And (you're going) bananas.ljadw wrote:Apples and oranges .Ironmachine wrote:In fact, there are such threads, as you could have seen if you had simply bothered to look for them:ljadw wrote:Look at the title of the thread : Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance.
There are no threads with as title : some thoughts on the French, US, British,etc Army's performance .
Thus : why the thread ?
"Red Army casualties and performance": viewtopic.php?f=55&t=100893&p=887276&hi ... ce#p887276
"Evaluation of the Performance of the U.S. Army": viewtopic.php?f=54&t=78618&p=706131&hil ... e#p706131
"Poor performance of the French" (not only WWII, but still): viewtopic.php?f=22&t=58941&p=529808&hil ... e#p529808
"German and allied performance comparison": viewtopi ... e#p368892
and a number of threads about the performance of different branches of the German military:
"The Combat Performance of the Fallschirmjäger": viewtopic.php?f=50&t=4839&p=38622&hilit ... e#p1919310
"Performance of Heer and Waffen-SS in the Bulge": viewtopic.php?f=50&t=194015&p=1742518&h ... #p1742518
and even generals:
"Unsatisfactory performance from Germans generals?": viewtopi ... #p1671657
All those just from a quick seach for the word "performance" in title threads...
There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see.
In fact, if I really understand your ramblings, the argument is more like:ljadw wrote: 1 Rommel was presented as a military genius
2 Rommel was defeated .
3 As excuse for 2 ,the Italians were blamed .
1. The British were defeated.
2. As excuse for 1, Rommel was presented as a military genius.
3. Later, Rommel was defeated.
4. As excuse for 3, the Italians were blamed.
Why is there a need to blame the Italians? Would it not have been far simple, and far more satisfying for those devilish Anglo-Saxon historians, to claim that Rommel was finally defeated because, even if he was a genius, at the end the British were even better?
On the other hand, how are those Anglo-Saxon historians you mention reconciling points 1 and 4? First, the British were defeated, but the Italians were already there. So we know what you think is the Anglo-Saxon historians' lobby stance on the issue of Rommel's defeat, but what is their point of view about Rommel's victories? Were the British defeated by Rommel despite the Italian presence? Was Rommel so great a genius that he was able at first to overcome the severe handicap that were the Italians, but in the end they were so bad that not even Rommel could win with them on his side? Were the Italians fairly good at first but became worse later? Have the Anglo-Saxon historians no concern about the internal consistency of their arguments?