We discussed bits and pieces of this subject before, but I am still not certain as to why the Allies decided to invade Italy after her capitulation in 1943? After Salerno and the capture of Foggia, why did they continue to pour men and material into Italy? If it was to divert German troops from France and German, did not the invasion and subsequent campaign divert Allied troops and material-- thus, the delay of Operation Anvil in 1944?
Be very interested in your thoughts.
thanks
DJ

DJ,
I think that Italy was necessary for the allied troops at least for two reasons:
- the allied imposed to Italy, after the 8th on September capitulation, a surrender without any condition, so it was impossible for them to leave Italy "alone"
- northern Italy, where 90% of Italian industries were concentrated, was under the threat of Tito's Yugoslavian communists and they didn't want Italy going under the Soviet Union influence after the war
Ciao
Fabio

i feel the invasion of italy was as much a political operation as a stategic military one.

the western allies were under immense pressure from the soviet union to open up the second front. the invasion of france was a long way off, and the british and americans have huge numbers of men and equipment in north africa sitting about doing very little.

to appease the soviets, and make use of the assets the had in the area, they decided to invade italy, the 'soft under-belly' of europe.

now we all know there was no such thing as the 'soft under-belly' it was a hard fought and hard won campaign.

as for it diverting german resources from france etc, it would have obviously helped, but nothing on the scale of the war in russia.

maybe it would have been better to remove more of the units from italy and send them to normandy, with the 8th army and various american units there too, i imagine we would have been in berlin by christmas 1944.

cheers

joe

We read and hear a great about the "soft underbelly of Europe" strategy during WW II. Does anyone find this a credible strategy?
DJ

Hi DJ,now we all now about Winstons ideas about the "soft underbelly of Europe" if it was not for the timitidy of the commanders in that operation,he would have been vintidcated and not sent into the politcal wilderness of the ninteenthirties,but as you know DJ his ideas and mind set were still the same,are we on the same track.
Arthur

Without the Med theatre there would have been no D-Day.

Quite simply the Med/North Africa? Italy was a testing ground and learning area for the Allies.

In this theatre the Allies perfected airborne operations, amphibious ops (alongside the lessons of Dieppe) and armoured warfare aswell as experience of fighting Jerry. Without this experience D-Day may not have succeeded.

As for troops, Italy certainly pinned down a number of German divisions and forced Germany to fight on three fronts from June 1944. As to whether it was a viable strategy to win the war is debatable. I think the Allies used it as a learning curve to prepare for the invasion of Western Europe and to score so victories on the Germans and keep the pressure on Germany and show the USSR that the Allies were still in the fight...

While the Italian Campaign ended up serving a practical purpose, it was done mostly for political reasons. Churchill didn't think that a cross-channel invasion at that time would work (probably correct), but he didn't want the military to sit idly by. He and FDR were also under heavy pressure from Stalin to open a second front. Since the Soviets were carrying the bulk of the fighting, it seemed only right for the Western forces to carry on actively with the ground war as well.
Churchill pressed for Italy over the Balkans because he thought (correctly) that Italy would fold if attacked or threatened with attack, thus driving one of the Axis powers out of the war. Also, having committed Commonwealth troops to the Balkans earlier in the war, he knew how difficult the terrain could be for an invading army. However, he didn't appear to believe that Hitler would send more troops to bolster Italian resistance/defense, thus the whole "soft underbelly" thing. He also apparently forgot or ignored Napoleon's dictum that Italy looks like a boot, and like a boot, should be entered from the top. Hannibal's experiences before this seem to bear out this argument.
I have to disagree with the no Italy-no D-Day argument. While the campaign did tie down several German divisions and stretch their supply lines, it also tied down several allied divisions and stretched their supply lines as well in a campaign more suited to the style of warfare fought in WW1 than WW2. I really don't think that there were any more lessons to be learned.
I think that any lessons necessary for fighting in Normandy and NWE had already been learned in North Africa and Sicily. Combat experience played a bigger role on the training ground than on the battleground, since only one combat exerienced division (1st Infantry) landed on D-Day, and only two other combat veteran formations (9th Infantry and 2nd Armored) fought in Normandy. Yes, there were veterans scattered throughout other outfits, but no other veteran formations. By the time of the Normandy invasion, Italy was little more than a sideshow, as evidenced by the redeployment of an entire army for the debatably necessary invasion of Southern France.
As for keeping Tito and the communists out of Italy, Tito's Partisans were too busy fighting the Germans, their allies, and Chetniks in Yugoslavia to be any threat to their neighbors. The problems with communists in the Balkans didn't arise till after the war when rebels in Greece tried to overthrow the government and install a communist regime.
Dang! Sorry for rambling on and on (and on, ad infinitum). I just had to put in my two cents worth. If anyone wants their change back, feel free to drop by my house for a refund.

War MAchine....

Aint Sicily in Italy???



:-)

Sicily is a territorial part of Italy. The conquest of Sicily in July-August of 1943 was interesting in terms of lessons learned and applied. I do not appreciate the comment that without Italy there would be no D-Day. If the Germans (and they came mighty darn close) plushed the Allies in the sea at Anzio in January 1944, certainly it would have given the Allies pause. But, they would have invaded Europe regardless. If the the Allies paused and stayed on Sicily and then launched the British 8th Army to seize Foggia, the Germans would have been faced with a number of nasty possibilities. Among them, where would the Allies attack next? By committing ourselves to Italy, we allowed the Germans to bottle up huge resources for negligible gains...
DJ

That's crap. As someone said the partisans were busy fighting Germans, Cethniks and a few other groups that symphatized with Germans .

As you might know, Tito "stopped contact" with the USSR in 1948 (a very smart thing from him to do).

Another thing. Italy got too much land after 1st ww. They got almost half of todays Slovenia. And Yugoslavia didn't get enough after the 2nd ww. Some 50 km to the west would be just fine. There are many Slovenian people living in Italy because Italy got too much land after the 1st ww.

Now, i haven't wanted to insult any Italians.
Have a nice day (night).

War Machine,

Without the experiences of airborne and amphibious warfare learnt in the Med Theatre and the experience of armoured warfare and of fighting the Germans the operation at D-Day would have been fraught with disaster.

The Allies gained their grounding in these operations in the Med and at Dieppe. The lessons of the Sicily operation had a direct influence on airborne operational doctrine that was implemented for the D-Day operations. The same was true of the lessons of amphibious operations from Torch to Sicily. Both provided lessons, alongside those of Dieppe, that had a direct influence on the operational planning for D-Day. The lessons of CAS (CloseAirSupport) were also learnt in this area, and again provided lessons for the Normandy conflict.

The Med theatre was, regardless of its effect on the wars outcome, an area where the Allies learnt the arts of war. Without this theatre the Allies would have had little experience in modern warfare and in the employment of airborne, armour, amphibious and CAS in the war zone. Thus it must therefore have had a significant effect upon the planning for D-Day and without the experiences in these fields the success of D-Day must be called into question, especially when the operational failings of early amphibious assaults are examined. Without these lessons how could the Allies have planned D-Day?

I suggest you look at the following texts...

The US Army operational planning Documents for Operation Overlord.

The Combined Arms report on Dieppe.

The War Office publication on Airborne Effectiveness.

These all give examples of how the fighting in the Med Theatre contributed to the Allies knowledge and allowed the successful undertaking of the invasion of Normandy. I would also be happy to point you to a website that has my Masters Thesis on Airborne Operational Effectiveness,.

RED

Well, Baron, it appears that you misunderstood or didn't fully read what I wrote. I didn't say that the MTO wasn't useful in teaching many valuable lessons for the Normandy invasion, just the invasion of the Italian mainland wasn't vital. As I stated, any lessons that needed to be learned were learned in North Africa and Sicily (which militarily and geographically speaking, is considered as separate from Italy and the Italian invasion) and that invading the Italian mainland was more political than practical.
BTW, I forgot to mention the 82nd Airborne among the US's combat experienced outfits, although only two of its four regiments in Normandy had seen combat. Also, I didn't intend toslight the veteran English outfits in NWE either. With two more years of combat, it seems likely that they would have more men on average in Normandy with combat experience.

War MAchine,

My apologies if I misread your post. I was talking of the Med theatre as a whole, whilst you were discussing the validity of the mainland invasion of Italy, although lessons were certainly learned about fighting the Germans. But whether these were fully assessed by Normandy remains open to doubt. MOnte Cassino being a case in point.

As for your point of the British having more combat experience at Normandy, this aint really true! Although there was a hardcore of veteran troops, the majority of those deployed in the Normandy Campaign had not seen action. Perhaps the most remarkable unit is the 6th Airborne Division would landed in the early hours of 6th June. This was an untested Division, only a few of its officers had combat experience, but it successfully completed all its objectives, while suffering from poor dropping and casualties. The attack on Merville battery went in with less than half the planned numbers, virtually none of the heavy/specialist equipment or its planned glider 'coup de main' and although taking high casualties was a success. One veteran I know from 6th Airborne told me that the only reason they did so well was that they didnt know how bad it was gonna be!!!

Sorry for going off topic!

i beg to differ, as you mention certain units were untested in combat, but many had seen considerable service, and many NCO's in most units had seen action earlier in the war.

the 7th armoured for example, was there an allied unit that had seen more action prior to normandy?

for example, my great uncle was in a sergeant in the grenadier guards. he had seen prewar service in the suez, then was part of the BEF fighting with the rear guard at dunkirk, once off the beaches and back in england, they retained from infantry to armoured, and he went ashore a few days after d-day, fighting in a firefly all the way across france until he was wounded during market garden and brought home. pretty considerable experience?

the same was true with many men of all british units.

the entire plan for the breakout of normandy was for the more experienced british units to hold the bulk of the german re-enforcements around caen, allowing the americans to make the breakout to the west.

sorry for going of topic DJ,

cheers

joe

Some units did have high levels of combat experience, but the majority of those that took part in the ENTIRE campaign did not. For example, 6th Airborne (less than 5% of the personnal had seen combat and this was limited mainly to the officers).. Even the units that did have combat experience did not perfom overly well, indeed previous experience did not often help in the Normandy campaign. For more on the level of experience in British/Canadian units see...

The Black Bull
Wessex Wyverns
Caen : Anvil of Victory
Six Armies in Normandy

My grandfather also was in the BEF, was wounded at Dunkirk and saw service in Normandy. But that does not mean that these seasoned veterans were the norm, in fact they were spread out amongst the troops to give a hardcore of experience personnel. espicially in untested formations. I myself lecture on a university module on Normandy and have the pleasure of visting Normandy each year on our university field trip.

It should also be noted that the German forces in Normandy had their share of unexperienced troops and a great deal were poor quality when compared to the Allied formation.

Again sorry for....

No apologies necessary, Baron. I just wanted to make sure I clarified the point I was trying to make. Also, I didn't mean to stear the thread or hijack it with my remarks about Commonwealth troops in Normandy. I just wanted to make sure I gave them their due.
Thanks!

Baron-- can you direct me to your thesis website?
I would enjoy reading your commentary.
thanks
DJ

www.elheim.com

In the articles section. I believe the site owner is putting the first draft online in chapters, but drop me an email and I can send you a copy.

Guys--- the Baron kindly sent me his thesis. Fantastic research effort., It is 130 pages long and I am only about a third of the way into it, but it is a great read. Back to Italy--- would you have bombed Monte Cassino?
DJ

Thank You Cav! I think its about 45,000 words... and four years worth of research! It will read alot better when its finished but you get my basic arguement!

Would I have bombed Cassino? With hindsight, No... But at the time.. Yup I probably would...