Why the Allies destroyed this ancient monastery | Italy 1944
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2023
- By October 1943, the Allies were facing an ugly truth. Invading Italy was seen as a chance for a quick victory. But Albert Kesselring’s German forces had put an end to that. They had exacted a heavy toll for the beachhead at Salerno, before falling back to a series of fortified lines across central Italy. Now, before them stood the most formidable challenge yet and more bloody fighting.
In this final episode of our series sponsored by Company of Heroes 3, we’ll explore the battles for Monte Cassino, the landings at Anzio and the capture of Rome. All to understand whether the entire campaign was worth it at all.
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...
Follow IWM on social media:
Twitter: / i_w_m
Instagram: / imperialwar. .
Facebook: / iwm.london
Base map by freevectormaps.com
Archive photos Wikimedia commons courtesy of:
Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-316-1195-07 / Demmer / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-579-1965-04A / Appe [Arppe] / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-J15752 / Biedermann / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-579-1957-19 / Girik / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-567-1503B-09 / Toni Schneiders / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-578-1931-03A / Haas / CC-BY-SA 3.0
The Italian campaign was vital in tying up Mark Clark from being deployed elsewhere.
Yes agree what a complete arsehole he was. More men died because he wanted the glory of Rome he should be remembered as a complete failure.
Mark Clark, the Axis' Secret Weapon.
@@andrewemery4272 Mark Clark is the reason for Albert Kesselring's nickname.
@@jzsbff4801 Imagine how lost he could he could get on the wide-open continent. He could end up liberating Tbilisi, try to explain that one away to uncle Joe.
Hahahaha
My dad was a Monaghan Irishman serving in the British army. He landed at Salerno in Sept of 1943 and fought through till the end. He then had occupation duty in Austria. He told me three stories about the war. Two were about being drunk in Napoli, and one was about being AWOL. My mother told me that his closest mate died beside him on the beach at Salerno, but Dad never once spoke about being in action. When I was a kid my dad caught me making fun of the Polish kids who had arrived in our Toronto neighbourhood. He got quite annoyed and told me to always treat those people with great respect. "They are the bravest of the brave", he said. I later learned that he'd been present and had watched the Poles leave the start line to go up Monti Cassino. Among them was a soldier who survived the war and immigrated to Canada. I'm glad he did. His daughter is my wife. Her dad never talked about the war either. I've observed that the ones who saw the worst of it seldom do.
Bless your Dad for coming to help us when he didn't have to 🇮🇪
I know volunteers from the Republic got a raw deal when they returned home.
What a great friend 🇬🇧
@@andrewemery4272 My mum and dad met in London and married in 1939. The UK had welcomed them as immigrants, and given them opportunities. They felt that it was only fair to fight for a country that had taken you in.
My mother was a clippy on the London buses throughout The Blitz. She finished the war as an overseas telephone operator in London. I'm very proud of them. I'm also grateful to them for choosing to come to Canada, where I was born. It gave me a great life.
I thought that only Americans landed at Salerno.
@@danieleyre8913 The Americans I've met often seem to think that they were the only ones who fought anywhere. I had a US Vietnam vet ask me what the the Cenotaph in front of Toronto City Hall represented. When I told him it was to honour our dead of 1914-18, 1939-45, and 1950-53, he expressed surprise to learn that we'd ever fought. Maybe it's because Canadians don't brag or self promote very much. It's bad form, after all. Quite often, when you see the term "British Forces" in a history book, they include Commonwealth forces too. In this case, however, my dad was in a British unit. The American media and educational systems seem to be quite etho-centric too, from what I've seen. A good example was the mostly Canadian Dieppe raid of 19 August, 1942. About fifty US Rangers came along for the experience. The US headlines: "Yanks Lead The Way Back To France". A Dieppe veteran told me that, and my own reading supports his statement. So yea, if you rely on US sources you might form that impression. You're not alone.
So true not the scars to brag about. Great love story ❤️
Churchill's second Gallipoli, but on a much larger scale. But that said Mark Clark even was a bigger mistake than the campaign itself. Had Clark simply rolled up the Germans after Anzio, rather than glory hound charging for the strategically irrelevant photo op of Rome, the campaign would have ended in mid-1944.
I'll never understand how Churchill, who was a highly intelligent man after all, thought the mountainous terrain of Italy would _ever_ be "the soft underbelly" of Europe.
@@Hibernicus1968ive heard the allies didnt give their men any winter clothing either. Italy has a great climate, but they still get winter and in those mountains your going to feel it.
Hardly. The campaign was a success and Clark had excellent strategic reasons for turning north. Listen to James Holland
I tried asking my dad this question but he couldn’t speak of it I saw the pain on his face and tears in his eyes he just suffered it in silence Bless him
My father was the same about Burma.....spoke a bit about other battles including Korea but, not Burma....
@@daffyd5867 A common theme it seems so bad a barrier came up.Remembrance Day always triggered his memories of it. The horrors came rushing back
Well thats how it goes when you support dictatorship
@@daffyd5867
Burma was hard. A difficult place to be for those unused to the Tropics.
Best wishes
My grandfather was in the 36th Division...he never spoke about the war (due to PTSD) and would only say that he wanted to have a conversation with Churchill about "the soft underbelly of Europe".
😂😂😂😂😂
My great-grandfather fought in both world wars and he knew some Aussies in the trenches who wanted to have a similar conversation about Gallipoli.
The conversation he wanted to have with Churchill was about being left behind in North Africa while everyone else was sent to Greece, leaving him to face the North Afrika Korps all by himself.
Yeah... About that "soft underbelly". What Churchill was fixated on was on the critical route between Gibraltar and Suez. Without it, the british empire would be cut in two.
Respectfully.
@@ricardokowalski1579 The already Allies had control of the Mediterranean before invading Italy.
@@danieleyre8913 they had it. Taking Italy secured it.
My grandmothers cousin is Tommy Prince, the most highly decorated First Nations soldier in Canadian history. His exploits were quite literally legendary, many of them were in Italy. You could honestly make a video game all about him.
Wow! Tell me more, do you have any stories?
My Dad was shot through the legs here and the nuns took him in until he was well enough to join his unit. The only problem was the war office contacted my mum to say he had been killed in action. When they corrected the telegram I dont think she ever got over it until he died of Cancer.
IMO Mark Clark's vanity to turn away and capture Rome instead of defeating the Germans (as planned), came at the senseless cost of countless allied soldier's lives thereafter.
That played into my comments about. It was deliberate. He was order to do that in order to deliberately delay the allied advance in Italy.
@@frankjocle7697 Yeah, right! Deliberately slow down winning the war with the direct increase in people being killed? 🙄
Despite all the discussion around Mark Clark allowing the Germans to retreat and reorganize, it's a shame we don't hear much about the Italian campaign beyond Monte Cassino, Anzio, and the liberation of Rome. Nothing illustrates the consequences of Mark Clark's decision better than the difficulties of fighting in the northern Apennines, which took even longer to break through than the Gustav line.
You seem to omit that it was Churchill’s idea to land at Anzio where Clark’s forces were pinned down unnecessarily. Clark recognized that Rome was symbolic but important optically for the whole campaign. Clark gets a bad rap but at least he was fighting as a professional soldier unlike Churchill who laying sick in hospital and who was strategist with a very spotty record at best. “This whole affair had a strong odor of Gallipoli and apparently the same amateur was still on the coach’s bench.”
-Maj. Gen. John Lucas, commander U.S. 6th Corps, diary entry, Jan. 10, 1944
Instead of blaming Clark, why isn’t blame placed on the British led operation Diadem which had the necessary opposing force to smash the retreating Germans after the Monte Cassino debacle. Incidentally my uncle was present there a Sargeant as part of the US 2nd Corps and told me personally that the soil ran red with the blood of his men.
Great presentation, especially the analysis at the end of the video.
I recently met by chance the daughter of Walter Miller, author of the science fiction classic "A Canticle for Liebowitz," wherein a Catholic-like religious sect is charged with the preservation of nuclear wastes in a post- Armegeddon world. His daughter told me that her father fought in Italy and witnessed the Allied destruction of the Monte Casino monestery. The event so angered him that he converted to Catholicism and vowed to someday attempt to atone for the Allied atrocity. The result was his profoundly anti-war book, the only one he published in his lifetime. (Miller was not a professional writer.) By the end of the 20th century, "A Canticle for Liebowitz" had been voted the most important sci-fi novel of the century.
Ho-Hum.
I actually just read Canticle for Liebowitz and came to this video because of it. Then I was searching to comments for one just like this, to see if someone else made the connection. So thank you for taking the time to post it. I'd put Canticle for Liebowitz up there with Dune, Stranger in a Strange Land, Left Hand of Darkness as greatest and most important sci-fi novels of all time.
Hundreds of innocents died in the destruction of Cassini abbey in order to expedite the defeat of German armies, while every day Germany slaughtered tens of thousands in cold blood. Like, while the abbey was being bombed, numerous villages far away from any frontline were decimated and annihilated by Germans, in Italy.
This is fucken WWII - in context this doesn't even qualify as 'a Tuesday'.
I'm a simple man, but I like when my words mean things, and I'm not sure I'm ready to accept this event qualifies for the same kind of adjective as Babi Yar or Nanking ... What exactly about this structure and those people make it so special? Is it possibly religious zealotry? No idea ... I'm deeply agnostic, but if I ever started harmonizing with Goebbels I'd probably second guess myself. That's just me👍
Thanks for this video, it made me look again at my father's service records, he fought at Monte Cassino . My father joined 1st Batt., London Irish Rifles, part of Ulster Rifles (?). He was from Surrey. Sent to South Africa in Sept 1942, and immediately admitted to Wynburg MH (military hospital?) [for malaria caught at sea?], discharged to IFTC (Imperial Forces Trans-shipment Camp) Clairwood Retreat (?) in Nov 1942.
Arrived in Feb 1943 at Iraq as part of PAIFORCE (Persia and Iraq Force), [ Posted to . X(IV) = 10th Army, IV Corp ?]. In April '43, he was part of MEF (Middle East Forces ?), and sailed to Egypt in June. It's not clear when my father arrived in Italy, but he mentioned landing at Catania, Sicily, and fighting up into southern Italy. Might this have been the 8th Army? Nov '43, wounded in action, then reported missing in Feb '44, confirmed as POW in Germany May '44. Originally at Stalag IVB, then Stalag IVG.
Post-war, he seems to have periods of 'home' plus other duties (in 4/1946 BAOR - British Army on the Rhine?). He didn't talk much about the war, or life as a POW. He did not like Mark Clark and thought the Americans were wasteful of life. He mentioned fighting with Indians at Monte Cassino, did not have a hatred of Germans. Released from service in March 1947.
…or Marcus Aurelius Clarkus, as his own men had it.
Wonderful footage.
Time has shown us that when the allied chose to destroy the abbey, there was no German presence, just the monks and civilians.
I've heard that the German commander did not want to violate the sanctity and neutrality of the abbey. He was a Benedictine, and that religious order had it's headquarters at...Monte Cassino.
Historians have said of him: "He was a German General who didn't lose his humanity."
Germans probably were not in the abbey, but they were so close to the walls it made no difference. Also, the Germans could occupy the abbey anytime they felt like. Given the track record of the German Army in WW2, would you trust their word?
The whole reason bombers were requested was because the Germans positioned so close to the abbey that their artillery and reserves were impossible to target with NZ artillery firing on a parabolic arc - due to the enormousness of it. Just because the Germans weren't inside the abbey doesn't mean they weren't using it tactically to their advantage.
The idea was that the bombers could destroy enemy positions nearby, reduce the size of its impediment, and disrupt the mobility of the defence. The NZers are not trigger happy vandals, they've been fighting the Germans almost continuously for four years - they're pretty easily the single most seasoned and elite unit the allies have, and they knew what they're about... They came to beat the Germans, and hopefully survive. The abbey was too big a risk, and they had the hardness and experience to destroy it. A tactical decision made regretfully in the cause of a greater good and in a bad job, and in the final estimation detrimentally, because the delayed-fuse bombs used to level the abbey ended-up being sprayed everywhere and causing the enormous craters that blocked the NZ tanks from pressing the assault. That's war.
I've heard that the German commander was in Italy to begin with because of hitler conducting a genocidal war in Europe, so let's not be too precious about individual nazis allegedly respecting the sanctity of others.
@@shanemcdowall the same way I would trust the word of russia, murrica and all the others. Btw do you know how close they were?
My great uncle pvt robert larue died in this battle he was from the princess patricias canadian light infantry. God bless him and all the allied soldiers who fought valiantly against the axis powers.
16:53 Yeah...great job Clark! 🤦♂ What a berk.
In the summer of 1943 Rome was bombed by the Allies and thousands of Italians killed.
Kesselring a big fan of Italian history knew that the Allies would destroy Rome if.need to be, to save.soldiers lives. He declared Rome a.free city and pulled German troops out.
@@hansmoss7395when the enemy commander has more regard for human lives than f*ckin Mark Clark and Churchill. 🤦♂️
Not so! Listen to James Holland’s rebuttal on We Have Ways. The 10th had already escaped.
Another great video from the iwm, keep them up .
Good analysis for the length of the video, and excellent closing comments.
I think the interesting point here (and one that even the IWM have neglected) is the overall world situation at this point in WW”. An aspect that may be considered was one of the things Churchill was more conscious of than shall we say some other leaders.
My point being that the allies wrapped up North Africa mid May 1943 (and Sicily by August) which meant the allies would have been pushed to have mounted a full scale invasion of Europe in 1943 and certainly not before winter set in. This means it was inevitable that D Day would be put off until at least spring 1944 at the earliest (even if aspects like Mulbury and the Bodyguard deception plan had been completed). Therefore, what to do between mid 1943 to spring 1944?
Churchill argued that we could not simply ship the troops back to the UK and have them sitting around for the best part of a year whilst we wated until spring 1944 to invade Europe via France. Remember Stalin was pushing VERY hard for a second front and the allies needed to keep them in the war at all costs. The Italian campaign did tie up German resources for this crucial period as remember whilst the Russians had achieved a stunning victory at Stalingrad a few months earlier the Easten front was by no means secure at this point. We simply could not sit around and let the Russians fight Germany alone for the next 8 (or more) months!
Much has been made of Churchill calling Italy the “soft underbelly of Europe” and it being far from this because of the mountainous terrain that made it a defender's paradise. However, the intention as I understand it was never to simply battle all the way up Italy but as has always been the case when fighting up a peninsula (with prepared defensive positions) it was to leapfrog these with a serious of amphibious landings to out flank their defences (much as the Japanese successfully did in their march down Malaya towards Singapore).
Anzio was part of this plan (begrudgingly and half heartedly agreed to by the Americans and the video covers the reasons why this did not succeed very well - Lucas/Clark !!!) however, the forces in Italy were denied the resources to do this properly let alone again and again because, in part due to the need for the Normandy landings, but more directly because of the requirement for men and landing craft for the Anvil/Dragoon landings in southern France. It’s a whole other augment as to whether Dragoon was successful/necessary, but Churchill preferred to direct farces to push up Italy to reach Venice and push through the North East plane and on to Austria. This would cut off and isolate the German forces in the Balkans and Greece and Churchill was also at this point very keen to beat the Russians to Venice before they tied up the whole of eastern Europe.
However, at this point the UK was becoming more of a junior partner to the US and with Roosevelt less subspinous of the Russians post war intentions Churchills plans for Italy were never fully realised and we will never know if Dragoon was the better option? But personally, I feel it was an opportunity missed.
So, a good effort by IWM at explaining the campaign but I think they missed the target of their video “Was invading Italy a huge mistake?” by falling into the same trap of a lot of historians by analysing a single aspect of the war without enough of an overview to the global strategic situation.
Exactly. Stalin needed a second front. Italy wasn't the one he wanted, but it did put pressure on Hitler's allied troops, many of whom were on the Eastern Front.
Hey IWM. Love your work 👍
Statements have been made here that General Clark's movement of the Fifth Army from Anzio to Rome was insubordinate, and further that it resulted in an excess of casualties on the Allied front. One of the arguments was based on the fact that after the war there was a US Congressional Hearing on the events of January 20, 1944 when Clark ordered his troops to cross the Rapido River and suffered intense casualties. However this took place six months prior to the aftermath of Monte Cassino when the German Tenth Army under General Kesselring retreated eastward towards the Adriatic Sea. Several sources suggest that Kesselring had evaded being trapped by the US Fifth on the flank by this eastward thrust. The British Eighth Army also failed to smash the Germans as they retreated behind the Gustave line. There is actually little evidence that Clark's movement to Rome produced excess casualties, indeed it has been stated that Clark probably mopped up more Wehrmacht forces around Rome than he would have chasing Kesselring. Perhaps Clark was a suitable scapegoat for his critics, he wasn’t perfect but after Patton beat Montgomery to Messina, the high command needed one. Field Marshall Alexander, the Commander and Chief of the had clearly allocated Rome to the Clark's Fifth Army. The British Eighth Army's job was to engage the 10th Army, destroy as much of it as possible, and then bypass Rome to continue the pursuit northwards. (1.)
Footnote: the following article states clearly that the crossing of the Rapido River fell under the command of Field Marshall Alexander (British):
My father was at Monte Casino with the PPCLI, and all the other "lines", all the way to northern Italy. He told me about having to use mules. At Monte Casino, when the battle was over, only 18 of his company answered roll call. The more I learn about the Italian Campaign, the more and more I'm amazed that he survived WW2!
My late father fought at Cassino and spoke very little about it for a long time, he eventually answered me about it when I asked him if it was as bad as documentary films portrayed, he said it was much worse and that his best friend had been killed when they took cover side by side. Doesn't need to be more graphic really.
I live where the Gustav Line met the Tyrrhenian Sea, almost forty kilometers from Monte Cassino. This campaign is also part of the story of my family. Thank you for this wonderful explanation of those painfull events
Actually mentioned the Maori battalion, what a GC bro 👍
One of my late great uncles fought in both the second and third battles of Monte Casino with the 2nd New Zealand division.
He said it was what made him lose all faith with the British, the Americans, and with the NZ commander Bernard Freyberg (whom was who ordered the monastery be bombed). He also said that he lost most of his friends between the two battles and didn’t know how he survived himself without getting wounded.
He was adamant about something (but who knows if he was correct): That the town and monastery could’ve been taken earlier with far fewer casualties and ordnance expended had the first attack by the Americans been conducted with more professionalism.
I'm sure your late uncle was a decent, honorable man. But just by looking at the actual order of battle, I don't think your uncle really had a clue as far as who did what. So I'd take his comment about American professionalism with a grain of salt. Especially if he's suggesting Cassino would have been taken had it not been for the first assault conducted by the Americans. Seeing as how it was actually the British X Corps (56th and 5th Divisions) which conducted the initial assault.
As far as the professionalism of Americans during Monte Cassino goes, this is what was said about them: "The performance of the 34th Division in the mountains is considered to rank as one of the finest feats of arms carried out by any soldiers during the war." Majdalany 1957, p. 87
In fact, the entire operation wasn't a set piece battle in which the Americans and their allies took turns hitting the summit. There were multiple nations involved and multiple units, officers, etc. I'm sure your late Uncle found solice in laying blame on the Americans. The reality is, the Axis defended it well, and mountain warfare isn't easy. Some would argue the battle itself was pointless, and had British commanders not swore that the Cassino was being used as an artillery observation point, may have been avoided entirely.
One think about the US Army it didn't cycle units out of the line as regularly as Commonwealth units. They sometimes were left in the line until completely shattered let alone conducting major divisional assualts
@@philm6722 I’ve heard something like that before. A pretty poor indictment upon Mark Clark and other US generals
@@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69
Beware of authors cutting corners with phrases like, “is considered…”
By whom was it so considered? What was the reputation of the the person doin’ the considering’? If no one is cited, you can bet life that the author is making it up but doesn’t want to say so.
It’s a dangerous practice, responsible for many silly, enduring myths. For instance, ‘Patton is considered by the Germans to be the best American general,’ is now set in stone. But it’s garbage. He’s not mentioned in any diaries, memoirs or official records left by a single, senior German commander. It’s all tripe. They’d never heard of him, essentially.
But many otherwise sensible and erudite people now think it’s true…
Beware perpetuating unsafe, perhaps disreputable sources.
Best wishes
@robertcottam8824 your entire paragraphs long rant boils down to your issue with the word "considered," used by an author you're unfamiliar with, saying things that you don't like. That isn't a legitimate argument. That's just denial and cope.
Please don't perpetuate false, disingenuous garbage in the same breath you try to fraudulently denounce it, thanks.
Well, my uncle's father won the George cross and died for the effort at Monte Cassino. Somehow I don't think he thought it was worth it.
Anzio would have achieved its objective of rolling up the German flank if Clark had exploited the landings and quickly moved inland. But his temerity lost them the initiarive. A lot of good men were lost because of him
At least if he had taken the high ground above Anzio: the Alban Hills.
If he had gotten the divisions he needed for the landings it could have worked, but not enough men were committed to it and they had to go on the defensive almost as soon as they landed.
Temerity?
A lot of good men were lost because the GERMANS started the war
General Kesselring has stated that with the initial landing force at Anzio, any movement inland would have been completely annihilated. Furthermore, Clark warned Gen. Lucas not to charge ahead without resupply on the beachhead because of what had transpired in the Salerno landing. In the latter case, when forward parties pressed ahead they were smashed by triangulated German artillery, with little reinforcements.
I think the whole point was to show Stalin that the Allies were serious about a second front.
A great uncle was killed during this campaign in 44 He was a SGT and fought in the 135th infantry 34th Division for the USA. He is buried there in a grave marked with white cross.
The plan to break the deadlock at Anzio and Monte Cassino was called Operation Diadem. It was conceived by Lt Gen Sir John Harding. The plan was brilliant. If Mark Clark had followed the plan the German 10th Army would have been captured and the Italian campaign end earlier. Instead Mark Clark went for glory to capture Rome on 5th June. He got the glory alright but it was fleeting. It was overshadowed by the Normandy landing the next day. He should have been relieved and sent home. The Battle for Rome was a hollow victory.
"I would rather face an army of lambs led by a lion than an army of lions led by a lamb." Alexander the Great. Even he knew there was no substitute for good leadership
It seems to me that many of the lessons have been forgotten: If you fight a realy war you need more men and material in general, artillery and "meat attacks" are paving the way, the attacker needs 3 times more people.
How we view succes depends largely on perspective.
The destruction of Monte Cassino was a disgrace. Both sides should've accorded something to save it. Fortunately (in a way) it was reconstructed post-war in a pretty faithful manner.
With italian money, even if the allied sources say otherwise. However, the reconstruction is not worth the original, ever.
The german side did in fact do something to save it. The monastry was excluded from their front line and no german soldier entered it. The allies fault alone 🤷🏼♂️
Perfect training ground for soldiers of both sides. All kind of terrains, situations. Whose who survived were stronger.
The whole concept of Chuchill's "Soft Underbelly of Europe" was totally wrong; just like his perception of the Dardenelles Invasion was in the First World War.
Yes like all leaders he got things wrong but he got a helluva lot right!
@@bernardmcgowan4129You are also right. Without Churchill, there is a chance that England might have signed a peace treaty with Germany after France fell. There was a pretty strong feeling that without France, England would be wise to make peace rather than suffer an invasion by the Germans. Like you said, he made mistakes. He was human, after all, but it was his will and belief in the English forces that shaped his actions. As an American, I consider Churchill one of the most important persons of the war.
@@bernardmcgowan4129Politically, yes. Strategically and militarily......f*ck no!
It's a good thing Gen. Eisenhower completely exempted him from all D-day planning, and still he made several bonkers suggestions that even got his General Montgomery threatening to resign his commission if implemented.
Safe to say at that point they understood Churchill was doing more harm than good, thank god for Eisenhower in overall command at SHAEF!
And what happened to Italy once the Allies invaded? It surrendered and made supplying the CBI theatre easier by sending g the shipping through the Mediterranean. The shorter route was the equivalent of a few hundred ships fewer being required.
I think it was important at least for cementing dominance of the central mediterranean. The Italian navy was essentially turned into another allied fleet and the med turned into an allied lake.
Can you do one about the Battle of Monte Castello?
I recall an interview with Clark in which he said before anyone is so hard on him and the Italian campaign take into account the international character of the Allied forces: many many different nations were employed on the Allied side, as this video notes, all speaking a large variety of languages, many different customs, varied beliefs, ways of war, etc etc. His point: coordination was difficult and very challenging. Maybe it was a prime example of something Napoleon said: better to fight allies than fight with allies! Anyway, I think Clark had a point: in considering the Italian campaign many critics don't take into account the internal divisions within the Allied camp that went beyond Anglo-American disputes!
Montgomery seemed to manage with his bouillabaisse of Brits, Aussies, Indians, French, Poles, Kiwis, Seffricans… in North Africa and Sicily.
But Mr. Clark would have been quite sure he knew best.
I once read that Britain proposed landing on Yugoslavia. It's interesting if IWM cover that topic in the next video.
The Yugoslav partisans had liberated a good chunk of Yugoslavia by 1944, holding out well against the Nazis in the steep mountains and thick forests of the interior of modern-day Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. So honestly that would've been a much better landing place than Italy. Besides, the Alps weren't in the way, like in Italy--it was pretty straight, flat shot across the Hungarian Plains to Vienna and thence to Southern Germany.
I don't think so. The Italian front was indeed the weakest part of the southern front in Europe, due to the lack of weapons, ammunitions and materials affecting the Italian army which made the task of Germans heavier in front of the Allies. If the Allied had landed, for example in Southern France, they'd have found a much harder situation, no doubt. Although, as an Italian, I must say that our Army fought from July 10, 1943 (date of landing in Sicily) to September 8, 1943 (date of the armistice between Italians and Allies), with the usual stregth and abnegation General Patton had well known in Northern Africa when he admitted: "If Italians had our weapons and our means, they would turn us upside down as a glove".
It wasn't really necessary, but something had to be done to tie up German forces and keep them from the Eastern Front, and France. The real problem was Mark Clark.
The sub titles stated that Italian civilians were subjected to mass rape by French Moroccan forces. The audio left out the French Moroccan part. Can I ask why this was censored/edited?
Yup, that's something the allies don't really bring on... Like they want to Hide It.
The Moroccan troops under French Command raped thousands of Italian women, girls and boys.
Many were murdered. A movie was made years ago with Sophia Loren,
named Two Women. After the war the incidents were swept under the rug. The French Commanders were not held accountable.
It wasn't just French Moroccans. Italians were raped by Germans, Americans, British... It's a long list.
Meanwhile the same thing happened in France as the liberators felt they were 'owed' sex by the French populace.
Historians make a huge deal about the Red Army rapes as they advanced into eastern Germany but keep quiet about how rampant the western Allies were in the countries they were supposed to be saving. Along with widespread looting. If the Germans hadn't already stolen it, the French, Dutch and Belgians had to contend with the Americans and British taking it instead.
It happens in war, all wars.
@@DomWeasel You cannot seriously compare rapes and savagery of red army to that of Americans and British
I guess Churchill forgot to look at a topo map of Italy before declaring it a soft underbelly.
No, the whole idea was to protect the Empire...and the supply lines to India.
The fat cream puff never had to walk up a hill.
@@charlesharper2357 As a matter of fact: Not it wasn’t.
Well, the Allies could have followed the American plan that expected a cakewalk into Berlin in 1943, which would probably have lost the war. The invasion of Italy was a side show from the start, with the US reluctantly fielding only half an army, Clark's 5th was half British. Had more resources been available the defeat of Italy may have been sooner.
For a start, their is no record of Churchill ever actually saying The 'Soft Underbelly of Europe'
Also General Clark was a desk general with no combat experience only organising logictics, but he was a friend of Eisenhower. During the North African campaign he tried to turn the French against the British but to his credit, once Eisenhower found out he removed him from the theatre. Sicily was then invaded and captured in record time, leading to Hitlers main ally Mussolini being deposed a great achievement in itself. Then italy was invaded by Montgomery and the Eighth army in the toe of Italy and he rapidly advanced up the adriatic coast capturing ports and airfields. Then Clarke who had been made Commander if the 5th army landed at Salerno. Unfortunately, Clark decided not to have the normal Naval bombardment and indtead land without one, therefore when the troops landed they were pinned onto the beach and at times it looked like it would fail. Eventually after more reinforcements he did manage to break free and head in land but at a high cost. The Rome debarcle was also Clarks fault, if he had followed Alexanders battle plan, the German 10th Army would have been captured. Instead, he diverted his troops to Rome just for his own personal glory, leaving the 10th Army to escape and live to fight the Eighth army later. He later claimed that he told Alexander he would shoot any 8th Army soldier who tried to enter Rome. This is rather rediculous as about half his 5th Army was made up of Eighth army troops and they actually entered Rome with him. Was he so removed from the actual battle field that he didn't even know what troops he was commanding ? At the end of the day , Italy was a British planned offensive but the troops and equipment were all taken at crucial times of the operation to be used in Normandy, so much so, that the British considers leaving the Americans to fight Normandy on their own and turn Italy into a completely British battle. However, in the end it was decided that it would sour Anglo American relations and so the plan was dropped. Nevertheless, if italy had been a totaly British battle and all the equipment had not been taken at crucial times it would have not only ended the war sooner, but it would have stopped the Russians from expanding their realm if influence so far across Europe and that was exactly why Churchill had planned it.
The Americans soon realised that he was right and had to resurrect the Nazis 'Eurospaisch Wirtschafts Gemeinschaft' proposal as a bulwark to contain the Soviets, you will know it better as the European Union.
Pleased you briefly mentioned the Poles. I understood the Poles took the heaviest death toll of all allies, it was a Polish flag that flew to signify victory and the maligned 'silly Poles' composed a song whose words state that the poppies of Monte Cassino grow redder for nourished by Polish blood. Credit where credit is due.
There is a monumental Polish War Cemetery in Monte Cassino. I visited it, and knowing what the soldiers resting there had to endure and from what incredible and painfull journey they came from, it's simply breathtaking
I once met a former JU-88 pilot who was captured from a army hospital after the battle of Monte Cassino. He had been shot down over the Mediterranean on a reconnaissance mission.
Please make a 4th episode about the fall of the Italian Social Republic!
On 8 July 2021, the Chief of Army Staff, General M.M. Naravane, inaugurated tge Indian Army Memorial at Cassino to commemorate the Indian soldiers killed in action during the Battle of Cassino.
War in the mountains is always very difficult. In Italy, 77% of the territory is mountainous, but in the south it is more than 90%. Obviously, the situation was much easier in Normandy.
My father was a 19 year old Canadian soldier at Monte Cassino. The next year he was in Normandy.. He said thr big difference was that at Monte Cassini he never had any sense of what thr purpose was or what what was happening. In Normandy even he, a low,y private, ‘got it’, morale was much higher and thus they performed to a higher standard.
Normandy also has no mountains. For invading armies, Normandy has gloriously flat, easy land to reconnoiter and conquer. That also helps tremendously with the morale of the lowly privates. I bet your poor father was horrifically traumatized by those damn Italian mountains hiding all those Nazis in caves, ready to shoot him.
A good video, but it's more about the fighting around the Gustav line than answering the question posed in the title. The authors have the analysis of the campaign compressed into less than 1 minute at the end and, while it tantalizingly gives some bread crumbs to the title question (casualties & consequences) it gives little quality analysis.
The Italian campaign tied up a significant number of German troops that could have been used elsewhere. However it also tied up a significant number of Allied troops that could have been used elsewhere. Especially the UK could not really afford to fight with 2 armies on the continent after 1943. With manpower shortages become dire after the hard Normandy battles. So maybe the argument can be made would it have been better to draw down the Allied presence in Italy after having reached the Gustav Line. The positive objectives of the Italian campaign had been reached. Italy was knocked out of the war, creating a severe drain on the Germans having to take over the defense of Italy AND the Italian occupation zones in Yugoslavia and Greece. And the capture of the Foggia airbases allowed the Allies to base another strategic bombing airforce, the 15th, in Europe, from which to bomb the Reich. Any action to break the Gustav line and advance north tied an equal number of Allied resources in theater as it did for the Germans. I reckon the Canadian I Corps and the UK 1st and 6th Armored divisions would have been of greater use in Normandy and beyond then they were in Italy.
The number of German forces deployed to the Italian peninsula was a fraction of their strength and what was deployed on the eastern front.
@@danieleyre8913 But 400,000 troops is still enough to help turn the tide of a losing battle like Stalingrad.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- I don’t mean to be rude here. But it is obvious to me that you have not ever looked much at the eastern front.
Stalingrad was over long before the allies landed in Italy. And that battle is a golden example of how throwing men and material into a battle can be futile.
The Germans lost purely over lack of resources fuel, etc. Their manpower was still 7 million in the armed forces at 1945.
@@calelliot3703 Oh yeah, 7 million when including 15 year old boys and men over 40.
Germany lost mostly because of atrocious strategic blunders and atrocious planning. Hardly surprising when their motivations were entirely irrational.
My german grandfather surrendered at monte cassino and spend the rest of the war in the US as a POW..
He always said that this was the best thing that couldve happened to him under the circumstances
@8:15 The guy shooting the machine gun isn't even looking where he's shooting, just casually looking to the side as he blasts away.
Monte Cassino is such an invaluable cultural heritage. Its destruction is a human tragedy.
It wasn't so much Mark Clark, but his opponent Kesselring who was a defensive genius, working with limited resources. He also knew that further killing was senseless and surrendered his forces before Germany itself surrendered.
It seems to me that taking the islands of Sardinia and Corsica would have outflanked all of those defensive lines in central Italy. Mind you, to do it we would have had to divert some aircraft carriers from the Pacific.
Why? Britain had only sent one carrier into the Pacific in 1943. That was HMS Victorious which was lent to the Americans (under the name USS Robin) - as a sort of ‘lend lease’ whilst they built their own.
Wouldn’t need carriers anyway. Britain had a rather sturdier base called Malta. It’s the size of a couple of hundred aircraft carriers.
Got a harbour to comfortably hold a couple o’ thousand ships, too.
(What I’m saying is that the Royal Navy was still A LOT bigger than the US Navy in 1943. 😉)
Best wishes
In considering the worth of the Italian campaign I have always had the impression that Churchill's ultimate objective was much greater than finding an easier way to invade Germany than the cross-channel invasion (Overlord). He also aimed for a route into Europe that would put the Allied armies in front of the Red Army before they advanced too far into Europe or as he put it many times "Shake hands with the Russian Bear as far east as possible." He envisioned meeting the Soviets at the Gate of Vienna not at the Elbe. An advance up Italy could have done that whereas Overlord would not put the Allied armies on a path to cut the Soviet Armies off from Central Europe before they entered Germany. Churchill was thinking of the post war period and the USA only of winning the war against Germany. I think Italy has to be thought of in that context. I think also he suspected w/o the Allies in Italy the communist partisans in Italy and the Balkans would run wild and Italy might well turn out Red otherwise. Again he was thinking of the strategic political implications of military strategy that Eisenhower often ignored. So I would say in that last sense the Italian campaign worked: Itlay had a big communist movement yes but it did not seize power as they tried to in Greece. But the Allied armies were not able to advance so far up the boot that they could cut the Soveit armies off from Germany. In that sense it failed but then again the Americans never had that strategic poltical objective that Churchill did.
An interesting point, well-made.
I understand that his nickname was Marcus Antonius Clarkus.
I like the subject, I would expect a more profound analysis...
My grandfather fought at Anzio. His unit was pinned down and later captured. He was Jewish, and so was force marched towards Germany as Germany was falling apart.
Thanks to the title, I thought this was going to be a discussion of the pros and cons of the Italian campaign. Instead, it is just another rehash of the middle of the Italian campaign.
Okay let's call it: the Italian campaign was a massive strategic blunder. The war was always going to be won by an armoured drive across the North German Plain and the occupation of Germany. After Sicily and certainly after capturing the Foggia airfields, there was no need to continue in Italy. The Germans would still have had to deploy tens of thousands of occupation troops (like they did in Norway).
In the end more allies were tied down than Germans, and the allies suffered more casualties. The allies were constantly short of men on the western front and the lack of rotation led to higher levels of battlefield stress and exhaustion.
For me the question about WW2 is not how the allies won, its how they took so long to win and how they made so many strategic blunders: wasting time on strategic bombing, not sorting out Atlantic until 1943, wasting resources in Italy, Dieppe, Arnhem etc. More people should have been held accountable for these failures after the war.
Obviously this takes nothing away from the outstanding bravery, skill and sacrifice of the ordinary soldiers.
It's easy to judge in retrospect. Hindsight is a fun tool, but doesn't recognise the reality of the time. Italy seemed weak. Opinions were biased by the war in North Africa. The scale of the war in Russia wasn't underestimated. There are a hundred reasons why mistake can get made.
The Italian campaign also played an important role in delaying the Normandy invasion because it diverted troops and supplies to a different theater.
Hmm, I'm not sure it was such a big blunder. The attack in to Italy caused the Italian army to go from an active participant to effectively disbanded, that's some like 80 divisions that just disappeared in to nowhere, a huge blue to Axis reserve forces that would cause them to always be far shorter on men on all frontiers then they'd otherwise have been.
So certainly it cost a lot of men to fight for Italy, but the elimination of so many forces from the war is hard to see as a strategic failure, if anything it made France even more vulnerable as now Germany would be unable to get any help from Italy at all in case of an invasion there, and instead had to put men of its own there just to maintain yet another front.
So from the German perspective the Italy campaign is basically a strategic catastrophe.
"The question is why the Allies took so long" - I'm not sure that reflects reality. War is unpredictable and moments of rapid change are often interspersed with years of stalemate.
Would an invasion of France in 1943 have advanced victory by 9 months? Or, would it have made virtually no difference? The Germans retreated, anywhere, not because the Allies willed it, or for tactical reasons, but because of strategic reasons, because they were unable to commit the resources to hold their ground. The Germans wouldn't have collapsed in France 9 months earlier, had the Allies landed in 1943, because the German collapse was the result of exhaustion on all fronts, from all sources. That process would not have been much advanced by a more prolonged campaign in France.
Launching an invasion of France without first securing the Mediterranean would have been folly. And the Mediterranean couldn't be secured with Italy still in the fight.
"All roads lead to Rome, and all roads are mined!"
😂😀😃🤣😅😆😄
You have to wonder how much more progress the Allies would have made during the war without Churchill's bloated ego dictating strategy.
It always seems so clear to me that the way to win in Italy was to invade the toe as they did, drawing German forces south, and then to hit the knee; landings around Genoa or the coast near Florence. The threat of being cut off would have sent all German forces in the south of Italy fleeing northward.
Without Churchill the war would have been lost in 1940.
Interesting enough, General Jodl after the war was asked that same question: was it a mistake to have invaded mainland Italy in the South after the conquest of Sicily ? He answered it was, in his opinion. Furthermore, he stated, that with the Allied numerical supremacy in the air and at sea; it would have been better for the Allies to invade Italy way up North rather than starting at the very bottom in the South.
@@robertleache3450
Logistically, invading as close to Sicily as possible is logical. Strategically, it's daft. Almost all Italian industry is located in the north, by landing in the north, they would have been able to seize or at least disrupt that industry. Instead by fighting their way up, that industry was supply the Axis right up until April 1945.
And of course, Allied troops in northern Italy in 1943 threatens Germany itself from the south-west and occupied France from the south-east.
Operation Dragoon landed Allied troops in southern France. Had that operation occurred in Italy, it would have been far more likely to trap German forces whereas German units facing Operation Dragoon were able to escape intact.
Dragoon was basically a compromise; Churchill wanted a landing in the Balkans (which like Italy he described as 'soft underbelly) and the Americans thought that was crazy (rightly so). Churchill was trying to support the Italian campaign but he wanted to invade north-eastern Italy at Trieste rather than north-western Italy which wasn't surrounded by hostile enemy coastlines...
Dragoon compromised by opening another front, but in support of France. Italy is pretty much ignored from then on as France rapidly falls, giving the Allies the swift victory they had been promised in Italy.
Have you looked at a topographic map of Italy? There isn’t enough landing area at either Florence or Genoa, and they can be bottled up by defenders on the high ground. That was the problem at Anzio. And if the Allies had landed in the toe, why would the Germans have been drawn south? All of Italian industry and most of its agricultural land is in the north.
@@timmotz2827
Because they were led by Adolf Hitler who refused to give up an inch of ground no matter the strategic value of doing so. When given a choice between retreating to the heavily fortified Focșani Gate of Romania or remaining on the open ground in front of it; Hitler insisted on the latter.
The result was the total annihilation of German 6th Army (again), the collapse of Romanian forces and a coup that saw them switch sides, depriving Germany of Romanian oil. All in nine days and all because Hitler refused to give up ground. The Soviets would almost certainly have smashed through the Focșani Gate anyway but it wouldn't have been so easy for them.
The Allies did land in the toe and advanced up to the heel with a quarter of a million German troops facing them, rising to three hundred thousand. The coasts of southern France, Italy and the Balkans meanwhile were protected by third-tier units; Czech conscripts, osttruppen, old men and teenage boys. Operation Dragoon in southern France smashed through these units during their landings. The Germans expected another landing in the Mediterranean but with all available forces tied up in southern Italy, Normandy and the Eastern Front; they had no means to stop another landing. Operation Dragoon led to the headlong retreat of the Germans out of France because they had no forces to contain the second front in France while already being driven back at the first.
How many German troops were tied up in Italy on June 6th 1944?
I've never understood the kind of argument made at the end: that the Italian campaign tied down Axis troops that might have been deployed elsewhere and was therefore a success. But it took huge numbers of Allied troops and resources to tie them down. The latter has to be considered if an overall judgement is made.
Where else would the troops have been used in 1943? Greece perhaps?
Certainly not France, though: the logistics weren’t ready and the Americans, whilst keen as mustard, weren’t really very effective until hmmm… early ‘45, really. Just look at what a cocker-up they made of DDay in June ‘44, for example.
Best wishes.
IMO it was a waste, they could have landed in Southern France after Sicily. Italy offered the perfect defense for the Axis with a narrow, mountainous front
80 years later with all the information at our fingertips, we can cast aspersions at them. They did the best with what they knew and with what they had. Rest in Peace.
Monte Casino was finally conquered by Australian, New Zealand and Polish troops.
Only because the Fallschirmjäger withdrew to fight another day…
And British troops
If anything, the battle made the German Fallschirmjagers look good.
Lets summarize the question the video proposes. IWM: i dunno, maybe yes maybe no.
While I don't believe that invading Italy was a mistake, I do believe the mistake was the starting point. By first invading Sicily, the Allies best landing spot becomes Salerno. If the Allies had invaded Sardinia instead, they would have had more options. By taking Sardinia, Corsica would be untenable, the Axis would have to reinforce or evacuate across a hundred miles of open sea, and the Allies would have been able to land troops on the Italian mainland a hundred miles north of Rome. Even if the landing site was still Anzio, they'd have invading by late summer or early autumn 1943, rather than January 1944.
Bella Ciao
If this campaign would not have been fought, imagine where the germans would have fled? Italy would be too difficult to conquer.
Impressive moustache!
The italian was not a faulier but also was not a sucesse not even a partical sucesse, It did manage to help stop operation cidadel(battle of kursk) but it didn't manege to fully tidde up germany troops.
Instead of blaming Clark, why isn’t blame placed on the British led operation Diadem which had the necessary opposing force to smash the retreating Germans after the Monte Cassino debacle. Incidentally my uncle was present there a Sargeant as part of the US 2nd Corps and told me personally that the soil ran red with the blood of his men.
Another one of Churchill's plans believing Italy was the "Soft underbelly" of Europe. I honestly thought he was trying to save as many lives as possible 🤷🏻♂️ Oh well.
The Maoris and Ghurks and Polish in the war were legendary, from the stories my Dad used to tell me when I was little.
Italy tied down much needed German forces .Do not forget Clark and Lucas incompetence.
In short, frustration. The italian campaing started back in 1943 and it took over a year to be completed. From july 1943 to jan 1944 the allies virtually crawled over italy in the most visceral campaign they ever encountered, until they reached the Gustav Line. And we are talking about how they faced not fresh german units like the ones that rolled over Europe 2 years before but worned out german soldiers pulled out from the east front in desperation. You either gotta love or hate history.
Ahhh Marcus Clarkus
Soft underbelly with that terrain. Did anyone look at a map? Yugoslavia would have been an even worse idea. The success of the landings in Sicily showed what could be done but the opposition there was weak. So where to next? Italy is so close to Sicily. Corsica was liberated in the autumn of 43, but it's quite a distance from Corsica to the French coast and how would an invasion be supported without a base. There was probably no alternative but slogging up the peninsula was possibly not the best way.
Between Germans in Italy and Italians back from the USSR this kept 450k people out of the USSR. I don't think it could be helped--they could not have allowed the chance that Germany might actually have turned that front around. The USSR "planet" offensives had stagnated.
The problems were at the very beginning. Sardinia rather than Sicily should have been the initial territory taken. Once Allied airpower was established on the island, the entire length of Italy would been vulnerable to attack, making everything below Rome untenable for the Germans to defend.
Defense of Cassino by the German Fallschirmjager is a prime example why ppl are fascinated by Germans during ww2.
Massive bombardments that frankly no allied troops ever experienced in ww2.
50 % loss out of only 300 men in the town itself, where no tree, let alone house, was left standing...everything turned to ash and rubble...
...and still held...just...how is that possible...you would expect some "lucky" survivors coming out of cellars, howling like madmen after they lost their minds, and yet those survivors fought and made the allies quit yet again...just...how....
Power of propaganda my guy, when the soldier believes with all their heart that their cause is the right one.
Chinese soldiers during the Korean War were known for massed frontal attacks, against artillery, Machine guns, tanks, mortars, and they still came in overwhelming numbers.
Worked many times too, literally pushed the Allies back from the Yalu River in China back into South Korea and retaking SK cities.
Despite the Allies having overall superiority in weaponry, the Chinese literally had soldiers willing to die for the cause with little more than their rifles and supporting heavy guns, they didn't have adequate boots and cover for the freezing winter temperatures and literally had men freezing to death and still never deterred them.
Really crazy stuff!
9:56 I did not know that Baldrick also fought in WWII 🤣 (Blackadder)
Patton should have led the invasion of Italy, instead of being suspended after Sicily, and mounted aggressive amphibious attacks: Rome by Christmas 1943.
after the war , a german general said: tell Mr Churchill, next time he want to invade Italy, he better starts from the north...
8:15 as casual as you like, must've been bored of all that Warring by then 😂
The Italian Campaign should have resembled the New Guinea Campaign, except the entire stock of amphibious transport was in New Guinea...
Alternatively, in the event, it should have been an Army In Being with minimal activity but great threat. The only accomplishment of Italy was tying down German land forces, and that could have been done with much less human expenditure of frontal assaults.
Yes, Monday morning generalship, to be sure, but Italy and Huertgen were unmitigated disasters with human casualties of a scale seen nowhere else but the Pacific.
i wonder if they should have bypassed montecassino
Allied invasion of italy one of the brilliant campaigns by george s patton who had a race with montgomery . Patton won the race and took palermo. 🔥❤️
@shehansenanayaka3046
One could argue that Patton raced around lightly defended coastal areas while Montgomery did the work of pinning down the main German forces. One might also note that the portrayal of the invasion in the movie Patton is wildly incorrect, as it was Monty who suggested that Patton take Messina. There was no race, the goal was to trap the Germans, the only person who saw it as a race was Patton who thought he was in competition with Monty.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- maybe yeah patton movie he was always need the first place.
patton and brilliant do not go together
When young I worked in a mill with a guy who’d years before been infantry in the U.S. Army in Italy. I got kind of lackadaisical about shaving. Summer, and one day we were working on the backside of the paper machine. Hot, probably just over 100f. More or less soaked within about twenty minutes, all day. He got more agitated over the day. Finally he said he went 47 days below Monte Casino, without getting off the line, getting clean clothes, or a shave. He said my not shaving just made him itch all day. He more or less implied that when he did get clean that his skin problems went beyond just dirt, some kind of fungus. Always shaved after that.
He later stated that it was a bunch of ‘B.S.’ that the Germans weren’t using the Abbey as a lookout, and said bombing it was a good thing. Of course he’s gone now. I won’t say he was correct, but I will say that as someone who laid under artillery for too long he was sure about it. I can’t imagine he was the only one of this opinion, and I can imagine it was likely that a common opinion of those living in the dirt below the abbey. Before the bombing I can also imagine the infantry not being pleased with their own generals. The infantry that in the end had to take the hill.
It was. So was Gallipoli. Churchill never had to answer for the lives he wasted.
If De Gaulle had not killed Darlan or not fired Giraud. Giraud would had convinced other generals to land between Genova and Livorno.
They didn't land at Genova because they wouldn't have had the air superiority they wanted.
@@scottkrater2131 General Giraud wanted to take Corsica, Sardagna and Sicilia first,, enough bases to achieve air superiority
@@PH-mo3vu yeah, that have worked. But the UK/ UK decided against that for their own reasons. Would have delayed Italy from dropping out, etc. Might have affected the timeline for Overlord.
@@scottkrater2131 Giraud had no idea of Normandy. He was right, as he thought allies were delaied by Normandy, the Rhine and the Westwall. As the soviets went forward in autumn 44, allies stopped before the Rhine for logistic issues.
The second landing in France 15/08/44 had no strategic interest. British and French had 25 divisions in Italy, they could have landed in Istria.
Staline through De Gaulle promoted Overlord.
@@PH-mo3vu you forget the US chiefs of staff thought Italy was nothing but a waste of resources right? What De Gaulle thought had no bearing on Overlord. France was the quickest way to Germany according to COS. Stalin himself supported Overlord and wanted it instead of Italy.
One also has to consider that Overlord wasn't scheduled until May-June 1944. Should the Allied armies be out of action following the Fall of Sicily until then? August 1943 until June 1944? No ground war with the Germans by Anglo-Americans? That might have made military sense but politically it was unacceptable. The Soviets would not tolerate it and back in DC, FDR had to worry that the "Pacific Firsters" might get the upper hand again if the American Army wasn't in continual contact with the Germans. The USA and UK had to also be able to tell the Soviets they were doing something on the ground to divert German resources from the East Front. Those 2 political factors made doing something before Overlord could be launched inevitable and that meant Italy.
At 19:04. How is that possible, that Allied planners did not take the mountainous terrain of Italy into account?? It's pretty damn obvious for anyone with a passing knowledge of the Italian peninsula. I bet most of the high-ranked generals and politicians making these decisions had been to Italy in their 20s, doing whatever passed for "the Grand Tour" among the British upper classes. Italy, as a result, was perceived as soft and cuddly under the dull daze of constant wine drinking, eating and lovemaking. In their minds that marvelous, civilized country could be easily conquered, so they sent their boys to get the job done. Oh, little did they know...