when challenged

Four times I have asked you the same question abour one of your claims, and each time you have avoided addressing it.

Cheers,

Sid.
You asked for examples : I gave you one in post 238 .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12364
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 18 Aug 2020 18:37

An other example : ''Why was Rommel defeated at Alamein ?" (Daily History )
One can read the following
'' The Allies restrict Axis shipping ''
'' The lack of supplies meant that the Axis were at a decided disadvantage during the Battle of Alamein .''
IOW
1 The RM was unable to protect the convoys to NA
2 This resulted in a lack of supplies
3 The lack of supplies caused the defeat of Alamein .
The honour of Rommel is saved : he remains a military genius .
Points 1, 2 and 3 are wrong .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9670
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Sid Guttridge » 18 Aug 2020 22:59

Hi ljadw,
I have already dealt with your pretend answer in post 238 in my own post 240. Perhaps you missed it. Here it is again:

"Hi ljadw,

No, you don't "bite". You have avoided doing so while pretending otherwise.

Is your opinion based entirely on an unlinked, effectively anonymous, unsourced reply on Quora by someone who could even be you yourself?

What makes it worse is that even this quote does not say what you claim it does!

You are now being deliberately evasive.

So, I ask for the fourth time;

"The whole discussion is founded on the lies of the Rommel lobby,.....that he could/would/should have won in NA if the Italians had delivered the ''needed '' supplies"."

Can we have some examples, please?
"

So, for the fifth time, could yoù please reply to the question asked?

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12364
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 19 Aug 2020 08:29

The poster on Quora is not anonymous, his name is mentioned .But I did not mention his name to preserve his privacy .
And yes ,he said what I have claimed : the question on Quora was : would Rommel have won if he had the needed supplies and reinforcements ?
And the answer was :YES,but the problem was that a lot of ships with supplies and reinforcements were lost by British submarines .

And WHO was responsible for the convoys ? NOT the Germans, not the Martians, but the ITALIANS .
Thus the Italians were responsible for Rommel's defeat .
And another example :
From Wiki :
Battle of the Mediterranean :
''The loss of supplies proved fatal for the Axis armies in NA ''.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12364
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 19 Aug 2020 08:48

Another one :
From ''How the RN helped to win a war in the desert ''
The LW returned in 1942 and raided Malta.....
Supplies flowed again allowing Rommel to advance to Alamein.

Here we have the same (false argument ) : when the Italians delivered the needed supplies,Rommel could advance . When they did not do this, he had to retreat .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12364
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 19 Aug 2020 09:28

Ironmachine wrote:
18 Aug 2020 07:37
ljadw wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
ljadw wrote:Look at the title of the thread : Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance.
There are no threads with as title : some thoughts on the French, US, British,etc Army's performance .
Thus : why the thread ?
In fact, there are such threads, as you could have seen if you had simply bothered to look for them:
"Red Army casualties and performance": viewtopic.php?f=55&t=100893&p=887276&hi ... ce#p887276
"Evaluation of the Performance of the U.S. Army": viewtopic.php?f=54&t=78618&p=706131&hil ... e#p706131
"Poor performance of the French" (not only WWII, but still): viewtopic.php?f=22&t=58941&p=529808&hil ... e#p529808
"German and allied performance comparison": viewtopi ... e#p368892
and a number of threads about the performance of different branches of the German military:
"The Combat Performance of the Fallschirmjäger": viewtopic.php?f=50&t=4839&p=38622&hilit ... e#p1919310
"Performance of Heer and Waffen-SS in the Bulge": viewtopic.php?f=50&t=194015&p=1742518&h ... #p1742518
and even generals:
"Unsatisfactory performance from Germans generals?": viewtopi ... #p1671657
All those just from a quick seach for the word "performance" in title threads...
Apples and oranges .
And (you're going) bananas.
There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see.
ljadw wrote: 1 Rommel was presented as a military genius
2 Rommel was defeated .
3 As excuse for 2 ,the Italians were blamed .
In fact, if I really understand your ramblings, the argument is more like:
1. The British were defeated.
2. As excuse for 1, Rommel was presented as a military genius.
3. Later, Rommel was defeated.
4. As excuse for 3, the Italians were blamed.
Why is there a need to blame the Italians? Would it not have been far simple, and far more satisfying for those devilish Anglo-Saxon historians, to claim that Rommel was finally defeated because, even if he was a genius, at the end the British were even better?
On the other hand, how are those Anglo-Saxon historians you mention reconciling points 1 and 4? First, the British were defeated, but the Italians were already there. So we know what you think is the Anglo-Saxon historians' lobby stance on the issue of Rommel's defeat, but what is their point of view about Rommel's victories? Were the British defeated by Rommel despite the Italian presence? Was Rommel so great a genius that he was able at first to overcome the severe handicap that were the Italians, but in the end they were so bad that not even Rommel could win with them on his side? Were the Italians fairly good at first but became worse later? Have the Anglo-Saxon historians no concern about the internal consistency of their arguments?
A short answer on this attempt for deflection .
The Germans needed to blame the Italians,because the more inept and coward the Italians were, the bigger was the genius of Rommel ,who not only had to fight against Britain but also against Hitler and the Italians .
This is a very old tactic : after Waterloo Napoleon wrote his memoirs and blamed his generals for his defeats .
This tactic was repeated by the British Rommel lobby .
About the British defeat :the (false ) reasons that were given were
a British scapegoats (Wavell,Auchinleck )
b a German genius : Rommel
The more genius Rommel was, the bigger the genius of Montgomery .
Italians were not mentioned,as they were considered,already before the war,as inferior to Britons . (See what Chatfield said about the Italians before the war : in 1935 he said that Britain could ''reassert dominance over an inferior race '').
Look at The Great Dictator : Hitler was represented as a threat, Mussolini was ridiculized ,as a comedian, an imbecile .
When Rommel retreated, this was a proof of his genius, when Graziani retreated, this was a proof that the Italians were cowards .
Harold Deutsch (from OSS ) said in 1977 about Ultra that the ''systematic strangulation of (Rommel's ) services of supply'' due to knowledge of Axis schedules and convoy routes (Ultra )was a ''decisive ingredient of British...victory in the Mediterranean '.
This is another proof for Sid .
But Deutsch hided the fact that the Italians had their own Ultra,which was as good as the British one .
Why ? Because he could not admit and never admitted that the Italians could have done something good .
And not only Deutsch,but almost all his American and British colleagues .
As Cernuschi and O'Hara wrote in ''The Other Ultra "
''Few historians have asked how Italy,with some German assistance,managed as it did to deliver the great majority of supplies dispatched to Africa ".
Why did they did not ask this?
The reason is simple : the innate anti Italian bias in the Anglo-Saxon culture .
When in March (false ) horror pictures were broadcasted about the Corona situation in North Italy, the reaction in the Anglo-Saxon world was, as could be expected,: the Italians are not good ,for nothing . We would do better .
For the public opinion in the Anglo=Saxon world,,there are two types of Italians : Capone and captain Bertorelli .
Italians are good in singing,Germans in fighting.
And historians are influenced by the public opinion .

User avatar
John Hilly
Member
Posts: 2606
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 09:33
Location: Tampere, Finland, EU

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by John Hilly » 19 Aug 2020 13:54

Always when ljadw appears to the conversation, it is spoiled.
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12364
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 19 Aug 2020 15:35

I did not derail the thread by saying on post 4 that the Italians did not perform well .
I did not deny the existence of a pro Rommel,and thus anti Italian lobby .
The truth is that 75 years after the end of WWII a serious discussion about the role of Italy/its armed forces ,during WWII is still impossible .
It is the same for the role of the USSR and its armed forces .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9670
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Aug 2020 15:53

Hi ljadw,

The poster on Quora is effectively anonymous.

1) You won't give their name.

2) Even if you did, we couldn't know if it was genuine.

They have absolutely no evidential value, even if they did mention the Italians, which they do not!

Your three more recent "sources", all off the internet and untraceable, also do not mention the Italians at all, let alone blame them for anything.

So far, it is only you who is jumping to this conclusion and inserting the Italians into the equation. Even your own "sources" don't mention them.

I am perfectly willing to believe you, if you would only provide some substantive evidence. So far you have not.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5647
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Ironmachine » 19 Aug 2020 17:37

ljadw wrote:A short answer on this attempt for deflection .
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
ljadw wrote:The truth is that 75 years after the end of WWII a serious discussion about the role of Italy/its armed forces ,during WWII is still impossible .
If you are involved in the discussion, it can't be serious by definition.

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”