The Italian Campaign of WWII

[Farnan]

The Italian Campaign of WWII is probably one of the most forgotten campaign of the war. While lauded by Churchill it was seen as a waste of men and materiale by the American generals from the real war in France.

Was this campaign unnecessary or was it important to the outcome of the war? This campaign knocked the Italians out of the war and took 20 divisions off the Eastern front in 1943, however it made little progress and resulted in thousands of US, UK, Commonwealth, French, Polish, Brazilian and Italian Co-belligerent deaths. Further it took away landing craft and troops from the Normandy Campaign. What is your opinion of this fight?

[manofarms89]

my grandpa's brother was in this campaign, he fought in most of the major battles and was even part of the mission to capture Mussolini. i see the campaign as something that had a lot of potential but was poorly executed due to seen and unseen elements.

[Trey]

The Italian Campaign of WWII is probably one of the most forgotten campaign of the war. While lauded by Churchill it was seen as a waste of men and materiale by the American generals from the real war in France.

Was this campaign unnecessary or was it important to the outcome of the war? This campaign knocked the Italians out of the war and took 20 divisions off the Eastern front in 1943, however it made little progress and resulted in thousands of US, UK, Commonwealth, French, Polish, Brazilian and Italian Co-belligerent deaths. Further it took away landing craft and troops from the Normandy Campaign. What is your opinion of this fight?

I'll give my own slightly uninformed spiel here.
While the Italian campaign was maybe not necessary, per se, I believe that it was important. Italy formed the soft underbelly of Axis Europe, and taking it out of the war was the next logical step after victory in Africa. Even though Italy proved to be quite the worthless ally, in purely psychological terms it is demoralizing to have an ally knocked out of a war, and even more so if they are turned against you. So in that sense, I believe that was it was a success.

Furthermore, as you noted it opened up yet another front in the war. While this did divert troops and equipment from the more important theaters, it did the same for the Germans. They clearly could not rely on the Italians to hold the peninsula, and so had to place troops and equipment there. This only contributed to the German's logistical nightmare, which was something that was always a thorn in their side. Being hard pressed, they could ill afford to draw men from either the Western or Eastern Fronts. In conclusion, the fact that the allies never broke through the German line in Italy is irrelevant. The psychological threat they presented and the drain on German logistics was more than enough to justify the campaign.

[Lysimachus]

I'll give my own slightly uninformed spiel here.
While the Italian campaign was maybe not necessary, per se, I believe that it was important. Italy formed the soft underbelly of Axis Europe, and taking it out of the war was the next logical step after victory in Africa. Even though Italy proved to be quite the worthless ally, in purely psychological terms it is demoralizing to have an ally knocked out of a war, and even more so if they are turned against you. So in that sense, I believe that was it was a success.

Furthermore, as you noted it opened up yet another front in the war. While this did divert troops and equipment from the more important theaters, it did the same for the Germans. They clearly could not rely on the Italians to hold the peninsula, and so had to place troops and equipment there. This only contributed to the German's logistical nightmare, which was something that was always a thorn in their side. Being hard pressed, they could ill afford to draw men from either the Western or Eastern Fronts. In conclusion, the fact that the allies never broke through the German line in Italy is irrelevant. The psychological threat they presented and the drain on German logistics was more than enough to justify the campaign.

Italy wasn't the soft underbelly of Europe actually, it was the scene of consistently intense fighting for about two years straight across perhaps the most impassable set of mountains in Europe. Combining the atrocious terrain along with environmental factors like rain, snow and heat, and on top of that , barbed wire, minefields, entrenched bunkers with interlocking fields of fire, mortars and distant artillery made for a devastating battle for the attacker.

The one thing i'm left wondering, is that although the Italian campaign was able to draw away resources which could have been better used elsewhere, is whether it was worth it on the Allied side. I'm not sure going through two years of hellish fighting through awful terrain was really how far they should have gone just to "pull away troops from other fronts". Nonetheless, I feel after the North African campaign, an invasion of Italy was a pretty logical choice considering the Allies thought it was going to be a nice cakewalk.

From what I understand the Italian campaign was more of a political rather than a military decision. Militarily it was pointless, the Italian peninsula being a bottleneck in which an outnumbered enemy could put up a staunch and very prolonged decision. Politically, however, it meant pointing a dagger up North and threatening to cut off the Soviets on their way to Berlin.

Exactly. XIV Panzerkorps was able to fight a delaying battle in Sicily for an entire month when they had a mere 66,000 men up against (approx.) 300,000 men.

[Trey]

Italy wasn't the soft underbelly of Europe actually, it was the scene of consistently intense fighting for about two years straight across perhaps the most impassable set of mountains in Europe. Combining the atrocious terrain along with environmental factors like rain, snow and heat, and on top of that , barbed wire, minefields, entrenched bunkers with interlocking fields of fire, mortars and distant artillery made for a devastating battle for the attacker.

The one thing i'm left wondering, is that although the Italian campaign was able to draw away resources which could have been better used elsewhere, is whether it was worth it on the Allied side. I'm not sure going through two years of hellish fighting through awful terrain was really how far they should have gone just to "pull away troops from other fronts". Nonetheless, I feel after the North African campaign, an invasion of Italy was a pretty logical choice considering the

I don't know enough about Italy to get too in depth. However when I said underbelly, I meant Axis Italy, not geographical Italy itself. The mindset is to bring the fight to the enemy, and like we both said Italy would be the next logical step after NA.

[Jenuensis]

Kesselring did a great job delaying the Allied advance. Kesselring was the only real German Commander who didn't have Hitler interfering with his plans threw out the campaign. Makes you think what it would of been like if Hitler stayed out of military affairs, or the Eastern or Western Fronts.

[Slaytaninc]

Kesselring did a great job delaying the Allied advance. Kesselring was the only real German Commander who didn't have Hitler interfering with his plans threw out the campaign. Makes you think what it would of been like if Hitler stayed out of military affairs, or the Eastern or Western Fronts.

The Axis would still have lost?

The following source (I don't have it, unfortunately) is pretty much still the definitive guide to why the Allies won:

Why The Allies Won
By: Richard Overy

[hollowfaith]

It was never intended as a substitute for an attack aimed at Germany by way of the more open and more remunerative route through northern France. The invasion of Italy had a number of lesser objectives: to capitalize on the collapse of Italian resistance; to make immediate use of ready Allied strength; to engage German forces which might otherwise be used in Russia and northern France; to secure airfields from which to intensify the bombing of Germany and the Balkans; and to gain complete control of the Mediterranean.


P.S. - Don't mind my rambling, been up for over 2 days now. LOL

[Angrychris]

Good way for the Germans to shoot retreating italians and oncoming allies during this campaign.

[Viking Prince]

The British concern was domination of the Med to keep the Suez canal and the links to India and the Pacific open. The American perspective was differant with no need to rely on the Middle East and the Suez canal. If the Americans were in earlier, this would not have been an issue since the Germans would not have been able to threaten Egypt. Once the British were in the fight it was natural to continue using the assets to take Italy out of the war.

[Hanny]

The British concern was domination of the Med to keep the Suez canal and the links to India and the Pacific open. The American perspective was differant with no need to rely on the Middle East and the Suez canal. If the Americans were in earlier, this would not have been an issue since the Germans would not have been able to threaten Egypt. Once the British were in the fight it was natural to continue using the assets to take Italy out of the war.

Not really, Germany.http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_09.htm which is from Command decisons, http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_0.htm

[OTZ]

Not really, Germany.http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_09.htm which is from Command decisons, http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_0.htm

Did you mean to link to this chapter?

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

From what I understand the Italian campaign was more of a political rather than a military decision. Militarily it was pointless, the Italian peninsula being a bottleneck in which an outnumbered enemy could put up a staunch and very prolonged defence. Politically, however, it meant pointing a dagger up North and threatening to cut off the Soviets on their way to Berlin.

[DAVIDE]

The Italian Campaign of WWII is probably one of the most forgotten campaign of the war. While lauded by Churchill it was seen as a waste of men and materiale by the American generals from the real war in France.

Was this campaign unnecessary or was it important to the outcome of the war? This campaign knocked the Italians out of the war

Italians knocked out themselves by the war. Last battle fought by Italian army within peninsula Italica's an air combat Macchi C205s v Spitfires in the skies of Sicily, sept 1943 (see here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...light=spitfire). The 8th just after Mussolini's fall, Italian government signed the armistice and has been split in two and Italian army ceased to exist. Soldiers abroad and in mainland remained without any order. RSI's been forged in the north, free Italy in the south. Civil war started. So basically allies had to face just Germans and few RSI divisions (in the area between Veneto and Lombardy) before Mussolini's execution. After that, just Germans were present in the peninsula

[Azog 150]

Well the strategy was originally proposed by Churchill and British Generals. Not only were they planning to invade Italy, but also through Greece and the Balkans as it was seen as Europes 'soft underbelly'. If the US had never joined the war, this would have been the British plan.

However, since the US joined, Italy and D-Day was kind of a compromise between Churchills 'soft underbelly' strategy, and the US strategy of going all out in occupied Europe.

Even if strategically the impact was not that big, politically it was. It was an extra threat to Germany (And of course Italy) which Germany needed to divert troops and resources to deal with. Also, the capture of Rome was pretty symbolic as it was the first Axis capital to be taken. If D-Day hadn't occured two days later it probably would have been a much bigger deal.

And I agree that the Italian campaign doesn't get enough credit. Unlike most of the other theatres, the Italian campaign was very static and is probably more comparable to the battlefields of World War 1. It was a hard, bloody slogfest in some very unfavourable terrain against a well dug in and determined enemy. The fact that the troops fighting there were known as the "D-Day Dodgers", despite the fighting being just as hard and gruelling as that in Normandy (If not moreso) is a great shame.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

The Germans removed their forces during the battle of Kursk earlier than they would had normally done(they would lose the battle anyway) because of the landing of the Allies on Italy..
So it kinda helped to weaken the pressure of the Germans against the Soviets but later on the Allies had many casualties (Monte Cassino for example) that could had been avoided.. The Allies made so many operations there but the German front there hadn't fallen even as late as 1945..

[Slaytaninc]

The Germans removed their forces during the battle of Kursk earlier than they would had normally done(they would lose the battle anyway) because of the landing of the Allies on Italy..
So it kinda helped to weaken the pressure of the Germans against the Soviets but later on the Allies had many casualties (Monte Cassino for example) that could had been avoided.. The Allies made so many operations there but the German front there hadn't fallen even as late as 1945..

Ironically enough, in the closing stages of the war, French COLONIAL troops did better than the US in Italy.

[Farnan]

Actually it was in the beginning of the war and it was then the division the French Expeditionary Corps was with. And these were veteran soldiers, the US soldiers were generally green. Further, they were led by a more aggressive general (Alphonse Juin). However, half way through the campaign the French forces were withdrawn from Italy for the invasion of Southern France.

And what is this emphasis on them being colonial troops?

[Slaytaninc]

Actually, I am thinking of later in the war. I might be mistaken as for saying it was the end though.

Why focusing on them being colonial troops?

Easy. Obviously they weren't trained to the same standards as other French troops.

Granted, if I'm wrong, I wouldn't mind being educated.

[Farnan]

Actually, I am thinking of later in the war. I might be mistaken as for saying it was the end though.

It was the beginning of Monte Cassino till the break through at Anzio. In August 1944 they were part of the invasion of Southern France. The only case it can be said that they were better than the Americans they were with would be the first day of Monte Cassino, where they pushed through the German lines unlike the American troops, but that may have been due to not having to cross a river. However, after that saying the French were better than Americans would be stupid dick measuring. Not saying they weren't effective, they were and extremely well led, just saying comparing the two is stupid and pointless.

Why focusing on them being colonial troops?

Easy. Obviously they weren't trained to the same standards as other French troops.

That may be true in 1939, however in 1943-1944 it was not the case. It included the Goumiers, elite light infantry from Morocco. And many of the divisions in the FEC included the garrisons of North Africa who have served for at least 4-5 years now and included the very highly decorated 3rd Algerian Division.