Britain's Declaration of War?

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Post by Polynikes » 19 Jul 2004 04:40

DrG

Maybe I misunderstood you, but your question looked rather clear: "Not sure what you're saying...that had Britain NOT been at war, then Mussolini would've backed off because he KNEW his army wasn't capable of defeating the small British force in the Western Desert?".

On this thread it has been suggested that Nazi Germany posed no threat to Britian or France and, had Britian & France refused to intervene when Germany invaded Poland, then no serious consequences would follow.

I maintain that this is not the case - that Nazi Germany posed a threat to the whole world and I argue that if left to consume nations unopposed by the West, that there was a possibility of a (nuclear) showdown with the USA across the Atlantic at some time in the future.

When it was said that Britain should've done nothing when Germany invaded Poland I asked whether this policy should've remained if Germany other countries or if Italy had invaded the Balkans and Greece.
It was replied that Italy only declared war on Britain& France AFTER German success - to this I agree (though state that Mussolini certainly expected no trouble from teh small British force in Egypt).
I also sau that had France not capitulated and Britain seemed on the edge of defeat - then Italy would've focussed somewhere else - probably the Balkans/Greece.

....Mussolini knew well, much more than you, that an attack on Greece (even more in 1940, with the increased British influence on that country) would have meant a war with UK.

This is entirely my point.
Eventually Britain and France would've HAD to have done SOMETHING.

Encouraged by German success, I am sure that Mussolini would stake his claim on glory & eventually he would strike - in this scenario, it is hard for Britain to intervene effectively and German support would still see a British defeat.

Italy would move eventually and eventually a combination of German/Italian aggression would force Britain/France to act. The chosen line in the sand was Poland - you could argue that it should've been BEFORE that but you can't argue very convincingly that it should've been AFTER that.

....again we return to the start: no war of UK with Germany = no war of UK with Italy = no war of Italy with Greece.

Or more precisely, no DoW by Britain/France (probably) means no attack by Italy on Egypt.
This does not mean no Italian agression elsewhere.

It seems that your logic is that Mussolini thought he couldn't win against Britain therefore doesn't attack Egypt. Then Germany seems to easily defeat the Anglo-France forces which gives Mussolini courage.

Might not the refusal of Britain/France to declare war on Germany after it invaded Poland (even after promising to do so) let Mussolini believe that no British action would follow an invasion of Greece?

Obviously attacking a British possesion (Egupt) WOULD spark a war. But I cannot accept that Mussolini built up Italy's armed forces just for show.

..ah well, if you think it it must be true...

And if you think the reverse then that must also be true?

Do you see that you have still failed to demonstrate:
- that Italy spent so much money for the Armed Forces.


You ever heard about his speech about "Guns or Butter"?

That the money spent was not comparable to that spent by other European powers
- that it was used to modernize or even enlarge the Armed Forces, rather then to keep them in service or for the Wars of Ethiopia and Spain
- that Italy had a project of expansionism using military means and that this alleged (unproved and pratically never considered by any serious historian) project was directed against the British Empire.


Oh please!
There were about 20,000 Germans and a similar number of Italian in the Spanish Civil War.
I'm not sure how many Italians were engaged in Eithiopia but neither campaign can justify the expense (plus the naval and air force spending). You're a fool if you belive it does,

The army had 72 divisions, mostly of unmechanized infantry. There were three armoured divisions but their tanks were of a poor quality. The infantry were poorly trained and were paid low wages.

On the outbreak of war Mussolini already had over a million men in the Italian Army based in Libya.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWitalyA.htm

A MILLION men in Libya for what - and in peacetime!
72 divisions! - any idea how many the British army had?

Still a direct war against Britain would probably still not be attempted...as I said Italy went for easy scores.

There is a point made about low wages - NATO consistantly spent more more on Defence than the WP ever did yet always fielded smaller forces...wages to professional soldiers from wealthy countries is one reason.

Ah, now we have reached the good old British mythology... OK, OK, the Italian soldiers were good only for parades...

Where did I ever say that the Italian army was good for parades?

.....here the only one who is bending reality it's you.

Well you're ignoring it. A leader telling his general to "attack next week or be replaced" doesn't sound like someone who much doubt about the outcome now does it?

Hey, here you are becoming quite annoying: if you were able to read, you would have seen that I have written too that the war of Spain had finished a year before the Italian entrance in WW2. And in a year you modernize nothing (as happened).

Really? It's certainly enough time to move troops around and pick a new fight.

Might I remind you of the difference in the Wehrmacht a year made?

1940 Blitzkrieg versus 1941 Barbarossa?

By the way:
- I can read: no need of bold and capital letters
- keep capital letters for other people: they mean you are shouting, if you want to shout, go to a stadium.


The caps and bold are for emphasis to help you focus on the point....you could also explain why you keep rolling around?

Pathetic.

Ah insults...the first sign.

Ah well, an Army that had the most obsolete equipement? An army lacking any tank (just 20 on 10 June 1940)? Yes, truly a very expensive army.....

This is why I use the caps.
A MILLION men in Egypt.

The British army, air force and navy also had obsolete equipment. WWI Rolls-Royce armoured cars, bi-planes etc.

The Italian army wasn't THAT badly equipped....at LEAST on a par with the Japanese army.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Post by Polynikes » 19 Jul 2004 04:54

Shrek

Did Hitler's visit to Paris necessitate the development of amphibious tanks? The massing of lots and lots of barges on the Channel coast?

No, no German amphibious tank was ever produced that I'm aware of...the USSR was developing snorkels to enable tanks to cross rivers though...this was experimented with.

...and yes a lot of useless river barges (useless for a cross channel invasion that is) were gethered as part of the bluff.

Don't confuse this for planning because it wasn't. It wasn't real.

Seelöwe seemed realistic enough to everybody concerned - including, notably, Mussolini.

I don't know what Mussolini's views on the chances of Sealion were - certainly there was concern in Britain - a possibility of invasion is way too serious to be ever dismissed.
There was an invasion scare a century before BTW - no less a person than the Iron Duke himself declared that France was about to invade!

The people it didn't seem realistic to were the important people - namely Hitler and his General staff. The Luftwaffe never atteneded meetings. The Kriegsmarine thought it a pointless waste of time. The army wnet through the motions as an exercise.

I mean horse drawn transport and artillery being transported across the English channel in open river barges!

Even Macksey's book "Invasion" admits that in reality it wasn't a realistic prospect.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 17-0433459

The two other books on this I've read:

"Fighter" by Len Deighton
"Operation Sealion" Egbert Kieser

Both say pretty much the same - in reality it was a non-starter.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Operation Sea Lion

Post by Polynikes » 19 Jul 2004 05:07

Globalization41

.....while Stukas would have wreaked havoc on British warships.

The opening stage of the Battle of Britain was called (by the Germans) the Kanal Kampf (channel battle).

Those Stuka's tried to hit British merchant shipping sailing to London and managed to sink none. Now had they been warships steaming much faster and with armour protection and guns firing back, why do you think the Stukas would have more success?

It is true that during the Dunkirk operation that the RN lost a few destroyers but these were on quite a different duty than the one they would've performed to sink German invasion barges.

After establishing a foothold, which would have encountered heavy and fanatical resistance on the British homeland.

Probably but I doubt any beachheads would be formed and those that were would also be bombed by Bomber Command.

German paratroops were not in a position to be used until late Summer by which time, British armour was available to challenge them.

It might have taken well into the summer of 1941 to subdue Britain, which would have postponed Hitler's crusade against bolshevism.

There is no way Germany was able to invade Britain in 1940 or any other year.
The Wehrmacht simply didn't have any experience in amphibious operations. Nothing like the resourses to execute a cross channel invasion - remember PLUTO, Mulberry, DD tanks, total air and sea superiority, the LSTs etc etc...

In 1944 the allies had the experience of Dieppe to aid them...what did Germany have?

Had Sealion been attempted it would've made Gallipoli seem like a sound idea.
Actually an interesting counter scenario is:

"What if Germany HAD tried Sealion and it totally failed"?
How would that affect the rest of the war?

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Post by Jon G. » 19 Jul 2004 05:13

Polynikes wrote:...No, no German amphibious tank was ever produced that I'm aware of...
Amphibious versions of both Pz III and Pz IV were developed and produced in small numbers. They proved quite useful in crossing the Bug the following year.

Another project that was cancelled with the remark 'interesting' was giant amphibious tanks made out of concrete. They were intended to drive across the channel floor.
...and yes a lot of useless river barges (useless for a cross channel invasion that is) were gethered as part of the bluff...
I still don't buy your 'bluff' misnomer. The barges were supposed to be pulled by tugs, at about 5 kph. Likely not an interesting tactical prospect, but not a 'bluff' per se. It can be done.
I don't know what Mussolini's views on the chances of Sealion were - certainly there was concern in Britain - a possibility of invasion is way too serious to be ever dismissed...
So you basically agree that it was not called a bluff? Certainly, the Germans put enough effort into Seelöwe to make it a proposal within the realms of possibility.

And Mussolini's view was purely political - he deemed that Britain was on the verge of collapse. He wanted to secure himself a good position at the negotiation table. Hence, whether his army could make it to the Suez or not was irrelevant. It was not his aim to beat the UK militarily. This was my original point.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Not Taking Out Britain

Post by Polynikes » 19 Jul 2004 05:14

Globalization41 wrote:The worse case scenario for Hitler's not
taking out Britain meant that German-British
points of contacts involved tens of thousands
of troops at most. To Hitler, this was nothing
more than a minor nuisance compared to the
millions who would be in action on the
Eastern Front.

Globalization41
Yet in WWI, the USA joined on Britain's side...quite how this was dismissed by Hitler is hard to fathom.

Ending the war in the West through diplomacy and a combination of attacks on places such as Egypt and Malta could eaily cause Churchill's co-alition to fall & be replaced by one led by Halifax.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Post by Polynikes » 19 Jul 2004 05:30

Shrek

Amphibious versions of both Pz III and Pz IV were developed and produced in small numbers. They proved quite useful in crossing the Bug the following year.

Yes, I've seen pictures of them. IIRC, they followed Soviet development in this area with long snorkels to feed air to the engines.

Personally I wouldn't want to cross a river in one, let alone a stretch of the English Channel.

Another project that was cancelled with the remark 'interesting' was giant amphibious tanks made out of concrete. They were intended to drive across the channel floor.

Now that I would like to see.

Kind of reminds me of the RN's idea of building giant aircraft carriers out of icebergs.

I still don't buy your 'bluff' misnomer. The barges were supposed to be pulled by tugs, at about 5 kph. Likely not an interesting tactical prospect, but not a 'bluff' per se. It can be done.

Perhaps it could be IF they were empty.
Have you ever seen a Rhine river barge laden? The waterline comes almost to the brim of the barge itself...any kind of wave would swamp it.

OK you say, so don't put much in it...just how many barges are we talking for say a platoon or so per barge? How many tugs? One tug per how many barges in a line?

I can just see what a BB would do to that little lot just by steaming past it.

So you basically agree that it was not called a bluff? Certainly, the Germans put enough effort into Seelöwe to make it a proposal within the realms of possibility.

The British didn't consider it a bluff but then that's not the point - the Germans did, which is.
The allies put a massive ammount of effort into their Pas de Calais bluff in 1944 and the Germans fell for it. That didn't make the US 1st Army Group any less a bluff.

And Mussolini's view was purely political - he deemed that Britain was on the verge of collapse. He wanted to secure himself a good position at the negotiation table. Hence, whether his army could make it to the Suez or not was irrelevant. It was not his aim to beat the UK militarily. This was my original point.

Well Mussolini had taken over strategic command of the Italian forces in 1940.

In order to secure a good position at the conference table he needed to not only attack but to also win.

Then again the object of that good position was to secure land and power. That's why Mussolini built up the Italian armed forces.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by tonyh » 19 Jul 2004 10:31

Poly. I've read your post, but theres really no point in replying to it, because its an "Is too/Is not" type of argument. You haven't actually elaborated on what you've said earlier, just repeated it, but the repetition doesn't make it fact. You have your opinions. but they are not opinions that I can find myself in full agreement with.

Tony

User avatar
DrG
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 21 Oct 2003 22:23
Location: Italia

Post by DrG » 19 Jul 2004 14:02

Polynikes wrote:I also say that had France not capitulated and Britain seemed on the edge of defeat - then Italy would've focussed somewhere else - probably the Balkans/Greece.
Thank you for the explanation. I still don't agree with your idea that, with UK and France still fighting, Italy would have attacked Greece anyway.
This is entirely my point.
Eventually Britain and France would've HAD to have done SOMETHING.
You are completely twisting what I wrote: I wrote that if UK hadn't been at war (alone and not in great conditions, as in Oct. 1940) Italy would have never attacked Greece. So UK and France would HAVE NEVER HAD TO DO ANYTHING. (please, may you stop using capital letters? I'll stop too). Thus, again, your idea that the British DoW on Germany was positive is certainly not supported by the argument of Italo-Greek war.
Italy would move eventually and eventually a combination of German/Italian aggression would force Britain/France to act.
[...]
Or more precisely, no DoW by Britain/France (probably) means no attack by Italy on Egypt.
This does not mean no Italian agression elsewhere.
Bah! Your very own idea. Full stop. [this is really the most pointless discussion I have ever had]
Might not the refusal of Britain/France to declare war on Germany after it invaded Poland (even after promising to do so) let Mussolini believe that no British action would follow an invasion of Greece?
Given that the opposite, as historically happened, didn't stop Mussolini's attack on Greece, I can hardly see how this should be a point for your position...
The attack on Greece was made mostly for preeptive reasons (to avoid the use of Greece as a British base, even more than was already happening), thus, again, if UK hadn't been at war with Italy there would have been no reason to attack Greece.
Obviously attacking a British possesion (Egupt) WOULD spark a war. But I cannot accept that Mussolini built up Italy's armed forces just for show.
And again you fail to provide any proof of that alleged (an unexisting) build up.
And if you think the reverse then that must also be true?
The only problem is that while I think the reverse basing my opinion on historical sources, yours in completely baseless.
You ever heard about his speech about "Guns or Butter"?
I've heard it, read its text, and know, unlike you, that it was hollow rethorics. If this is everything you know about Italian alleged military expansion, well, now I'm completely sure that I'm just wasting my time discussing with you.
Oh please!
There were about 20,000 Germans and a similar number of Italian in the Spanish Civil War.
I'm not sure how many Italians were engaged in Eithiopia but neither campaign can justify the expense (plus the naval and air force spending). You're a fool if you belive it does,
You go on attacking my position still without providing any reasonable data to back your statements. Not only, but you even completely ignore the dimensions of the Italian war efforts in Spain (hint: not 20,000 men but quite more and a huge expense of supplies) and Ethiopia.
Com'on, what the hell was that expense that cannot be justified by the wars of Ethiopia and Spain? And even if it had been huge, what were UK, France and Germany doing in the same time?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWitalyA.htm
A MILLION men in Libya for what - and in peacetime!
72 divisions! - any idea how many the British army had?
:D :D :D One million!!!!! OK, I have get used to British propaganda, even 60 years after the end of the war they are still able to write such idiocies, at least I hoped you didn't believe them and had a better source than that. On 10 June 1940, in Libya (facing not only the Britons and Egyptians, always forgotten, abut also the French; all forces inflated in Italian intelligence reports) there were 236,000 men (not a million!), and their number had largely increased after the beginning of WW2 in Sept. 1939. About the divisions, you should know that they were made of a mere 6 infantry battalions (sometimes, just some of the 43 regular infantry divisions, there were also 2 battalions of Militia) that only 19 were efficent and complete, the others had on averge 60% of the men and between 40% and 70% of the materiels.
Moreover, just look at the dimensions of continental European armies, you'll be amazed to discover that they were much larger than the British, what a surprise!
And, even if there had been 10 millions of Italian soldiers in Libya and 300 divisions, there is no historic proof of Italian plans to attack Britain, and even less that the British DoW on Germany in Sept. 1939 stopped those plans.
There is a point made about low wages - NATO consistantly spent more more on Defence than the WP ever did yet always fielded smaller forces...wages to professional soldiers from wealthy countries is one reason.
And Britain, unlike the Italian warmongers, started the war with modern equipment (as the Hurricanes), tanks (not tankettes as Italy), etc. I'm not saying that the British military expense was made for aggressive reasons, but it was clearly much larger than the Italian (and not only because of wages, please!). But of course, in your own opinion, the limited Italian expense was made with aggressive aims against nothing less than the British Empire...
Where did I ever say that the Italian army was good for parades?
You told that the Italian Army lacked the will of fighting... or do you mean that it was useless also for parades? :D
Well you're ignoring it. A leader telling his general to "attack next week or be replaced" doesn't sound like someone who much doubt about the outcome now does it?
If you knew a bit more than 0, you would know that:
- the attack was not intended to conquer Egypt
- that the order was given about 3 months after the Italian DoW on UK
- that the advance in Egypt was considered possible just because UK was going to be occupied by Germany (Sea Lion, a bluff or not, was imminent according to the rather false info given to Mussolini by Hitler).
And, to summarize, again the attack on Egypt was done only because Italy was at war with UK because UK and France had declared war on Germany and spent the first 9 months collecting only defeats.
Really? It's certainly enough time to move troops around and pick a new fight.
Might I remind you of the difference in the Wehrmacht a year made?
1940 Blitzkrieg versus 1941 Barbarossa?
I don't know if I have to cry or to laugh.... besides the fact that the comparison to the Werhmacht in WW2 is probably the most absurd that you could ever do, but, moreover, the consumption of the artilleries, the loss of airplanes, the expenses of the Wars of Ethiopia and Spain were not recoverable in a year (as shown by the disappointing performance of Italy in WW2).
The caps and bold are for emphasis to help you focus on the point....you could also explain why you keep rolling around?
I would prefer to see words underlined. About my use of the roll emoticon, it's because that it's hard to avoid using it when reading your baseless points.
Ah insults...the first sign.
My dear Polyinikes, it was a reply to your advice of checking my history. Do you know the Italian say: "il bue che da del cornuto all'asino"? (the cow that tells to the donkey: horny!") You don't even know the history of fascist Italy, and then tell me to check it.... please! That advice was really pathetic!
This is why I use the caps.
A MILLION men in Egypt.
And now I use the caps too: YOU TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU IGNORE.
The British army, air force and navy also had obsolete equipment. WWI Rolls-Royce armoured cars, bi-planes etc.
Again you are pointless: just check the Italian and British equipements in North Africa, and then tell me who had the most obsolete equipment.
The Italian army wasn't THAT badly equipped....at LEAST on a par with the Japanese army.
And so what? Only because it was comparable (frankly I don't agree much) to the Japanese, what does it mean? Besides the fact that, unlike Italy, the Japanese had the luck to fight in lands where mechanization was irrilevant and often against enemies with an equipment even worse than theirs, what do you mean? That a WW1-style army, whose performance in WW2 was far from being exiting, was thought to be a powerfull weapon of expansion by Mussolini (who, on the opposite, was well aware of most of its shortcomings and was, obviously, very angry with Hitler when he attacked Poland because he didn't want a war in Europe; not exactly the behaivour of a warmonger just waiting the next war to defeat nothing less than the British Empire)?

Since you have failed to tell me what were your great souces about Italy in WW2, and the few ones that you have provided are pretty worthless sites, even giving false information, since this discussion is only a complete waste of time because you go on with your baseless and unproved points, and since I would much prefer to debate with a child, whose knowledge of Fascist Italy certainly wouldn't be lower than yours but at least would be humble enough to stop telling nonsenses and study before speaking, I leave this thread.
You may reply whatever you want, I'll not reply. I'm bored and annoyed, and I've many more things to do that are better than wasting my time with you.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Post by Polynikes » 20 Jul 2004 06:05

tonyh wrote:Poly. I've read your post, but theres really no point in replying to it, because its an "Is too/Is not" type of argument. You haven't actually elaborated on what you've said earlier, just repeated it, but the repetition doesn't make it fact. You have your opinions. but they are not opinions that I can find myself in full agreement with.

Tony
Fair enough Tony but at least I hope you no longer consider Australian steel production and Canadian automotive production in 1939 eligible for inclusion in British economic strength.

Whether Hitler would be a direct threat to Britain in the absense of a British declaration of war is, of course, a matter of opinion. There I guess we just have to differ.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Post by Polynikes » 20 Jul 2004 07:07

DrG

Thank you for the explanation. I still don't agree with your idea that, with UK and France still fighting, Italy would have attacked Greece anyway.

That's not what I said. I said in the absence of Anglo-French action, Mussolini still proceeeds to increase Italian power by invasion. Italy had built up a military force bigger than was necessary to defend itself....Mussolini would want to use it.

IMO, British/French refusal to act over Poland would only serve to act as an encouragement.

....UK hadn't been at war....Italy would have never attacked Greece.

Well that's a subject for debate I suppose...as italy had already been pushing it's influence in the region, I think it's fair to say that Mussolini had ambitions in the Balkans & in Greece.

See my comments above.

Or more precisely, no DoW by Britain/France (probably) means no attack by Italy on Egypt.

This much is true....have I ever doubted it?

Bah! Your very own idea. Full stop. [this is really the most pointless discussion I have ever had]

I doubt that.

http://members.aol.com/balkandave/greece40.htm

...Yet it had been agreed that the Balkans would be in Mussolini's sphere of interest and the Italian dictator was jealous of Hitler's success.

Would you call this a motive?

http://www.sevenchurch.com/7Romepg05.htm

Mussolini had ambitions to revive the Roman Empire ....when the Second War World began, Mussolini invaded Greece and North Africa, just as the Romans had done before when early Roman expansion destroyed Carthage and conquered Greece.

Was not Greece a province of the Roman empire?

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... ok_08.html

Every statesman knew that Mussolini's imperialist program demanded, not Albania, which was of little value except as a route to Greece, but the Yugoslavian coast of the Adriatic, to the north of it, which had splendid harbors....and was part of the old Roman Empire.

I really can't be bothered supplying you with any more of other people's opinions...
But just to assure you - I don't own these web pages and didn't write them.

What is pointless is talking to people like you who are incapable of independent thought.

My own idea indeed!

Bah!

Given that the opposite, as historically happened, didn't stop Mussolini's attack on Greece, I can hardly see how this should be a point for your position...

That's because you're incapable of thinking a point through. If Italy attacks Greece KNOWING that Britain is willing to defend it...wouldn't Italy be MORE willing to attack it if it believed that Britain (or anybody else) was not?

The attack on Greece was made mostly for preeptive reasons (to avoid the use of Greece as a British base...

Bah! Your very own idea. Full stop. (This is really the most pointless discussion I have ever had).

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... ok_08.html

The Greeks knew that Italy coveted the island of Corfu, off the southern coast of Albania, and they and the British asked for assurances. They got them in profusion...

So I'll spell it out...Britain got involved out of Greek requests. The Greek requests came from a fear of Italian attack.

Got it?

The British got involved to keep italy out of Greece NOT vice versa?

Now go away and study it before deciding on whose idea is the most widespread.

And again you fail to provide any proof of that alleged (an unexisting) build up.

Please re-read ALL of the post you're replying to.

....completely sure that I'm just wasting my time discussing with you.

Actually it's not your time you're wasting.

OK, I have get used to British propaganda, even 60 years after the end of the war they are still able to write such idiocies, at least I hoped you didn't believe them and had a better source than that.

British? - who's website?

Of course it doesn't suit your post but I can't help that. Another who will believe a source he agrees with a damn a web page that he doesn't.

......On 10 June 1940, in Libya (facing not only the Britons and Egyptians, always forgotten, abut also the French; all forces inflated in Italian intelligence reports) there were 236,000 men.

...and you know this because you counted them?

Source?

And Britain, unlike the Italian warmongers, started the war with modern equipment (as the Hurricanes), tanks (not tankettes as Italy).....

And your conclusion that Italian equipment was not modern is based on the Italian CV33 & CV35? which were light tanks not tankettes.
Britain also had designs that were just as obsolete.

BTW, you didn't metion the M13/40 with 47mm gun.

You told that the Italian Army lacked the will of fighting... or do you mean that it was useless also for parades?

I mean that you draw hasty conclusions. I said that in WWII, Italian troops fought poorly unless supported by German troops.

YOU made the comment about them being fit only for parades.

If you knew a bit more than 0, you would know that...blah, blah, blah

YOU talk of pointless argument and yet still continue to ramble on ..... the point is that Mussolini believed in an easy victory against Britain (in the context of the situaltion after Dunkirk) and was wrong.

And in any case, as we've established, a Britain untroubled by Germany was too big a bone for the Facsist dog to chew.

I don't know if I have to cry or to laugh....

I would suggest study.

Losses in aircraft and expenses in Eithiopia and Spain!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

My dear Polyinikes, it was a reply to your advice of checking my history. Do you know the Italian say: "il bue che da del cornuto all'asino"? (the cow that tells to the donkey: horny!") You don't even know the history of fascist Italy, and then tell me to check it.... please! That advice was really pathetic!

....LOL

You read an Italian phrase in a Berlitz book and think that makes you qualified in Italian history.

And so what? Only because it was comparable (frankly I don't agree much) to the Japanese, what does it mean?

It means that you're insistance on adding up the moderness of equipments is at best doubtful.

Besides the fact that, unlike Italy, the Japanese had the luck to fight in lands where mechanization was irrilevant ....

Hmmmm.....the USMC didn't seem to think so.

Bottom line, Italy was expansionist.
The point about Italy was to ask if there was a point when (assuming you believed that the Anglo-French DoW 1939 was a mistake) British reaction was necessary to German-Italian expansionism.

Now you seem to passionately believe that Italy was a spent force and incapable/unwilling of posing a threat to anyone above the level of primitive tribesmen, I differ but so what?

You clearly have a problem with focus and also with confrontation.....as well a distorted view on Fascist Italy.

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1299
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Churchill Acknowledges Grave Losses In Greece

Post by Globalization41 » 21 Jul 2004 07:09

London, Special Cable to The New York
Times,
By Robert P. Post, Sunday, April 27,
1941:
Prime Minister Winston Churchill
invoked tonight the increasing closeness in
relations between Britain and the United States
to drive home to the British people his belief
that only in the West can Germany win the war
and that there she will be beaten. ... All
through his broadcast speech, in which the
Prime Minister acknowledged grave reverses in
Greece, ran the thread of renewed trust in the
United States and Britain
together as a decisive
factor in the war. ... No prudent, far-seeing
man, he said, could doubt that the defeat of the
Axis was certain
in view of the resolves of the
British and American democracies. There
were fewer than 70-million "malignant Huns,
some of whom are curable," while against
them, the United States, Britain, and her
dominions mustered 200-million persons, he
declared. ... The democracies, he stressed,
possess unchallengeable command of the sea
and will soon obtain decisive superiority in the
air. "They are determined that the cause of
freedom shall not be trampled on
nor the tide
of world progress turned backward by the
criminal dictators." ... He stressed that honor
demanded aid to Greece and that never before
had Britain been so admired across the
Atlantic. With a sort of side glance at the
isolationists, he said that the United States was
accustomed to use "many valid, solid
arguments about American interests and
American safety, which depend on the
destruction of Hitler and his foul gang and
even fouler doctrines." ... But in the long run
he predicted action by the United States would
be dictated "not by methodical calculations of
profit and loss but by moral sentiment."
[About Mussolini he said] "This whipped
jackal,
Mussolini, who made all Italy a vassal
State of Hitler's empire, comes frisking up at
the side of the German tiger with yelpings of
appetite and triumph
." [He also praised U.S.
Navy patrols
and dismissed Nazi propaganda
attempting to split Australia and Britain.]


[Stay tuned for late breaking war bulletins.
... Globalization41.]

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1299
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

British Forces in Greece Flee Nazi Blitz

Post by Globalization41 » 25 Jul 2004 03:35

Berlin, United Press, The New York Times,
Sun., Apr. 27: The British Expeditionary
force, driven from its last stand just north of
Athens in fierce fighting, was said today to be
fleeing southward to Crete and to Egypt under
a savage assault by German bombers that have
sunk nearly 300,000 tons of ships along Greek
coasts in ten days. ... In the past 48 hours, it
was stated officially, German attacks have sunk
a British cruiser and 12 more ships totaling
53,000 tons off Greek southern coasts and
damaged two more cruisers and at least 29
ships. More than 30 ships totaling 80,000 tons
were said to have suffered direct bomb hits
yesterday and today. ... Tonight German naval
craft were said to be operating "deep into the
Mediterranean," striking at Britain's lines of
communication and supplies.
... ... D.N.B.
said German planes carried out machine-gun
and bomb attacks today on armored forces and
columns along interior roads of Peloponnesus.
... The entire German press asserted that,
"the same as in the World War," it was the
Australians and New Zealanders who were
sacrificed [in Balkans battles]. ... German
informed quarters said tonight that the Greek
Aegean Island of Samothrace, 50 miles west of
Gallipoli and the Dardanelles, actually was
occupied by German forces on April 19,
although its occupation was not announced
until days later. ... These quarters revealed
that a force of 300 men, in six machinegun-
carrying motor cutters, stormed the island after
a six-hour trip from the mainland. After a
brief resistance the Greek civil authorities
surrendered the island, it was said, but bands
of soldiers and sailors continued to resist in the
craggy mountains for another day. ... ...
Washington, Special to The New York Times,
Sunday, April 27, 1941: Henry Robert
Lanchester, Royal Air Force flier and husband
of Elizabeth Ann Poole, daughter of Ernest
Poole, New York novelist, has been killed in
action, according to news reaching here today.
The Lanchesters were married last May. Mrs.
Lanchester and here parents are at Weybridge,
Surrey, England it was learned. ... ... Sofia,
Bulgaria, Associated Press, The New York
Times,
Sunday, April 27, 1941: Bulgarian
authorities today assumed control of the
Skoplje region in the Vardar Valley of
Yugoslavia. King Boris continued his visits to
occupied territories. ... ... Berlin, Associated
Press, The New York Times,
Sunday, April
27, 1941:
Premier Bogdan Philoff of Bulgaria
today wired Adolph Hitler thanks for "freeing"
Macedonia and Thrace.
This is an indication
that the Bulgars expect to get an outlet to the
Aegean. ... ... Rome, Associated Press, The
New York Times, Sunday, April 27, 1941:
The prominent commentator Alfredo Signoretti
forecast in the Stampa of Turin today that the
Axis would use its virtually completed conquest
of Europe as a "springboard" for new
conquests in Africa and Asia. ... He indicated
Italy, freed of the war in Greece, would throw
her whole weight against the British in North
Africa. ... ... Rome, United Press, The New
York Times,
Sunday, April 27, 1941: The
Italian radio tonight unleashed its strongest
attack thus far on Switzerland, warning the
tiny Alpine nation that her "existence" would
be jeopardized unless she maintained strict
neutrality.
... "Absolute neutrality is the only
reason that can justify the existence of the
Swiss Republic. But the majority of the Swiss
press is paid by British Jewry and serves
British interests.
Locarno has become a center
of espionage. Switzerland must be careful."

Vichy, France, Associated Press, The
New York Times,
Sunday, April 27, 1941:
Diplomatic circles here expressed belief today
that Germany's next thrust would be toward
the Russian Ukraine
-- Europe's bread basket.
The diplomats cited unconfirmed reports of
Russian troop movements from Siberia to the
Western Soviet frontiers. ... The reported
German move toward the Ukraine, it was said,
was closely bound up with a prospect of Nazi
occupation of Spain and passage of German
troops through the unoccupied zone of France.
As yet there has been no indication that
Germany has served specific demands on the
Petain Government for the passage of troops,
diplomatic circles said. ... The diplomats said
there has never been any question of Spain's
adhering to the Axis if Germany demanded it.
The only problem, they believe, was whether
it was advantageous for Germany to undertake
troop movements through undernourished Spain
to close the western entrance to the
Mediterranean.
... It was understood here that
Germany would have to find food before she
would be able to undertake such a move. The
only place where food is available is in the
Russian Ukraine. ... If Joseph Stalin were able
to drive a bargain with Reichsfuehrer Hitler,
the diplomats said, food would come through
normally, but if they were unable to reach an
agreement war would follow. Germany would
attack Russia to obtain food before occupation
of hungry Spain,
it was said.

Hong Kong, Associated Press, The New York
Times,
Sunday, April 27, 1941: A Chinese
counter-offensive south of Chuki, important
point on the Chekiang-Kiangsi railway, cost the
Japanese upward of 4,000 casualties and forced
them to fall back to the north, Chinese Central
News Agency
reports declared tonight. ... The
Agency said the counter-attack followed a
Japanese attempt to trap Chinese forces in the
region in a four-column onslaught supported by
50 planes. ... The Japanese recently swept in
force into Chekiang Province in a move
interpreted by some observers as striking at a
Chungking supply route.

Istanbul, Turkey, Associated Press, The New
York Times,
Monday, April 28, 1941: [Late
Sunday, U.S. time]
Turkish newspapers for the
first time in months spoke openly today of a
German menace to this country, especially of
threats seen in the Nazi occupation of Greek
Islands in position to dominate the vital straits.
... "Our government," the newspaper Vatan
said, "is prepared to accept even the smallest
demands as a declaration of war." ... Ikdam
pointed out: "The menace of the Germans on
Lemnos is not as great as the menace of the
British was [in the first World War] because the
Germans don't have the seapower the British
commanded."

The New York Times, Sunday, April 27, 1941:
The German war flag was raised [by the Adolf
Hitler S.S. Division]
over Olympia in the
western Peloponnesus, the Zagreb radio
announced, according to The United Press.
Olympia is eight miles east of the Ionian port
of Pyrgos and about 40 air miles southwest of
Patras. ... ... Additional large numbers of
British troops are due in Singapore, where
store fronts are boarded and machinegun
boxes have been established at strategic street
intersections, the National Broadcasting
Company reported from the British Far East
base [Sunday] night. ... ... British and
Netherland naval forces in the Far East have
orders to capture Captain Count Felix von
Luckner, believed to be commanding Nazi sea
raiders in the South Pacific Ocean,
N.B.C.
reported from Manila. ... ... [C.B.S.'s
listening station in New York picked up the
following broadcast from London.]
Reports
reaching London from neutrals who have
escaped from Belgrade describe the pitiless
cruelty of the German air bombardment
of the
Yugoslav capital, which they say was worse
than Warsaw. One estimate puts the casualties
in Belgrade at over 20,000 people killed. The
attack took place within a few hours of the
German invasion of Yugoslavia, and the city's
water and electricity supplies were soon
wrecked. Fleeing civilians were machine-
gunned,
and those now left in Belgrade are
said to be living like animals. [The easily
offended Hitler, who hated the Serbs, German
enemies in World War I, had ordered Belgrade
civilians bombed because they had staged a
spontaneous, mass anti-Nazi demonstration in
late March.]
... ... Moscow, Associated
Press, The New York Times,
Sunday, April
27, 1941:
Red Star, organ of the Soviet Army,
reported today the German occupation of the
Greek islands of Samothrace and Lemnos, near
the Dardanelles entrance to the Black Sea,
and
described this as part of "widespread action" in
the Aegean. ... Referring to Lemnos, the
newspaper said, "This island [40 miles] from
the exit of the Dardanelles, has great strategic
importance
." ... Red Star failed to throw any
light on the Soviet Government's attitude
toward the German occupation. ...
Simultaneously it was reported that Red Army
engineers had pitched camp in the Odessa
military district
adjoining the Balkans for a
training period -- the first mention here of
Soviet Spring exercises on the Black Sea.

Vichy, France, United Press, The New York
Times,
Sun., Apr. 27, 1941: France must step
from economic collaboration with Germany to
"political cooperation," the Nazi-dominated
press in Paris asserted today. ... The leading
pro-Nazi newspaper of Paris, the Nouveaux
Temps,
asserted that France had no alternative
except to accept Herr Hitler's proposals [for
collaboration]
because it was a nation without
guns, munitions, or tanks and with two million
of its soldiers still prisoners of war.
... As for
the French Fleet, the newspaper said, it is the
only real force upon which France can count
and its use against Britain would "hasten the
British defeat in the Mediterranean." "The
whole world awaits Vichy's decision."

Map of Greece

Map of Poloponesse

[Stay tuned for late breaking war bulletins.
... Globalization41.]

User avatar
Caesar
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 20:19
Location: Belguim

Post by Caesar » 09 Aug 2004 22:36

in one of my books i read the following:

between 14 and 19 april:

an EF of 10 000 men (British, frensh and polish) landed in norway at Narvik.

the original plan was to occupy nord-norway (because of the iron) and then go 2 finland and fight the USSR.

these plans where interupped bye the german invasion of norway

am i right?

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1299
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

The Norwegian Sector

Post by Globalization41 » 10 Aug 2004 05:05

I think the Norway sector boils down to Hitler
wanting to secure his northern flank while
keeping his supply lines open. Meanwhile, the
Allies aimed to outflank Hitler while cutting his
supply lines. ... The U.S.S.R.'s invasion of
Finland gave the Allies the excuse to dispatch
an expeditionary force to Scandinavia, given
that the Soviet Union seemed to be in the Axis
camp
after Stalin and Hitler doubleteamed
Poland. I suspect that Stalin's fear of British
interventionism
led him to authorize a cease
fire with Finland before the Allied expeditionary
force could be deployed. Chamberlain, still the
British P.M., was strongly anti-Soviet, but only
reluctantly anti-Nazi. ... Trading with Hitler
violated Norway's neutrality, thus inviting
intervention
by the British and French. But
Germany needed strategic war supplies. Thus
Hitler did not rescind his decision to invade
Norway, which had been made prior to the
armistice on the Finnish front.

Operation Weserübung

Judgement: The Invasion of
Denmark and Norway

The Invasion of Norway - 1940

Globalization41
Last edited by Globalization41 on 18 Jun 2005 03:07, edited 1 time in total.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by tonyh » 10 Aug 2004 14:37

Caesar wrote:in one of my books i read the following:

between 14 and 19 april:

an EF of 10 000 men (British, frensh and polish) landed in norway at Narvik.

the original plan was to occupy nord-norway (because of the iron) and then go 2 finland and fight the USSR.

these plans where interupped bye the german invasion of norway

am i right?
Actually the plan, R5 I think it was called, was to land at Narvik and Trondheim(?), leave a detachment and make their way to the Galivare Iron ore fields in Sweden. Once that was secure a decision would be made to carry out the ostensible mission of "aiding" the Finns in the Winter War, although this was very much secondary to the main BEF missions in the area. the British realised of course that this was a gross violation of both Norway and Sweden's neutrality, but hoped that once disembarked that the Norwegians would welcome their presence.

Tony

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”