Seth
Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline
|
Originally posted by Fabs:
I agree with Ed. The Italian army suffered reverses comparable to those suffered by French, Soviet, American and even British (Singapore) forces.
S-Yes, except it kept suffering reverses. The French went much quicker. The Italians had three years to redeem themselves, and never really did. The most I'll say for them is that they were probably better to have with you than against you, just by virtue of their manpower. Okay, so they did beat the Ethiopians very convincingly, but that really wasn't much of a match-up.
British propaganda created the concept of Italians being fight shy and "having one gear forward and twelve reverse gears" on their tanks.
S-Their mass surrenders are outclassed only by the hordes of Soviets who were captured early in Barbarossa.
This stuck after the war, and Anglo-Saxons are fond of perpetuating these prejudices.
S-What, that the Italians lost? That the riduculous posturing of their comic-opera dictator was just a lot of hot air? If they won, they should have let us know.
Italians fought well and won against the Austrians during 1914-1918.
S-No they didn't win. They were on the winning side. They were just lucky that Italy vs. Austro-Hungary was a clash of junior partners. Economically, they were actually a drag on the allies, and the allies had to call off offensives to prop them up. Luckily, A-H was possibly even worse, and the Germans had to expend a lot of effort keeping them from collapsing. At any rate, nearly the entire war in that theatre was fought in Italy, and for every big victory, there was a crushing defeat. Remember Caporetto? Anyway, they did much better in WWI, and I would agree that they fought well, or at least decently.
Their political leadership leading into the Second World War was deeply flawed. Their commitment to their alliance with Germany was never solid. Opportunism and fear played a big part. In this they were hardly alone in Europe.
S-Well, that's true, mostly. Actually, not very much fear, and a heck of a lot of opportunism. They were very brave to give the Germans the brush-off whenever Adolf asked how the jews were doing. But they were quite craven in their desire to absorb as much of their neighbors as they could. No worse than the rest of east/central Europe where everyone wanted a piece of everyone else.
Italy was far from ready for war when Hitler got going, and their early adventures were efforts aimed at keeping up and not being left out. They were ill advised and doomed to failure.
S-Right, because their military was very bad. When the Greeks counterattack you, and nearly chase you out of Albania in the bargain, it really doesn't say much for your military power.
Again, the results of a complex and difficult geopolitical situation are being oversimplified to come to a judgement about the Army of the country in question.
S-Well, if you decide to fight people, and you get whipped, I don't see how that can possibly have nothing to do with your military. Even if the decision to fight rests squarely with the leadership, which I actually doubt in the Italians' case, the performance of the military is the most important thing in actually winning.
History has recorded that italian soldiers fought, suffered and died in hundereds of thousands, just like other soldiers in other Armies that at one time or another shared adverse fortunes.
Here we come, fifty years later, with no concept of what it must have been like, and set ourselves up as judges.
Is that fair?
S-Please, enough of these ludicrous 'that's not funny, my brother died like that' lectures. Here I come fifty years later, and say that someone lost. Oohh, what a mean guy I am. This is not a subjective thing. The Italians did very badly. Those are the facts. You know, whenever there's more than one of anything, one of them is better. That's the way it is. Tough luck if the guys you like are worse. If all of the countries had been equal, we'd still be fighting today. You know, I had relatives in the Polish army, but I don't fly into ridiculous histrionics every time someone says they lost. The Germans wiped the floor with them, end of story. I feel really bad about it, but it's the truth. Yes there were local actions where every army performed incredible deeds of valor, but all the anecdotes you can throw up here don't change the fact that they lost. And, quite frankly, I don't think I'm out of line to say they were fighting on the wrong side and I'm glad they did badly. At a distance of fifty years, I can even let myself root for them in war movies and think they made some beautiful airplanes, because the world is safe.
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Most Underrated Army in WWII - 
- 
- 
- 
- 
You have not offended me, Sven, and I don't believe that you set out to offend anyone.
This is sadly not true about some of the other posts, the contents of which had little to do with historical analysis.
On other matters, we can agree to disagree.
The sort of questions I would ask start with "Why.." as in "Why did a powerful and well equipped army such as the French Army in 1940 collapse in three weeks?".
Once you try to compare (most over-rated/under-rated) it becomes extremely difficult to produce sensible answers because judgement and generalizations are introduced.
This does not mean that you are not perfectly entitled to ask the question.
There is room in the world for my approach as well as yours and others.
Regards,
Fabs (the Pedantic but passionate about history and wargaming one)
------------------
Fabs
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-07-2000).]
------------------
Fabs
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread