[Section Leader]

It indisputably did, according to the vast majority of academics, in that Argentina's capability to project power to the Falklands far outclassed the British capability - not that in a total war scenario, the Argentine force was stronger, larger, or more capable than the British force, much as in the case of the occupation of Goa.

Are all these "academics" exployees of the Argentine government perchance?

If they were "stronger, larger and more capable" why did they lose the war?

Larger doesn't mean better, the Argentine soldiers were almost entirely poorly trained conscripts who barely had time to learn how to use a rifle before being dumped in the Falklands, whereas the British Army had a 100% professional force, virtually all the Argentine equipment was heavily outdated and mostly purchased second hand from other countries. Argentina was a second-rate third world military dictatorship with a completely shattered economy, they couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. The fact that they couldn't keep hold of a small group of windswept rocks in the south Atlantic within a couple of hour's flying time from the Argentine coast should tell you something about the inadequacy of their military.

You're blinded by your hatred of Britain.

[Fasces]

I harbor no hatred for Britain, but the failure to hold the Falklands was entirely tactical. Galtieri was attempting to receive U.N. support for the invasion, as India got in Goa, under support previously expressed by the Decolonisation Committee. Galtieri did not mobilize his entire force, and held back thinking that Britain would not even attempt, as the Portuguese had not, to land on the islands. He even had components of the initial landing force removed! Had Galtieri expected otherwise, the Argentine response was more than capable.

[Section Leader]

Do you not realise that modern warfare is all about tactics and advanced technology? And it has been that way since the end of the Second World War. Most of Argentina's troops were kids dragged off the streets rather than professional soldiers. The Argentine forces weren't as small as you seem to think, there were well over 11,000 Argentine troops on the islands when the war ended, and the majority were taken prisoner. Galtieri was a fool, he thought he could save his disintegrating regime by waging a war and failed miserably.

[Fasces]

I was not denying that Britain performed better. I was attacking your laughable assertion that Argentina never had a chance, which is blind nationalism at its most clear example. Get over yourself, little Fuhrer.

BTW: Argentina had only about 6000 troops on the island.

[Section Leader]

I was not denying that Britain performed better. I was attacking your laughable assertion that Argentina never had a chance, which is blind nationalism at its most clear example.

They only managed to land on the Falklands in the first place because there was no garrison of troops, had they been met with heavy artillery and machine gun fire, as would happen today, they would just given up and run away or surrendered. The entire Argentine armed forces couldn't win a war within a few hundred miles of their coast against an isolated force that couldn't simply call on some heavy bombers.

Had the Argentines faced the full onslaught of the British Army and Air Force their armed forces would have been utterly decimated.

Get over yourself, little Fuhrer.

Charming.

BTW: Argentina had only about 6000 troops on the island.

Then how come 11,000 were taken prisoner? Your sources are suspect.

[Far-Right Sage]

Italy had some elite units and some heroic stands, but their overall performance was pathetic even when you take into account the deficient qualities of their industry. And I'm not that impressed by the ability of Decima Flottiglia MAS to conduct brutal reprisals against civilians. The list of pathetic Italian failures is many.

The Greek campaign is a classic example. While the Greeks were in terrain which favored defense and their divisions had slightly more organic firepower man for man, they were totally outnumbered, had few aircraft, and no tanks at all. Not only did the Italian offensive fail, but the Greeks were able to push into Albania. The same terrain that favored Greek defense also favored Italian defense, and yet the Italians lost ground to an opponent inferior in numbers and equipment. The ultimate outcome as we know was German intervention, which succeeded in taking Greece in three weeks where the Italians had failed in six months. Hitler even praised the Greeks as valiant, heroic defenders.

Next up on our list of embarrassing Italian failures is the North Africa theater. Italy enjoyed an overwhelming advantage (something like 5:1, with greater disparities in materiel) over the British opponent, and advanced into Egypt. The advance was slow and petered out. The British, still outnumbered in roughly the same ratio, then launched Operation Compass and drove the Italians halfway across Libya and captured most of their army. Once again the Germans intervened, and a single German armored corps drove the British all the way to Alexandria--outnumbered and outgunned most of the way.

The allies later invaded Italy, and the Italians apparently couldn't even be bothered to defend their own country so it was once again on the Germans. When the Italians switched sides, they were so incompetent that the Germans managed to sink most of their navy and disarm most of their soldiers before the Italians were able to do anything.

It's true that the Italian Expeditionary Force in Russia acquitted itself well, but overall the Italian war record was pathetic. Postwar recordings of Italian POWs revealed that many of them admitted to simply laying down their arms and fleeing their positions. Sorry, but Italy's performance in the war was an absolute disgrace and I can't think of a single belligerent which performed worse. Hitler notably stated that a single German division was worth twenty-five Italian divisions. Hyperbole perhaps, but not far off the mark.

Let's not forget the Regia Marina either, which retreated to safe ports in northern Italy after the attack on Taranto despite outnumbering the RN in the Mediterranean theater and having more modern capital ships.

It's not like this was some particular defect of the fascist regime either, Italy acquitted itself quite poorly in the First World War as well. They enjoyed numerical superiority over the poorly equipped Austro-Hungarians, a power wracked with ethnic strife and simultaneously engaged in Russia where it did nothing but lose except when the Germans intervened. The Austro-Hungarians couldn't even handle Serbia, but they had no problem repulsing just about everything the Italians could throw at them. Later on, after Caporetto, the hard-pressed British and French had to transfer eight divisions from the life-or-death struggle on the Western Front to prevent Italian collapse.

If we go further back in history, we can look at distinguished Italian military campaigns like their failure to defeat...Ethiopia. But big bad Mussolini finally got revenge for that by using poison gas against primitive tribesmen poorly equipped with weapons from the 18th and 19th centuries.

I suspect the extended clan nature of Italian society in those days, especially in the Mezziogiorno, might be why. An awful lot of Italians simply didn't feel very Italian or understand why they should die for the government in Rome. It's an understandable instinct.

Fair enough, Dave. The war did essentially run as a string of unfortunate and humiliating defeats for them. It's a shame for some of the Italian fighting men, however, as I remember reading great accounts of the tenacity of certain Italian divisions fighting house to house in Eritrea and combatting the partigiana, the Marxist partisans, with courage in the Salo Republic.

I think what can can certainly be said is that the nation as a whole (Fascist Italy) didn't unite and cooperate in the same fashion that can be said of, say, Germany and Japan. Even considering that Fascism had taken official root in Italian politics with Mussolini's appointment as Prime Minister in 1922, and his work toward creating a rather (seemingly) efficient totalitarian state.

Why? This is what should perhaps be analyzed. Did Mussolini place too much faith and influence in the Italian monarchy by allowing it to survive, the Vatican, or the capitalist class? I've always seen the prevailing of royalist sentiment within some ranks of the Italian military as one of Il Duce's greatest internal defeats.

[Far-Right Sage]

Mussolini deserved bad soldiers for attacking Metaxas. A betrayal against fascism. He should have taken a more technocratic approach, and respect the advice of his generals, foreign minister and military experts, who said war was a bad idea.

I'm not sure if it was a betrayal of Fascism, but it certainly wasn't prudent at the time considering Italian capabilities and German plans.

More to the point, it's unfortunate as Metaxas' regime served as a form of Greek Fascism, with the hailing of a "third great Hellenic civilization" (viewing Greece under his leadership as a successor to classical Greece and the Byzantines), favoring class cooperation and national rebirth, tough penalties for dissidents and criminals, and the appropriation of values and symbols from the pagan era and Spartan society.







The double post was accidental.

[Tribbles]

More to the point, it's unfortunate as Metaxas' regime served as a form of Greek Fascism, with the hailing of a "third great Hellenic civilization" (viewing Greece under his leadership as a successor to classical Greece and the Byzantines), favoring class cooperation and national rebirth, tough penalties for dissidents and criminals, and the appropriation of values and symbols from the pagan era and Spartan society.

Why was that unfortunate? An increase in the fascist family should be viewed as a good thing. To not think so, is anti-fascist.

Things might have worked out better if the work with the fascist international had succeeded.

Did Mussolini place too much faith and influence in the Italian monarchy by allowing it to survive, the Vatican, or the capitalist class? I've always seen the prevailing of royalist sentiment within some ranks of the Italian military as one of Il Duce's greatest internal defeats.

The king was the only man apart from the Duce himself who could order the grand council together, so he had some formal powers. He was also the man who elected the Duce as his prime minister. Fascism was royalist, and that was a good thing.

I am sad that principles are betrayed so easily. The big betrayal right now is how NATO has abandoned the war on terror, and allied itself with Al-Qaida in Libya. For this reason, NATO should be destroyed alongside their Al-Qaeda allies. China and Russia must continue the war on terror (that they agreed to join in on after 9.11, same with Gaddafi) even if the West betrays it.

I'm almost completely certain by the way, that if these idiotic right-wing populist parties gain power in Europe, they will betray their fight against immigration. Big business needs cheap labor, after all. Our local right-wing populist party have even hinted towards such a betrayal in exchange for a coalition-government with the classic liberal party.

Who wants to support bluff and blah? - There is no time for it now. The environment must be stabilized, and the population-growth must be stopped. A turn to the left would be better.

[Rich]

Either way, Hitler was not going to live long after the war so discussing his own personal feelings are not relevant. The question is who would've succeeded Hitler, and I suspect it would've been some sort of troika consisting of Goebbels, Speer, and the Wehrmacht. The SS and Himmler were trusted by no one, the ordinary party organs full of hacks, Goering a dilettante drug addict opposed by his own officers, and just about everyone in the Wehrmacht about the rank of Major was suspicious of National Socialism. Thus, as is usually the case with revolutionary regimes, the country would've become more "normal"--think of Khruschev's secret speech.

Himmlar like Beria was the ideal if not obvious reformer. Like Beria he was feared by all the other leading lieutenants of the dictator. Gobbels was the most hated and despised figure. He wouldn't last five minutes without Hitler and he knew it, that's why he committed suicide a day (ok five minutes was a slight exaggeration) after Hitler. He couldn't survive overground or underground. It would have been Himmler verses Goering. Goering of course also had his own ground troops. A lot of the the regular army leadership would naturally gravitate towards Goering. That means Bormann would have been forced to ally with Himmlar. The storm troopers weren't worth much in a civil war. I wouldn't be surprised if Speer also went with Himmler. Himmler had huge, huge power, way more than Beria did. The SS had co-opted much of Germany's old aristocratic elite. The SS was created with the very purpose of defending the regime against the army and the storm troopers. Anyone who crossed Himmler was either very brave or very stupid. Of course the ideal for Himmler was for Hitler to be assassinated. He may have been holding back on the opposition prior to July 44 with that very hope in mind. Much of the top level army command was already Nazified. Himmler could probably eliminate much of the rest of the army old guard before it was even known for certain that Hitler was dead. In a scenario where Germany had won the war most of the army would be demobilised any way as Hitler started to do in July 1940.

[Tribbles]

Funny thought:

The normal way for a protest-movement is to be noble and filled with good intentions while in opposition, and then become corrupt in power.

With the modern protest-right, it seems to have become corrupt a long time before grabbing power.

The correct way to handle it is probably to crush it completely without allowing the idiotic stuff that the protest-right throws around when trying to victimize itself - liberal ideals like democracy and freedom of speech and that kind of stuff.

Was Stalin right after all?

[Far-Right Sage]

Why was that unfortunate? An increase in the fascist family should be viewed as a good thing. To not think so, is anti-fascist.

Things might have worked out better if the work with the fascist international had succeeded.

The existence of Metaxas' regime was not unfortunate; the Italian invasion of Greece was. I'm actually a rather large fan of Metaxas and would even consider the 4th of August government perhaps the best Greek political entity of the 20th century, ideologically far surpassing the Greek colonels' junta of the 60's.

The problem with the Fascist International was the disagreement among Italian, Romanian, Spanish, and other representatives, a lack of strong German participation, and the existence of historic territorial and ethnic conflicts between the nations with a strong chance of trending toward Fascism, such as Romania and Hungary.

The king was the only man apart from the Duce himself who could order the grand council together, so he had some formal powers. He was also the man who elected the Duce as his prime minister. Fascism was royalist, and that was a good thing

I'm not sure it's correct to say Fascism is royalist in the sense that Fascism isn't inherently Catholic. Regardless, Catholicism and royalism/the monarchy were major traditional forces in Italian society, and as such, Mussolini was forced to placate them. There's a question of how well a seemingly impartial monarch can preside over the transition to a Fascist state. Monarchy is a broad field, and a monarchy can either serve as a positive force for the nation (the Meiji Emperor of Japan, Hirohito/the Showa Emperor, and even the modern-day Akihito), or a destructive and degenerative force (the Spanish Juan Carlos, the Libyan King Idris).

I am sad that principles are betrayed so easily. The big betrayal right now is how NATO has abandoned the war on terror, and allied itself with Al-Qaida in Libya. For this reason, NATO should be destroyed alongside their Al-Qaeda allies. China and Russia must continue the war on terror (that they agreed to join in on after 9.11, same with Gaddafi) even if the West betrays it.

The problem with the "war on terror" umbrella is that it simply isn't in the interests of the great powers to cooperate on the issue of militant groups. The U.S. may condemn Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but support Al-Qaeda in Libya, or even fund Sunni militant breakaway groups in Iran. Russia of course has a problem with secessionist groups in Chechnya, as does China in Xinjiang and other areas, but Western nations (Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have no real interest in opposing such groups, as they chip away at Russian and Chinese strength (even barely).

Nations have never really been opposed to terrorism as most have used it themselves. It is a tactic rather than an ideological force and so nations, including China and Russia, will support or oppose it in accordance with their interests.

that if these idiotic right-wing populist parties gain power in Europe, they will betray their fight against immigration. Big business needs cheap labor, after all. Our local right-wing populist party have even hinted towards such a betrayal in exchange for a coalition-government with the classic liberal party.

Who wants to support bluff and blah? - There is no time for it now. The environment must be stabilized, and the population-growth must be stopped. A turn to the left would be better

I hold out positive hopes for the Front National and Marine Le Pen's chances in France.

If France falls into a conservative-revolutionary orbit, perhaps this will bolster the German NPD, which of course would make me happy, and other groups such as Italy's Forza Nuova and the British National Party.

[Potemkin]

Himmlar like Beria was the ideal if not obvious reformer. Like Beria he was feared by all the other leading lieutenants of the dictator. Gobbels was the most hated and despised figure. He wouldn't last five minutes without Hitler and he knew it, that's why he committed suicide a day (ok five minutes was a slight exaggeration) after Hitler. He couldn't survive overground or underground. It would have been Himmler verses Goering. Goering of course also had his own ground troops. A lot of the the regular army leadership would naturally gravitate towards Goering. That means Bormann would have been forced to ally with Himmlar. The storm troopers weren't worth much in a civil war. I wouldn't be surprised if Speer also went with Himmler. Himmler had huge, huge power, way more than Beria did. The SS had co-opted much of Germany's old aristocratic elite. The SS was created with the very purpose of defending the regime against the army and the storm troopers. Anyone who crossed Himmler was either very brave or very stupid. Of course the ideal for Himmler was for Hitler to be assassinated. He may have been holding back on the opposition prior to July 44 with that very hope in mind. Much of the top level army command was already Nazified. Himmler could probably eliminate much of the rest of the army old guard before it was even known for certain that Hitler was dead. In a scenario where Germany had won the war most of the army would be demobilised any way as Hitler started to do in July 1940.

My understanding is that Goering was pretty much out of the game after the failure of the Battle of Britain, which is why he slid into apathy and drug addiction, and spent most of his time playing wth his model train set in his attic. And Bormann was pissing all over Himmler; when it came to the internal power struggles in the Nazi hierarchy, Himmler was rather inept. Good at gassing Jews and shooting Ukrainian civilians; not so good at military command or power struggles. That leaves Goebbels and Bormann (and maybe Speer, but with Hitler gone, who would pay any attention to his pet architect?). I have to say that I find Dave's scenario more plausible than the one you've outlined.

[Tribbles]

The problem with the "war on terror" umbrella is that it simply isn't in the interests of the great powers to cooperate on the issue of militant groups. The U.S. may condemn Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but support Al-Qaeda in Libya, or even fund Sunni militant breakaway groups in Iran. Russia of course has a problem with secessionist groups in Chechnya, as does China in Xinjiang and other areas, but Western nations (Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have no real interest in opposing such groups, as they chip away at Russian and Chinese strength (even barely).

I guess the key question here is: Does the betrayal make you angry, or do you think it is okay? It makes my blood boil, the way US and other NATO-soldiers have sacrificed so much in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to give Al-Qaida loads of oilfields in the Libya.

Al-Qaida plants its flag in Libya:
http://www.vice.com/read/al-qaeda-plants-its-flag-in-libya

If France falls into a conservative-revolutionary orbit, perhaps this will bolster the German NPD, which of course would make me happy, and other groups such as Italy's Forza Nuova and the British National Party.

Bristish Nationalist Party!!? Isn't that the lowest of the fucking low?

[Potemkin]

It makes my blood boil, the way US and other NATO-soldiers have sacrificed so much in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to give Al-Qaida loads of oilfields in the Libya.

The invasion of Iraq was never about Al-Qaeda, despite what the neocons may have wanted you to believe. And, until recently, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been half-hearted at best. Al-Qaeda was never a serious threat to the West, and I suspect that our neo-liberal overlords have always known it. They have simply used the 'War on Terror' as a convenient excuse to play some Realpolitik hardball in certain regions of the world.

[Far-Right Sage]

I guess the key question here is: Does the betrayal make you angry, or do you think it is okay? It makes my blood boil, the way US and other NATO-soldiers have sacrificed so much in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to give Al-Qaida loads of oilfields in the Libya.

Al-Qaida plants its flag in Libya:
http://www.vice.com/read/al-qaeda-plant ... g-in-libya

It doesn't make me angry, as it is the same old tune. This is the nature of international affairs. Truth and morality are entirely non-existent.

Where I do get angry (or passionate, if you prefer) when discussing the Libyan situation is when hearing from a swath of uninformed Western liberals who claim to know anything about Libya, Qaddafi's rule, what "the people want" (the people being the 20 or so rebels who have spoken on CNN in a nation of 6 million), and why Western nations are intervening in a civil war.

Bristish Nationalist Party!!? Isn't that the lowest of the fucking low?

What is the proper alternative? I like some of what the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has to say, for its euroscepticism, but they are market liberals.

[Tribbles]

The alternative to BNP... Hm? Somehow I don't think their stuff will work out, but maybe I was a bit rude when labeling them as the "lowest of the low". (I am way to angry these days)

It is kind of fishy though, the way they have buried anti-semitism in order to jump on the anti-muslim vagon instead - or that is my impression.

Funny idea for dark comedy:

1) We are in the middle of the war-on-terror, and in a imaginary country called - Uh, "Towenia" the president is a eager participant in the war on terror, arresting suspects that he sends of to Guantanamo, participating in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushing for new and more radical anti-terror laws in the EU, isolating Iran, tougher immigration-laws against Arabs and North-Africans trying to make their way into Europe, and so on.

2) Then the war in Libya starts, and as it becomes clear that NATO will ally itself to Al-Qaida in order to get the oil, the president of Towenia gets very, very angry, and starts throwing stuff around in his presidential palace.

3) Then suddenly, the image of former US president Bush, who hangs on the wall (with his signature and everything on it, he gave it away as a gift when visiting Towenia) starts speaking. "Those who harbor terrorists, or affiliate them selves with terrorists, are them selves terrorists" He proclaims with thundering voice while looking down on the president of Towenia with a strict laser-gaze. The president of Towenia falls to his knees with tears dripping from his eyes.

4) The president of Towenia agrees fullheartedly, and in this moment of bliss (Divine light filling the smashed up room while Bush speaks, kind of like in that movie "the manchurian candidate") he decides to pulls his country out of NATO.

5) The president of Towenia starts up a anti-terror squad that launch attacks against NATO and Al-Qaida installations in Libya (All those people formerly listed as terrorists or Islamic fundamentalists in the new government are targeted for assassination, same with everyone who meet them on official business).

6) Loads of action and drama follows.

[starman2003]

The perception of Italy in the war is somewhat skewed since they were primarily fighting the British Army, one of the most advanced and certainly the most experienced army of the war,

Tell that to Rommel, who respected the British, "as promising amateurs." Their tactics were often poor e.g. tanks charged enemy positions whenever possible whereas German armor avoided hard points and relied on artillery to neutralize them.

Italy was capable of taking on their neighbours but not of defeating a far larger,

In 1940, Italy had a numerical superiority in the desert.

fully modernised and much more skilled force. They knew they couldn't win against the British in the Med and North Africa, which is why so many Italian soldiers simply gave up.

Generally the Italian navy and army greatly surpassed available British forces, but Italian leadership was inept, and most soldiers just didn't want to fight.

Nevertheless, many Italian units did fight with great bravery and courage.

Some not many. Besides Ariete, pioneers and a battalion under Major Montemuro, they weren't much good at all.

[Rich]

My understanding is that Goering was pretty much out of the game after the failure of the Battle of Britain, which is why he slid into apathy and drug addiction, and spent most of his time playing wth his model train set in his attic. And Bormann was pissing all over Himmler; when it came to the internal power struggles in the Nazi hierarchy, Himmler was rather inept. Good at gassing Jews and shooting Ukrainian civilians; not so good at military command or power struggles. That leaves Goebbels and Bormann (and maybe Speer, but with Hitler gone, who would pay any attention to his pet architect?). I have to say that I find Dave's scenario more plausible than the one you've outlined.

Boorman had the ear of Hitler, He had a power base in the party, but he had nothing compared to Himmler. Himmler had all the police forces of Germany and the occupied territories including the SD and the Gestapo. He ran the concentration camps. The Waffen SS was a huge force with all the best armoured equipment. The SS was also a very significant economic entity. Even in the bunker all security was SS. With Hitler dead Boorman's life would have been in severe danger. He got leadership of the party in Hitler's will, but by that time it was irrelevant. His pyrrhic title shouldn't be taken as any sign of an ability to consolidate real power. The internal struggle in the Nazi party would have been largely irrelevant tin the event of Hitler's death.

[starman2003]

It's true that the Italian Expeditionary Force in Russia acquitted itself well,

So did the Ariete and a few other units in the desert...

but overall the Italian war record was pathetic.

...that said, I agree fully.

Why? This is what should perhaps be analyzed. Did Mussolini place too much faith and influence in the Italian monarchy by allowing it to survive, the Vatican, or the capitalist class? I've always seen the prevailing of royalist sentiment within some ranks of the Italian military as one of Il Duce's greatest internal defeats.

Very interesting question. IMO what it boils down to is that the Italian fascists just couldn't get the average Italian to internalize fascist values of aggressiveness, state above all, and self sacrifice, especially in battle. There were too many other ingrained influences, of which the monarchy was far from the worst; the holy joes in the vatican etc were anything but natural allies.

[Dave]

Very interesting question. IMO what it boils down to is that the Italian fascists just couldn't get the average Italian to internalize fascist values of aggressiveness, state above all, and self sacrifice, especially in battle. There were too many other ingrained influences, of which the monarchy was far from the worst; the holy joes in the vatican etc were anything but natural allies.

Liberal democratic states like the United States, United Kingdom, and British Dominions had no problems getting their average soldiers to be aggressive and sacrifice themselves. I doubt there were many Italian divisions willing to sacrifice for the greater good the way the US 101st Airborne was at Bastogne.

You guys are focusing way too much on ideology.