But for what it is worth – Churchill honestly believed it to be a second front. He had dreams, or delusions (take your pick), that somehow highly mobile, industrialized Allied armies were going to drive through easily defended Alpine passes to invade Austria in such easily defensible, bottle-neck terrain…
A major point of contention between the US and British commands. The Americans thought there was too much emphasis on the Italian front whereas I think the British thoughts were mixed. I’m pretty sure Monty wanted no part of conducting an offensive campaign in such defensible terrain and he couldn’t get out of the mainland campaign fast enough whereas Brook and Churchill seemed to really believe the “soft underbelly” of the Axis would compensate for numerous rivers, uneven terrain, and mountain passes --all making for ideal defensive lines-- and overcome the German’s ability to resist. It didn’t…
Although it should be said that abandoning the Italian people to Nazi occupation when they clearly wanted Mussolini deposed would have been rather cynical…
It was pure political aims of CHurchill.
In his book “Second World war” he showed his aims very well.
His real dreams ( or delusions , as it was shown later) was to involve the Turkey into the war in Balcans in allied side.He specialy pointed in Tehrain conference - that if Stalin give the guaranties to declare the war on Bulgary ( if the Bulgaru , nazi ally at that time, declare the war on Turkey after its joined to the allies).
It was pure political aim - with this Churchill was wanted to restore the Balcans in british sphere of influence.
That’s why he pulled Americans into Italia as strong , as he can.
Germans still had about 20 divisiond in Balcans, those forces have been tied in fight with Yugoslavian poartisans . However the attack of Balcans would bring the serious casualties to the allies.Later the Churchill plans showed its delusions.
there was a famouse phrase of Rosswelt to his son Elion-" I don’t see the reasons to sacrifice the lives of american soldiers for REAL or VIRTUAL british interests in Balcans"
Americans who start the strategical bombings of Romanian oil fields, right after the capturing of Sicily( probably the ONLY positive moment of whole Italian compain) wasn’t in delight from Churchill plans also.
Besides the Comride Stalin had OWN plan to Balcans:)That was later realized in practice.
Although it should be said that abandoning the Italian people to Nazi occupation when they clearly wanted Mussolini deposed would have been rather cynical…
I think not as much Italian peoples , but leaders of Resistense:)
Who were mostly pro-communists…
And nobody want to abandon them , Stalin for instance in Tehrain conference clearly has expressed his oppinion, the USA troops do the good job in Italy, creating mostly negative political impression to Axis rahter then military one.
Stalin , however was agains the FURTHER expantion of Italian and Balcan operation , becouse this expantion should inevitably divert the Americans from the real second front in France ( overlord).
He was right , in sense.
The above isn’t an area I know anything about, but on reading it I wondered whether any of it went back to Churchill’s interests in Turkey as pivotal and his failures at Gallipoli in WWI causing him to focus on Turkey in a different light in WWII?
Occasionally I see remarks that Marshall Brooke the British Chief of Staff proposed delaying the invasion of France until 1945, as the Allies were not ready and it would be too bloody to do this in 1944. This was susposed to have occured sometime in December 1943 or January 1944.
I don’t know mate why Churchill was so possessed by Turks in 1943, probably it was due to the pro-british turkish symphaties at that time (or caused of other reasons).Anyway the supposed Turkish attack of balcans can prevent the red amry to approach to here.
As remind Churchill ,Britain spend about 25 millions of pounds to arm the Turkey , they also pretty well trained their army.
However the turks refuse the call of Churchil openly tear with Germany, and declare war on them till the most end in mid 1944 when the Red Amry has arrived into the nother Balcans and Romania was puled out of Germany. In the september of 1944 it was too late for Churchill’s plan.
In the desember 1943 there were th teheran’s conference where the allies has already accepted the final decision to start overlord in may 1944. No one reason can’t deny it.
Rosewelt even have to press the Churchill not to divert the ships and transports away from FIRST planned operation Overlord.
There were a several complains of Churchill that in Nothern Africa still failed to take an active fight 5-6 divisions that can’t be transported to the Italy , becouse a lack of transport-ships.( according the preparation to Overlord , all the rest of the transports should be moved to the England before the may of 1944).
Well there is little doubt that Churchill, as well as the Americans, wanted Turkey into the war. But Churchill was indeed fixated on the “soft underbelly” and the Mediterranean Theater more than the battle for France. It would take a good deal of armwrangling to force both Churchill and Brooke to accept that France needed to be taken in 1944, and that Italy was not the main theater. And think what you wish regarding the Balkans, though Churchill was obsessed with them as evidenced with his vain defense of Greece. But he did genuinely believe that the Allies could force and end sooner if they drove into Austria through the Alps --like Hannibal in reverse-- but of course there was a bit of folly in this. The Allies also didn’t realize the extent that the Germans would go to to hold on in Italy…
I think not as much Italian peoples , but leaders of Resistense:)
Who were mostly pro-communists…
And nobody want to abandon them , Stalin for instance in Tehrain conference clearly has expressed his oppinion, the USA troops do the good job in Italy, creating mostly negative political impression to Axis rahter then military one.
Stalin , however was agains the FURTHER expantion of Italian and Balcan operation , becouse this expantion should inevitably divert the Americans from the real second front in France ( overlord).
He was right , in sense.
It wasn’t just the Partisans, but even Mussolini’s own party that wanted him out. Various factions both within and out of the Italian gov’t plotted against him and there were numerous contacts between the Allies and members of the Italian gov’t prior to the invasion.
When the Italians did defect, the German reprisals for the “betrayal” were swift and often brutal. And as far as resistance, it wasn’t just the guerrillas in the mountains. In fact, in one of the few genuinely successful spontaneous uprisings in history, the Germans were driven out of Naples by a rebellion. Of course, the approaching Allied armies certainly allowed this to happen, but the Italian residents of Naples prevented the German army from mounting a coherent defense the city…
Churchill had the bigger picture in mind -What happens after the War-and wanted to stem the potential tide of the Soviets, Eisenhower wanted to kick in the front door…
Turkey into the War?..It wasn’t that long at the time that Turkey had been part of the sick man of Europe, and Turkish Forces where nothing to brag about (even with the armaments supplied by both sides), besides Inonu wasn’t daft, he waited to see who would most likely win before making his move…Turkey was though, placed strategically (Geographically) to be a threat to the Soviet Unions expansionist aims, which the Germans seemingly gave the excuse to carry through…
If Churchill hadn’t went for the “soft underbelly” Stalin would have marched farther into Europe than he did…
Well Operation Overlord was the onlt was that the allies could stop the German military form keeping controle over the EU sector. Stalin wanted the Allies to creat a second so that the Russians could bet the Germans back. But Churchill wanted to attack the German Army from under the bell of the Beast. But Stalin wanted a second front. So operation Overlord was the only thing to Shut Stalin up… It was going to be in (43) but the invasion would not work in the allies faver…
I don’t have the final total count of the dead at Normandy. but didn’t the Americans suffer the highest at Omaha??? I don’t think the british or canadians had as many KIA’s as the Americans. right??? but omaha was a disaster because they hit the wrong beach. they were miles from their landing area. am i right here???
You’re right about that. First of all Omaha Beach was the biggest sector with a width of about 10km (about 6.25 miles), this is one part to explain the high casualties. Only A-company of the 116th regiment (29th Infantry-Division) landed at the spot they were supposed to, all other units drifted due to strong winds and tide. Another fact is that the bombing raids of 2nd bomber-division missed the german fortifications and dropped their load back in the rear where it caused no damage but killing cows. So the 13 fortified german positions and the trench system at Omaha remained mostly intact. The LCR’s on the other hand aimed too short and the rockets hit the water line. All this plus the steeps and cliffs (about 100 ft. high) manned by german 352nd Infantry-Division caused the enormous casualties. Not to forget that only 5 of the american DD-tanks reached the shore, 27 tanks (including crews) sank. I do not know the exact numbers of KIA’s but I read that already about 2000 G.I.'s were killed by 10 a.m.
The Americans did get pounded on Omaha. Landing at the wrong beach, I don’t know about. The Brits and Canadians didn’t have as many killed as the Americans, yet the Canadians were the only group to acheive all their day one objectives.
so in 20/20 hindsight if they hit the right place and don’t kill cow’s etc… Normandy was the best place to hit. its was just FUBAR day on Omaha. I have no idea of a better place to hit. thanks for the info…
