German heavy ships

[RF]

.

"Defensive war" does not cover Italian policies and actions through the mid- to late-30s (let alone WW2).

Clearly this is evident as Italy was not at war with Britain and France in the 1930's. As for WW2 ''Defensive war'' was the actual Italian strategic posture imposed by the state of Italys' unpreparedness and lack of an efficient war machine. That was a reality that Mussolini tried to overcome in 1940 by ordering unreaistic and logistically impossible operations that the military staffs knew were unwise. That included ordering Graziani to invade Egypt before his forces were ready and the fiasco of the invasion of Greece. The declaration of war on the USA on 11 December 1941 by Mussolini was another act of insanity which the military staffs were saddled with.

"Defensive war" does NOT preclude offensive actions.

It didn't - some small scale offensive actions were conducted on the initiative of the army staffs, including the operations in East Africa such as Nasi's invasion of British Somaliland in August 1940. Another example was the bombing of Bahrein by the air force. But these type of operations were too small to have any impact on the course of the war.

"Defensive war" would have included dealing with interdicted supplies and having to supply North Africa, let alone attacks on Italian targets.

That is not in dispute. Clearly it did.

Il Duce is NOT the only one at fault, all three armed services had responsibilities at which they failed..

All three armed services had responsibilities which they could not fully discharge without being given the full terms of reference and the resources necessary for the prosecution of total war. A total war which was not of their choice.

[lwd]

.
... Still no details.

You are the proponent. You should be the one supplying the details. In addition to questioning your conclusions information has been provided which supports the postition that your conclusion is questionable. The ball is in your court not ours.

As far as not bothering to plan if one is likely to be defeated, that is NOT very professional, it is defeatist.

Or is it? There are an infinite number of different possibilities. Wasting time on lost causes rather than working on ones where you can make a difference makes sense to me.

It also assumes that "your" view of the situation is the same as your "enemy's".

Not really. It does however acknowledge that in many of these cases one will be reacting to the moves of the supperior force. So again the number of possiblities branch rapidly. In these cases relying on basic principles and logic may get you as far or further than a plan, especially if the plan includes a lot of factors that aren't present.

One of the things the Italian Navy (and other armed forces) should have done is planned for interdicted fuel supplies. (The RN did).

Are you sure they didn't? Indeed their operations pretty much make it look like they did.

"Defensive war" does not cover Italian policies and actions through the mid- to late-30s (let alone WW2).

Well it's quite clear that RF's comments were in regards to a war with Britain and/or France. Thus his statement looks quite accurate to me.

"Defensive war" does NOT preclude offensive actions.

That's a pretty good strawman you've built there.

"Defensive war" would have included dealing with interdicted supplies and having to supply North Africa, let alone attacks on Italian targets.

And your point is? If it's that the Italian Navy didn't consider this you are pretty clearly incorrect. RF has supplied evidence that they did.

Il Duce is NOT the only one at fault, all three armed services had responsibilities at which they failed.

Again with the strawmen. No one is saying that the Italian military performed brilliantly. However if you are assessing "fault" which seems to be your primary aim despite denails of it then from the evidence at hand most of it rests on Il Duce's shoulders.

[phil gollin]

.

RF

Strange ideas.

1: Your idea seems to be that it is o.k. to ignore Italian agressive rhetoric and actions (including two invasions and allying with Germany) - but claim they were somehow in a defensive mode. How are two invasions and allying oneself with another openly agressive, militaristic country "defensive" ?

2: You missed the point re "offensive actions" - it was something the Naval Staff should have planned even in a defensive war.

3: The naval staff failed properly to plan, organise, supply, build or train for the merchantile war/interdiction of supplies to North Africa.

4: Again, you seem to think that a Naval High Command has no obligation to act professionally, think, or plan.

.

[phil gollin]

.

LWD,

1: You have yet to supply details, I HAVE supplied details of the RN's Fleet Commander's actions and the LACK of action from the Italian Naval High Command. Hence your comment could not be more wrong.

2: Running away from your idea that a naval staff shouldn't plan if they think they might lose you try to hide in absurbity - not very clever.

3: Your weird adea that one plans mainly/only on reaction would show a lack of professionalisim and thought on the parts of the Italian Naval High Command.

4: The Italians did not properly plan, organise, supply, build or train for the merchantile war/interdiction of supplies to North Africa.

5: The idea that Italy could be agressive in both words and actions and somehow think it would not cause a war with France and/or Britain is not sensible.

6: Is it a "strawman" to point out that RF was wrong trying to hide a lack of planning behind the idea of a "defensive war" ?

7: see "4"

8: No, Il Duce has his faults and blame, but NO ONE has shown that the Italian Naval High Command was competant at planning, organising, supplying, building or training for war.

.

[RF]

.

RF
Strange ideas.

Why? My views are logical and straightforward. I am beginning to think that you are a wind up merchant, trying to create controversy unecessarily.

1: Your idea seems to be that it is o.k. to ignore Italian agressive rhetoric and actions (including two invasions and allying with Germany) - but claim they were somehow in a defensive mode. How are two invasions and allying oneself with another openly agressive, militaristic country "defensive" ?

You evade the point that the aggressive rhetoric and actions plus the alliance with Germany and Japan came from Mussolini and not the military staffs we were discussing. The fact is that the military staffs were not given the resources to plan and prosecute total war, so followed a more defensive mode. A point now made many times in this thread.

2: You missed the point re "offensive actions" - it was something the Naval Staff should have planned even in a defensive war.

My response clearly took the point on board and answered it.

3: The naval staff failed properly to plan, organise, supply, build or train for the merchantile war/interdiction of supplies to North Africa.

The fact is that they did what they could within the limitations imposed on them. Again a point clearly made in previous posts.

4: Again, you seem to think that a Naval High Command has no obligation to act professionally, think, or plan..

I never said or implied that. And I have previously refuted it.

[RF]

.

6: Is it a "strawman" to point out that RF was wrong trying to hide a lack of planning behind the idea of a "defensive war" ?.

Yet another misrepresentation.

I am not hiding behind anything. Italy and Mussolini was forced into the reality of a ''defensive war'' because it didn't have the means or war machine with which to attack all out. There is no point in planning all out attack if the means are not there. Otherwise they may as well have planned for an invasion of the planet Mars.....

The means were not there because of an inept political leadership that failed to create a proper war machine by allocating and utilising the required resources. Something beyond the abilities of any military staff, in any country, to create on their own.

[phil gollin]

.

RF

First post :-

oh dear - by just quoting "strange ideas" without the argument you show that you are squirming - strange indeed.

1: You now seem to imagine a Naval High Command can pretend to work to a defensive philosophy, whilst their country, both politically and militarily, acts offensively. There is no logic or sense there. You claim a lack of resources for planning, but the idea is to plan with the resources one has, or will have.

2: Re. offensive acts within a defensive war - no, you ducked the issue.

3: Again, you have not demonstrated at all. You had previously claimed that they were constrained, now it is some sort of non-defined set of limitations. What limitations ? Who imposed them ? You ignore their total inability to plan, organise or supply properly for the merchanitile war.

4: By not answering the problem of the Naval High Command's lack of professionalism and trying to proclaim that they somehow were professional and efficient you do so with no evidence and make no case.

--------

Second post :

6: You were trying to claim that Italy was in a defensive war posture - but they had been on the offensive since the mid-30s - they were the aggressor. They were the cause of the war - both is their actions for over 5 years and by their immediate actions in mid-1940. By definition they were in an agressive war. What, I think you are trying to hide behind is the fact that the Italian Navy had failed to come to terms with what the state (and ALL the armed force) had been and were doing. Well, if (and I don't believe it, the high command of an armed service engaged in aggressive acts doesn't plan for an aggressive war - how would you describe their professionalism ?

Weird.

.

[RF]

RF

First post :-

oh dear - by just quoting "strange ideas" without the argument you show that you are squirming - strange indeed.

Not at all.

What am I supposed to be squirming about. I have set out my reasoned analysis. You ignore the bulk of this analysis and make false assertions as to my position.

I put it to you that you are acting as a Troll and trying to wind up myself and lwd. My views on the matter are quite clear and it seems that there is no point in restating them yet again as you ignore them and repeat your wrong assertions.

I also find objectionable that this thread should be hijacked by you taking away the discussion from KM warships, particulary as there are current threads discussing Italian options in June 1940 to which you have made no contribution.

[phil gollin]

.

You, and LWD, have NOT put forward any reasoned analysis, you have merely parroted the apologists skimming over of history. You have ignored Italian agression over the course of the 30s and seem to think that a Naval High Command doesn't need to think or act professionally and that they should exist in a bubble of ignorance.

.

[RF]

.
You, and LWD, have NOT put forward any reasoned analysis, you have merely parroted the apologists skimming over of history. You have ignored Italian agression over the course of the 30s and seem to think that a Naval High Command doesn't need to think or act professionally and that they should exist in a bubble of ignorance.
.

None of this is true. All the points you make are clearly dealt with in my posts. You ignore my posts and interpose your own wrong assertions. I am not an apologist for anybody.

[phil gollin]

.

Please (yet again) point out where these "points are clearly dealt with" in your posts.

I did not call you an apologist, I stated that you were merely parroting them.

.

[RF]

As I have said twice before we seem to be destined to go round and round and round in circles with Phil's posts.

What Phil seems unable to understand is how a tinpot dictatorship works.

Supermarina, the naval staff is subordinate to the political leadership - Mussolini. That is who decides policy and ultimately decides on the allocation of resources, namely what the navy gets. The naval staff have to operate and plan around that. If they aren't told where Italy is going, or what the Duce needs from the navy, then they are in the dark. They can't plan properly. They can try to second guess about what they think the policy is and what is needed, but they almost certainly won't be able to do very much because the resources are inadequate. They can complain about the lack of direction and the lack of resources, and be ignored.

Logically from the point of view of any service staff officer in Italy in the late 1930's Italy is clearly unfit to take part in a major European war. The prospective enemies are France and Britain which between them effectively have Italy hemmed in, even though the homeland is in a central Med position. The only sane policy therefore is to keep out of any war that Germany starts. So staff officers would anticipate Italy remaining neutral in spite of the bellicose noises the state propaganda machine makes. If Italy faces no prospect of success against a combined British/French coalition then the only tactics and strategy that could be planned for at a staff level is the defensive posture that was adopted.

The fault ultimately lies with the person who makes the military and foreign policy decisions. If Italy is going to war, the staffs need to be told that Italy is going in that direction years before the dictator plans to move. They need to be told the grand strategy and where the expansion is expected to be. Hitler made it crystal clear that Germany was heading for war right from 1933, telling the military chiefs in February 1933 that he wanted the size of the Reichswehr trebled by October 1934. From then on he personally directed the rate of expansion of the Heer. In Italy there was no such leadership from Mussolini - with one exception. The planning for the invasion of Abyssinia began in early 1933 as Mussolini told his military chiefs he wanted to invade before the end of 1934. In that instance the staffs delivered because they were told that this operation was to happen. No such foresight was offered by Mussolini in 1939. In May 1940 when it first became apparent that Italy would declare war, Marshall Badoglio as head of the Army staff told Mussolini exactly what Italy's position was. That was his job and in the circumstances all he could resonably do.
Staffs serve their leaders. They can't wave a magic wand or be mindreaders.

I can't be clearer than that

How many times do I have to repeat myself??

[RF]

.
I did not call you an apologist, I stated that you were merely parroting them.
.

I am not setting out to parrot anybody. Perhaps you would care to explain what you are talking about. Or is this yet another attempt at a wind up?

[phil gollin]

.

So, the points are NOT "clearly dealt with". you merely make claims without substantiation and which ignore the Naval High Commands lack of action.

Thank-you.

.

[RF]

.
So, the points are NOT "clearly dealt with". you merely make claims without substantiation and which ignore the Naval High Commands lack of action.
Thank-you.
.

The points are clearly made and repeated. You simply state to the contrary and ignore the content of my posts, a technique often used by marxist-leninists and maoists to undermine and destroy any attempt at intellectual argument.

My points specifically covered all three of Italy's armed forces, not just the navy. The ''lack of action'' by the Regia Marina you refer to has been explained in prior posts by myself and other forum members. You arrogantly claim the opposite without offering any answer to the detail of these posts. You say that the points are not dealt with simply because you say so.

I deal with facts and analysis, not slogans or propaganda. You deal with mis-representation of other people's views and insult them by denying that their contribution is of any value. You also offer another totalitarian technique, that of unsubstantiable conspiracy theory, with references to ''apologists'' and ''revisionists'' for vague undefined interpretations of history.
I have been reading the history of Italy, and quite a few other countries for some decades now, and do it with an open mind. I do so because the closed mind is the enemy of reason, the totalitarian wedge. The one quality of a totalitarian is the holistic, unalterable view of history and denial of anything that contradicts it.

There is no further point to this discourse. You have destroyed this thread on KM warships by hijacking it. You abuse people who try to put a rational discourse to your assertions. I will leave to others to decide who and what is right.