Italy in WW2 - what went wrong?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 окт 2020
- Italy fought in many battles and campaigns in World War Two, and they didn't do very well in any of them, so what went wrong?
Check out the companion video - The USA in WW2 - what went right? at • The US in WW2 - what w...
I hate when people put the blame on Italy's failures on the rank and file soldier. They were lions led by sheep with no industrial capacity, and military brass were chosen for loyalty, not acumen.
The Folgores were a fine example - they were well-trained, well-led, and held out till they ran out of ammunition.
tru enough the italians fighting in the SS or usa forces seemed fine enough
@@glosfishgb6267 you forgot to mention that the Italian forces in Corsica neutralized German and Vichy (French) troops . Allowing allied air support on the south eastern coast of France. Operation Dragon 15/08/1944.
what kind of lion lets itself be led by sheep?
@@jonbainmusicvideos8045 Refer to the 2nd part of my original comment to help you further understand.
My uncle Luigi, a real nice man, volunteered for Italy in 1940. He was taken prisoner by the British and was held in captivity for 5 years. He never complained about his time in prison camps in Kenia and India. Another Italian I met was taken prisoner by the British and he told me that he was held in South Africa where he spent most of his time playing tennis and having a great time! I want to thank the British people for the humane and kind treatment of their war prisoners.
It's good military strategy to treat your POW's well.
That's was probably a factor in many of the mass surrenders that were to the Allies.
@@uncbadguy Perhaps, but its still a most commendable act.
Thank you for sharing that.
@@vandpubsell Simple rule BE NICE!
It's the second key on the keyring to success.
Don't mention it Ferdinando, this strategy of looking after POWs caused Beneto to watch his troops more closely as his front line units 'when faced with the choice of being shelled in desert heat or be a POW in the UK wearing carpet slippers with plenty of food and Vera Lyne songs, what would anybody else choose?
Thanks for a fair evaluation of the Italian forces in WWII. Rommel once said that the Italian Army was limited only by its poor leadership. He commended the individual soldier as a good competent fighter when properly lead and supplied.
The soldiers of most nations are competent when properly lead and supplied.
Every war has been horrible, up to and including the Vietnam War! After that, we never faced “real” wars again. Iraq 1991? Iraq 2003? Afghanistan? these were not "real" wars! Taking action against a completely inferior opponent with far superior weapons and means has little to do with war! More people die on Chicago's streets every year than during the entire Iraq campaign! We have no idea what a real war is, but we judge very quickly which was the braver one in WW1 + WW2 based on some movies. I don't even know how this topic came about, heroes, cowards, eccetera, probably through the propaganda of the British and USA and their "hero" films after the war! Soldiers from both sides meet several times after the war and there was always mutual respect between each other, my German grandpa told me never something bad about Italians, or even Brits or American
My grandfather served in the Italian Army from 1936-43 got captured by the British in North Africa. Than after the death of Mussolini, he was released and returned home. Whatever the facts are of the Italian military campaign in WW2, like my grandpa and many other’s who did there duty’s and served there nation with Pride.
my grandfather too (navy)
Thank you for sharing that.
My grandfather served in the Italian army in ww1, and was proud of his service, as was our family.
@@arthurbradshaw7035 As he and you should be.
My buddy and I were on vacation camping near Livorno in 1966 in front of our US Army pup tent eating C-Rations when an older Italian gentleman stopped by and, looking at our tent and what we were eating, said (sort of. He didn't speak English and we didn't speak Italian) that he had slept in a tent like that and eaten out of cans like ours in North Africa then he wandered away. He came back in about 5 minutes with a large bottle of home made wine and shared it with us. Later in the evening we enjoyed at least one more bottle sitting with him and his son-in-law, trying to converse in some combination of French, Spanish, English and Italian. A wonderful evening. The next morning as we were packing up he came to our campsite and put another bottle of wine in our car. Italy sent some very nice people to fight in Africa.
To their credit, The Royal Army took proactive steps to shelter the Jewish population in areas under its control in France, Greece and Yugoslavia. This annoyed the Germans no end. This is a good thing.
Mussolini didn’t have anything against Jews. All the racial laws in Italian fascism were forced by Hitler.
While the U.S. turned boat loads of Jews trying to get away from Europe away. Yeah, credit to the Allies.
@@iketanikoichiro3519 and often non-applied
@@iketanikoichiro3519 many Jewish were fascist, there's a documentary in Italy that shows how mussolini betrayed the same people that supported him through their letters (it was common for Italians to send letters to mussolini and get replied by him, or at least this is shown in many letters, maybe they were written by some propaganda agency)
After the war?
No heavy manufacturing, no money, no radar, no leadership
Cool uniforms , very chic.
@@minnowpd not so cool if you think we had summer uniforms in Russia and winter ones in Africa....
Send soldiers to war without proper material and no anti tank weapons and poor leadership and say the're cowards is unreal.
Also, the Italian officer class was appointed by Mussolini based on how they performed as arse kissers. Thus, their level of incompetence at both staff and field level was staggering. You can’t blame their lower ranks for that.
Another part of it was Mussolini's daft "8 million bayonets" idea. The gross over-expansion of the army meant that they had to use a lot of reserve officers, many of whom were of dubious quality, and/or well past their use by dates.
This is one of the reasons Israel could defeat Arab armies. A number of these countries had the Baath party in power which was based on the German NAZI party, many ex-NAZI's worked as advisers. Result was only good party members got promoted. While the better officers and men were not.
Wow, that sounds familiar.
That sounds like the Russians whose officer corps was decimated by political purges.
@M Bacon i think we’re on the same page sir.
I agree. Most Italians fought as best they could with the equipment and training they had which, wasn't much compared to everyone else.
Quite true.
At last a balanced view of the performance of the Italian military in WWII. It's interesting that the Italians were never belittled by other powers for their excellent performance in WWI when they were allies with the victorious powers. They fought valiantly and well in that conflict. My grandfather was in the Italian army in WWII and what he used to say is quite revealing. Here are some basic facts...
1. They had appalling preparation and training (as shown in the video).
2. Supplies were sporadic at best. They would often run out of food and ammunition.
3. They had precious little air cover.
4. Most importantly most of the basic soldiers were NOT Fascists. They hated Hitler and didn't want to fight for Germany. They had seen how the Germans treated ordinary Italians and knew they were on the wrong side of history. Their hearts were not in the fight.
5. When Italy capitulated a little known fact is that many Italian troops went on to fight with the Americans and they acquitted themselves very well. They were fighting to take their nation back from NAZI occupation and they fought ferociously.
Thank you for your enlightening comments.
I was alive and aware back then. My memory is of the last line of number 4... "Their hearts were not in the fight." The rest may be relevant, but that's not the memory or mood about the fascist's, or those Italian's who fought under them, and with Germany, willingly or unwillingly, back then. I mean no disrespect to your grandfather, but history, time and memory, has a way of being treated differently, after the event.
This was a great video...teaching me numerous facts of the Italian forces in WWII.
Unfortunately I cannot get it out of my head that only the Italians used poison gas on the battlefield during that conflict.
( Sulpher mustard gas was used 1935 against the Ethiopian forces who were attacked by Italian forces against treaty and League of Nations agreements) .
The Italian government leaders of that time, after the war, were not prosecuted for crimes against humanity, because the Allied powers were afraid that Italy might go communist after the war. So in order to "not rock the boat", the people responsible for giving the order to gas the Ethiopian troops were never prosecuted.
Tripsadelica The Italians made a big mistake participating in the 1st World war against the Central powers which was Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire.. But in World war 2 their fierce nationalism, nurtured by Mussolini was in stark contrast. I disagreed with the Italians conquest of Abyssinia in the mid 1930's. You're making a ridiculous comment when you say the Italian troops didn't want to fight for Germany, they were all volunteer troops, all 60,000 of them. In case you hadn't realised Operation Barborossa(invasion of Soviet Union) was a 6 nation attack. Alongside Italy and Germany there was Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Romania and 47,000 Spanish volunteers. They saw the atrocities the Bolshevik communists were doing in Spain, like barricading worshippers inside churches and then setting the building on fire.. Anyhow there was also 2 divisions of Belgian soldiers that went to the eastern front to challenge the Soviet Union. In actual fact, and this gets covered up in mainstream history books, the Waffen SS was recruited specifically to deal with this threat. The Soviets were the most dangerous threat facing Europe throughout the 1930's. But of course Britain and France thought differently. That's why the 2nd World war happened. But please do some decent research before you start making false quotes on here.
@leonardimas1 you've inflated the number of troops in the Waffen SS by a million troops. There was a total of 1 million volunteers, including a half million German soldiers. As I said to you nobody forced Italy to take part in World War 1. They would've been far better staying neutral. Spain, Portugal and all the Scandanavian countries were all neutral in World War 1. Of course Finland joined Germany in fighting against the Soviet Union in 1939.
I loved the way you summed it up at the end! Well done!
Rommel considered the Italian troops to be a good quality, when they had competent officers and decent equipment.
I`m listening to The Sicilian on tape... It pointed out that corruption in England for officer positions of course was prevalent in Italy as well. Puzo points out though, that incompetent leaders in England felt a duty to die with their troops. Italians didn't quite share that end game.
Yes, because they were friends!
The Italians had a few good divisions. The Germans probably considered the Alpine Divisions to be about as competent as standard German troops , but the vast majority of Italian soldiers were not considered good.
Here it is, this comment is on literally every single video about Italy's pathetic ww2 military performance.
Whoo da fuq is dis guy
Too many men, and too little gear, while the navy had too many large ships, and not enough oil. Much the same happened to the Japanese with the Yamato class. They were often stuck in port for the same reason. Mussolini was a fool to tie his nation to Hitler.
He wanted to get in on the spoils of war, so when it appeared France would fall he cast his lot with Hitler, whereupon he attacked France in the south to annex land.
@@JDSFLA Exactly. Mussolini believed Nazi-Germany would win. He knew Italy was not ready for war, but believed war would soon be over. He wanted the spoils.
Sadly British and French empires with thier embargoes forced Italy to tie up with a fanatical country and being led by fanatics doesn't help neither! All empires are evil. Italy lost, but came out of WW II a winner. Britain and France lost their empires and...
Authoritarians tend to admire one another and stick together.
@Daniel Eyre Dislike, yes. But still admire the power one another held. Narcissists are usually that way.
Wow! What an excellent video essay. Both highly informative, interesting, and well produced. Bravo!!!! Looking forward to watching your other posts. Keep up the awesome!!!
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
All these comments in defence of the Italians are sound, practical and well-founded. But they all miss the human aspect: The soldier's hearts just weren't in it. They knew their leader put them on the wrong side, and that Mussolini was madman. They had no desire to win a war; mere survival was paramount.
Actually you are also correct. My father was a reserve lieutenant serving at the 2nd Mountain Artillery Battalion of Helenic Army , in Albania front, throughout the Greek-Italian war (Winter 1940-Spring 1941). Italian soldiers were, and are, brave but their training and moral was low. They were also misguided to think that they would conquer Greece in two weeks. When Greek soldiers were searching Italian ruckshacks and other personall equipment and gear, they were discovering many female perfumes and even stockings. It was obvious that Italians intended to make presents to Greek girlfriends when the would get down to main Greece !!. Both armies suffered much from the extreme cold but the Hellenic Army had allmost as many soldiers amputated due to frostbite as wounded in battle. The victory came with such a price , as ALWAYS !!!
@@panostsadaris7932 Mussolini was so sure that conquering Greece would be easy that he initially sent just 4 infantry divisions. 4 ill equipped infantry divisions to conquer an entire country known for its difficult terrain. By the time he realized he fucked up the Greeks had already started pushing back...
The soldiers were also very low on morale since they felt that it was a war against their brothers, while the Greeks fought like lions since they were defending their home. The British aid also didn't help
And yet nowadays, Italians are still voting for Mussolini’s grandchildren in local council elections!!! Why?
@@malcolmthompson597 because a good part of our country is made of fucking morons who should try to live one week with a Gestapo squad marching outside their home, my grandmother at 92 still had nightmares, she told me that she could still hear them stomping their feet out of her door while they were coming for my grandfather who luckily was not at home that time
@@malcolmthompson597 Because the crimes of the fathers are not the crimes of their sons.
THANK YOU to all of my History Heroes who have continued to bring us educational, entertaining and interesting snippets of History on RUclips during this history-making year of 2020. Each week you have provided a very welcome distraction from the ordeals the world has been going through this year. Keep up the good work !!
Thank you very much for your kind comments.
Brilliant summation. Thank you.
Thank YOU. :)
The Italian armed forces were also deficient in rest and recreation for their fighters. For every 12 days on the front line, the British gave their soldiers 4 days complete rest in the rear. In contrast, many Italians spent months if not years in front line duty without respite. No wonder they were exhausted and ready to surrender.
italian in africa surrended not because exausted, but because they ran out of ammos and reinforcements.. they had been just abandoned
The Italians on the front line went for a siesta between 1-4pm everyday,
even in the middle of a battle.
@Elaine yeah and in the that siesta there were your mom and grandmom.
@@Petal4822chiacchiere, senza senso!.
Excellent perspective and an interesting topic for sure.
Outstanding presentation!!! thank you
Thank you so much...Im glad you enjoyed it.
My father fought in Italy with the British Army. I once asked him about the poor performance of Italian troops in WW2. Just as you say in the video, he responded: "How hard would you fight for that arsehole, Mussolini?"
It is not quite so, the point is that the Italians fought for Italy, they fought with garbage and in the end they could only lose, yes Mussolini was a big bitch, he took bribes from FIAT, which thus sold garbage to the armed forces paid at a high price. , this mentality still exists in Italy, the people are exploited, but the funny thing is that this light fascism now exists in all Western countries.
Except Hitler, all fascisms were controlled by industrialists and today finance controls democracies.
@@Antonio_DG Were you there then? My Dad was. From Salerno to Austria. He even learned Italian and after the war employed Italians who had fought against him when they immigrated to Canada. I knew a couple of them. I trust his impressions.
@@paddy1952 He did not say anything wrong but the opinions of the Italians were first in favor of the Duce and have changed after the disasters, especially after the defeat in Russia.
Fascism in Italy came to power with the elections, in fact it can be said that it has changed and has never lost power, nepotism, corruption and the absence of services make the current Italy like that of the past, only today the population is worse, it should be a western state but it has fascist laws
that make the press not free.
@@Antonio_DG I agree with you, and it's not just Italy. Fascism is once again threatening all of us.
Your father was very wise
Consider the average Italian soldier - he came from a land with a wonderful climate, a land with incredible history and architecture, a land with incredible wines, and absolutely stunningly beautiful women. He came from a land with some of the best cooks and the best food in the world. And then a madman put them in the army and sent them out into howling, blistering deserts to fight and die, or to freeze in arctic cold in Russia, or other absurd places (Albania)... Really they couldn't say anything - they'd get shot for making anti-government remarks - but they were all thinking, Why? Why? Why? The Why was simple: Mussolini wanted to be Caesar, and to do that he had to conquer things. It didn't work out so well.
Remember they elected Benito. Then he refused to leave power. Sound familiar?
@@jorgepautene 👍👍👍
@@jimmiller5600 Yep, sounded all too familiar. 🤣🤣
@@jimmiller5600 The election in question was marked by extreme right/left violence, and a let-down feeling after WWI, in a young unformed nation state.
@@tomfrazier1103 You are correct. But what happens if you let termites eat away at the established functions of government, like pardoning anyone convicted who is your friend (in the US that's Flynn, Stone, Bannon, etc.). Plus you destroy confidence in the voting process despite a hundred failed lawsuits, recounts, audits, second audits, etc., so that 40% of the population says the election was fraudulent...............?
Great video, thanks!
Glad you liked it!
Thanks for posting this.
My pleasure. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Italy paid a very high price in WW1 (almost 2 miljon dead and wounded), promised by the Allies to get the whole Tyrolia if they sided with the Allies, but ended up in the negotiations after the war with almost nothing. That was part of why they became an Axis-state in the WW2.
A very nationalistic interpretation about why they fought and not about how they (badly) fought.
@@Housey1985 The Austrian front was the most naturally defended front of the war, also having been fortified. It was the most difficult to attack. On top of that, defensive weapons proved stronger for the entire duration of the war.
The Italian government repeatedly told Hitler they needed 5 years to prepare for any potential European war as they were not ready. They were aware they did not have sufficient modern weapons and equipment and would have to manufacture them and also stressed lack of supplies. Modernisation would have probably included better training too. They were given guarantees that the Germans would not attack any more countries. Then Germany invaded Poland.
Very well done -cheeky sense of humor too!
:)
Long overdue and fair. Thanks.
Thank you for your kind comment.
On paper in 1940, Italy looked like a major force to be reckoned with, but in reality it’s army was totally ill prepared to fight a modern European war. The senior commanders were poor tacticians and its lack of cohesive planning between the three armed services all contributed to chronic inefficiency. The lack of coordination led to misunderstandings and a lack of momentum in its campaigns in North Africa, The fact that army recruits were given less than four weeks superficial training put them at a massive disadvantage when it came to fighting allied soldiers who had gone through several months of robust training. Italian weapons also left a lot to be desired in 1940. Its artillery and tanks was outdated and not fit for modern warfare, and unlike the allies, they only possessed a small number of effective anti tank weapons. By declaring war in June 1940, Mussolini made a fatal mistake as the Italian economy together with its poor industrial base wasn’t ready or equipped to produce a steady flow of modern weapons. In simple terms, the Italian armed forces could cope with fighting tribesmen in colonial wars, but were hopelessly outclassed when it came to fighting allied forces.
The Italian special forces (frogmen) pulled off some major coups however - somewhat redeeming reputations...
Oh, not only the frogmen but he special attack squadrons - MAS boats. Suicidally brave.
Being in small units and seperate from Fleet and army commanders who had been appointed for political reliability not competence meant they had a free hand to choose their own tactics and targets.
@@voiceofraisin3778 Yes I'd go along with that theory.
150 British Royal Navy large and small ships sunk in the Mediterranean sea plus another 100 British ships disabled. This number is bigger than the whole Regina marina's navy...
@@vandpubsell It seems it's all about quality of training after all. As frogmen, MAS boats and parachutists were properly trained they have fought bravely too. The rest just lagged. Poor training or poor equipment. In general: piss poor preparation.
B.t.w.: radial aviation engines are not less powerful than in-line. They are less aerodynamic.
Interesting topic, well conceived & put together
thank you for sharing this point of view
Thanks for watching!
Just look up Folgore parachute Brigade in W W 2 some very outstanding fighting.
They conquered British Somaliland in August of 1940 and put up great resistance at Keren in 1941. Also they fought quite well in Russia, and at the Kasserine Pass. Navy and Air Force had some great moments too. Overall though Italian military was not ready for war.
My grampa always told me russia campaign was a complete disaster, many died due to poor equipmemt against freezing climatw and he barely survived in an internment camp.
What stuck to me was they got sent to russia with cardboard shoes
Hope this was sarcasm
The British had very few troops in Somaliland. The Italians then were beaten in Kenya, Italian Somilaland, British Somiland, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sudan. The Nigerians advanced a thousand miles in ten days chasing the Italians.
Maybe I am wrong but I did not see neither British nor Americans in Russia! Too risky or too cold?
@@mailander2911 Strange, No Russians on the Western Front, Or in Italy, or in North Africa, too hot for them? Or too risky? Exposed to all that Capitalist propaganda? No Russian ships in the Atlantic,or Indian Ocean, or Antarctica,or North Sea or Mediterranean or Red Sea, or South Pacific, or South China Sea. Too salty for them?
Nicely done analysis, worth watching.
Thank you
Very good! Thank you!
Glad you liked it!
A fairly balanced description of the dire conditions of Italian Army when Mussolini dragged the country into a war despised by the vast majority of the population. Worth reminding that France and Great Britain were traditional allies of Italy since the country got united, notably France supported Italy in all indipendence wars against the despised Austrian Empire. The average Italian at the time still had a deep-rooted mix of fear and hate towards Germany and Austria, enemies defeated at a huge cost (over 600k deaths) just 22 years before in WW1. Mussolini vile attack on France on June 10th 1940 was regarded as a hateful act by most Italian. That very few would fight enthusiastically an unjust war alongside a bullying former enemy and in an army desperately outgunned should not be a surprise to anyone. Italy’s defeat is a blessing that saved the soul of the country.
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 that’s right, thanks for reminding that. Also worth mentioning that over 710k Italian military personnel was interned in Germany after being disarmed by the German invading army after the armistice.
They remained loyal to their military oath and endured hunger and slave-labor in concentration camps rather than joining the Italian SS or the military forces of Mussolini’s puppet “Repubblica Sociale Italiana”. Around 50k of these internees died in captivity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Military_Internees?wprov=sfti1
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 indeed, that was a shame. A colossal strategic mistake by Mussolini who couldn’t really think on a global scale, having never travelled outside Europe. He thought game was over after France May 40 defeat and could grab some land at no cost. Bet the whole country and lost. That’s the sort of things you get when you mix unchecked dictatorship with nationalism. Pity that that lesson seems lost to many Europeans who are once again cherishing strongmen in command….
A very informative, balanced, and objective appraisal of the Italian performance in WW2 that you rarely hear - thank you! Something seemed amiss amongst all the insulting and derogatory rhetoric i've heard throughout my life describing Italy and it's fighting "incapability" in the Second World War and your commentary makes better sense of it all - to me anyways. It's about time I hear/read something a little more dispassionate and factual in describing Italy's World War Two-time participation & thanks to you and sone others here with good comments, I found/read it. And I appreciate it!!
You are using a lot of words for basically saying that most Italians were not fascists. That's true, but many Italians (albeit a minority) WERE fascists and DID support the war.
@@tancreddehauteville764 I commented Mussolini’s ill-fated decision to declare war, not fascism’s grip on the country at the time. And yes, oftentimes you need more that 10 words to express a concept.
Great work. I would also like to point out that Italy declaring war on the USA was almost like declaring civil war. Millions of Italians had relatives in the United States and definitely did not want to fight them.
Also - the mistrust between Italy and Germany was enormous. These people had been traditional enemies of each other going back to 100BC. Not to mention the fact that Italy is primarily a Sea Power and Germany a Land Power. Those often do not mix well strategically, either.
Many Germans also had relatives in the USA. In fact there are more people of German descent in the USA than Italian. I don't accept that Germany is a 'traditional' enemy of Italy - pure garbage. Germany was only formed in 1871 - you are confusing Germanic tribes with Germans - NOT THE SAME DAMN THING! Dutch, English and Swedes are all Germanics. Italy's beef was with Austria, not Germany. It was Austria that occupied Italian lands in the 19th century, and the ruling class in Austria was German but that did not make the Austrian Empire 'German' - there were more Slavs and Magyars than Germans in it.
@@tancreddehauteville764 So? It was still a crappy alliance. Very unequal. And Mussolini was warned by his own son-in-law and Foreign Minister, Count Ciano - "Do not trust Hitler and the Nazis." That's documented. As for Austria, Mussolini almost declared war on Nazi Germany when Hitler threatened the Dolfuss regime in the early 30's so that's pretty much wrong too. Additionally, there were German troops killing Italians on the Alpine front during WW1. So yeah - not a good match at all.
@@tancreddehauteville764 Mussolini could have, and should have, just pulled a Franco and stayed neutral. Maybe he would have ruled Italy until 1975 then too...
@@tancreddehauteville764 As for German-Americans, sure, there was a relationship there, but it was not as close as the Italian Americans. I'm from NY - believe me, the relationship between the Italian-Americans and "the old country" is extremely special and prized. Same as with Italian-Americans in Boston, Philly, Chicago, NJ and New Orleans as well. Much closer than German-Americans and Germany.
@@TheLoyalOfficer Yes he could have done that. But his regime would have died with his own death. He would have been 92 in 1975 - I don't think he would have lived that long.
By the way; excellent analysis. Hats off to you.
Thank you.
outstanding vid, very informative
Glad you liked it!
"There were no Italian heavy bombers either."
Meet the Piaggio P.108 Bombardiere. It had four 1,500 hp engines and a 33 ton takeoff weight (loaded). Less than 50 were produced.
True, I had forgotten about the Piaggio, possibly because they only made 30
@Percy Harry Hotspur i dont know. The Piaggio bomber didnt exist in 1936
@Percy Harry Hotspur throwing bomb by hands was in Italo-Libyan war in 1911, not in Abyssinian war in 1936.
@Percy Harry Hotspur normal for the early War period, an automated mechanism that dropped the bomb vertically (later on the bomb would be dropped horizontally, even on later italian bomber like the alcione or the piaggio)
@Percy Harry Hotspur Piaggio P.108 First flight 1939. Entered in service 1941.
I am under the impression that the ships in the Italian Navy also did not have radar which resulted in them in being in a distinct disadvantage against British ships.
Aye. Only the Littorio class had any form of Radar, but not at the start of Italy's role in WWII, and it wasn't usable for directing the guns.
In an optical gunfight though they would've been on decent odds, better than the Germans in the Atlantic.
Low Oil, poor munitions quality control & successful allied disinformation (+ other factors) meant however that the Regia Marina spent most of the war in port, not even wholly secure there either.
The Italian fleet in the mediterranean would have crushed the Royal Navy if they were on an even playing field. The British knew that, so they used the radar as much as they could to organize surpise attacks and more importantly employed a large number of planes. Italy had a disorganized airforce, so they couldn't do much and a lot of the ships they lost were sunk while at harbor. If the Italian navy had the radar and a competent airforce they would have dominated the mediterranean since their ships were among the best in WW2
Excellent presentation.
Thank you.
Good analysis
Thank you.
Italians had a very poor officer corp for the most part, with a few exceptional officers. Read up on Amedeo Guillet who led the last cavalry charge in WWII, against a British Tank Battalion and lived to tell about it. He also never surrendered.
I read about that guy, he led an impressive career, brave and warrior to the core.
@rudiger891 You are confusing Cavalry with mounted infantry like the Australian Light Horse. Horse Cavalry were utterly useless by midway through WW1 as a horse is just a bigger target for a machine gun (or even a decent rifle).
In reality it results to me that the (very last) charge (of Africa) was launched by Lieutenant Renato Togni, the deputy commander of the Group led by Guillet, against a column of tanks Matilda of the Gazella Force. The whole Group previously attacked the G. Force from behind, but was in danger of being outflanked, so Togni, with 30 indigenous, led this deadly relief charge to save the main Group
A fascinating military leader and cavalry officer indeed. The last cavalry charge of WWII, however, was probably that of the Savoia Cavalleria against Soviet forces on the Dom River at Izbushensky, on Aug. 24, 1942 - with sabers and hand grenades. (The action is portrayed in the 1952 Italian movie "Carica Eroica.")
yes, he was great!!
I suggest you guys watch the movie "El Alamein - Linea di fuoco (line of fire)". It's a modern production Italian movie about the Italian divisions sent to North Africa against the British in WW2. I think the movie has English subtitles as well so you guys can enjoy it. That movie clearly shows the Italian Army condition back then..
EDIT: I found the English version title: "El Alamein Bond of honour"
I've seen it. It's very good, if low-budget, and I think they could have stretched out the struggle of the Folgore a bit more, showing progressively how things got more and more desperate. But very interesting to see the actual Italian tanks used.
@@vandpubsell I bet it is better than the 1969 Italian film El Alamein, in which the filming was in Sardinia (maybe due to budget as Libya had Italian friendly gov at the time, before Gaddafi), hence the hilly terrain instead of flat desert, bombardment began in day (instead of night, maybe due to budget issues filming at night) depicts the Italian troops in borderline ww1-style trenches, over-exaggerate the ability of infantry to overcome dozens of tanks (with mostly tossing grenades).The film ends with Italians surrendering yet things were going fine with stopping dozens of tanks until last minute. It does emphasize that Italian surrender because it was the best way for them to go home.
In short, reflective of Italian films in the late 1960s making war genre films (in a similar vain to "Spaghetti Westerns") to cash in on US films like The Dirty Dozen and Kelly's Heroes.
@@jstevinik3261 I've seen that as well. The best bit is the countercharge of the Ariete towards the end
@@vandpubsell Am I the only who finds it coming off as unrealistic, even to the pint of parody, though most war films of that era suffer from the trope of the enemy being easy to defeat.
The end was somewhat touching on empathizing why surrender was understandable, though the film could have emphasized supplies running low and the tanks being more overwhelming, as they were the main reasons in the battle.
I watch them out of curiosity on how Italians culturally view the conflict.
I watched The Best of Enemies (1961) yesterday (David Niven played the lead), which was set in Ethiopia (which is even super rare, so I was super compelled to watch it). It was interesting and having two twists in the last five minutes helped.
Great video.
Glad you enjoyed it
Congrats. A well researched and balanced video. George Hathcoat also makes a good point re., post armistice Italy. The bulk of Italians were generally uncomfortable with their former allies (Germany and Japan).
Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I read where, in North Africa, a German officer was berating and mocking the Italians in front of General Erwin Rommel. Rommel turned to him and said "These people love living we Germans love fighting, leave them alone."
@Rusoviet Tovarich. Where did you read that?
@@elrjames7799 Must be a Yugoslav or Russian myth.
@@elrjames7799 Don't remember exactly. I recall the context had a lot to do with his own personal experience on the Italian Front in WWI - his interaction with the prisoners he captured.
@@rusoviettovarich9221 OK: sorry you couldn't give me a reference, but thanks for the courtesy of your reply, just the same.
@@crocodiletears6078 Most likely: didn't want to appear rude in the question though, since the assertion is more or less harmless.
The Italian military was state of the art in the early 30's but almost all of its weapons and equipment was obsolete by the start of the war. That was a major reason for its poor performance.
it also didn't help that they armed for the wrong war... they assumed fighting in the Alpes, hence the very light tankette. But then they went to fight in largely open terrain. They didn't had the time or resources to rearm in time.
They also had good ideas when it comes to tank doctrine but the shortages again prevented any fruits of this.
The Italian army was essentially, in terms of resources and weapons, a militarised police force, effective in fighting tribesmen in colonial wars, but were not up to fighting a European war, with nations like the U.K. Russia and the US, whose weapons, military training and leadership at all levels in the three armed services was far superior.
I don't believe their hearts were in the fight to begin with. Hitler even pressured Italy into sending troops to the Soviet Union to fight. They were woefully unprepared to fight and were easily overcome by the Soviet Army.
@@stevenleslie8557 It seems to me that by June, 1940, with German forces looking seemingly invincible, as they swept across Western Europe after successfully defeating Poland and mopping up Czechoslovakia, Mussolini believed that the war would be over very soon with France on its knees and suing for peace. Hence, if Italy was to gain the spoils of war at any future peace settlement, he would have to act quickly and so by joining Nazi Germany against Britain and France (and gaining a few cheap victories) he would win major territorial concessions as one of the victors at the peace table. It was a cynical and hasty decision, one which he would regret, as by hitching Italy’s wagon to Nazi Germany, they fatally compromised their independent foreign policy and simply became Germany’s junior partner, a partnership whereby Italy became subservient to Hitler’s wishes.
@The Truth Roman Legion times.
Very interesting. 👍🏻
Great topic. Not much is said about Italy. I learned a few things.
Good to hear!
Basically Italy’s part in the war could be a book entitled “How not to get involved in a war”
👍
THAT'S RIGHT!
BRAVO!
GREETINGS FROM BULGARIA 🇧🇬
Many have tried to rebuild the old Roman empire but failed. BTW, you did a great job here and have a new subscriber. I often wonder why the Italian army was so ineffective, and now I know. I hope someday you can do a video on how the Vatican survived the war; and also which countries the Vatican supported. I've heard they supported Hitler but later turned against him. Also, did the Vatican City sustain any war damage.
The Vatican disliked Fascism, a Socialist heresy. They had to tread lightly in interwar and wartime Europe, as a small spiritual state, but with a large and resented footprint on the world's mind.
The Vatican State was created in 1929 through the Lateran Pacts signed by cardinal Pietro Gasparri and Benito Mussolini, both monarchy and clergy pushed the Italian people to support the fascists and oppose comunism.
Excellent first photo !
Outstanding!
Thank you kindly!
Ariete performed creditably at Bir el Gubi during the Crusader offensive, in North Africa in November 1941.
Forza Italia...
Sempre bella...
very interesting!
Thank you.
Imagine being put into one of those light Italian tanks? It was suicidal, compared to what the enemy had. Most people would know they have no chance when they saw the enemy and would want to flee if they could.
Keep trump out of this.....you commie.
And Italian tankers were renown for their bravery. Just imagine charging a Crusader while knowing that the slightest hit would immediately kill you and for you to deal any significant damage you would have to get as close as possible. THAT is bravery
@@shadyyy7490 Iron hulls, Iron hearts...
@@shadyyy7490 Also, imagine that most Italian had less than average training time to use mostly lightly armoured tanks.
@@shadyyy7490 The M13 was actually comparable to a Crusader, just a bit slower but with a better gun actually. The issues were with the Matildas and the later tanks.
Rommel thought 'Ariete' and 'Trieste' among the best formations under his command.
Italian soldiers performed very well when under the command of German officers. Italian officers were less than ideal, especially higher up in the command structure.
modesty on Rommels part im sure. theres no way he would actually rely on Italian formations over German ones.
@@stuka80 You're not sure and he did!
@@elrjames7799 Rommel as any good leader would, praised and backed up the troops under his command. Other German generals talked badly of them and had a low opinion on their fighting qualities because they judged it from an objective point of view, unlike Rommel who was emotionally attached to them, normal for any commander towards their soldiers. Objectively, they were bad soldiers. Defeated by heavily outnumbered British forces in North Africa and repelled by Greeks in the previous campaigns and performed no better in Russia. Yes i'm not sure, but I take Rommel's praise of them with a grain of salt.
@@stuka80 Reading several German Soldier accounts of the war, I noticed a common theme that the Italian soldier was saddled with POOR quality officers and poor or little proper equipment as indicated in this video. The Italian 8th Army in Russia did a better job with these handicaps, but it was effectively destroyed by early 1943. Leadership and training goes A LONG WAY in warfare!
Italy was never ready for a world war, and the biggest reason they joined with the Germans was because they were betrayed in the first world war. Mussolini asked Hilter to give Italy 4 years to get ready but Hilter refused
and not only did he leave Italy basically defenseless but he weakened his own agender by not allowing time for the Italians to be ready.
Wtf . Hitler did not say anything. It was mussiloni who wanted war early
@@mrcool2107 Crap.
@@Lorenzo-ew6so is that u
@@mrcool2107 ha.....
Thank you so much for ( NOT ) drowning out the narrators historical narration with loud
idiotic back ground music. That was very unusual & very appritiated.
You're welcome!
I talked with some Italians who were young adults in 1930s Italy. Their attitude was that they liked Mussolini for getting them through the Great Depression and the Eithiopian war. What they despised was his alliance with Hitler and their chances of using what was a colonial army to fight a modern conventional war against Britain and France.
I have read that he was istracised for being a fascist when hitler came to power and was essentially forced into am alliance. Dont know how accurate this information is though
Mussolini's greatest mistake was to join Hitler.
Hitler & Mussolini mostly liked each other, an imprisoned Mussolini was rescued by German commandos. Fascism generally operates as dictatorships, so the judgment of 1 man makes or breaks everything
Frankly Frank What!! You’ve been reading too much mainstream media. I’m not from the USA but I’ve been following the erroneous and despicably attack on your countries president and anyone associated with him. All based on a dirty tricks smear campaign waged by political adversaries who dare little about innocent victims caught in the middle. The current disclosure of emails found on Hunter Biden’s laptop highlight the level of corruption that is being shielded by the Democrat party and their shills in the media.
@@tomfrazier1103 Mussolini disliked Hitler intensely according to a few sources i've read.
What was the performance of the Italian Brigade which fought with the Allies in Italy after the country capitulated in September 1943 like?
They did ok, but still suffered from poor quality and low quantity of equipment. But of course they could call upon the Americans and the British for support, especially artillery, air and armour.
After 1943 they were Allies and at the end of the war the Americans gave Italian land of the Adriatic (Pula) to Youguslavia. That's where my family lived before Mussolini, we immigrated yo South America, on the end of the war we lost our land, our house.
interesting video. My father fought in the 8th army against the Italians and during the Axis retreat across North Africa after the British victory at El Alemien. If successive defeats are the route causes of poor moral, then the British should have thrown the towel in long before El Alemien but as my father pointed we were fighting for our very existence, as Britain was under threat of invasion, being slowly starved by the U boats and at one point on our own, apart from from our fantastic commonwealth cousins. He said the soldiers had even discussed amongst themselves in desert what they would do if Hitler did manage to invade Britain and he said the general consensus was that they continue fighting, as 200,000 angry well armed young men could do a lot of damage. This showed the mental attitude amongst the British and they weren't surprised that the Italian troops they faced didn't have the same motivation, as their country wasn't under any direct threat, especially once the Germans moved into the Italian peninsular to shore up their military prowess. According to my dad it was the 25 pounder artillery gun which was so accurate and deadly to Italian tanks and vehicles as the Italians had no answer to it, especially as their amour plate was so weak. He said he watched the British gunners systematically pick off Italian tanks with ease during El Alemien and the Italian soldiers quickly surrendered, so the extent it was difficult to spare troops to escort them back to rear and POW camps. Apparently, the ordinary Italian soldier was treated very badly during the fighting in the desert as they were continuously being left behind by their German compatriots, very poorly led and most of the time without basics such as water and ammunition.
However, during the fighting in Italy when the 8th army pushed up into the mountains he said they came across many Italian partisan groups who fought very well and bravely against the retreating Germans, especially after the many atrocities carried against villages which supported the partisans because now the Italian men were highly motivated.
@Jim Lowe. Not detracting from the 8th Army (or its soldiers) but what you write is simply emotionally driven apocrypha: it has no substance in actual historicity.
@@elrjames7799 ++
My father kept a journal of his years in the 8th army during the war and the Imperial War Museum in London has a copy and authenticated every detail, dates and unit placing as true and accurate.
@@jimlowe8511 Factually based frameworks (like dates and unit placings) do not, in themselves, validate interwoven value judgements, especially if they are hearsay. Opinions, no matter how heartfelt, aren't direct evidence of what probably happened in the past. My grandfather served as a Warrant Officer in the Western Desert and he had a different view again.
@Gazzara5 Good question: 'what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'.
@The Truth Utter and complete is a tautology and drivel is rather a harsh observation of what is merely hearsay of a son simply regurgitating what he said his WW II veteran father said to him. Other than that, what you write makes perfect sense.
Here in Australia, we had many POWs. Think most Italian POWs treated their internment as a holiday. They did not want to escape.
Perfect thumbnail to follow a video about the Italian army :-D
Those same Italians 2000 yrs ago produced the greatest military superpower the world has ever seen ...S.P.Q.R. Rules ok .
They were never the same since Julius Caesar, Augustus, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius.
@@carloaldo5130 The Romans though were brought low by factors as underwelming as political corruption / incompetance, and a few barbarian incursions.
Though in the latter case the age old nemesis of complacancy at the top of the world was to blame.
(why invest in mantaining a 1st rate navy if there's no immediate like carthage left?... until a [partially] seaborne threat does appear, and there's nout to stop it)
wrong absolutely the ancient Romans blood was over long time ago as in every war half of them dye where the true Romans went a morí ammazzato
07:43 The Italian Army was a collection of “giant colonial police forces”. Fine for chasing Libyans and Albanians down mountains ... but when met with an industrialized nation’s army .... “... or even France or Greece”. Lol but so sad that so many horrors are part of war. That’s hard to take. Italians are such a wonderful people. Nice Video. 🙏🏽
The folgore were a very respected outfit.
There’s a story about some British capturing some Folgore after the breakthrough at Alamein, upon surrendering their weapons to the British troops without revealing they were folgore , one Italian handed a British Tommy his fologore badged paratrooper knife. The British soldier noticed the badge and exclaimed “Folgore!” And politely gave him the knife back.
The Italian later said that British Tommy gave them more respect in that one act then his commanding officers had given him since he signed up.
The Folgore, the Bersagliere ( in the photo with black ostrich feather plumes on their helmets) and the artillery were great soldiers.
The infantry was rotten due to bad leadership, poor weapon and poor morale
Interesting tale.
0o
The Alpini were also very good.
yours is one of the most non italian well documented and prejudice free video on this topic on youtube, well done van! You missed only one big thing, italian never had radars on their ships for all the conflicts, this caused major naval defeats and ultimately in the renounce to any night action.
Thank you for your kind comments. Yes it is true that technically Italy was behind most of the other combatants, which I did cover, but it is true that radar shortage was a very signficant factor at sea.
"Italy in WWII: What went wrong?"
In a word: Everything.
They were fascists and destined to lose. The Red Army has pity for them in the eastern Front.
@@saigon68foxtrot83 The red army has pity for no one. Not even its own soldiers.
@@vandpubsell All too true. Life was very cheap in said period, especially in the eye of Stalinism.
Almost Everything.
For the Axis then everything did go wrong in the end and rightly so. For the allies it ended OK (just) and thanks to (but not limited to) the Italians and especially the Russians. Many allied airmen owe their lives to the Italian underground, so we should stop all this nonsense about Italians retreating, changing sides etc. It's not helpful especially as there was no sympathy shown towards Germans at that time who excused themselves by saying they were just following orders. Obviously the Italians were less likely to follow orders they thought wrong and yet this is considered a failing?
One more comment on the woes of the Italian navy. The quality control for ammunition production was very suspect resulting in shells that had completely unreliable accuracy.
According to Drachinifel the guns were good, but quality control on the shells & propellant charges led to severe dispersion, which cost them a lot at Cape Matapan.
@TopoRoger1 I was more referring to the Vittorio Veneto's part in the battle. Before being torpedoed by the FAA, she had demonstrated impressive gunnery, that if not for dispersion (due to defective munitions), would have likely cost us several of our cruisers.
The Littorios' would have been formidible opponents in any weather, had the munitions been right, and had they possesed Radar Direction.
@TopoRoger1 I'm aware of the fate of the Cruiser trio, which illustrates the edge having Radar makes, as by the time the Cruisers knew two Battleships were even within firing range, was far too late to do anything about it.
Like Anerican torpedoes
The Italian army was limited after too much spaghetti and having siestas in the middle of a battles.
My grandma's uncle served in the mountain corps during the Greek campaign and later in Russia, where he died in 1943. I have still a letter written by him to his mother in november 1940, when he was on his way to the frontline in Albania. In the letter he didn't show any kind of hatred towards the greeks and actually hoped the war would have been over in 2 weeks. WW2 was not as heartfelt in Italy as WW1 was, where masses of italians, men and women alike, wanted to do something to stop the Austro-Hungarians from invading Italy. Italy had already been at war since 1935, germans weren't so popular, and italians felt a deeper connections to the french than to them
Thank you for sharing your story.
Great work. I think getting ‘Italy right’ re. WW2 is very nuanced. Motivated, trained and equipped properly they were good. But they were rarely even one of these. I think you might have mentioned the small ships of the RN which were very successful (sometimes). But other than that I thought you got it spot on and I learnt stuff which is why I watch these things, innit! (Did you say “arithmetic” so as not have to say “math”?)
Thank your for your kind and considered comments. Yes I should have mentioned the light attack squadrons of the Regia Marina and yes...I did say arithmetic to avoid the math/maths trap! Well spotted.
@@vandpubsell yeah…. I’m still recovering from the fact that ‘aluminum’ is actually correct.
@@geordiedog1749 :)
Also Italians had a lot of friends and relatives who had immigrated to America. So they would of regarded Americans more like friends. The only thing Italians had in common with Germany was fascism which a lot of Italians hated.
The Italians had competent regulars and career soldiers in their military units, however the vast majority of conscripts in Africa did not share Mussolini's vision of a new empire, and had even less desire to serve Hitler's ambitions. Add that lack of motivation to poor quality equipment and incompetent officers.......................................
Μillions of Germans already lived in America.
The Italian army was limited after too much spaghetti and having siestas in the middle of a battles.
@@Petal4822 Italians don't have siestas, so the joke's a bit strange.
In a simple answer: "they joined the war!" Imagine how Italy would have ended if they just stayed neutral. Then again they would probably have been isolated sooner or later thanks to their wars in Africa.
Mussolini originally wanted to join the Allies.
@@TeaParty1776 Nope... Mussolini joined Hitler because international community and Society of Nations put embargo on Italy for the aggression to Ethiopia, and he considered western democracies as decadent. He was confident in blitzkrieg, flash war by Hitler and that he had only to join the war to obtain benefits from winner side without committing Italy in war too much time...
@@raffaeleirlanda6966 You may be correct about why Mussolini joined Hitler but he originally thought about joining the Allies.
@@TeaParty1776 They already cooperated in Spanish Civil War from1936 to 1939.
Then they become allied since 1938.
Mussolini ever made racial laws in order to please Hitler who didn't want an ally who protected Jews, and Mussolini agreed even if he had nothing versus Jews (in the past he had also a relationship with a Jewish lady named Sarfatti).
Both believed western democracies being weak and decadent and doomed to be subjugated by morally superior nazi-fascism.
Sorry but I hardly believe their alliance could be dissolved so easily and Mussolini entering at war in Allies camp.
@@raffaeleirlanda6966 lol hitler was not racial towards Jews
Great video! Subscribed.
Yes, modern wars are primarily economic wars, and Italy was sorely lacking.
They seemed to put up a pretty good show in WW1
After the war one Italian general said the Mussolini picked the armies newest tank after stirring at the images of the two put forward and after 15 minutes just picked one. Nothing about the pros and cons of each. He just pointed his finger and said 'that one.'
The Italian Navy had some excellent warships, their battleships were better protected then the Bismark. And they had very good rangefinders. Problem was their quality control as far as shell production was concerned left much to be desired. At least one British warship was bracketed by Italian guns but was never once hit because the shells were just not good enough.
Three Italian squadrons took part in the Battle of Britain. After a few weeks what was left went home again.
The Bismarck was actually very poorly protected, it's turtle back armor scheme was incredibly flawed and left a huge number of vital systems vulnerable. You are correct about the Italian Navy's range finders and the issues with their shells quality control, but really the biggest issue for the Italian Navy was the fact that they lacked oil. For the overwhelming majority of the war the Italian Navy just sat in port because they simply did not have the fuel to go anywhere. One of the reasons Rommel was constantly running out of fuel in North Africa is because the Italian Navy didn't have enough fuel to escort fuel supplies to the forces in North Africa.
Excellent video. The Italian army was doomed from the very beginning. It is really surprising that it was able to fight for 3 years while the French army collapsed in just 1 year.All the reasons given in the documentary are correct but the main overwhelming reasons of the Italian defeats, even more important than poor training and bad and obsolete weaponry were horrendous generalship and ridiculously outdated military doctrine. The Italian army had only one good, I would say excellent general:Giovanni Messe. His men, poorly armed and equipped, fought like lions in Russia and Tunisia,earning the respect and the admiration of their enemies and of their German allies. After the armistice the Allies, knowing his skills and courage, gave him the command of the Italian combelligeranti army, that fought bravely against the Germans during the Italian campaign.
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
The French army collapsed after something like 90K deaths. Afterwards, there were the Free French forces fighting in Africa and Europe til the end of the war. Contrast that with the Italians' spotty record surrendering en masse and ultimately capitulating immediately within a year. The "three years" you cite in including the republic of Salo.
@@Page-Hendryx "Afterwards, there were the Free French forces fighting in Africa and Europe til the end of the war"
That's true. And that exactly what happened to Italy after 1943 in case you didn't know it...
The Italian army fought alongside with Allies until the defeat of Germany and the Italian partisans were fighting against Nazi-Fascists in every Italian occupied territory (Germany had over 5 divisions fighting against partisans in North Italy).
@@Page-Hendryx no, Salò was after those three years.
@@Page-Hendryx Three years was 1940-1943, before Salo.
For one thing it seems that they are goosestepping backwards.
Italy lacked the industrial power to wage modern warfare against a peer nation. Their Navy was modern and their aircraft technically advanced. Land forces were poorly equipped. Military leadership at the highest ranks seemed underwhelming.
Excellent presentation and a fair and unbiased review. My dad's brother fought there and always said.For want of supplies and equipment it may have been a different story.
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
A thoughtful and very balanced video, I personally feel Italy didn't do any worse than other nations when you look at their actions and understand the Italian position of the 30s and 40s, you really have to read a lot of material to finally have a clearer and more concise image when it comes to Italy during the war from different perspectives, rather than come to conclusions by reading without too much depth.
A lot of the bad press I feel is largely from the war propaganda (after all praising the enemy is hardly ideal in war time) and the focus and emphasis people put on the Italian war of 1940, where independent actions such as the invasion of Egypt and Greece are the main examples given for poor Italian performance. By 1941-1942 you get a sense that the Italians clean up their act and are essentially able to hold their own even with their military reforms and German guidance when facing better quality American, British and Soviet formations.
A commendable effort for your work on the subject!
Thank you.
@@vandpubsell I came across as 2+ hour RUclips video titled "Debunking myths, misconceptions, and revisionism on WW2 Italy" (RUclips tends to auto-delete comments with links). I have yet to watch it, but the segments included "150,000 did not lose to 30,000" (referring to Operation Compass) and "The Greek Army was not Better than the Italian Army", which seem to over-compensating for strawman. It seems to have an Italian bias for sure, such as dismissing conventional historiography as solely anglophone bias. However, I am not sure if it is outright alt-right Mussolini apologia, in which the Italians I contact with claim Mussolini apologists think Italy lost due to a stab in the back myth, which does not seem to be the case in the video. That and any alt-righters rarely accuse (when they are smart to not project) their detractors as "revisionism" as some still try to use its once legit connotation (once used by legit historians used prior to denialists appropriating the label). I will take the time to respond to it as it not hard for one to get subjective or miss the point. I do want to hear your impressions on the video too, as you are in-depth in this topic.
I can understand that some Italians get annoyed at the stereotype of Italians as, as I label the trope, "pasta eating surrender monkeys [Yes, named after the media trope of calling the French cheese eating surrender monkeys]" though over-compensating in the opposite stance can be annoying when most anglophone history channels, like Potential History, Indie Nidel, and The Armchair Historian say that the memes are not always true and even occasionally acknowledge Italian successes.
The audio is a bit muddy and it makes it hard to hear. Can it be cleaned up? Otherwise, excellent.
Unfortunately, I don't have the best of equipment :( but I shall try harder in future.
where did they get those uniforms?
All of its pre-WW2 conflicts (Spain and Ethiopia) and territorial acquisitions (Ethiopia and Albania) were wastes of resources. Germany's annexation of highly industrialized Austria and Czechoslovakia as well as Japan's acquisition of resource-rich Manchuria were net gains. Yugoslavia would have been a better target perhaps. The best outcome for the Axis would have been for Italy to stay neutral and act a gray market for Germany-- import products and resources from overseas that Germany could not have acquired from neutral nations like the US or South America (oil, nitrates, rubber, etc.) and then export those resources to Germany for a tidy profit.
It's funny they didn't discover oil in Libya until the 1950s. Libya has so much oil, it would easily provided the needs for both Italy and Germany. Developing and exploiting Libyan oil would have been a less quixotic goal than driving 1500 miles, through Egypt, past Suez, and into Iraq.
Yugoslavia is a collection of grudges that are fun to invade-see the German experience there. It would be hard for Italian Catholics to do well against Orthodox Serbs, and other Muslims there. The fellow Catholic Croats might have ethnic resentments about Italians too.
Italians discovered oil in libia in 1929, simply there wasn't advanced enough tech to extract it.
Italians suspected that Libya was filled with oil, check ardito desio expedition.
Every country in the 6 (Germany, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Croatia and Italy and 47,000 Spanish troops) that participated in Operation Barbarossa did so as volunteers. The gravest threat was the Soviet Union Bolsheviks. They were on the verge of invading eastern Europe in 1941. That explained why Germany arrested so many Reds as they crossed the border into Soviet territory in June 1941.
The Italian army was limited after too much spaghetti and having siestas in the middle of a battles.
They did have good self propelled guns and the 90mm used in the anti tank role and used them efficiency during the battle of gazala
They had passable self-propelled guns. They stand out only in comparison to the tanks. The Semovente 47 was a basic infantry support vehicle and capable of engaging light tanks, but this was not recommended because of its own light armour and open top. The Semovente 75 was probably the best Italian armoured vehicle of the war, but it had its weaknesses. It was terribly cramped and the hatches had to be left open in battle to stop them from overheating. The main gun was an infantry support weapon and did not have much range. With HEAT rounds it had quite a punch - it was capable of taking out a Sherman - but unfortunately, Shermans were a good deal better at taking THEM out. The Semovente 90 had the excellent 90mm/53 you mention but the problem is the 90mm was in very short supply. There were only 30 or so Semovente 90's made, and it was a cumbersome weapon system.
@@vandpubsell to bad when they had okay or good weapons they only had a small amount due to low industry
@@joey8062 Quite so.
It was a combined forces war.
Individual bits of kit aren't the point.
Mario Cervi's book "Hollow Legions" provides a profound examination of the topic in detail and is very moving. I would also recommend "Sergeant in the Snow" by Mario Rigoni Stern. Stern examines the feelings, perspectives, tastes, and motivations of the Italian soldier.
I've read "Hollow Legions" but Ive not heard of "Sergeant in the Snow". Thanks for the reccomendation!
By 1940 Italy was already showing signs of exhaustion from the two wars it had been engaged in the invasion of Ethiopia and fighting for the nationalists in the Spanish civil war in the 1935-39 period.Over 500k italians served in these wars with about 15k dead. Nevermind the financial costs. So when Italy joined the war people were already tired.
Mussolini liked putting on a show. As long as it looked powerful. A big army, Navy and Air-force instead of a strong military. Against African tribesman it was advanced. Against a technological advance enemy it wasn't prepared.
The Italian Navy did not have Radar!
The Italians Love Life and they were the Maters of the Renaissance .
They had bitterly fought the Germans & Hungarians only 20 years ago. They knew they were unprepared for a modern war ...so you understand.
BUT the Folgore Airborne Division and Bersagliere sacrifice at El Alamein is Truly Heroic !
The sinking of Queen Elizabeth and Valiant plus a big oiler at Alessandria ...
The suicidal attack of the Aerosiluranti and ground attack Reggiane Ariete ...
And the Sacrifice of Ariete Division at El Alamein.
@The Truth
Italy lost half a million men in WW I ...against their Traditional Austro Germanic enemies.
A German officer recently said of the Italians to a British officer " You can have them next time"
Who was the officer and when and where was it allegedly said?
I read that when war was declared, the Italians were in the middle of changing the calibre of their small arms, so they were faced with more complex ammo supply issues. Another problem was that some of their personal weapons and machine guns were inclined to jam, and they had resorted to oiling the ammo, which didn't help matters much in dirty combat conditions.
A bit more nuanced that that. Yes it is true they were in the middle of adopting a new rifle with a different calibre, but when war came they had called so many people up and were so short of weapons they had to continue using the old weapon, so they were stuck with two calibres, which didnt help supply.
They didnt have to resort to oiling ammo, it was a design "feature" of the 8mm Breda machine gun used as the secondary armament of their tanks. Very unusually it was clip fed, and as each clip only held 20 rounds they had to change them a lot, which led to a very slow rate of fire. The clips were oiled because it theoretically made them less prone to jamming. Of course, in the sand and dust of the desert it had exactly the opposite effect.
I'll never understand why they didn't just change to a 6,5 "arisaka" short, like the germans did with mauser 7,92 "Kurz". It just took to change the bolt of the ancient mauser 98 to get it operative with the new ammo.
@@r.ladaria135 The 6.5mm Italian round would have been perfect for an assault rifle without any changes. No production capacity to make any worthwhile changes.
@@monicsperryn8497 Well, great. In fact the italian army wanted a new ammo after their experience against insurrection in Libya. They changed to a 7,35 x 51 mm. And I don't know why they did that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.35%C3%9751mm_Carcano
Answer: they decided to get involved.
True, but that wouldn't make for a very long video! :)
The Czechoslovakian annexation should've told the Italians all they needed to know about pacts with the Germans.
Some historians have stated that had the allies made the Italians an offer prior to 1940, they would've accepted.
Had the French not folded so unexpectedly easily in the latter year, Italy might have remained nuetral, or joined the allies had the situation seemed fitting.
@@jimtaylor294 Hi Jim, just a note. The British and French Empires had an embargo against Italy from 1936 after the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. This meant: No iron ore, no petroleum and nothing else (embargoes only hurt the population anyway). Germany stepped in and supplied all the raw materials to Italy, which meant that she could never join the allies against Germany in 1939...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I personally think if Mussolini had given up politics in 1936 the embargoes probably would have stopped and Italy may not have created the axis with Germany. Greece and Spain had fascist governments too at the time. Only my opinion. We will never know...
@@bonumdalek7107 Certainly food for thought.
From what I know if the topic, Mussolini expanded upon existing policies regarding Italian policy, especially with regard to the latter's territorial desputes with / interests in France, Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia & Ethiopia, and the policy of "Our Sea".
Regarding Ethiopia: the UK & French were in a weird position, as the Eithiopian Emperor had captured public opinion, leaving GB & Fr' with four main options:
A. Do nothing; but be damned by their public as weak.
B. Support the Italian decision, with a similar result.
C. Take military action, which basically nobody in London nor Paris wanted.
D. Take indirect action, such as sanctions.
The politicians went the route of least resistance.
IMO I think a reckoning of some sort was inevitable; though I doubt that a non-Mussolini'esque regime would've risked war in 1940.
How much better prepared for war Italy might've been with different leadership & a more liberalized economy & industry; will remain a mystery.
@@jimtaylor294 Mussolini wasn't anti Britain or France at the time, but as we know at the beginning of the 20th century having an Empire was important to have a voice on the world stage.
Mussolini was against Italy entering ww 1, being a socialist and writing for the news paper Avanti. So, he new what he was up against in the 1920s and 1930s with people having communistic ideas and the disruptions it entailed. The fascist party was really an anti revolutionary party, but with the help of the King of Italy and the industrialists created a revolution, hence the fascist dictatorship (ironic really). GB and FR were also anti bolshevik, which was undermining thier industries at the time. So, Mussolini came down hard on communists and oganized crime in Italy, which was almost eliminated by hard tactics especially organized crime. No state within a state was permitted.
There was another problem by conquering Abyssinia and that is from Switzerland to Libya down to Somalia. Italy could have created problems with the flow of merchant shipping and communications between the British and French colonies through the Suez canal and over land in Africa. Definitely the idea of 'Mare Nostrum' would have complicated life in the Mediterranean sea and a confrontation may or may not have happened.
As for sanctions I'm sure Italy would have never joined Germany with the central European powers as italy had to many differences at the time with them. The sanctions definitely played a big part as you can see your enemy clearly and his intentions. Sanctions are a passive aggressive tactic. A customer shopping around and a shop keeper selling his products creates a sort of an alliance. Britain was helping Italy with building its infrastructure (railway) ect at the time. I'm sure Italy would have never joined that crazy lot in Germany and Germany would have played only the eastern theatre knowing she could not have taken on three western countries at the same time, but this is another story...
So, many things could have been different if Mussolini had left politics in 1936... One thing for sure the EU as we know it would not have existed!
P.s. Sorry for being a bit long winded, but the 20th century was one hundred years especially the first 45 years leading up to ww 2...
The Italian soldier has always received a bad, untrue rap about a lack of bravery on the battlefield. The Italian Army had a lack of great leadership in the command level. When well led, by a competent Officer, the Italian soldier performed well. A lack of good leadership skills from the position of command will hurt, will kill the rank and file soldier, in any army. In Russia, at Stalingrad, the Italian soldier was as brave as they come. The Italians and Rumanians had responsibility of protecting the right and left flanks of the German 6th Army. The Italians and Rumanians had inadequate hard ware to deal with the Russian T-34 tank. That's putting it mildly! When the Russians did a end run and broke through the Italians and Rumanians protecting those flanks, the German 6th Army was surrounded. Both Axis allies did the best they could with shooting hardware not up to the task. Small units in the Italian lines made courageous stands against the on-rushing Russian T-34's but were swept away as the Russians took command of the battlefield. Those Axix soldiers taken prisoner by the Russians were put through hardship we can scarcely comprehend as they were marched off to Siberian work camps in freezing sub-zero conditions. No heat, just crumbs of food handed out by brutal, sadistic gh "hell-on-earth" , those few that survived. The Italian soldiers in Russia was blamed for the disaster in Russia as usual when joint operations went bad. Lack of good equipment and proper ordnance strong enough to inflict damage on armored vehicles was the main culprits. The Italian soldier was brave in the face of adversity!
A poor dancer can never adjust his balls
What kind of an army is that which fights well only when the enemy does not resist?
My grampa's brother never returned from Russia, it seems he fell at Nikolajewka Battle breaking the encirclement (he was a Tridentina alpine division NCO). The few lucky that returned were the very first to go to the hills to organize Resistenza against Nazis and Fascists. They felt on their own skin the flawed nazifascist war and just wanted payback...
The unglaring but crucial question here is why the regular infantry of ARMIR had to try resisting Russian tanks in order to keep the line? One doesn't think about it if not aware of the Soviet war doctrine during Operation Little saturn, which didn't intend the tanks as means to break enemy lines in an offensive, their role was to get in once the breaking was done to penetrate deep. What they did that time was the result of an individual decision by general Vatutin who had no other chance to get the work done after the group for the breakthrough was defeated in the previous 24 ours, at his own risk of martial court in the event of a subsequent failure.
good video, even if in 18 minutes it is not possible to explain the many factors that influenced the trend of the years 1938 - 1943.
Thank you. You are quite right - you could easily spend two hours going through everything.
I just had to watch this on rewind for it to make any sense 😆😆😆