Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

Van Crefeld is Israeli. That is a simple fact. You can't spin it that he is "Anglo-Saxon", however convenient that may be for you.

You post, "In 2 months the WDF eliminated 150000 Italians (of whom 90 % was taken POW ) against a loss of 2000 men ;for the enemies of what is Italian this is a proof that the Italians were doing poorly in WWII." Yup.

Are you trying to spin the Italian performance on this occasion as a draw, like Monty Python's armless and legless Black Knight?

You post, "The Dutch army lost 200000 men in 5 days (almost all POWs) in May 1940.
The Belgian army lost almost 600000 POWs in 18 days in May 1940 .
This is not used as a proof that the Dutch, Belgians were doing poorly in WWII.
In the Malayan campaign Britain lost 150000 men (90 % POWs) : did Britain do poorly in WWII?" Yup, yup and yup, these are all examples of "doing poorly" and, like for the Italians, there are often explanations for this.

No, less than half the Germans trapped inside Stalingrad survived to surrender. If I remember correctly, about 230,000 were trapped inside the Stalingrad pocket and only about 92,000 went into captivity.

Cheers,

Sid.


.

You are wrong about Stalingrad : less than 230000 were encircled and a lot of Germans were already POWs before January 31 .
And, NO : the examples I have given are NOT proofs of doing poorly .
An other example of anti Italian bias is the reaction on the Italian DOW on June 10 1940 : jackal, hitting a man who was on the ground .
The Italian DOW was a very logical act :you do not attack some one who is winning or undefeated ,FDR should be the first to remain silent .
Besides : when Turkey declared war on a defeated Germany, no one said that this was a cowardly attack .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

So, the loss of one's entire country and all is armed forces within days or weeks at little cost to the enemy is not considered by you as evidence of "doing poorly"?

Exactly how bad does the situation have to get for you to classify it as "doing poorly"?

As regards Italy's declaration of war, it wasn't exactly followed by a victorious Italian advance across southern France, was it? This is another example of Italy doing poorly. It allowed the French a consolation defensive success even as Germany over ran their country elsewhere.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Doing poorly/doing well are claims,judgments, not facts .
A defeat does not mean doing poorly
A victory does not mean doing well
German paratroopers surrendered in Brest,but did not surrender in Monte Cassino .
Who did well,who did poorly ?
Germans in Antwerp surrendered without fighting in September 1944,while Japanese fought to the last man in Guadalcanal : who did poorly and who did well ?
6th Army surrendered after 10 weeks of fighting,while AGC was destroyed in a few weeks during operation Bagration .Who did poorly, who did well ?
US forces surrendered in Bataan/Corregidor, Japanese forces did not surrender in Guadalcanal .Who did poorly,who did well ?
A battle is a fight between 2 sides and is not decided by the loser,or the winner, but by both .
Every battle is different and can not be compared to other battles .
Thus there is no such thing as doing poorly or doing well .
A big part of the Highland Division was captured at St Valéry,but that does not mean that they did poorly .
The Netherlands were occupied after 5 days of fighting, but that does not mean that the Dutch army did poorly .
That the Italians were unable to cross the Alps does not mean that they did poorly, 4 years later the Allies did even not dare to attack Italy from France .
The British Army gave up the Channel Islands in June 1940 without fighting , that does not mean that the British army did poorly .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "A defeat does not mean doing poorly." Yes it does, by very definition. A defeat is unarguably a poor result.

You post, "A victory does not mean doing well." Yes it does, by very definition. A victory is unarguably a good result.

I think you are trying to argue a different point - that it is possible to fight well in defeat and poorly in victory. Is that the point you are trying to make?

To take up the one reference directly related to this subject, you wrote, "That the Italians were unable to cross the Alps does not mean that they did poorly,"

True, but on this occasion they did. The French were on the verge of capitulating to Germany and had stripped most of their Alpine defences to fight them. By contrast, the Italians were in a position to concentrate their main armies there. Yet apart from capturing Menton on the coast, which the French had evacuated already, they gained almost nothing.

You say, "4 years later the Allies did even not dare to attack Italy from France." No, they didn't care to. The US initially sealed the Alpine Frontier off with ad hoc or minor formations and units, such as anti-aircraft units retrained as infantry, a Japanese-American regiment and a Puerto Rican batallion. The French then took over with newly raised French Resistance units equipped with old French and captured German weaponry..

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Doing good /doing poorly are meaningless notions .
Defeat /poor result is not the same as doing poorly . If a company of the Home Guard was faced by a German batallion of Panzergrenadiere and defeated, one can not say that this means that the Home Guard did poorly and the Germans did well .
The only thing that counts is if the unit that was defeated/that defeated the opponent,did what was possible and if there was an alternative for what it did .
Gambier-Parry,who commanded an Indian brigade, surrendered when Italian tanks were nearing his HQ.
Ramcke,who commanded the German forces in Brest,surrendered when US tanks were nearing his HQ.
An Italian general did not surrender during Compass when British tanks were nearing his HQ but shoot with his pistol on the tanks .
When Japanese were encircled they started a last Samoerai attack using their swords .
None of these examples can be presented as doing well/doing poorly .
The only thing that counts is if a soldier is doing what is possible , the result is irrelevant .
One can not condemn the German capitulation in Antwerp,unless one can prove that there was an alternative that was better for Germany .

[David Thompson]

It's padlock time for this thread, since it's no longer informative, has degenerated into an exchange of undocumented opinions and (as Marcus used to say) is headed nowhere pleasant.