This forgotten amphibious assault was BIGGER than D-Day
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 май 2023
- While the Battle for North Africa was raging on in early 1943, Allied leaders were meeting in Casablanca to decide on their next target. Their decision would result in one of the most contentious episodes of the Second World War - the Italian Campaign.
Despite Churchill's claims, there would be no easy victory. Instead, the fighting would be fierce and bloody, with places like Salerno, Anzio and Monte Cassino going down in history as some of the toughest battles of the War.
In this new three-part series, sponsored by Company of Heroes 3, we’ll be taking an in-depth look at the Italian campaign. From the invasion of Sicily to the capture of Rome, we’ll explore the key moments and decisions that shaped the fighting and try to understand was it really worth it?
This video is sponsored by Company of Heroes 3: www.companyofheroes.com/en
Explore and licence the film clips used in this video from IWM Film: film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my... and film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
Follow IWM on social media:
Twitter: / i_w_m
Instagram: / imperialwarmuseums
Facebook: / iwm.london
Base map by freevectormaps.com
![Shoreline Mafia - HEAT STICK (OHGEESY & FENIX FLEXIN) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xKEY6THtwuA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Megan Thee Stallion - BOA [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TKQY2ZlIEjY/mqdefault.jpg)
My Grandfather - who along with my grandmother - raised me and my sister, was a career soldier with the 1st East Surrey regiment, joining in January 1931. He was a cross country runner and was a part of the Regimental athletics team. August 1943 changed everything for him…. He was leading his section in house to house fighting in Randazzo, Sicily, when he tripped a “bouncing betty” anti personnel mine laid by retreating German troops. He was wounded badly, putting paid to his military career, his sports and ultimately leaving my dad as an only child. I followed in his footsteps, but sadly the east Surreys were disbanded in the year of my birth. I served for 17 years before also being medically discharged. He was a great bloke, gentle, helpful and tough.
I’m now 65 years old and still miss him and his mentorship to this day.
That friendly fire incident ended with white stripes being painted for operation Overlord.
A lot of lessons learnt added to the success of the Normandy landings.
I seriously hate to contemplate the probable disaster if the invasion of northern France had been attempted without the learning curve given by the Italian campaign.
@@crichtonbruce4329 good point
@@crichtonbruce4329 US Air Force still managed to kill over 2,000 troops in Normandy, including the senior most US officer killed, by screwing up a carpet bombing mission along the front line.
My (late) Grandfather had the command of a Tank Landing Craft with the Australian Naval Volunteer Reserves. He made rank of Lieutenant Commander. Honorably discharged in 1946. In July 1943 he assisted in the British 8th Army in their landings on South East Sicily. Then later he assited the US landings. Amazing man. Quiet and wise. Got the job done. One of his usual sayings was "She'll be right".
My dad went from North Africa to Sicily then Italy and he saw action all the way up the boot with Monte Cassino the worst he endured .
He told me small lighthearted stories but he couldn’t speak of Monte Cassino I could see the pained look on his face he took his nightmares of it to his grave bless him.
My grandfather fought in north Africa,Italy and at Arnhem. He was the same he never spoke about Arnhem.
@@tigerland4328 Just to painful for them bless their memories
If there was no Patton or Mark Clark the job would have been easier.
1940 onwards until released from Austria in 1946, my grandfather too fought in several tanks through North Africa, Sicily, Italy etc.
Not once getting home on a leave.
my 505th a co 1st lt dad the same...fun and games in sicily , dying platoon mates screaming forgiveness to their moms at la fiere. didn't ask him anything about it again. when his salerno won malaria would kick in once every decade or so it would take him right back to that causeway. he was only 22. never even let me have a squirt gun.
scary forearms and mangling hands on that mofo. if he went to heaven best i go to hell
Taking Sicily effectively gave control of the Med to the allies. It was too soon to launch an invasion of France, they didn't have the landing craft or other necessary resources to do it successfully. It also provided valuable experience in beach landings. I think more effort should have been put into preventing the Axis forces from escaping though.
@andrewclayton4181 Yeah and the experience in North Africa gave the Allies an idea of German tactics.
People underestimate the logistics involved with D Day. The allies werent ready to invade France in July 1943 and they werent going to wait until June 1944 to fight the axis.
In the nearly 2 year campaign in Italy about 350,000 were killed, wounded, missing. In the 2 months of Normandy 225,000 were killed wounded or missing.
The whole Normandy campaign would have been impossible earlier in the war
@@Luke_Sandy_High_Ground For sure. Just the idea of making your own concrete docks/wharfs and towing them across the channel is nuts. Let alone the ammunition, rifles, pistols, hand grenades, fuel, food, maintenance and replacement parts, the training necessary for the troops both combat and logistics, the organization at the command level and radios, maps, even basic shit like pencils, soap, combs, toothbrushes, tents, boots/uniforms etc. Add on top the actual landing craft, the landing boats, the specialized tools for blowing the barbed wire and minesweeping and it's insane. Truly. And they're not just preparing for the invasion itself. But the breakout of the beachhead. Setting up the supply lines and logistic hubs for the troops in the beachhead. The aerial sorties and ASW missions to protect the THOUSANDS of ships organized to carry out the invasion.
The best reason for not invading France in 1943 was that the Red Army was stuck with doing the bleeding.
My uncle was part of a 4.2 inch heavy mortar crew. There were 4 companies of heavy mortars. The mortars fired a 25 lb shell and they could fire something like 12 aimed shots a minute. The mortar companies were credited with driving back the German counter attack. They received a commendation for their work. Later in the battle across Sicily the mortars used phosphorous to drive the enemy out of rocky terrain with Patton commenting that phosphorous sure made those Germans jump. My uncle was seriously injured in a glider crash in the invasion of Southern France. It took experimental surgery and two years of of hospitalization for him to recover.
My great uncle called the fighting he saw in Italy "a nearly 2 year long Gallipoli".
Well it was Churchill idea 😂
@@vedsingh-bp2ke Both times!
I always wondered about Churchill's fixation, both in WW1 & WW2, on Southern Europe...
Then a British Historian (forget the name of the RUclips Video, sorry) said that Churchill felt the need to protect British Colonial Empire from falling after both wars.
@@timengineman2nd714Churchill was a big proponent of the old tactic of attacking on the peripheries of Europe where Britains naval superiority could be brought into the equation (hence why he was also enthusiastic about landing in Norway). This tactic had worked well for Britain in the past with Wellington's peninsula army fighting successfully against the french in Portugal and Spain during the Napoleonic wars. They advances all the way from Portugal to France with far less casualties than a cross channel attack would entail. However it was markedly less successful in ww2 with casualties in the Italian theatre being on a par with those in the north west European campaign of 44-45. I think this was largely due to the technological advances of the time (like aircraft and tanks) and the more logistical support a 20th century army requires in comparison to a 19th century one
@@tigerland4328 Well there is another similarity between WW2 and the Napoleontic wars. In both wars the conflict was determined in eastern and central Europe, not in the 'soft underbelly': Both the invasion in Russia (1812) and the German campaign (1813) cost Napoleon half a million soldiers and their canons, within 6 months, which lead to his downfall ...
@@allws9683 that's true. Britains biggest strength has been the Royal navy's ability to blockade Europe and essentially cut off the entire continent. That being said the UK has always contributed to the land war in all major conflicts. For example although the Russians in 1812, the Germans in 1813 and lastly the British and Germans in 1815 decided the fate of the french it was the small coalition of Britain, Portugal and the Spanish guerillas that defeated the Napoleonic France in southern Europe. Similarly in ww2 it was British and commonwealth forces that defeated the axis powers in Africa and southern Europe. It they had failed the entire oil fields of the middle East would have been under axis control then it would be bye bye soviet Union.
I have read that the Mafia in America had a direct line to the organization in Italy and they knew when the landings were to take place. Sabotage, assignations apparently took place and all kinds of mayhem ensured for the Nazis. It would be interesting to hear your take on this.
Complete fiction
The mob helped somewhat, but they got more out of the deal.
@@brettmitchell6431 Not fiction but reality. The so called liberators aka the allies were helped by the same mafia bosses that Mussolini tried and partially managed to destroy
I'm italian and was born in the south. I know a lot about mafia history and similar organisations, but in the invasion of Sicily mafia had no role at all. No sabotage actions and no particular intelligence infos. At that time Sicily was a very poor region, the population was starving and the italian regime was about to fall entirely. It was just a matter of who had the best trained armies on the ground, supplies, motivation and air supremacy.
@@francesco0185 Stai negando i fatti, tutti sanno che la mafia ha avuto un ruolo nello sbarco alleato.
My great grandfather Thomas Bell was a private rank in operation husky and the story I was told by my nan was that he died in a tank. We have a picture of him and his fellow soldiers next to a bomb. His first name is my middle name and his grave is over in Sicily with the rest of the soldiers, I have it on my bucket list to at least go there once and leave flowers on the grave.
Canada was there, too! Also, Churchill's main reason to attack Sicily was so Britain can maintain a strong foothold I the Mediterranean.
You don't think that the presence of massive allied forces in Tunisia might have been relevant? Of course it was!
Another great and informative video! Thank you!
Churchill was the only one that thought the mountainous terrain of Southern Europe was a "soft underbelly." It's as if he learned nothing from the Gallipoli campaign during the First WW.
Never thought of that….good point.
Churchill is not looked upon with great reverence here in Australia, his "Soft Underbelly of Europe" theory failed because of his poor planning and timing in WW1. Gallipoli was a disaster from the start, by telling the Turks that we were coming by sending in Battleships which were lost in the first few miles of the narrows, and only then thinking of a land assault. He lost his job over that one. Then in WW11 he spouted the same failed theory again about this soft underbelly of Europe. Luckily he had masses of Americans as well as British and Commonwealth troops to throw at his little project.
@@kevharper1378 lots of assumptions there. Italian campaign was needed. Gallipoli was a gamble worth taking.
@@kevharper1378 - Churchill took the blame for Gallipoli, but the mistakes made should be heaped upon the shoulders of the Army and Navy commanders who made the tactical errors. The screw-up wasn't all his.
As for Sicily and Italy, the problem for the Allies in May 1943 was what to do once the North Africa had been secured. The equipment needed to invade France did not yet exist, nor did the Allies have the number of troops needed to do the job. So what to do next? Sicily made sense because the island was constantly used to interfere with Allied shipping in the Med. And where do you go after that? Once again Italy made sense as it could help remove Italy from the Axis, which is what happened.
Churchill was mostly a Navy Man, even with his military background his underestanding of land operations was sketchy at best.
The rivalry between Patton and Montgomery is often discussed, but what about the decision from the Allied Command to put them alongside one another in the same theatre, not just in Sicily, but then again in Normandy?
Patton and Montgomery weren't together in Normandy. Patton wasn't even in France during the worst fighting of Overlord. He was kept back in England on D-Day and for months afterwards. From experience, Eisenhower and others considered him too compulsive to be trusted to stick to the plans during that critical invasion period.
Patton's Third Army wasn't activated until 1st August, after others had completed the Cobra breakout.
Montgomery was there on D-Day and stayed. He had been selected to command all the Allied ground forces, including the Americans, during Overlord. He kept this command until handing over to Eisenhower on 1st September.
The only rivalry was in Patton's mind. But then he made scathing remarks about most of his contemporary generals.
@@renard801 The only rivalry was Monty and Ike, since Monty was so high up the food chain to even come into contact with Patton who was a general under Omar Bradleys 12th Army Group.
Montgomery never saw Patton as a rival. He even wrote to Alexander suggesting Patton should try and get to Messina asap to try and cut the Germans off. He then met Patton in person shortly after and suggested the same thing. Even Patton couldn't believe Montgomery was offering Messina to him. He thought there was a catch but there wasn't.
Yeah Ike's unhealthy tendency to concede things to the British and pander to the American public should also be discussed.
Fun Fact: There is a United States military base on Sicily to this day and remains operational named NAS Sigonella
Been there, done that. Climbed Mt. Etna as well.
And the 173 Airborne Brigade is in Italy.
Sigonella is also used to rescue hostages from an Italian cruise liner, the hostage takers were the Palestine Liberation Front
Love your work, IWM 👍
I want to add, that surrender of Italy and two milion men italian army had powerful impact on WW2. Germany was forced to send 40 divisions, which were re-created after Stalingrad to defend Italy and occupy southern France, Yugoslavia and Greece. These divions were previously ment to be send to estern front. Soviets were able to rush into Ukraine thanks to that. So invasion of Sicily drasticlly change strategic situation of Third Reich.
The Italians really didn't wanna side with the Germans
@@westpointsnell4167 And the Teutonic two-timers tricked Italy into siding with them.
My (late) dad was one of only two from his regiment that survived Monty Casino. He met the other guy at a reunion 50 years later, together with a German guy who was part of the rear guard he had previously met in a dark lane one night and survived as the guy in front of dad's bren gun jamed. Dad's regiment were all killed due to friendly fire bombing raid being dropping about four miles early. I have his medals here including both the Africa and Italy stars as he got there mostly on foot by way of the Arabian Gulf where they were dropped off by the Queen Mary.
Brave once again, these are so accessible and concise to us all and so grateful. 👍 📚🇬🇧
My late Dad was in the Sicily Landings with the Surrey Yeomanry after fighting in North Africa. He always talked about the fruit and water in amazement having been in North Africa. God Bless all
My dad was also in Sicily - South Staffs airborne Division. Lucky to survive the landing - many of the Horsa gliders were lost.
I only really recall him talking about it once - he was shot in the arm & chest 😢
Apologies - his was a Waco glider
He was shot on landing & left behind in the glider.😢
Would you also do in the future after this series, do the battle of kursk? That would be pretty cool to see.
Disappointed that only Britain and the US get mentioned. Canada took over 2300 casualties in the campaign but whenever the UK or US present a history documentary, they are always the only two allied countries.
they are mentioned at the end of the video
@john dawes why can't the other countries get proper credit rather than just an afterthought? Happens anytime a UK or US production talks about history. Mark Felton being the exception.
It's not like the Canadians don't do the same thing in their documentaries on the war also.
@@scottkrater2131 point one out.
@@TroyMorePhotography can't recall the name but it's a series on Canadian tankers in Italy and Western Europe. Not bad actually except all the computer generated animation is only vehicles and guns, no people.
My father took part in this campaign. During the landings he was with then Lorne Scots of the Canadian 1st Div. They were a ground defence platoon attached to !st Brigade HQ. The infantry had suffered heavy losses in one company of the RCR, so they transferred most of the defence platoons to the infantry. He hadn't even got of the ship yet. Luckily, he was transferred to the same company as his brother-in-law ( my uncle ). They fought together through Sicily, Italy, and Holland.
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
I wonder if any historians have done an in depth study of how many extra losses were incurred with, not just the international rivalries, but the inter-branch rivalries, such as less developed cooperation between army and air forces. By the time D-Day arrived it appeared as if everyone finally got on the same page, but it took a couple of years beforehand for everyone to figure out this wasn’t a football game but an existential struggle.
But then, how do you measure the psychological benefit of rivalry? A bit of (friendly?) rivalry is great for morale.
I’m not sure I’d call it an existential struggle, the USSR would’ve beat the Germans back to Berlin with or without our help
@@karstenkunneman5219 Really? 12% of their tanks were American, the Americans set up a factory in the Middle East that provided Russia with 400K trucks - necessary for mobile warfare, and 38K machining lathes and other machining tools. The last was needed to build the machinery for the factories that built the tanks and planes.
Stalin was constantly threatening to make peace with Hitler unless he got more. It would have been temporary, but supplies were an issue.
Thins were not on the same page by D-Day. The British still had the idea they should lead things. Tactical air support was not entirely worked out, and American units were not thrilled with being under Montgomery's command to turn back the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge. American generals really didn't like Montgomery's lack of aggression in closing the Falaise Pocket. Those German soldiers that escaped certainly helped prolong the war.
The reasoning behind Case Yellow - the Battle of the Bulge - was to exaccerbate the friction between the allies.
The other problem is how to estimate the casualties of the "ideal" real life situation.
@@recoil53 It WAS the British that led things during Overlord. Yes, Eisenhower was Supreme Commander, but it was a figurehead appointment - he had the "go/no go" decision, but the land, air and naval forces were all under British command. Montgomery had all land armies, Ramsay had the naval forces, and Leigh-Mallory had command of the air.
The closing of the Falaise Gap was actually Bradley's problem, as when Patton had the chance to actually DO something of note, he was denied that chance by Bradley. It's debatable as to whether it was the right decision or not, but it was NOT Montgomery's failure to close the "Gap". On top of that, the Canadians that were moving to do it were bombed by the USAAF in a repeat of what they part of the air arm had done to their own side at St Lo, killing McNair in the process!
Some American generals may well have disliked Montgomery's actions, and interpreted them as a lack of aggression, but when you look at the casualty figures and actually analyse them, Monty's strategies and tactics were far superior. There is a significant differential between the British and Canadian casualty counts and the American ones, so clearly, American "aggression" resulted in far more body bags. American commentators seem to have this insane notion that Monty caused more casualties by being "too slow", "too cautious", or too "whatever else they decide" but the truth is that even in the Battle of the Bulge, many GIs actually got to go home to their mothers, wives, girlfriends, etc BECAUSE Montgomery was the type of commander that he was - Hodges & Ridgway were prepared to sacrifice far more US lives for the sake of holding worthless ground. Clarke, Hasbrouck, and even Gavin, all conceded that Montgomery was right & that their own chain of command was wrong!
It was necessary and the allies defeated Italy. It also allowed the Soviets to ease the eastern front. The question is what the alternative was.
Nothing. It would be to wait untill 1944 before attacking France.
Greece and Norway were legit targets
Invade Sardinia. Which is what the Germans expected the Allies to do. Sardinia would have exposed the entire Italian peninsula to Allied airpower.
@@stc3145 Stalin demanded another front, nd he had a right to since at that point it was only his troops fighting the Axis in Europe. Attacking Italy was the best option. The Allies had the strength to launch into Europe as they had won in North Africa, were winning in the Atlantic, and were pushing back the Japanese in Asia.
Wish we'd have left the Russians to it. Ungrateful allies and a regretfully troublesome outcome.
One can only wonder what would have happened to the landings at Gela would have been opposed by a joined German and Italian counter offensive, instead of four separate uncoordinated attacks. Ah yes and Renault R35s where also out of ammo at one point and had to be abandoned, there was that too.
Attempting to invade North West Europe in 1943 would have been an absolute disaster considering the lack of build up, the lack of integration between British and US forces, the lack of intelligence etc. Stalin was demanding some kind of second front, the only practical options in 1943 were Italy or Greece.
Indeed. Good post.
during War, we dont know whether or not it is worth it, until after we have tried. But after the War, the study of history, worth it or not is easy.
Samuel E. Morison gives much credit to the USS Brooklyn’s fire support in repulsing the Axis armored counterattacks at the US beachheads.
My dad was in the RN serving on HMS SOBIETSKI a former polish trans atlantic passenger ship converted to a troop landing ship, he landed troops in scicely, salerno, anzio
The difference in Patton and Montgomery is one that a lot of military commanders can learn from. There are times that a slow methodical approach is the right way to do things. Sometimes, pure aggression and violence of action is the right way to do things.
Tactical patience can mean the difference in victory or defeat. On the other hand, sometimes, bumrushing your objective can mean the difference in victory or defeat.
Usually, if you're fighting a dug in enemy, or taking a town, village, etc...i think that usually a hard, heavy, concentrated effort seems to work better. When taking large areas of territory, slow and methodical works better.
I was a paratrooper in the army, and usually, our objective is taken with violence of action. Being ferocious and coming in fast to take key objectives is our bread and butter.
But when you do things that way, you can leave your defenses and flanks open in the chaos, and sometimes you can find a soft spot while the objective is being taken. While slow and steady can be too slow and give the enemy opportunities to counter attack with heavier numbers or refortify their defenses, it leaves very few soft spots while you're pushing forward.
Both men were fantastic military leaders and they could have, and I'm sure they did indeed, learn from one another.
Great narration
My wife's uncle, George Gousman, was killed in the invasion of Sicily. He was in the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne.His family was told he was killed by friendly fire. And that's how it remained until several years after the last of his siblings had passed. I was watching, "Mysteries of the Abandoned" and a story on the abandoned German pillboxes and the memorial to American troops at Ponte Dirillo came on. It showed the names of the 39 paratroopers who died there and I paused the picture to read them. There was George Gousman . He hadn't died from friendly fire. He died doing what he had trained to do. Now this documentary showed where the confusion came from. It was the reinforcements in the second wave who died from friendly fire. Another piece of the story.
Anybody with the most basic knowledge of the Italian terrain could predict that this plan would be a disaster.
The Axis in North Italy were the last to surrender, a week or so after the fall of Berlin. Not too soft of an underbelly.
The maps are excellent. Well done.
Nearly. Some city names are wrong. Caltanissetta.
Thank you.
my old man was there, took a bullet in the leg at anzio
People underestimate the logistics involved with D Day. The allies werent ready to invade France in July 1943 and they werent going to wait until June 1944 to fight the axis. Stalin was also demanding a second front in 1943.
The same Stalin that refused to open up a second front against Japan when asked by the US, but expected the Western Allies to jump to his request. And only entered the war against Japan when it was practically over.. Despite the fact he was Allies with the Nazis until 22 06 1941.
@@scottkrater2131
Sweetie, the Russians took more territory from the Japanese in four days than the ‘Murcans did in four years. And against first rate Japanese troops, too.
In any case, the Japanese were already fighting on two other fronts: against the Chinese and against the British Commonwealth forces in Burma.
The Americans only faced third-grade garrison troops on a few islands, really. Your navy did well though.
Pip pip.
@@robertcottam8824 Ps child, the war was over for Japan before the Soviets even left their starting positions lmao.
@@scottkrater2131
Hahahaha! Why do you think the Japanese surrendered? They knew that once the Russians were on the move, they’d gobble up Hokkaido and Honshu whilst the Yanks were still paddling about in little ole Kyushu.
The Japanese weren’t afraid of the ‘Murcans, poppet, that’s an absurd proposition. But they sure were scared of the Russians.
Hahahaha! And you didn’t even know that the Russians had even attacked the Japanese - let alone handing them their bottoms in bowlers…. Astonishing. 🤣
Hahahaha! Love it, 🤣
@@scottkrater2131
A pointless as well as inaccurate response.
Read a few books, eh?
At the 11m18s point, it equates a temperature of 40C to 100F... Not quite... 40C is equal to 104F exactly and 100F is approximately equal to 37.78C...
Kinda neat to see the dueling coordination problems on each side-- Germans butting heads with Italians, Americans not getting along with the British. Alliance management is a cruel mistress!
Like any family, we sometimes squabble or do and say hurtful or annoying things. But the last time I looked it was the US, UK, Australia, Canada, along with a few other NATO friends, doing the heavy lifting in Afghanistan together. We're a family.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- oh yes completely agree!
My grandfather made it as far as Anzio, before he was killed. His body was repatriated a year or two later.
The German counterattack failed because the fire from the American light cruisers made it impossible to advance.
That’s correct, of course. The Royal Navy was irrelevant. ‘Murca won the war on its own.
@Imperial War Museums do a video on the Falaise Gap. To this day there is so much controversy over it, the Americans blame the Brits, the Brits then blame the Americans and it's either "Monty was too slow" or "The Americans were swanning off around France" and then we end up with nationalistic bickering about who didnt do what instead of proper insights into the battle.
There used to be agreement that the allies deliberately did not completely block the Falaise bottleneck as it was simply impossible to move enough troops and vehicles to fully block the German route out and it would cost more allied casualties trying to. So a gauntlet approach was used to destroy as much as possible with air power and artillery.
I think the squabbling was mostly down to Casualties. The US lost huge casualties while vastly outnumbering their enemy. An observer cant help thinking this was due to incompetent leadership. American senior brass took it on themselves to blame Monty on whatever pretext to deflect criticism from themselves. It worked, though the fighting in NW Europe was roughly even, the US incurred 70% of the losses, while the British and Canadians only 30% and nobody asks why.
@@billballbuster7186 Something everyone forgets is that the German also had a say in what went on. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- I think the most reliable voice on the American side of the argument, besides Eisenhower himself (a rather level-headed and pragmatic man), was the modest in demeanour, and honest in character, General Omar Bradley. He had appreciative things to say about Montgomery and he understood that the British and Canadians were being falsely slandered by fellow American generals, over the matter of the rate of progress and advances around Caen. What Bradley cared to acknowledge, and the swaggeringly bullish and bombastic bully Patton did not, was that the British bore the brunt of the German armour in France - something like 90% of it.
Montgomery, while often criticised for his slow advances and pursuits of an ostensibly fleeing opponent, was not doing so for no good reason. He was also not really doing that in and around Caen. He was deliberately creating as big of a lure to the Panzers and halftracks as he could, and to draw off as much German armoured units as humanly possible. There is a horribly obvious realisation in how effective that could ever be - the greater the success Montgomery found in drawing the attention of the German heavy units to him, the higher his casualties became and the tougher the slog towards Caen got.
Omar Bradley openly acknowledged that it was a thankless and yet heroic struggle in and around Caen, with it inevitably being a victim of it's own success, and instantly misunderstood. You had Anglophobic Patton swanning around slagging all the British off - let alone just Monty, whom he hated the very most - saying pretty disrespectful things about the British and this filtered down through his troops. It was seen as British ineptitude as they crept cautiously on Caen while the Americans were seemingly unstoppable, making their thunder-runs through the West of France, into Central France. As though, that wasn't all part of the plan, when it was.
The Americans had many tough encounters in their part of the strategy, nobody would deny that. From D-Day to the Liberation of France, and beyond, the US military of course shouldered many ordeals and won many battles. Yet the British and Canadians have been commonly downplayed, underrated and even dismissed. To the point that, their vital contributions to the Allied victory, are not as immediately apparent to the general public. And sure, the US troops had by far the worst beaches, yet the British were closest to Calais and the Panzers. A certain Spielberg film may have given the impression there were barely any British involved.
There were genuinely more British troops and sailors taking part in D-Day than American. 9/10 of the Landing Craft were British built and 2/3 of the Allied Armada were British ships. HMS _Warspite_ the Grand Old Lady herself fired the first salvo, commencing proceedings, that morning - firing so much that day, she had to return to port to have her gun barrels replaced for fear of bursting. She fired at German coastal artillery batteries all day and on subsequent days.
Omar Bradley understood that as Montgomery did his job properly and drew off the German armour, at terrible cost to his own men, the Americans had an easier go of it to the West. This doesn't mean that they had it 'truly easy' of course it's all relative, it was still nightmarish for those involved, everywhere across the campaign. Yet at least they didn't have to face the numbers of tanks that the British and Canadians did. Omar Bradley was a more reserved and humble man, and he wasn't interested in throwing mud at Montgomery to act superior and smug about it. Meanwhile, Patton was just rude and disregarding the sacrifices of the British and Canadians, out of his own ego.
With regards to the Falaise Gap, it was feared that it'd become a bloodbath for all involved and they did advance slowly to leave at least some window of opportunity to hedge their bets. But when the scale of the situation took shape, they went in with as much firepower as they could hit the Panzers with. And barely any got out compared to how many were destroyed. Sure, it could have been more decisive, but the damage was still severe - and most of what escaped, would only be squandered relatively shortly afterwards, anyway, in the Ardennes aka the Battle of the Bulge. I think it was too common for Montgomery to get scapegoated by the Americans (except for nice fellas like Bradley and Eisenhower, whom knew better from a higher perspective)
@@ThePalaeontologist As the Falaise gap continued to close, Bradley was getting more and more reports of friendly fire incidents with mounting casualties from these occurrences. Mostly from air support miscues. In one, the Canadians suffered more casualties from a bombing by B-17's than they did in the similar incident in the Cobra breakout. They actually shot back with AA support batteries and succeeded in shooting down one B-17.
It is kind of weird that in this battle the US Tactical Air supported the Brits and Canadians, and the British Tactical Air supported the Americans. Coloured smoke markers were confused. The Canadians again suffered from friendly air bombings as red smoke for them meant friendlies here. To the Americans red meant targets. An American fighter-bomber group took out half the fuel reserves of the Polish brigade in one raid. Another attack destroyed the command position of US VII Corps forcing a retreat that allowed the Germans to reoccupy good defensive ground.
Bradley continued to recieve reports such as these, along with increasingly muddled reports of the tactical situations, and came to the conclusion to halt. An opportunity lost but given events leading up to his decision, I can understand it in it's moment.
I don't think there was a many ships involved or as much opposition encountered as D Day
Odd title. Husky was the largest amphibious op up to that point but an order of magnitude smaller in terms of troops compared to Overlord.
The rules of operational naming, at least amongst the Allies, was that Code Names should not be indicative of the Actual Operation in any way. It was a rule frequently played with (Operation Mincemeat comes to mind) but rarely outright shattered. The idea was that the name alone should give nothing away that was not already known, to preserve informational security.
@@carthienesdevilsadvocatenr2806 I meant the title for the video.
The initial D-Day landings had 133,000 troops. The initial force for the Husky landings was 160,000. So, yes, Husky was larger.
@@alanmichael5619 OK. It's just I understood the 150,000 landed for Husky came ashore over 3 days. The D-Day landing brought 133,000 ashore on the first day alone. The Sicilian campaign involved in round numbers a total of 500,000 troops while those going through the Normandy beaches totalled around 1.5M over the first month. I guess it's how you define the statistics.
Its a miracle that both Montgomery and Patton survive each other.
Do not go by Hollywood.
Montgomery never had any issues with Patton.
@@johnburns4017 Stop simping for General Killing Matches.
@@lyndoncmp5751 He wouldn't intruding into Patton's zone in Sicily and argue vociferously for a single front thrust by his 21st. into Germany if he didn't.
@@markgarrett3647 Killing matches? If you're talking about Monty, Monty didn't fight an attrittion battle in the sense most people think of this type of battle is fought, he used his superior firepower ( air power, artillery, tanks) to wear down the enemy, rather than just throwing his infantry at the enemy using their greater numbers to wear them down. Rommel classed the type of battle Monty fought as a 'Materialschlacht' a battle of material.
My granfather was an italianbl artillery officer who fought against british troops near Syracuse.After 3 days of battle he was taken prisoners together with his colonel and the commanding general
You can see him in the IWM photo and video archives
I would like to see a precise accounting to show that this was indeed a bigger operation than D-day.
They landed about 40k more troops on the day making it the biggest amphibious landing of the war, it wasn’t a bigger ‘operation’ and the Normandy landing involved far greater numbers of men, ships and aircraft overall. Either way husky was vital to the success of the Normandy landing ultimately tying down huge, and very capable, German resources for the remainder of the war.
My grandfather told me that when he was there, a patrol that he was part of was scouting a village at night when they ran into a squad of Germans in a cross street somewhere. I remember him telling me that both sides did a 180 and ran away without firing a shot.
I'm kind of obsessed with that guy riding the mule with a beret and sunglasses on smoking a pipe
Great docu. The problem with the Allied invasion was that they should have landed on the foot of Italy instead. Then they would have isolated the 150.000 German soldiers on Sicily. Now they had to destroy them, costing a lot of lives and time.
Considering both the Dieppe and Dunkirk disasters, it is understandable that the British were averse to a "cross-channel assault"; it is also possible that the British were unable to comprehend the sheer mass that the Americans could, and did, bring to bear. Be that as it may, the British presumed that a simple walk through the "soft underbelly" would culminate in an assault on Vichy Southern France. This foolishness proved devastatingly costly for American forces; evidently, as with Sicily, the Nazis were as effective in retreating as attacking. Ultimately, the Sleeping Giant was allowed to be unleashed on the beaches of Normandy... virtually simultaneously (six weeks after Overlord), American dominated forces overwhelmingly assaulted Southern France (Dragoon)... while continuing to clean up the Italian mess they had been suckered into. On the other side of the planet, "The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", and Midway would also soon follow. After the "genius" of Market Garden, British contempt for their "colonials" was most affirmatively, if not permanently, "adjusted". (their island still serves, to this day, as a useful parking lot for American air sovereignty)
…And ‘Murca continues to lose every war it fights… Invasion of North Korea, Invasion of Cuba, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Eye-raq, Afghanistan…
(🧐Did win in Grenada (population 86,000) come to think of it.)
And ‘Murcan soldiers were the object of utter ridicule in Germany, in the 1980s: they lost every, single exercise / battle simulation that they fought against the Brits even when offered 3:1 troop numbers in DEFENCE.
And STILL big-hat-‘n’-banjo Yanks brag on and on and on… until they convince themselves that they’re not sh*t-in-a-scrap, start another war and lose. Again.
Admire Americans : Laugh at ‘Murcans.
Pip pip.
NB: you’ll be Trumptard, one expects, poppet…
you have no idea what you're talking about
Fascinating to see how the irritation between two leaders caused the deths of tens of thousands.
My father was at Catania.
He liked the Sicilians who he said were very welcoming
Many Italians were clearly not on board with the regime
Not much mentioned of the service provided by anti shipping and U-boat patrols and sinkings done by units such as 458 Sqd RAAF and others. Prior, during and after the Sicily invasion, my grandfather would be a little disappointed.
The 1st Canadian Division landed in the middle, but the convoy was attacked in the Med. by uBoats and a few ships were lost. The Canadian Army lost much of its' transport that way, so the troops marched all the way north through central Sicily.
The Allies also learned lessons too …the sea state was too rough …is this why Ike cancelled the planned invasion for the 5th of June …without the knowledge gained at Sicily May ike would of gone for it anyway and it could of been a disaster…
Allied ships were reluctant to enter the straight. With exception of the Royal Netherlands Navy gunboats Hr. Ms. Sumba and Flores who provided accurate support from short distance and had their 15cm guns worn out after Sicily.
“My Name is Vito Scalleta, I was born in Sicily in 1925.”
-Vito Scalleta (Mafia 2)
In Sicily there were several war crimes committed by US forces under Patton. The perpetrators of the Biscari Massacre were 71 POWs were murdered, said they did it on Patton's orders to his troops to take no prisoners. At least 30 unarmed civilians were shot in Vittoria and Piano Stella. Maybe this is why Eisenhower got Patton out of there, not the slapping incident?
Vittoria was NOT a war crime. The civilians were looting an Italian military warehouse and were ordered by the American troops stop looting and leave, they failed to do so. Under the Laws of War, the Americans had every right to order the crowd to disperse and to use force to ensure compliance.
@@brucenorman8904 It is never the less listed as a war crime.
In the middle of the fighting in Italy, Mt Vesuvius erupted. Because of the many trucks available to the US Army, there were zero military deaths, and only 26 Italian deaths. Montgomery coordinated his advance with General Alexander, and took over the use of roads initially reserved for the Americans. In response, Patton coordinated his advance using other roads with General Alexander. The Germans did attack the beaches, but were stopped. Despite the assertion that Montgomery was show and cautious to minimize casualties, his forces suffered more killed, wounded and far more missing than Patton's forces. Patton went faster, because it takes time for an enemy to get ready to kill you. It takes time to dig holes, string wire, and time to register artillery. Moving faster either by using tanks with 2nd Armored Division, or by using well trained Infantry like the 3rd Infantry Division under Truscott, denies the enemy that time, so you fight them with better odds.
@6:35 - The reason white and black stripes were painted on all tactical planes in '44.
I highly recommend James Holland's book.
He isn't a real historian.
Seems anytime you put Gen. Alex in command, it works out, but nothing to be proud of.
It was clear a full invation in the west was to risky at that point
Canadian members of the First Special Forces Brigade were the first allied soldiers to enter Rome. American procrastination at Anzio cost our side valuable time and thousands of casualties.
You gotta love the British talent for understatement, "Patton and Montgomery did not get along at all."
He actually didn't have any great animosity towards Patton, that is just another myth from the movie Patton. Patton disliked Monty (he disliked any general who might steal his glory), but Monty wasn't bothered by Patton.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- I will bow to your superior knowledge of Montgomery, however I can't agree with what you said about Patton. He was frustrated with Ike when he favored Monty's plans that ended up being bad decisions, though. Does Market Garden ring a bell?
@@bevinboulder5039 Market Garden was a gamble with the potential of shortening the war, the risks were worth it.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- That's one way of looking at it.
@@bevinboulder5039 Contrary to popular belief, Market Garden wasn't Montgomery's baby. He did have the original idea of crossing the bridges to get into the Ruhr (Operation Comet), involving only British and Polish airborne, but shelved the idea after realising those forces would be inadequate against the anticipated opposition.
Eisenhower gave the idea to other generals, bolstering the available forces massively with American airborne, and so Market Garden was born. It differed in many respects from Monty's original Comet plan, and he was not in charge of the operation.
Eisenhower wrote this about Market Garden: "Not only did I approve, I insisted upon it." General Urquhart, in command of the British airborne at Arnhem, wrote that it was "reasonable in the circumstances. We have no regrets."
For its failure, study the inaction of Gavin's US 82nd Airborne at Nijmegen bridge. Instead of assaulting that vital bridge immediately upon landing, when it was defended by only 20 Germans, they waited seven hours, by which time it was heavily reinforced and impossible for them to take. It meant that when British XXX Corps arrived, six hours ahead of schedule, they couldn't roll straight over and dash the last few miles to Arnhem.
The official American War History of SHAEF concluded that ultimately it was that failure that doomed the men at Arnhem, besides causing the unnecessary deaths of so many brave American troopers during the murderous river crossing in small boats.
Again, nothing to do with Montgomery.
I went to Scilly few years ago and we tried to find a downed P51 pilot, found parts of his plane but no body sadly
Did you traveled time as well ?
Not sure what that means
Sardinia is very far away from the mainland. How could they believe it was a plausible landing point?
The Soviet's wanted a second front in northern Europe because they had an army behind Stalingrad that was equal in size to all the other Allied armies put together. Once a second front was started this army was to be engaged. Instead the Soviet's used it piecemeal. Stalin didn't trust the Allies and would have been able to advance all the way to Paris. This was all figured out with General Zarcovs battle maps at the museum for the battle of Stalingrad. By prolonging Normandy landing West Europe was saved from Soviet occupation.
Mussolini Sent his most powerful general of the army Alfredo Guzzoni who was able to meet allied troops with full on force and destruction. Smashing through Sherman tanks before overwhelming allied heavy equipment won but it was step by bloody step not easy at all.
Beginning of video is sound. But you left out an important part. Patton wanted to land at Palermo, and have Monty land in the south for a 2 directional attack towards Messina. Monty refused that, insisting Patton's forces land next to his to protect his flank. Eisenhower wrongly agreed with Monty and Alexander. (Many claim Hitler's worst mistake was invading Russia. But he made so many it is hard to say. He refused to evacuate his battle-hardened forces from N. Africa, which he could have used to strengthen Sicily or Italy.) Once Monty bogged down he moved west to try to flank the enemy defenses, instead of having Patton do it. (Monty never called for naval gunfire or air support to breakup the enemy.) Monty's methodical approach to prevent casualties actually increased them because the enemy had time to rebuild and resupply.
As shown in your video, Patton's brilliant attack north and west caught the enemy off guard, captured 1/3 of the island and presented the enemy with a 2 directional attack. (Just what Patton wanted to do from the first. His actions protected Monty's flank and drew forces away from him.) But here is where the British Commanders COMPLETLY FAILED THE ALLIED EFFORT. They failed to close off the strait of Messina by air/sea power. As their defenses began to crumble the Germans enacted a perfect Dunkirk, EVACUATING ENTIRE UNITS PLUS THEIR EQUIPMENT! German reports were so negative of the Allied Command, they claimed they lost NOT ONE SOLDIER OR SHIP IN THOSE WEEKS OF NIGHT ESCAPE! All of those forces were assembled and positioned for the defense of Italy!
(You paint an excusable reason for that failure, but you are wrong. The Allies had air and naval supremacy in that region. Nothing should have crossed that strait. The guns of Battleships and Cruisers had the reach to sit well away from the coasts and shell the wharfs and ports into dust, or the strait itself to sink the enemy ships as the Germans did at Dunkirk.)
To learn more see my detailed work (12yrs R&W), FATAL FLAWS BOOK 1 1914-1945. B&N or my site
Didn't your research tell you about the width, or rather lack the lack of width, of the Strait of Messina?
Yes, the fact that it is narrow should have made it easier for the Brit Commanders to shut it. They somehow failed, and the Germans pulled off a perfect Dunkirk getting their troops and equipment out. Germ. Comm. were stunned at how poor allies were.@@dovetonsturdee7033
Medal of Honour Airborne (2007) brought me here
When operation Husky was launched Hitler withdrew 3 SS panzer Divisions from the fighting around Kursk. At that point in time the Germans were winning at Kursk.
The entire world should have helped to destroy the Soviet Union and Communism forever in 1941.
Also they make mention of 8th ARMY but when I was in SOUTH KOREA 8th ARMY was in SOUTH KOREA under GENERAL RICHARD STILLWELL big difference
The body of Major Martin actually came one of the many victims of mysterious sinking of HMS Dasher on the Clyde 27th March 1943 now lying in 700ft she was an US built Escort Carrier hence HMS Trenchant's epic sub voyage to collect a suitable corpse for Op Mincemeat and i met an ex US Ranger who had been landed at night 48hrs before Husky to scout out and were being hunted by the SS but were saved by the landing.
"actually came one of the many victims"??.... What?
@@rogoznicafc9672 Yes actually "Major Martin" was one of the many victims of the sinking of HMS Dasher it is as plain as daylight!!!!!!
The soft underbelly ended up being the bloody boot.
The Canadians were deployed between the Brits and Americans. They did very well keeping them apart and greasing the wheels of advance.
7:47 when, when did he promise a new Roman Empire? A Roman Italy yes, an Empire yes, but not the Roman Empire...
General Alexander before the battle: "Americans can't be trusted with carrying out the main advance. Give Montgomery the objective of Messina 😏"
General Alexander during the battle: "Why has the 8th Army stopped? What do you mean the southern route to Messina is blocked? Just push the Americans aside and use their roads instead 🧐"
General Alexander after the battle: "The only reason the Germans managed to escape was because Patton didn't stick to the plan and stay in his lane 😡"
@redaug4212 As a commander I don’t think I rate Alexander that highly, he was rather weak in both controlling his generals, and the overall strategy of the campaign.
Reference please. The road to Messina was blocked by Mt. Etna, an active volcano plus the Herman Goering Div (2 year veteran of the Eastern front.) well equipped and highly motivated while Patton faced Italian reserve forces with almost no antitank guns or artillery support. "Sicily '43" by Holland.
@@mathewm7136 Reference for what? I never denied that resistance in Montgomery's sector was tougher than in Patton's sector.
@@ThaiSoup39 How do you think Patton could have prevented the Germans from evacuating? A lot of sources blame Patton from re-routing parts of his army to the north, but conveniently ignore that it was Alexander and Montgomery who put him in that position.
@@mathewm7136do you have citations for this claim?
Some might say that Montgomery would still be amassing his forces of Patton hadn't just shoved on around.
And others say that Patton would only be remembered as the bloke who got sacked for bravely shooting prisoners of war, slapping his men about and fecking up in Messina (then feckin’ up some more in Normandy Lorraine and The Ardennes)if Hollywood hadn’t made him a hero.
Pip pip.
Monty & Patton’s bickering is a fart in the wind compared to the German evacuation from Sicily in the face of Allied naval supremacy. The USN and RN weren’t lacking for battleships or aircraft to protect them
How could you forget?
Title error: Asult = Assault
In Operation Husky Montgomery demonstrates the vulnerabilities that will plague him throughout the War. Poor coordination of airborne units, overestimated enemy strength, friendly fire, failure to secure objectives immediately following amphibious assault, and inability to coordinate with Allied commanders. Churchill desperately needed a hero figure so went all in with Monty. Waiting down the road are failures in the relief of Anzio, Caen, Falaise, Arnhem, Antwerp and stagnation in the Bulge. He never measured up to the gallantry of his men, but was Johnny on the Spot for claiming credit. As a student, I sat through his whole BBC history of WW2. All I ever heard was the first person singular.
How very silly. The movie, ‘Patton’ is just a movie. It ain’t real life, poppet. Go read a book or something.
@@robertcottam8824 I just love the idea that Montgomery was responsible for the relief of Anzio, when the Anzio landings took place in January, 1944.'
@@dovetonsturdee7033
Quite. The sheer volume of nonsense, in the comment to which we are responding, is magnificent.
Best wishes.
@@robertcottam8824 I suspect that to many of these people Montgomery's greatest sin was that of being born in the wrong country.
Allowing the Germans to evacuate over 100,000 from Sicily was one of the biggest blunders of the war and probably extended it for many months as it created the mainland campaign which the Germans would otherwise would not have been able to do if they did not evacuate the Balkans or withdraw troops from Russia. The invasion should have been at straits of Messina on the mainland side even at great cost.
you can thank Patton for that escape...
1:58 As a french viewer It is not Marsailles but Marseilles Good video apart from that
I not one that thinks i know more that the #IWM but i always thought that D-Day Was by far the Largest Amphibious Invasion / Assault in History
I could be wrong but i do honestly think that there has never ever been a bigger attacking force from Sea to Land in navy Vessels To Mech & Tech to Air Power & Men
I Think The 6'th of June 1944 still holds that Title! No matter what way you word it, There has never before or since been that much men & man power gone from Ship to land / Invasion / Assault / Attack than Operation Overlord What we all know now As D-Day 6/6/1944
Again I could be Wrong but i don't think I am, I'm a Huge #IWM fan & Love all there content , Maybe the wrong Title .. And Letting you off with " Amphibious Assult " Too Should be Amphibious Assault .. Still Love you Guy's Long time Sub & Fan & Loved this & the Recent Jet Fighter Episode you just dropped
It's actually insane just how widespread the fighting in WW2 was. I know a lot of people watching this will be major WW buffs, but I honestly didn't even know there was an Italian campaign, and I think my WW2 knowledge is actually higher than the average. Which just puts into perspective the ridiculous scale of this war.
The Italian Campaign was the short end of the stick for Allied Forces with the Germans fighting viciously right up to 8 May 1945. There are few films about it with the two great ones being A Walk In The Sun and The Story Of G.I.Joe. Most histories concentrate on the ETO and the Pacific, while pretty much ignoring Italy and the CBI
Yes, the more you read/watch/listen the more places you learn about with huge, important battles that few know about. I'm sure there are plenty who know little to nothing about the fighting in places like Burma, the Philippines; even Norway. Let alone oddities like Madagascar where British/Commonwealth troops invaded the French(!) controlled colony.
The US did not fight France. They fought the forces of Vichy France in North Africa. Big difference.
@@TheCoolCucumber The least covered is the Burma campaign IMO.
Yes, it’s almost as though it was a world war.
No mention of the Mafia?
That's not true that Patton went on his own. He sought and obtained permission as otherwise his entire army would have been kissing Monty's arse and not engaged in combat.
Kesselring was sort of brilliant. Considered that he actually was a luftwaffe general.
What I can't understand is that you have recon jets. You can tell from miles out when there is an armata heading your way. How does Italy and Germany get surprised? Japan already had large amounts of troops ready for them on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
... Recon jets...
Your candle is dimming fast.
@@DomWeasel Huh?
@@TheRealBillBob
It's World War 2, dum-dum.
The first operational German jet fighters didn't see action until April 1944 and they were stationed in southern Germany. The first operational German recon jet aircraft didn't see service until September 1944.
And they couldn't recon the entire Mediterranean with prop aircraft due to the Allies having total air and naval supremacy by this point.
As for Iwo Jima and Okinawa; these are Japanese Home Islands. Iwo Jima is a tiny island without any fresh water sources and the Japanese garrison there was therefore small. Okinawa meanwhile is the fifth largest of the Japanese Home Islands and a necessary stepping stone for the Americans to attack Japan itself. After the fall of the Marianas, an invasion of Okinawa was inevitable. But as the IJN had been virtually wiped out, Japan didn't actually have the means to reinforce the Okinawan garrison which totalled 76,000 Japanese soldiers who would fight a quarter of a million Americans.
After the fall of North Africa; there was no obvious next step for the Allies. The Axis had to guess where the Allies would attack across the entire Med, from Crete and Greece in the east to southern France, Corsica and Sardinia in the west. All were viable targets; hence Operation Mincemeat to draw Axis forces away from Sicily.
This invasion of sicily ended the war for italy. The king put Mussolini in jail. Yes the fuehrer had mussolini rescued and the germans assumed the defense of the peninsula. It wasnt italies war anymore though. It dragged on as the war in italy.
Soft underbelly of Europe indeed! Italy was a defenders paradise, the Germans held the high ground in every engagement. Engagements at Monte Casino, Salerno, Anzio AND Ortona.
Calling the American army inept??
Patton :I LL show you ..
The US has lost every single war it has fought since Communism won World War II.
I believe you are incorrect. The largest amphibious attack of the Second World War was Okinawa. At 200,000 troops landing on the beaches.
Normandy had 155,000 troops hitting the beaches. Okinawa only had 60,000. That makes it the largest landing of the Pacific War but Normandy holds the all-time record.
Imagine with Hitler evacuated North Africa and prevented Italy from signing the armistice.
my grandfather landed there
It Was also a D-Day wasn't it?