Egypt: /Arab / near east Partisans

[Desert Dave]

Perhaps we should have Axis Partisans in the Middle East.

As it stands now, the Allies don't have to garrison. In fact, they can evacuate the whole place and still get all the benefits. Rather ahistorical, imho. Those garrisons were there for a reason.

Lars,

United Kingdom

**Yugoslavia

Greek

French

Norwegian

Irish

Spanish

EGYPTIAN

and Iraqi partisans

Will attack resources no matter who is the occupier of their country, Axis OR Allied.

All of the above, except the **Yugoslavian partisans, do NOT appear on the board as units that can attack any garrison forces.

They merely reduce the (... unoccupied) resources,

Based on a random trigger %.

You could of course change this so that

Partisan units do appear, if you'd prefer.

Or write up an event script

To add partisan activity for any

Other country not already included.

NOTE: UK partisans will comply with the specific "partisan flag" and NOT attack resources unless UK is conquered. Not that anyone would suppose O/W, but just wanted to clarify.

[ May 04, 2006, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@X-Wood --- That's the smartest thing you've ever typed on this website.

Thanks for the flowers.

making them two:

Song for america (bottom of the page, "click to play")

(only for you, mr. jjr america)

[Panzerkeil]

I doubt Hitler had a master plan for Africa. He sent Rommel there to save prestige for the Axis after the British routed the Italians. Rommel took the ball and really ran with it, much further than was his mandate, to restore the status quo. Ultimately, it became a battle of logistics which the British won. Ironic in a way that such a brilliant military mind as Rommel could ignore one of the fundamentals of warfare, supply.

[JerseyJohn]

Panzerkiel

Nice take on the situation.

After the fall of Tobruck, Paulus was sent to North Africa to assess the situation. He recommended that the Africa remain in Libya and that the assault on Malta proceed as planned.

A short time later Rommel convinced Hitler that he had enough captured fuel and other supplies to make it to Alexandria. He was not only given the go ahead, but sent the troops that would have been used against Malta because he convinced Hitler that his new supply line, through Greece-Crete-Alexandria, would make Malta meaningless.

Paulus was placed in command of the 6th Army, which is totally unqualified for, and sent to capture Stalingrad.

An historical what-if I've always wondered about would be Rommel being transferred to the 6th Army and Paulus placed in command of the Afrika Korps, with it's role reduced to defending Libya. I think Rommel would have taken all of Stalingrad before it's defense was established. I'm sure he'd have bagged the retreating Soviet infantry that slipped through Paulus fingers and into the city. From there, who can say?

Meanwhile, Paulus would have been able to learn his active command role in what would have been a quiet theater.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Perhaps we should have Axis Partisans in the Middle East.

As it stands now, the Allies don't have to garrison. In fact, they can evacuate the whole place and still get all the benefits. Rather ahistorical, imho. Those garrisons were there for a reason.

Lars,

United Kingdom

**Yugoslavia

Greek

French

Norwegian

Irish

Spanish

EGYPTIAN

and Iraqi partisans

Will attack resources no matter who is the occupier of their country, Axis OR Allied.

All of the above, except the **Yugoslavian partisans, do NOT appear on the board as units that can attack any garrison forces.

They merely reduce the (... unoccupied) resources,

Based on a random trigger %.

You could of course change this so that

Partisan units do appear, if you'd prefer.

Or write up an event script

To add partisan activity for any

Other country not already included.

NOTE: UK partisans will comply with the specific "partisan flag" and NOT attack resources unless UK is conquered. Not that anyone would suppose O/W, but just wanted to clarify. </font>

[Ottosmops]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Brother Rambo,

Great info, thanks for posting it.

Actually, nazi plans along these lines go back to the mid-30s. Knowing the UK had much earlier (late 19th century) committed itself vaguely to the establishment of a Jewish state (at the time they wanted it to be the Sudan, but Disraeli flatly refused to endorse it), the nazis encouraged European Jews and specifically German Jews, to move to Palestine. The only ceased doing this openly because otherwise sympathetic Arab leaders opposed this so fervently that open warfare broke out in the Jerusalem area.

The reasoning was to have the entire European Jewish population in one place to make it's extermination all the easier. After the fall of France, for a short time when it was hoped the UK would settle for peace terms, an alternate plan was hatched to send the European Jews as colonists to Vichy French Madagascar. At the time that island was underpopulated and rife with tropical diseases.

Before Pearl Harbor the Japanese also got into it, saying it would accept all the Jews who could make it to Manchuria and they would be honored citizens of the Japanese Empire. The nazis discouraged that immigration, however, because the Japanese had no intention of killing, or even of harrassing the Jewish immigrants; they felt they'd become a valuable part of their own Imperial population.

JerseyJohn,

I hate it to disagree with you, as you are such a knowledgeable person concerning history, and I like your articles very much.

But this time it seems you have been tricked by Rambo's propaganda.

The most obvious reason for the Nazis to force the Jews to emigrate was, they wanted them away from Germany.

(And their money to stay.)

Many of the people, who were more or less forced to emigrate from Germany before the war, went not to Palestine, but to other countries.

To assume, the Nazis wanted the Jews in Palestine to make their extermination all the easier, is pure speculation, and nonsense from a practical viewpoint.

As you wrote yourself, at some time they even considered to send them to Madagascar.

And then?

Should Rommel conquer the whole Africa, invade Madagascar and kill the Jews there?

This is obviously ridiculous.

The systematic murdering started only after the war began, when emigration was no longer possible and there were so many more Jews from the conquered countries under the control of the Nazi Regime.

The entire European Jewish population was already in one place: In Europe.

And their extermination there was easy enough.

No need to bring them to Palestine for this purpose.

[JerseyJohn]

Ottosmops

No problem with the contradicting, none of us know everything and we can all do with new knowledge. Thanks for what you've said, appreciated and I've always enjoyed your own posts as well.

You're placing logic to people who didn't us it. The whole idea of the Hollocause/Final Solution is stupid and illogical. Even at the Wansee Conference most of the members thought the extermination camp idea to be idiotic. It wasn't that they loved the Jews, they wanted to labor and couldn't understand not only why it was being wasted, but also why so much additional resources were being sidetracked from the war to perform the task. As the war went on Eichmann's trains created such a drain on military transport that it can truthfully be said that the Hollocaust was a key factor in Germany losing the war.

The SS interest in concentrating the European Jews in one place, be it Palestine, Madagascar, Poland or Russia is historical fact. It's all on record, I didn't speculate on any of that.

The Madagascar idea didn't involve any conquest of Africa and was thought of before Italy came into the war and before Rommel was in Africa. The idea was, after Britain and France had made peace with Germany, the European Jews would be deported to Madagascar, which the French would make available for the purpose. The place was considered a lethal hellhole at the time.

The thought of actually exterminating the Jews didn't come into being till the following year -- 1941 -- and most of it was Goering's halfwit hallucination. But the nazis took this so seriously that as late as 1944 they put pressure on the Japanese to kill the Jews living in Shanghai.

As I said, seeing this with any sort of logic doesn't work. But the things I've written are all drawn from actual history; each of those Jewish scenarios were considered by the nazis.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Otto --- Maybe they were going to throw the Jews a surprise party? Whatever...with a Bunta name, doesn't surprise me a bit your opinion.

[Liam]

In some places some of you are right, and some of you are wrong. In truth there were many different minds in the Axis Powers. Who had many different strategic ideas. Not all of them indorsed by their Fuhrer but God knows what he'd of done had you presented to him an appealing enough idea, Hitler was flexible as well as a bit whacko. He was often given to grand ideas and unrealistic movements from the more brilliant minded men in the Nazi Political Machine. AND there were some brilliant men there, spies, politicians, tacticians. Germany even had Grand Plans to meet up with an Axis Globe through Eurasia, getting Japan involved touching hands in India and cutting off England from all of her vital resources. Had that happened, that would have been the death stroke, for the USSR would've been isolated, you cannot rely on Murmansk/Archangel to feed USSR and alone with the Japanese on her flanks things could've become very sticky.

However, defeat followed defeat. If you really look at it honestly Germany and the USSR in 1939 were almost allied by splitting up Eastern Europe. Neither were better than one another, ultimately the only difference is History is written by the Winner. Stalin won. Though he was likely poisoned so his history was rewritten and the city in his name, renamed!

Hitler meanwhile, wasn't unlike many antisemites in Europe and America. Many people hate jews, many people hate all sorts of Minorities and would indorse their removal. I'd say in America today 50-75% of the caucasion(and why are we called that) indorse the removal of all minorities and were are a relatively tolerant nation. Difference is aside fromt he KKK, the USA hasn't had a very militant anti-minority movement of any size or value worth mentioning. Today more than ever rises hatred again amongst races as they intermingle

As off the topic as this is, the Arabs indeed hate us, look what they do if we travel their soil, ironically, before we brought tanks and airplanes look how tolerant they were of us? Of course they knew most of us didn't want to park our RVs on their realestate either. Any Nationality without Homeland will always find difficulties in this day and age and in any age really. There has been many cases of the joining and merging of civilizations, the Romans could teach us a lesson or two. Perhaps the modern era has more bias and hatred than any other. We have it too easy?

[SeaMonkey]

So Liam, your hypothesizing the human condition has not improved in 2000 years......10,000,........100,000? :confused:

[Liam]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

So Liam, your hypothesizing the human condition has not improved in 2000 years......10,000,........100,000? :confused:

SeaMonkey, not the case, WW2 ended did it not? Equality was fought out in the USA to a level. There is Arabian exchange students in Western Schools. LOVE LOVE LOVE

However, in Rwanda, Eastern Europe, inner city USA, former Yugoslavia, parts of Africa, and parts of Asia things are working like they have for thousands of years except now Man has weapons that can kill an entire civilization in a second instead of centuries, you disagree?

What would have happened D-Day 1975-1986? USSR or USA presses their little red buttons? 1 Billion down, 3 or 4 billion starving to death from Nuclear Winter and Toxic Dust clouds Summize: We are less civilized in some ways on a personal level maybe more so in some ways but it didn't HAPPEN YET!

Isreal has 203 Nukes 3 of which are former USSR Nukes, Iran is building them. What next... I know one thing, that isn't going to be pretty if they all go into a Regional Conflict few hundred million could die.

"there is nothing you can sing that can't be sung, there is nothing you can do but learn how to be you inside! It's easy! ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE!" That or a Nuclear Arsenal to protect your paranoid Butt

[SeaMonkey]

"now Man has weapons that can kill an entire civilization in a second instead of centuries, you disagree"

Not in the least.

But in history, there were times when civilizations/species were wiped completely out, well at least to a point they were a nonentity.

If you examine the percentages, casualties vs population, would it be so different in the twenty first century?

Homo Sapiens have thrived but a short time and they have eclipsed the natural order, thereby diluting the very instinctual characteristics that brought them to this point.

Is it no wonder that many of them perish?

It is not so different than before and it will continue to be the same until the natural order is restored.

Doesn't matter how it happens, just know that it will be so.

And oh yeah....about that "Love", well that is a very ambiguous feeling with a menagerie of perceptions dwelling in each individual, ripe with rationalizations.

The "unconditional" aspect of the abstract was long ago lost.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Liam:

I'd say in America today 50-75% of the caucasion(and why are we called that) indorse the removal of all minorities and were are a relatively tolerant nation.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?! You've been drinking way too much Al Sharpton kool-aid?!?!?!

[JerseyJohn]

I'd like to get back into this, been meaning to since the Liam - SeaMonkey exchanges, was finally about to when David Chapuis post started me laughing my head off.

-- Reminds me of when I was around seven (c1956) and an uncle and aunt had me singing some popular songs for them. After Blueberry Hill and some other things I liked from Fats Domino and Nat King Cole, my uncle leaned forward and looked at me as though I were ill. "Johnny-boy, don't you know any white people songs?"

At this point, agree with some of things said here, not with others, but I'm too confused to say which is which.

[SeaMonkey]

Not solely your quandary, JJ.

There is much confusion in our midst.

[Liam]

SeaMonkey, indeed insightful. The natural order of things is that in the end we will find our place in this Universe as mostly wiped out extinct, finito(sp?, however humans like roaches are the most adaptive two creatures on Earth, oddly I think it a long time before we dissappear altogether. Extinction will be obsolete when man can thrive on other planets, perhaps in open space If there is no second big bang and unending energy. Perhaps small bands of individuals will decide their own fate, as did Pilgrims to the early New World, few hundred colonize a distant world, but then do we cease to be as we are? I think hope in our survival and seeing value in our existence beyond the Scientific is a Neccessity. Spirituality and some form of Peaceful Harmonious non-intrusive lifestyle will have to form, passive humans "The Meek will inherit the Earth," in order to save mankind as a species not so much from the ? but from "himself"

Even our destructive power can be used to save lives and it has. Cooperation, an eye to a Creator an understanding of our place in this Universe, the esoteric the evolution of man

[Liam]

On the subject again, it is not beyond belief to see Partisans in Egypt, that is not my first choice but we all recall the Partisans in WW1 that the British aided under Major Lawrence at the time? So it's as acceptable a place as Norway! Or Greece France for that matter

abstract as mentioned previously could be Jordanian, Palestinian, Jewish, Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Arabian, all more or less Muslim or in some form fanatical about their homeland. Germans would've cooperated with Egypt the nation itself I think.. Egypt was dominated by Colonial Rule so Jordan, would be a more appropiate location for Revolts

[xwormwood]

Would be nice if there could be some relation to the frontline.

the nearer the enemy HQ, the more people could be willing to join the revolution ("the chickens get restless").

Warsaw riot startet when the red army was only some kilometers away.

While there is no near front there should be a great chance that nearly no one dares to disturb this above mentioned "colonial rule".

[Panzerkeil]

The Warsaw uprising was in anticipation of the Red Army arriving imminently. Its purpose was to disrupt the Germans and facilitate the liberation of the city. Too bad they didn't know the Red Army had no intentions of entering the city. It is still debated as to whether it was for logistical or political reasons that the Red Army sat there as the Germans wiped out the uprising.

[JerseyJohn]

Many of the Christian Poles wanted to rise up a year earlier in the Jewish battle of the Warsaw Ghetto, but it was felt that such an action would be doomed as there was no prospect of outside assistance. From what I've read, the Jewish leaders understood and were satisfied that arms and ammunition had been smuggled to them by the Christian Poles from outside the ghetto.

I know the Russian action is still controversial, but there's absolutely no doubt in my own mind that they wanted the nazis to expose and execute any Pole who would have made trouble for the Soviets after the war.

[Liam]

JJ:

as paranoid as Stalin was I have to imagine that was the case.

P.S. or rather as hardcore as he was about eliminating any threat to his Power

[Guest Mike]

Given the number of Poles executed by the Sov's post war I'm sure they were happy for the Nazi's to help them ouot by disposing of any uppity Jews.

Pretty much anyone in the Home Army was either drafted into eth soviet Army, or arrested, including all the survivors of the uprising, and most of them were never seen again.

the Home Army was seen in post war Soviet Propaganda as right wing Nazi-sympathisers, and it's very name was censored until the 60's. The Polish Govt played upon the failings of the Govt in Exile and het home army, all without actually mentioning them!! From the mid-50's it was admitted that the soldiers weer brave, but hte officers and politicians were portrayed as treacherous and cared nothing about losses.

The war was won by hte time of het uprising - the Russians had no need of Polish aid. Moreover the uprising owed loyalty to the Polish Govt in Exil in London - a direct threat to their plans for a compliant and communist poland post war.

[Chris G]

jon_j_rambo, it was a long time since I read such “fairytales”. I hope its irony and not your firm belief. By the way, your link didn't work either.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

True. In fact, his last plans were to recycle his inner circle, get rid of Molotov, Beria, Kruschev, Milenkovich and anyone else who was a threat. They caught wind of it and a short while later Stalin died after one of his all night parties. Actually, he had a seizure first and, when he didn't emerge from his quarters Beria made sure that he wasn't attended till he was nearly dead. But all the others were in on it. Had he lived there would have been a new round of purges, this one aimed specifically at the Jews, starting with Jewish physicians and scholars. He was as antiSemitic as Hitler and told cronies that he admired what his old nemesis had done in that regard.

Stalin'sOrganist,

The whole Polish tragedy is very ironic. Something like 33% of their prewar population had been killed by 1945. They were treated with hideous brutality by the Germans and, afterwards, enslaved by the Soviets who treated them almost as badly. Meanwhile, no one had done anything to save them in the spirit of September 1939. Britain was helpless to do so, France, of course, was conquered and the United States regarded Poland as a non-issue.

To churchill's credit he did attempt to secure guarantees that post war Poland would be a truly independent nation. Stalin gave lip service to his plans but, naturally, had no intention of allowing the government in exile to return. The place was to be run by his hand picked front men as a Soviet puppet along with the rest of Eastern Europe. Stalin's reasoning, in part, was that Russia needed a buffer zone between itself and Western Europe.

ChrisG,

Which fairytale are we talking about here?