What if... Italy had found the Oil under Libya?

So why do you not list them? It's only hopeless if you cannot prove your point.

Which of the many in the British admiralty was so defeatist, that only Churchill's obstinency kept the RN in the Med?

 

I don't list them because it is a very long list and it is boring to read. Do you want to read dozens of books just to prove a quote? Do you get a book from Admiral Iacchino and when yes, would you buy it just to prove a quote?

What he wrote wasn't pleasing for most of the Axis commanders including Hitler and Mussolini, why should he lie?

Spain is an example. In summer 1940, they did not demand much. But no one thought of going to Spain and sign a treaty. After the lost BoB, they knew that Britain was not defeated yet.

Why do you always list numbers of ships built in 194x when we are talking about Summer 1940? Later...maybe..would've...
Name the theaters where the RN could derive many ships from in Summer/Autumn 1940 to send them in the Mediterranean.

 

Through out WWII there were endless occasions were debates of how best to use the always too limited assets available at any particular moment. One example would be the availability of VLR B-24's for ASW work. The matter finally had to go to FDR's desk for resolution who tried to stay out of such debates. Did some talks take place on the matter of presence of RN units in the Med? Yes, but many people offered ideas based upon their perspective, and that was their job. It is the post-war historian who offers their opinion on who has right or wrong. Sometimes those historian's have their own agenda and when they are former commanders serving in that war the scrutiny that must be exorcised is greater because they have their own actions to justify.

I have read many biography's and other works from a variety leaders and commanders on both sides. While nearly all offer information of value, I have yet to find one that some point was not self serving, inaccurate or evasive in some respect.

 

I agree, there is no absolute truth in history. And not only Ruge has made his conclusions, but greenslime, Belasar or me did the same.

If Ruge was just a storyteller, he never would become the head of the german after war Navy. Or a professor in Tübingen, which is an Elite University today. Reading his book, you will soon notice that he is very critical about the german warfare in which he was involved.
He also wrote a book about the war in the Pacific, it is worth reading.

 

You're still not gettting it.

If the Admiralty (and the term refers to the the entire admiralty, not just one or two admirals) truly considered the Mediterranean not worthy of contesting, then there would be documents, in English (because, you know, that is the language spoken amongst the British). Admiral Iacchino has nothing to do with it. It was a very simple statement, it should be easy to prove. Many such documents can be found online or ordered. If you could actually bring yourself to commit to a date, a name, and a place, rather than a vague feeling. If Ruge's book was properly sourced, you should be able to refer to exactly where he got his information. Hopefully, that is a primary source; i.e. directly from the horse's mouth; i.e. a document, a diary, a first hand account from someone, with a name (someone in or at the admiralty). Which can then be verified.

What I'm not going to do, is accept a third narrative of a person in another language, on a rumour, as a primary source for the information. The statement is such, it needs to be confirmed by primary sources.

Further, Spain gave no such guarantees. Spain wasn't really interested in joining the Axis powers, but now had to live with the Germans as a neighbour after the collapse of France. It is known as playing along. Internationally; you get the agreement on paper. It was blatantly obvious, the Germans could not feed the Spaniards. That is why the Spaniards had the demand in the first place, already at the start! They could barely feed Germany adequately, inspite of plundering Poland (rations for Poles were a joke, to say nothing of the Jews). The French were better off, because Hitler needed the illusion of a friendly Vichy France; still, the French recieved less rations than the Germans! I bet Ruge had a lot to say about the food situation in Poland and France.... or not. It's nice when you can ignore all these considerations, these bothersome details. Germany starved in WW1. The leadership resolved it wouldn't occur in WW2. So they starved Poland, (and later Ukraine), and even made France go hungry.

Why I mention the ships? Firstly, because you brought it up, secondly, because anyone would realise, that if the RN has 7 aircraft carriers in 1939, and was building 6 more, (and that is merely an example Helge) that the RN can afford to lose ships at a far higher rate than the RM. You were the one stating the RN was fleeing from the RM... It did no such thing. The RM was not only constrained by oil; it was incredibly constrained because it's leaders knew they could not replace any losses. It built a grand total of 8 (eight) surface ships. Through the entire war. Britain built that many in a few months, throughout the entire war.

Listing the comparative strengths within the Mediterranean at any one moment is misleading, because the British understood they didn't need more ships there to succeed in curtailing Italian activity; therefore, they could place more ships in other areas where they were needed more. Had the need been greater in comparison to other theatres (and needs did shift), owning Gibraltar and the Suez made it very easy to temporarily shift forces in and out.

 

No, i'm not getting it, that you always doubt statements of a highly respected naval historian.
Did you ever work for the US Navy as a historian?
Were you ever invited to Sandhurst?
Who are you to doubt the reputation of the founder of the Bundesmarine? This is almost offensive.

You can't write a book full of quotes and sources, no one would read or buy such a thing. It is not a scientific paper.
One of his sources is Churchill: The second world war. Most likely you will find there what you are looking for.

Just admit, that you don't like, that i've got sources for my statements. Sometimes, accepting and respecting other people with different opinions isn't a sign of weakness.

And: This is a discussion in the "what if"-category, don't complain about something that did not happen. You know what speculative means? Speculare (lat.) = to peer.

 

You have zero clue who I am, or what I have done. I'm not about to justify my existence to you. You are continuously attacking me instead of the message I send, and you are taking my repeated requests for a proper source as personal attacks upon your beloved Admiral. You are being exceedingly childish, and petulent.

You haven't shown a sentence, together with an adequate primary source. In this entire thread.

At every turn, you have never properly referenced anything. It is pointless to say "Ruge refers to Churchill in his book", without stating exactly what he refenced to. Do you have any idea about proper notation in a well-referenced history, and how to use it?

In the vain of hope of providing some enlightenment, I provide for you some further reading;

https://www.bowdoin.edu/writing-guides/citing%20sources.htm

Specifically, I draw your attention to:

Use the note format. Citations in history papers can take the form of footnotes or endnotes. History papers should not use the parenthetic citation style common to literature and social science papers. These do not perform the other function of footnotes and endnotes, which is to provide space to clarify your use of complex data or arguments, expand on points you believe do not merit lengthy consideration in the body of your text, and to directly address the arguments of other historians.

and

What must be cited? You must acknowledge the sources of quotations, paraphrases, arguments, and specific references you may use. You need not cite sources to what most would generally consider common knowledge, like the fact that Lincoln won the Presidential election of 1860. But you must cite your source for any claim that appears to contradict common knowledge, like that Lincoln won the southern states in that election (since he wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states, this claim is controversial and must be supported). And you must cite matters of interpretation, such as an author's ideas in why Lincoln appealed to so many voters. If you are in doubt about citing "common knowledge" information, err on the side of citing; even unintended failure to cite sources constitutes technical plagiarism.


Ruge must provide proper support for his statement, and I'm not willing to accept your word that he has. Regardless of whether he is an astronaut, a lawyer, and a mother, he cannot be considered a primary source for the information that " the admiralty wanted to abandon the Mediterranean, but was prevented only by an stubborn cow called Churchill."

 

Ruge belongs to the suspicious lobby of German military who after the war blamed Hitler for the defeats and claimed the victories for themselves .

There was nothing essential for Germany in the Mediterranean, Germany only intervened there to help the Italians .

 

Why should he lie ? If you don't know , it's hopeless to explain it .

Spain demanded the impossible ,because they never would join the Axis, unless when the LSS paraded in Hyde Park .

 

Not correct

Not correct

 

That's unimportant

 

Wiki is giving the wrong reason for operation Fish

 

Given what we know about the Historical Division (=an attempt to whitewash the Wehrmacht for the German defeat), the participation of Ruge at the Historical Division excludes him as an impartial historian .

Besides, as the Hochseeflotte had almost no importance, the importance of Ruge is at the same level .

 

Just as a matter example. A book pulled at random from my bookshelf. A cited text, at random, reads:

"Hitler's special train from East Prussia did not arrive in Munich until 3:40 that afternoon and the first reports he got about the Allied landings in North Africa were optimistic.22"

So we can reference the source stating that the reports were optimistic. We check out the reference "22" in the notes section. It reads:

"The source for this and for much else in this chapter about Hitler's OKW conferences is the so-called OKW Diary, which was kept until the Spring of 1943 by Dr. Helmuth Greiner, and thereafter until the end of the war by Dr. Percy Ernst Schramm. The original diary was destroyed at the beginning of May 1945 on the order of General Winter, deputy to Jodl. After the war Greiner reconstructed the part he had kept from his original notes and drafts and eventually turned it over to the Military History Branch of the Department of the Army in Washington. Part of the material is published in Greiner's book, Die Oberste Wehrmacht fuehrung, 1939-1943."

Now we can elect to critique and validate the quality of the source, and its credibility, based on what we know about Greiner comparing what he claims to what other authors have said about the OKW conferences. This brings us closer to the truth. This is the kind of quality that is expected, at a minimum.

What you have provided, OhneGewehr, boils down to a litany of "but Ruge wrote it in his book, it has to be true, Ruge is divine, and who the hell are you to question that?!?" Which is so abhorrent to anyone with a critical mind you might as well crawl back to the dark ages.

 

"Appeal to authority: You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not." (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority)

You will note that no one - well, except LJad, but that doesn't count - has dismissed Ruge's claim or his authority as a historian. They have simply asked where Ruge got the notion from. If he does not say and a proof cannot be found, then his comment can only be considered his own speculation.

Of course "you" can. Well, historians can, they do it all the time.

YOU made the claim Churchill did/said something. It is up to YOU to support that claim. NO ONE else needs to do YOUR work for YOU.

 

The essential thing for Germany in the Mediterranean was to use the assets available in the most efficient manner possible to keep this theater in flux for as long as possible, something they didn't do. Nor does Ruge's 'lobby' in itself automatically invalidate every thing he says. Personally I have no firm opinion as he is relatively obscure to me. Hitler did make his share of mistake's, as did Stalin, Churchill and FDR, therefore you can not generalize as you are doing here.

 

It is obvious that a German officer who participated on the Historical division can not be impartial, as the intention of these officers was to protect the reputation of the WM, by saying (better lying ) that the WM was defeated by the intervention of Hitler and that the WM was clean (= that it was not involved in the Holocaust) .Ruge participated on both points .

The fact is also that the KM had a very subordinated role during the war and that the role of Ruge in the KM was also very subordinated (Kapitän zur See = colonel in 1940 and Vizeadmiral =lieutenant general in 1943), in 1944 he was de facto commander of the KM in the West, but the units of the KM were almost inexistent .

 

By that standard of evaluation no one can be impartial. Which means you are not impartial, because you have a vested interest in protecting the reputation of your postings and demonstrating that everything and everyone else is "unimportant" or "incorrect".

However, it might help your own reputation if you were a bit more accurate in your statements. In 1944 Ruge had zero command role in the West. He was "de facto" nothing. He was Verbindungs-Offizier zur HG-B. Commander of Marinegruppenkommando West was Admiral Theodor Krancke.

 

Actually both are correct.

First the RM prevented Allied convoys from traversing the Central Mediterranean for a considerable time period (Italy's Dow to the Husky landings in early 1943 essentially). British strategist's used the argument for the need to clear the Central Med for ( for the ease of convoy routing) to nix American desires for a early landing in France. The RM had the ships on paper but for a variety of reasons (leadership, training and most importantly fuel) they never did reach their potential.

Attempting to fight a two front war was the gravest error made by Hitler.

 

Control of the Mediterranean was very important. The DAK either never arrives in North Africa or dies on the vine before Rommel wins any victories. For over 2 years Allied convoys don't spend a month rerouting around the Cape.

Hardly unimportant.