Posted: 6/18/2016 9:26:36 AM EDT
|
If the allies already had a "foothold" in Europe via Italy, then why did they have to take "Fortress Europe" via France to invade? I assume the major reason may have something to do with the Alps being between Italy and the rest of Europe. Is this why? |
|
Quoted:
If the allies already had a "foothold" in Europe via Italy, then why did they have to take "Fortress Europe" via France to invade? I assume the major reason may have something to do with the Alps being between Italy and the rest of Europe. Is this why? Alps are a bitch, yo. |
|
Quoted:
Alps are a bitch, yo. Quoted:
Quoted:
If the allies already had a "foothold" in Europe via Italy, then why did they have to take "Fortress Europe" via France to invade? I assume the major reason may have something to do with the Alps being between Italy and the rest of Europe. Is this why? Alps are a bitch, yo. Yep. |
|
Quoted:
If the allies already had a "foothold" in Europe via Italy, then why did they have to take "Fortress Europe" via France to invade? I assume the major reason may have something to do with the Alps being between Italy and the rest of Europe. Is this why? You answered your own question, OP. Italy was a sideshow foisted on us by the UK, who were EXTREMELY reluctant to face the Germans head on. |
|
Italy has a lot of mountainous terrain. The enemy could rain down artillery along your approach routes and disrupt any concentration of troops and supply. Look at Monte Cassino (von Senger und Etterlin's book is excellent). Your attack group reaches a crest and blam! It's shelled back down. A convoy is observed along a road and blam! It's shelled off the road or a rockslide is induced to destroy it. Italty was not the soft underbelly that Churchill thought it was. Rather, it was an upside down turtle shell.
The 5th Army (and the British 8th Army) hardly got to the Alps before the war had ended. By landing (in two spots) in France, the Allies forced the Germans to spread their defensive lines and disperse their strength. |
|
Quoted: Logistically a lot easier to cross the channel to sustain a major offensive than around Spain and through the Med. Also, deep water ports in France. Italy also had a lot of easily defensible terrain and lack of space to maneuver large armies. Initially, after Italy, Churchill wanted to invade Europe through the Balkans instead of France. |
|
Quoted:
If the allies already had a "foothold" in Europe via Italy, then why did they have to take "Fortress Europe" via France to invade? I assume the major reason may have something to do with the Alps being between Italy and the rest of Europe. Is this why? Try waging a major, mechanized ground offensive through the Italian/Austrian/Bavarian alps, and get back to us. 
|
|
Churchill was right in many things, but he was totally wrong when he described Italy and the Balkans as the "soft underbelly" of Europe. Geography is a bitch.
One of my former co-workers was a veteran of the 36th Division. He used to describe how tough the fighting was in the Italian hill towns. They lost a lot of good men. The Italian campaign did have the advantage of knocking Italy out of the war as early as September 1943. |
|
If I remember correctly the reasoning behind Italy was to get it out of the war; don't believe Italy was ever seen as a path into the Reich. More of keeping momentum after Sicily, something to do in '43.
Seems skipping it and timing Dragoon to happen prior to Overlord would have been more effective. Alps are still keeping the Germans bottled in Italy; hold the passes with relatively few troops. Mechanized advance on favorable terrain from the south pulls troops out of Overlord landing areas; then the main landing. Italy was indeed a tough nut |
|
Quoted:
You answered your own question, OP. Italy was a sideshow foisted on us by the UK, who were EXTREMELY reluctant to face the Germans head on. Quoted:
Quoted:
If the allies already had a "foothold" in Europe via Italy, then why did they have to take "Fortress Europe" via France to invade? I assume the major reason may have something to do with the Alps being between Italy and the rest of Europe. Is this why? You answered your own question, OP. Italy was a sideshow foisted on us by the UK, who were EXTREMELY reluctant to face the Germans head on. Montgomery was criminally timid and history has been far too kind to him. |
|
Quoted: Churchill was right in many things, but he was totally wrong when he described Italy and the Balkans as the "soft underbelly" of Europe. Geography is a bitch. One of my former co-workers was a veteran of the 36th Division. He used to describe how tough the fighting was in the Italian hill towns. They lost a lot of good men. The Italian campaign did have the advantage of knocking Italy out of the war as early as September 1943. He was looking for Gallipoli part Deux. |
|
The Alps were to much of a natural defensive line.
Switzerland had a very small standing army of less than 500,000 during WWII, but when their ambassador was asked what they would do if Hitler sent 1,000,000 men across the Alps. His reply was " I guess we would all have to shoot twice." |
|
Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin engaged in discussions concerning the terms under which the British and Americans finally committed to launching Operation Overlord, an invasion of northern France, to be executed by May of 1944. The Soviets, who had long been pushing the Allies to open a second front, agreed to launch another major offensive on the Eastern Front that would divert German troops away from the Allied campaign in northern France. Tehran Conference, 1943 https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/tehran-conf |
|
Quoted:
If I remember correctly the reasoning behind Italy was to get it out of the war; don't believe Italy was ever seen as a path into the Reich. More of keeping momentum after Sicily, something to do in '43. Seems skipping it and timing Dragoon to happen prior to Overlord would have been more effective. Alps are still keeping the Germans bottled in Italy; hold the passes with relatively few troops. Mechanized advance on favorable terrain from the south pulls troops out of Overlord landing areas; then the main landing. Italy was indeed a tough nut And the South coast of France. That is not the path. The heart was the Rohr. Attack directly at the heart. |
|
Quoted:
The Alps were to much of a natural defensive line. Switzerland had a very small standing army of less than 500,000 during WWII, but when their ambassador was asked what they would do if Hitler sent 1,000,000 men across the Alps. His reply was " I guess we would all have to shoot twice." I think he also then said, "then we'd go home." |
|
Quoted:
Montgomery was criminally timid and history has been far too kind to him. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the allies already had a "foothold" in Europe via Italy, then why did they have to take "Fortress Europe" via France to invade? I assume the major reason may have something to do with the Alps being between Italy and the rest of Europe. Is this why? You answered your own question, OP. Italy was a sideshow foisted on us by the UK, who were EXTREMELY reluctant to face the Germans head on. Montgomery was criminally timid and history has been far too kind to him. This |
|
Quoted:
Churchill was right in many things, but he was totally wrong when he described Italy and the Balkans as the "soft underbelly" of Europe. Geography is a bitch. One of my former co-workers was a veteran of the 36th Division. He used to describe how tough the fighting was in the Italian hill towns. They lost a lot of good men. The Italian campaign did have the advantage of knocking Italy out of the war as early as September 1943. Yep, watching guys talk about it on documentaries it sounds no different than the Russians sending troops to fortified German positions to just have em killed over and over again. Mark Clark could have enveloped the German 10th army and potentially changed what happened, but that's all for another talk. |
|
Quoted:
Initially, after Italy, Churchill wanted to invade Europe through the Balkans instead of France. Quoted:
Quoted:
Logistically a lot easier to cross the channel to sustain a major offensive than around Spain and through the Med. Also, deep water ports in France. Italy also had a lot of easily defensible terrain and lack of space to maneuver large armies. Initially, after Italy, Churchill wanted to invade Europe through the Balkans instead of France. The "Soft Underbelly" route. |
|
Quoted:
The big thing that Italy gave the US was bomber bases so bombers could hit the Romanian oil fields and other strategic targets in Southern Germany and Southern and Eastern Europe. Also made it easier to help Tito's partisans in Yugoslavia. This, and the timing of the Allied invasion of Sicily (precursor to invasion of Italy) also forced Hitler to siphon off panzer forces that were being used at Kursk, which was part of why the German Kursk offensive failed. |