Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Spain in world war two
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Ratswiskers (U7323852) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
What role did Spain play in the second world war?
I have to plead general ignorance, but after the Germans helped to defeat the Republicans in the civil war, Spain seems assume a passive role.
Can anyone suggest any books related to the subject. -
Message 2
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
Hi Ratswiskers,
I finished Anthony Beevor's Battle for Spain a few weeks ago. The closing chapters deal with the reasons Franco largely stayed out of WWII. Though I think some units of men were sent over it was more by way of a gesture of solidarity and gratitude to Hitler than a serious commitment to the war.
Though Franco did have expansionist designs in parts of N Africa, years of Civil War left the country in no state to become a belligerent - even if Franco would wanted to.
That said I'm now ploughing through Battle Cry of Freedom which is a total brick and appears to be printed on fag paper -I may well be reading it for the rest of my life - as a result Battle for Spain is fast becoming a distant memory. It could well be that other members can furnish you with more detail.
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 3
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
Spain was the main escape route for Allied aircrew, the Swiss border being too well-guarded.
Algeciras across the bay from Gib was full of Nazi spies, some of whom were tricked by the fake Royal Marine corpse (real corpse, fake Marine) washed up with phoney invasion plans. -
Message 4
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
Algeciras across the bay from Gib was full of Nazi spies, some of whom were tricked by the fake Royal Marine corpse (real corpse, fake Marine) washed up with phoney invasion plans.
Ìý
Operation Mincemeat. I like the film 1956 "The Man Who Never Was" which was based on a book (which I've not read) -
Message 5
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
Hello all,
Perhaps Franco was too clever to be dragged into a war when staying neutral would bring his country far larger profits and benefits. He managed his country quite well too, even allowing the niggling problem of Gibraltar to remain on the sidelines during the conflict. Wise man! -
Message 6
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
I finished Anthony Beevor's Battle for Spain a few weeks ago. The closing chapters deal with the reasons Franco largely stayed out of WWII. Though I think some units of men were sent over it was more by way of a gesture of solidarity and gratitude to Hitler than a serious commitment to the warÌý
I'd second that recommendation.
A couple of things immediately spring to mind. Franco regime didn't have a secure hold on power - persecutions went on until well after 1945 and he probably feared a renewed civil war with allied backing for the Republicans.
Secondly, although Franco was fascist, his ideology wasn't the same as Hitler's. For instance, Spanish diplomats (with full knowledge of the home government) directly contributed towards saving tens of thousands of Jews by dishing out passports.
Many Spanish did volunteer to fight for Germany - try searching for "Blue Division".
I'm now ploughing through Battle Cry of Freedom Ìý
The James MacPherson book? I found it very good, but the amount of detail may make you forget everything else! -
Message 7
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
Hi Cloudyj,
I'd be interested to know more about the continuation and end of the Franco regime - are there any books you'd recommend? Beyond a few comments about the effects of tourism Beevor understandably says little about Franco after the war.
That's the one - given that it is virgin territory for me its suprisingly accessable and am enjoying the opening chapters on the end of the war with Mexico and industrialisation of the US.
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 8
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
In 1942 Hitler was quoted to have characterized his Spanish allies as follows, "The majority of the population is hopelessly lazy... The Ceremonial Guard Company left a dreadful impression, since every rifle was covered with such a layer of rust that one could not possibly get a single shot off... It is very difficult to find an outstanding personality who can bring order to that country..." (Hitler's Table Talk) Of course, none of his other allies got much better marks, and for a good reason. The meager amount of mileage that he squeezed out of his allies does not bode well for him as a strategist.
-
Message 9
Posted by Ratswiskers (U7323852) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
Thanks to everyone for your comments and insights, I've ordered a copy of Battle for Spain and look forward to reading it.
I must admit the general feel I get from the jottings I found on the web do seem reflect the comments here.
Franco's grip on power doesn't seem to have been very secure during the war years. He also seems to have played both sides of the fence quite successfully.
Thanks again. RW -
Message 10
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
I like the film 1956 "The Man Who Never Was" which was based on a book (which I've not read)Ìý
I like it too, but there's one scene which always makes me laugh.
When the body is washed ashore, a bunch of Spaniards gather round and look at it - in complete silence!
As one who lived in Gibraltar as a child, I can assure you this just couldn't have happened. They would all have been talking at once, twenty to the dozen. Whoever wrote the script had evidently lived in England all his life. -
Message 11
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
I'd be interested to know more about the continuation and end of the Franco regime - are there any books you'd recommend? Beyond a few comments about the effects of tourism Beevor understandably says little about Franco after the war.Ìý
Sorry Andrew, I can't name any books. Beevor's been on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ news several times this year talking about the Spanish reopening the cases of people murdered by the Franco regime.
That's the one - given that it is virgin territory for me its suprisingly accessable and am enjoying the opening chapters on the end of the war with Mexico and industrialisation of the US.Ìý
I could be getting my books mixed up, but there's quite a bit about Southern attempts to get the US to expand into ex-Spanish territory and form new states with slavery. That way they wouldn't be outnumbered by the westward expansion which was driven mostly by abolitionists. Cuba being particularly desired. -
Message 12
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
although Franco was fascist, his ideology wasn't the same as Hitler's. For instance, Spanish diplomats (with full knowledge of the home government) directly contributed towards saving tens of thousands of Jews by dishing out passports.
Ìý
That's true, and was more in line with Italy's fascists which was not anti-Semitic. Italy's war record towards its Jewish population was very good, with no Italian Jews being transported to concentration camps when Italy was in control of their country, even when Germany asked/demanded it of them - in fact the Italian authorities did its best to avoid complying with the German demands.
I do not know what happened to Italy's Jews when Italy surrendered and Germany took over those parts of the country in German hands. -
Message 13
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
Hi Stoggler,
I do not know what happened to Italy's Jews when Italy surrendered and Germany took over those parts of the country in German hands.Ìý
In that time the Germans tried to get on the Jews for transporting them into the deathcamps. I am not sure too how many they got of the Jews, but for example in Rome there has been such actions for collecting them.
It could be one point in addition to the aforesaid, that the Germans had much more to do to fight the Italian Partisans and committed attrocities among the Italian Civilians.
There has been also Jewish Members of the Italian Fascist Movement, but those members also hasn´t been spared on anti-semitism by the growing influence and pressure of Hitler towards Moussolini. -
Message 14
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
There has been also Jewish Members of the Italian Fascist Movement, but those members also hasn´t been spared on anti-semitism by the growing influence and pressure of Hitler towards Moussolini.Ìý By the time Wehrmacht entered Italy, Hitler long had considered Mussolini a liability, not to mention the fact that Mussolini had left the Jews to their own devices for all intents and purposes. Ironically, he was hated the most by the mafia. I've always been wondering why Mussolini was probably the second most vilified character after Hitler with respect to the Second World War. In my opinion, it is yet another smoke screen puffed up to obscure the role and the glorious and/or dubious ally status of the incomparable Uncle Joe, probably still revered by the left around the world - secretly by some and openly by others.
-
Message 15
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
Hello suvorovetz,
I've always been wondering why Mussolini was probably the second most vilified character after Hitler with respect to the Second World War.Ìý
Therefore it is helpful to take a look on Mussolinis biography. In the 1920s the big fascist leader in Italy and 15 years leater going from one mistake to another. Abbesinia, Greece, Albania, joyning the war in 1940 to occupy some territory along the French / Italian Border. He failed everywhere and without the help and the support of Hitler, he had gone close down his "Empire" earlier than in 1943/44. From that day in 1943 when was freed by the Germans and taken to Berlin, this man was just an shadow of his selfpretendet "Greatness" until he was captured and executed by Italian Partisans in April 1945. He wasn´t that "light-version" of an Fascist.
In my opinion, it is yet another smoke screen puffed up to obscure the role and the glorious and/or dubious ally status of the incomparable Uncle Joe, probably still revered by the left around the world - secretly by some and openly by others.Ìý
So there you have "Uncle Joe" the other big slaughterer who was betrayed by his "arch-enemy" Hitler and rejected to recognize that he was betrayed when the Wehrmacht entered the USSR in 1941. Without the Red Army fighting the Germans on the Eastern Front, the Alliies might not have succeeded on D-Day, despite the huge military equipment and men. Stalin demanded often towards his Western Alliies to open the second front, for his own purposes in advance of the Red Army.
As well you will find people who still revere Stalin, as well you can find people somewhere who still revere Hitler and Mussolini.
I revere non of them, because they are all criminals. -
Message 16
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
So there you have "Uncle Joe" the other big slaughterer who was betrayed by his "arch-enemy" Hitler and rejected to recognize that he was betrayed when the Wehrmacht entered the USSR in 1941. Without the Red Army fighting the Germans on the Eastern Front, the Alliies might not have succeeded on D-Day, despite the huge military equipment and men. Stalin demanded often towards his Western Alliies to open the second front, for his own purposes in advance of the Red Army.Ìý You are making a lot of very bold assumptions here about who "betrayed" whom. From what I've learnt in the past so many years, it appears that if Hitler had postponed Barbarossa for merely a month, the Red Army would have most probably rolled all the way to the Atlantic Coast before FDR afforded the US Army more than just a whopping arsenal of 400 or so crappy M-series tanks. I suppose, you would not disagree with the fact that it's simply ridiculous to compare the number of people harmed by Mussolini to those wronged by Stalin, Stalin's record being much more impressive in that regard. The question then becomes, what is it that compelled FDR favor Stalin over Mussolini, for example, particularly well before Barbarossa?
-
Message 17
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
Thomas_B,
Greetings. Re' your query about Italian Jews.On October 16th 1943 after looting the Rome Jewish community 1,259 Jews were arrested. After sorting out the mixed marriages as per Nazi instructions 1,030 Jews including 200 children were sent to Auschwitz. 15 of these survived the war. The round ups continued until the end of 1944 and some 7,000 perished(about 20% of the population). This despite the ordinary Italians hiding so many of them or helping others to escape over the border. In addition to those Jews whom the Italians sheltered it must not be forgotten that they also tried to shield not only Italian Jews but those from some of the cities and countries that came under their jurisdiction.
Regards Spruggles. -
Message 18
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
On October 16th 1943 after looting the Rome Jewish community 1,259 Jews were arrested. After sorting out the mixed marriages as per Nazi instructions 1,030 Jews including 200 children were sent to Auschwitz.Ìý Not to be missed here, Mussolini had nothing to do with this. These were the actions undertaken by the SS troops led by Kappler and Dannecker.
-
Message 19
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Thank you Spruggles for your reply.
Regards
Thomas -
Message 20
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 17th July 2009
suvorovetz,
I an short sentence: I disagree with the whole you´ve written in your post.
It is obviously that you try to make Mussollini an "harmless" dictator, what he surely was not.
From what I've learnt in the past so many years, it appears that if Hitler had postponed Barbarossa for merely a month, the Red Army would have most probably rolled all the way to the Atlantic Coast...Ìý
This opinion, I do only know from historians who are revisionists and looking for any reason to justify the raid on the USSR by German troops in 1941. Contrary to your opinion that I´ve made " a lot of very bold assumptions here about who "betrayed" whom" might be useless in your opinion, but historically, Stalin was paralised over a few days and he refused to recognize that the Germans already has been on the way by their "Blitztactic" and lost much time for an counterstrike. The Red Army was not prepared for an raid against Germany, they trusted upon the German-Sovjet treaty of 1939. You might believe that or not, it doesn´t bothers me at all.
If you are going to state that this is just another "a lot of very bold assumptions" by myself, than it is on you to bring up the historical facts which has evidential sources, accepted by neutral historians.
By the way, I could also describe your posts as " a lot of very bold assumptions", but I refuse to go on such an low level. -
Message 21
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Not to be missed here, Mussolini had nothing to do with this.Ìý
He neither did anything against that, because he was really more the captured then the equal guest in Hitlers Germany.
You may ask yourself about how the Italians had a go about their time of the Mussolini decades. It comes also from the lack about the aforesaid, that Mussolini and the Italian Fascism is there more considered as has been "harmless" which certernly was not. -
Message 22
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 17th July 2009
You may ask yourself about how the Italians had a go about their time of the Mussolini decades. It comes also from the lack about the aforesaid, that Mussolini and the Italian Fascism is there more considered as has been "harmless" which certernly was not.Ìý I actually asked Italians about it, don't you worry about my curiosity. I'm not sure if you're misconstruing my point intentionally, or out of not reading my posts closely, but never did I endorse Mussolini here. Why would I? He was just another brand of socialist, and I don't endorse socialism. My point, however, is that he was one of the most benign characters among those who were involved in the second world war, and he was certainly much less significant and harmful than Stalin. You would not think that reading the history books everywhere around the world, though.
-
Message 23
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Friday, 17th July 2009
He neither did anything against that, because he was really more the captured then the equal guest in Hitlers Germany. Ìý
But wasn't that his own choice?
To get back to the original thread, General Franco was a lot smarter, which is why he outlived both his "patrons" by thirty-some years. Any reason why the Italian Jackass couldn't have acted as Franco did - and lived as long? -
Message 24
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 17th July 2009
My point, however, is that he was one of the most benign characters among those who were involved in the second world war, and he was certainly much less significant and harmful than Stalin. You would not think that reading the history books everywhere around the world, though.Ìý
So what else you are after with your so "clear written" posts, if not to start arguments?
I think that it might be a waste of time to have arguments with you, it´s non of my interests.
Thank you! -
Message 25
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Mikestone8,
To get back to the original thread, General Franco was a lot smarter, which is why he outlived both his "patrons" by thirty-some years. Any reason why the Italian Jackass couldn't have acted as Franco did - and lived as long?Ìý
Because Mussonlini wanted to restore the former "Roman Empire" and was greedy after that, but when he saw that the Germans going on faster to occupy Europe for their own Empire, he might be ashamed about his misfortune.
I don´t know that France might have had the same "dreams" of an "Spanish Empire" like Hitler and Mussolini had for their countries.
Regards
Thomas -
Message 26
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Sorry for the mistyping it means Franco, not France.
-
Message 27
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Thomas_B I think that it might be a waste of time to have arguments with you, it´s non of my interests.Thank you!Ìý Ditto that and thank you!
-
Message 28
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 17th July 2009
accepted by neutral historiansÌý Neutral historians? Must be the ones who don't count tanks, if it may cause controversy. That's a new one for the books.
-
Message 29
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Neutral historians? Must be the ones who don't count tanks, if it may cause controversy. That's a new one for the books.Ìý
You really have no idea, don´t you?
You may find someone else to start arguments and I wish you very much fun on that.
It´s not a question of controversy, it´s more on how people treat each other on different opinions. The same way you are going to talk, the same way you will get it back. Right?
For now I am off the board. -
Message 30
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 17th July 2009
It´s not a question of controversy, it´s more on how people treat each other on different opinions. The same way you are going to talk, the same way you will get it back. Right?Ìý Right. Some people are actually offended by different ideas. Or the number of tanks. Sometimes, it'd be better not to know. Don't ask, don't tell.
-
Message 31
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Stalin was paralised over a few days and he refused to recognize that the Germans already has been on the wayÌý By the way, according to not so long ago published Stalin's visitors' journal, he was far from being paralised. In fact, he was quite busy meeting around the clock with his General Staff and other brass.
-
Message 32
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Saturday, 18th July 2009
By the way, according to not so long ago published Stalin's visitors' journal, he was far from being paralised. In fact, he was quite busy meeting around the clock with his General Staff and other brass.Ìý
I just wonder from where you got these sources. I´ve got very different sources to what I´ve written on the same matter. There are more than one different sources which all stated, that Stalin indeed wasn´t able to act even to "be quite busy meeting around the clock with his General Staff and other brass" at least within the first 48 hours after the attac has started.
Now I am off for the weekend. -
Message 33
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 18th July 2009
Thomas I just wonder from where you got these sources. I´ve got very different sources to what I´ve written on the same matter. There are more than one different sources which all stated, that Stalin indeed wasn´t able to act even to "be quite busy meeting around the clock with his General Staff and other brass" at least within the first 48 hours after the attac has started.Ìý I just told you what my source is: it's the Stalin's very visitors journal published during the short-lived period of open-mindedness in Russia. I even know what your source is. The source of this ridiculous story about Stalin being "paralyzed" is Zhukov's fraudulent memoires and its countless derivatives written by unscrupulous deadbeats who call themselves historians, while unable to vet the clumsiest of fabrications, among which Zhukov's memoires top the list.
-
Message 34
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Saturday, 18th July 2009
JB,
Algeciras across the bay from Gib was full of Nazi spies, some of whom were tricked by the fake Royal Marine corpse (real corpse, fake Marine) washed up with phoney invasion plans.Ìý
also the site of the "Olterra", used as a base for maiali attacks on Gibraltar
-
Message 35
Posted by bill (U9416906) on Thursday, 23rd July 2009
Any reference to Spanish involvement in WW2 should take account of the Blue Divions that fought on the Eastern Front & were reputedly not at all reluctant to support the SS in the massacre of civilians.
-
Message 36
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 24th July 2009
suvorovetz
The source of this ridiculous story about Stalin being "paralyzed" is Zhukov's fraudulent memoires and its countless derivatives written by unscrupulous deadbeats who call themselves historians, while unable to vet the clumsiest of fabrications, among which Zhukov's memoires top the list.Ìý
So what was it then that caused the weakness of the unprepared Red Army when not the lack of Stalin to take immediatly action against the German Invasion? Will you say the same tactics as the Russians took when Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812/1813?
I haven´t read that "Stalin´s very visitors journal" so I can´t know what is in it. In case that there are just the signatures of the Generals who visited him and nothing more, then this is no evidence against what is stated by many historians about the fact that Stalin was uncapable to answer the German invasion quick and took some days before he gave orders.
To your information, I never have read the Zhukov´s memoires and neither those of Khrushchev
as well. I got me informations from documentaries about Stalin´s biography and about WWII.
It was just one reason among others, that Stalin was so eager to catch Hitler alive, because he felt personally betrayed by him. Although I know, that this might be not important to you. -
Message 37
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 24th July 2009
millwallbill
Any reference to Spanish involvement in WW2 should take account of the Blue Divions that fought on the Eastern Front & were reputedly not at all reluctant to support the SS in the massacre of civilians.Ìý
This is very new to me, because I knew that there fought together with other foreign troops on the Eastern Front, but the massacres of civilians was more the task of the "Einsatzgruppen" of the SS.
How you got your conclution? -
Message 38
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 24th July 2009
Thomas To your information, I never have read the Zhukov´s memoires and neither those of Khrushchev as well. I got me informations from documentaries about Stalin´s biography and about WWII.Ìý So, what did you learn about the Red Army assets, man power and dislocation as of June, 1941, from these documentaries? Just curious.
-
Message 39
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 24th July 2009
suvorovetz
So, what did you learn about the Red Army assets, man power and dislocation as of June, 1941, from these documentaries? Just curious.Ìý
No, just that the Red Army has been overrun by the Germans in an lack of preparation for defense and neither of an plan for invading the German occupied Polish territory.
You may know how many time it tooks for the German General Staff to work out the whole plan for Operation Barbarossa.
Otherwise, you could tell what is in this "Stalin´s very visitors journal"? -
Message 40
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 24th July 2009
Thomas No, just that the Red Army has been overrun by the Germans in an lack of preparation for defense and neither of an plan for invading the German occupied Polish territory.Ìý That's not a whole lot to learn, is it? We all know that Wehrmacht rolled over Red Army. It is true that Red Army was not prepared for any defensive warfare. But it is a complete lie that there was no plan to attack Wehrmacht. There is a published copy of an offensive plan put together by Valisevsky and Zhukov, approved by Timoshenko and dated May 5, 1941, which suggested for South-Western Front to execute the main offensive strike cutting Germany from its only oil supply route from Romania. Just so you have an idea, by that time Red Army was in the process of deploying 5,774,200 troops, of which 4,605,300 were ground force troops, 475,700 were air force personnel, 353,800 were navy personnel, 167,600 were border guards, 171,900 were the NKVD interior troops. Ground forces had 303 divisions, 16 paratrooper brigades and 3 infantry brigades. All in all, the armed forces were equipped with 117,581 cannons and mortars, 24,488 aircraft and 25,886 tanks. These figures were summarized by Vladimir Beshanov in Myth Of Unpreparedness, but he was preceded by quite a list of researches: Shmelev, Zaloga, Suvorov, Meltukhov, Felshtinsky, Pavlova, Zakoretsky, etc, etc, etc
Otherwise, you could tell what is in this "Stalin´s very visitors journalÌý Well, you guessed it right. It is filled with the General Staff personnel's and other brass' signatures one after another. Perhaps, you are suggesting that Stalin was dosing off in the corner, while the brass kept coming in and out and staring at him for hours on end. I am genuinely fascinated by this theory that Stalin - who was incredibly calculating, cold blooded and controlling throughout his glorious murderous career - all of a sudden, completely lost it precisely at probably the most important moment of his life. -
Message 41
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 24th July 2009
Apparently, there was talk on this thread of Spain in this thread... Whatever happened to that!!!
-
Message 42
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 24th July 2009
suvorovetz,
That's not a whole lot to learn, is it?Ìý
This was an example from the documentaries, not the "whole" thing to learn from that.
Well, I admit that military details as you´ve written about are not that special interest of mine, oviously more of you. Nethertheless, according to that strenght of the Red Army, if Stalin had took actions in the same time as the Germans has been on charge, I think that this last attempt of an "Blitzkrieg" has gone to faile in the first week. But it hasn´t and so the Germans approaches at ca. 30 miles close to Moskow.
I was more interested in the biography of Stalin, and that is the main topic of these documentaries I´ve seen.
Now, I just have to leave the boards and if these thread will not be shut down because not going along the "main topic" of the thread, which isn´t any longer on that, we can discuss these matters next week.
Regards
Thomas -
Message 43
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 24th July 2009
Stoggler,
Apparently, there was talk on this thread of Spain in this thread... Whatever happened to that!!!Ìý
The usual thing when some arguments will be discussed and the whole thread has gone down because of an lack of interest in the main topic.
By the way, how many people on these boards has an big interest in Franco and especially, how many of them know much about him and his regime?
Not very much as I recognized here.
Regards
Thomas -
Message 44
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 24th July 2009
Are you sure it's a disinterest in Franco that prompts these replies? It isn't that some are more interested in airing their knowledge? Now there might have been some interest shown had somebody pointed out that while 'A' was invading 'B' who might/might not have been prepared ... a certain party sat on his hands and did nothing ... that takes a familiarity of cleverness if nothing else.
-
Message 45
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 24th July 2009
Nethertheless, according to that strenght of the Red Army, if Stalin had took actions in the same time as the Germans has been on charge, I think that this last attempt of an "Blitzkrieg" has gone to faile in the first week. But it hasn´t and so the Germans approaches at ca. 30 miles close to Moskow.Ìý It is quite obvious that Red Army deployment was in progress and incomplete, e.g., there were accounts of scores of tanks and munitions loaded on rail cars, stockpiled on open ground, etc, etc. It is also obvious that Stalin and his General Staff with Zhukov at the head had ignored impending Wehrmacht attack as improbable. Wehrmacht strike was a tactical mirror image of the Red Army offensive plan, whereas the main strike was executed to the north of Polessye swamps. Soviet tank masses at Belostok and Lvov became traps instead of intended offensive spearheads.
-
Message 46
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Friday, 24th July 2009
I agree Stoggler,
This is - despite other member's requests - veering a long way off the actual subject of Franco and WW2. It's clear that some members still want to discuss this.
If other members want to debate Stalin, Red Army operations etc then can I ask you to start a new thread based around that. It causes bad feeling if people feel their discussions are being hijacked.
And *please* can you keep it friendly. There has been a spate of unpleasant arguments recently - it's intimidating and off-putting to other members. Robust debate is one thing but personal remarks and childish taunts have no place on these boards.
If more threads descend to this level I will have to close them. Repeat offenders may find that the Mods take action against their account.
Many thanks
Andrew -
Message 47
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 24th July 2009
Andrew It causes bad feeling if people feel their discussions are being hijacked. And *please* can you keep it friendly. There has been a spate of unpleasant arguments recently - it's intimidating and off-putting to other members.Ìý I haven't found anything about causing bad feelings in the rules. It looks like a whole lot of things cause bad feelings around here; but the degree of unpleasantness seems to be largely determined by what side of the argument "the mods" find themselves on. I guess, I can't hope for detailed instruction as to where the lines are drawn. I thought that the Civil War in Spain has some bearing on the Second World War, but I was wrong, quite apparently. However, I can assure everybody that "causing bad feelings" was the last thing on my mind. If I did that, I sincerely apologize.
-
Message 48
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Friday, 24th July 2009
I even want to develop the Stoggler's p
oint of view ...nothing to type at all.
Just take the books in a library and read them.
Hugh Thomas, The Lirical Illusion of Spain 1936.
Stephen Spender, World within World.
Allen Guttmann, The Wound in the Heart: America and the Spanish Civil War. -
Message 49
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 24th July 2009
I even want to develop the Stoggler's point of view ...nothing to type at all.Ìý
-
Message 50
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 25th July 2009
OUNUPA,
If your answer to the original post is 'get a few books out of the library' then lets make that the universal law and shut down these boards. I happen to find the Spanish influence in WW2 an interesting sideline and would have been interested in other peoples points of view but it seems that is too boring. But of course the endless debate over the calibre and effectiveness of German/Russian artillery is absolutely necessary because they can't be found in library books can they.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.