Happycat
Posts: 177
Joined: 10/24/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ozarkmichael The OP was asking if the Allies did the right thing by invading italy. i didnt try to answer that question. So now i will try: There was something to gain from the invasion of italy beyond the economic/strategic goals we think of in these games. After a few years of having allied nations invaded and occupied, the Allied Political leadership saw a better gain from a relatively easy landing in an Axis homeland compared to a more difficult retaking of france. Also, there was a need to 'do something now' and italy was close at hand. Perhaps some saw italy as a chance to practice for the big landings in France later. That easy landing in Italy did not lead to an easy advance. The fighting was very tough, as we all know. I see the attack in italy as an expensive sideshow, initiated because of its convenience, and its pyschological effect at home and upon the enemy. The invasion of Italy was not just in response to "a need to do something now", but rather a response to Stalin's constant pressure on Roosevelt and Churchill to create a second front, thereby presumably taking some heat off of the Red Army. As you note, the fighting was tough, and did, I suppose contribute something to the morale of the home front. However, it took a relatively small portion of the Wehrmacht to bog the Allies down for months. It took considerable Allied resources to inch up the Italian peninsula, and really contributed nothing to speedily concluding the war. IMO, the Allies would have done better to save the resources for D-Day. The extra divisions may well have accelerated the pace of operations in Normandy. And of course, we would have avoided the unfortunate "slapping" incident with Patton in Sicily, thus ensuring that he, instead of Omar Bradley, commanded the landing forces. I will be shocked if there are any who would postulate that Bradley was the better general. Nicer, maybe, but not better.
|