Italian Campaign WWII

[namvet]

Vesuvius sure as hell didn't like it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bsmv6PyKs0]Eruption Of Mt Vesuvius 1944 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[regent]

As they should have. The Italian campaign would have been a true meat grinder. Yes there were casualties in France. The point is the Germans suffered MORE.

They lost an entire army' worth of equipment in the Falaise pocket, and if Montgomery had been quicker on the ball they would have lost the army too. And that would probably have been the end. Just like in North Africa, Monty was too slow an allowed the enemy to slip away to fight again another day.

He really was worthless.

Churchill had dreams of restoring the British Empire, and nightmares of losing British manhood in another WWI trench warfare, those dominated his involvement in the war. He was content to sit on his island and wait for the USSR complete the war.

Churchill already knew the Empire was dead. WWII put it out of its misery. It had truly died during the Battle of the Somme in WWI and the trades he had to work out for Lend Lease left him in no doubt of the future of the Empire.

As far as letting the Soviets bleed, that's what I would have done. Churchill knew the Soviets were no friends of ours. They did, after all, divide up Poland with the Germans at the beginning of the war.

One of the allies consideration was, will the USSR stay in the conflict, surrender or make a peace of some sort, similar to the Russian surrender in WWI. We know now that Russians didn't surrender so now when we fight this war again over won't have to worry about that. Come to think of it there are a lot of things we don't have to worry about. All of the leaders were also looking at how their nation would come out of the conflict. And at this point we really didn't know if we could continue our relations with the USSR or what. As the war progressed it was becoming clear that the USSR would be a major player at the end of the war, what was to be our relationship with them?

 

[westwall]

Churchill had dreams of restoring the British Empire, and nightmares of losing British manhood in another WWI trench warfare, those dominated his involvement in the war. He was content to sit on his island and wait for the USSR complete the war.

Churchill already knew the Empire was dead. WWII put it out of its misery. It had truly died during the Battle of the Somme in WWI and the trades he had to work out for Lend Lease left him in no doubt of the future of the Empire.

As far as letting the Soviets bleed, that's what I would have done. Churchill knew the Soviets were no friends of ours. They did, after all, divide up Poland with the Germans at the beginning of the war.

One of the allies consideration was, will the USSR stay in the conflict, surrender or make a peace of some sort, similar to the Russian surrender in WWI. We know now that Russians didn't surrender so now when we fight this war again over won't have to worry about that. Come to think of it there are a lot of things we don't have to worry about. All of the leaders were also looking at how their nation would come out of the conflict. And at this point we really didn't know if we could continue our relations with the USSR or what. As the war progressed it was becoming clear that the USSR would be a major player at the end of the war, what was to be our relationship with them?

That was all hashed out in the various allied conferences that culminated in the Yalta Agreement.

Modern History Sourcebook: The Yalta Conference, Feb. 1945

 

[regent]

Churchill already knew the Empire was dead. WWII put it out of its misery. It had truly died during the Battle of the Somme in WWI and the trades he had to work out for Lend Lease left him in no doubt of the future of the Empire.

As far as letting the Soviets bleed, that's what I would have done. Churchill knew the Soviets were no friends of ours. They did, after all, divide up Poland with the Germans at the beginning of the war.

One of the allies consideration was, will the USSR stay in the conflict, surrender or make a peace of some sort, similar to the Russian surrender in WWI. We know now that Russians didn't surrender so now when we fight this war again over won't have to worry about that. Come to think of it there are a lot of things we don't have to worry about. All of the leaders were also looking at how their nation would come out of the conflict. And at this point we really didn't know if we could continue our relations with the USSR or what. As the war progressed it was becoming clear that the USSR would be a major player at the end of the war, what was to be our relationship with them?

That was all hashed out in the various allied conferences that culminated in the Yalta Agreement.

Modern History Sourcebook: The Yalta Conference, Feb. 1945

Well if it was all written out in an agreement and even signed, why did we have any worries? I mean agreements cannot be broken.

 

[westwall]

One of the allies consideration was, will the USSR stay in the conflict, surrender or make a peace of some sort, similar to the Russian surrender in WWI. We know now that Russians didn't surrender so now when we fight this war again over won't have to worry about that. Come to think of it there are a lot of things we don't have to worry about. All of the leaders were also looking at how their nation would come out of the conflict. And at this point we really didn't know if we could continue our relations with the USSR or what. As the war progressed it was becoming clear that the USSR would be a major player at the end of the war, what was to be our relationship with them?

That was all hashed out in the various allied conferences that culminated in the Yalta Agreement.

Modern History Sourcebook: The Yalta Conference, Feb. 1945

Well if it was all written out in an agreement and even signed, why did we have any worries? I mean agreements cannot be broken.

What's interesting is when the Berlin wall came down it was assumed that it was a spontaneous thing when in fact it was one of the conditions signed too by all parties during the Conferences.

Which leads one who thinks about things...like me, to conclude that the Cold War was an engineered one. So...who engineered it?

 

[Camp]

Any fortified position can be overcome if you have more Troops than they have ammunition. Normandy was a meat grinder and the administration promoted the myth that Germans were outflanked with a diversion and secrecy. How effective was the diversion that incidentally cost the lives of about 15,000 innocent French civilians when the diversion was half a day away? It's all bull shit to cover for the incredible casualties. Historians agree that a mere half hour pre-invasion shelling was an incredible mistake when they shelled fortified positions for days in the Pacific but Ike was apparently consumed with secrecy. The Allies let Montgomery run the show in Italy and the confusion over command structure was a factor in the initial setbacks.

Your problem is you have no idea of what you are talking about. I have actually BEEN to the battlefields of Italy.

Cassino, the battle I mentioned, witnessed the dropping of over 700 tons of bombs on the German positions, followed by a barrage of 196,000 artillery shells, all into an area the size of Boulder Colorado....and the Germans STILL won.

Your theory doesn't hold up to historical fact.

What do you mean by "...and the Germans STILL won."

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right bed wetters have been arguing for the Italian and southeastern scenarios as more useful than Normandy.

That argument has been settled long ago.

Normand ended the war at least two years earlier than the SE scenarios.

 

[westwall]

Any fortified position can be overcome if you have more Troops than they have ammunition. Normandy was a meat grinder and the administration promoted the myth that Germans were outflanked with a diversion and secrecy. How effective was the diversion that incidentally cost the lives of about 15,000 innocent French civilians when the diversion was half a day away? It's all bull shit to cover for the incredible casualties. Historians agree that a mere half hour pre-invasion shelling was an incredible mistake when they shelled fortified positions for days in the Pacific but Ike was apparently consumed with secrecy. The Allies let Montgomery run the show in Italy and the confusion over command structure was a factor in the initial setbacks.

Your problem is you have no idea of what you are talking about. I have actually BEEN to the battlefields of Italy.

Cassino, the battle I mentioned, witnessed the dropping of over 700 tons of bombs on the German positions, followed by a barrage of 196,000 artillery shells, all into an area the size of Boulder Colorado....and the Germans STILL won.

Your theory doesn't hold up to historical fact.

What do you mean by "...and the Germans STILL won."

The Germans won the three battles of Cassino. They finally left (when ordered too, not because they thought they needed to) when the Allies made the landing at Anzio, which was described at the time, as the "largest self supporting POW camp in the world".

 

[Picaro]

I haven't read the latest research but I recall that the German 'army' was reduced to a mob by the time the Allies were rolling into Rome, so it's unlikely they had the ability to mount much of a fight north of there, which is why they withdrew instead of contesting Rome.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The allies could not have mounted the broad front attack in Italy and SE Europe as it did in Normandy.

 

[Picaro]

The allies could not have mounted the broad front attack in Italy and SE Europe as it did in Normandy.

True.