D-day

Discussion in 'General' started by Dpalme01, May 28, 2004.

?

Do you think that Operation Overlord was nessesary with the Allies already in Italy?

  1. Yes

    96.9%
  2. ||No

    3.1%
  1. Dpalme01

    Dpalme01 Member

    In my opinion Operation Overlord was wasting all the lives spent in Italy. What about you?
     
  2. Will O'Brien

    Will O'Brien Member

    Originally posted by Dpalme01@May 28 2004, 09:06 AM
    In my opinion Operation Overlord was wasting all the lives spent in Italy. What about you?
    Sorry can't agree
     
  3. Thomas McCall

    Thomas McCall Senior Member

    Overlord was deffinetly the better option that Italy although it was important to let the Soviets see that Britain and America were fighting the Nazis in Europe.

    By invading Normandy it was the quickest route to Germany and the Rhine industrial heartland.
     
  4. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    While I can see some point to the campaign in Italy, it was poorly resourced, badly planned and not well executed. It was something of a dead end. It was going nowhere and by concentrating on the capture of Rome, Mark Clark gave the Germans a chance to consolidate a stong position to the north.

    Of course, for the troops on the ground in Italy it was a tough struggle and I mean no disrespect to them. They were not "D-Day dodgers" in Lady Astor's awful phrase. None the less, as a campaign it was a lesson in how not to do things.
     
  5. Originally posted by Dpalme01@May 28 2004, 08:06 AM
    In my opinion Operation Overlord was wasting all the lives spent in Italy. What about you?
    My opinion is that Overlord set the ground for the Defeat of the Nazi dynasty in Europe,determining their fate by the early summer of the next Year,Italy was a neccassary evil,diversifying the German Forces across a wider theatre,thus contributing to the weakening of their War Machine~The end justifying the means
     
  6. strangelove

    strangelove Junior Member

    Originally posted by Sgt Pilot Bernard Henson RAFVR@May 30 2004, 02:12 PM
    My opinion is that Overlord set the ground for the Defeat of the Nazi dynasty in Europe,determining their fate by the early summer of the next Year,Italy was a neccassary evil,diversifying the German Forces across a wider theatre,thus contributing to the weakening of their War Machine~The end justifying the means
    without opening western front war were end max. 2 years. allies knew that, so they forgot dieppe and set overlord.
     
  7. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    The Third Reich was already defeated by summer 1943.

    The Italian campaign could have been much more effective with better leadership. The 19 German divisions in Italy could have not turned the tide of the war, but maybe of a couple battles in Normany.

    The campaign was also a mess because expert German troops and expert leaders took every possible tactical and strategical advantage of Italy and Allied leadership always turned divided in opinion, divided in co-operation and ignoring experience.

    General Mark Clark was simply a complete IMBECILE who by his only presence screwed any possibility of an Allied strategical victory.

    The invasion of southern France also spoiled things up. A breakthrough's momentum and force were wasted, just in the moment when marshal Kesselring was having a really harsh time.

    D-day was necessary for ultimate victory in the West, but if the Italian campaign wouldn't have been neglected since the beginning and have got rid of Clark the war might have ended much earlier.

    When the invasion at Anzio took place, there was almost no German troops between Anzio and Vienna. Or what about the strategical siuation after the breakthrough at Cassino and Anzio? Couldn't two German armies have been annihilated would have general Clark had not a big fat ego and an empty-head?
     
  8. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Without the invasion of Normandy, I think either Germany or Russia would have won the war.
     
  9. Rebel

    Rebel Junior Member

    I know that the last German units and infantry in Italy surrendered around May 2nd, 1945.
     
  10. Driver67

    Driver67 Junior Member

    I can't agree with you there mate.

    Surely if we begin to talk about wasting lives we must in the end conclude that all the lives lost throughout WWII were wasted (and of course those lost since and still being lost even as I write).

    It is easy to look back at the war safe in the certain knowledge that "we" won, and forget that at the time nothing at all was certain.

    After the Normandy landings the British (under Montgomery) launched successive campaigns against the German forces with the apparent intention of breaking out of the area and striking into France. These attacks all apparently failed in their objective, with the loss of thousands of British & Commonwealth troops, lives which were apparently wasted.
    But what if we consider that the real aim of these attacks was simply to reduce the strength of the German forces in the region to such an extent that when, eventually, the Americans began "operation Cobra" they were able to sweep the demoralised, fatigued and battle-weary Germans away?

    Were those British lives wasted because they were not sacrificed in a genuine advance?
    I suggest it depends of whom you ask the question: ask someone who lost his mates and was maybe wounded in "operation goodwood" and he may not think it was worth it; ask Monty and he may say you are damned right it was worth it; ask Patton and he'd probably say (if he was honest) that those lost lives made it a lot easier for him and his men.

    I guess what I am trying to say in a clumsy and roundabout way is that we have to look at the big picture. Chipping away at the Axis forces on as many fronts as possible made it increasingly difficult for them to resupply and relieve their armies, and ultimately in my humble and worthless opinion led to their destruction.

    And Amen to that. :)

    Mark
     
  11. MalcolmII

    MalcolmII Senior Member

    Originally posted by angie999@May 30 2004, 06:48 AM
    While I can see some point to the campaign in Italy, it was poorly resourced, badly planned and not well executed. It was something of a dead end. It was going nowhere and by concentrating on the capture of Rome, Mark Clark gave the Germans a chance to consolidate a stong position to the north.

    Of course, for the troops on the ground in Italy it was a tough struggle and I mean no disrespect to them. They were not "D-Day dodgers" in Lady Astor's awful phrase. None the less, as a campaign it was a lesson in how not to do things.
    [post=25645]Quoted post[/post]
    Agreed up to a point.
    There were however several ways of doing things, such as ' murderfire ' on selected points by divisional artillery, which were worked out in Italy first and then used in Normandy.
    Aye
    MalcolmII
     
  12. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by MalcolmII+Aug 27 2004, 10:03 PM-->(MalcolmII @ Aug 27 2004, 10:03 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-angie999@May 30 2004, 06:48 AM
    While I can see some point to the campaign in Italy, it was poorly resourced, badly planned and not well executed. It was something of a dead end. It was going nowhere and by concentrating on the capture of Rome, Mark Clark gave the Germans a chance to consolidate a stong position to the north.

    Of course, for the troops on the ground in Italy it was a tough struggle and I mean no disrespect to them. They were not "D-Day dodgers" in Lady Astor's awful phrase. None the less, as a campaign it was a lesson in how not to do things.
    [post=25645]Quoted post[/post]
    Agreed up to a point.
    There were however several ways of doing things, such as ' murderfire ' on selected points by divisional artillery, which were worked out in Italy first and then used in Normandy.
    Aye
    MalcolmII
    [post=27754]Quoted post[/post]
    [/b]
    I agree that there were some tactical innovations. After all, from the first landings up to June 1944 it was the only place where the western allies were engaged in a ground war, so the only place to innovate. However, strategically it could have been much better handled and there were many examples of poor generalship.

    If Mark Clark had not turned towards Rome, but had concentrated on destroying the German forces which escaped, then it would have been extremely difficult for the Germans to establish a new defensive line. In this case, instead of simply tying down German forces, the campaign would have been a real threat to the German southern front.

    I don't want to go any further with this, into a full blown counterfactual situation, because we cannot be sure how it would have panned out, but we can say that this was a collosal blunder.
     
  13. Dpalme01

    Dpalme01 Member

    Thank you all
     
  14. Dpalme01

    Dpalme01 Member

    Thank You all
    I had relised that Italy was very bad in terms of planning and the progress of the allies was very slow, but it always seemed like a terrible waste to start a whole new capmpaign. I see now how the war could have dragged on a whole lot longer if the allies did not land in Normand. We would probably be speaking russian if not german!
    Dpalme01
     
  15. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by Dpalme01@Aug 30 2004, 10:36 AM
    Thank You all
    I had relised that Italy was very bad in terms of planning and the progress of the allies was very slow, but it always seemed like a terrible waste to start a whole new capmpaign. I see now how the war could have dragged on a whole lot longer if the allies did not land in Normand. We would probably be speaking russian if not german!
    Dpalme01
    [post=27837]Quoted post[/post]


    The more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.

    I was the "smartest person in the world" at age 6.

    I was the "stupidest person in class" at age 17.

    :)
     
  16. Dave Leonard

    Dave Leonard Junior Member

    Definatly worthwhile invading NW Europe.

    1. Creating another front for the Germans to have to deal with. (A logistical nightmare if ever there was one!)
    2. Saving large tracts of Western Europe from Communist 'liberation'

    I think the second one is the strongest answer. I'm always bemused from the fact that Germany had war declared on it by invading Poland, but everyone pretended not to see the Russians coming in from the East.

    What confused times we live in, then and now.
     
  17. JoeRoman

    JoeRoman Junior Member

    Gentlemen:

    One has to remember that it is easy to see things after the fact. Yes, Mark Clark was not the correct commander for Italy, but a number of German Divisions were tied down as well as knocking Italy out of the war. It creating air bases for our huge bomber fleets which dropped supplies to partisans which held down very large numbers of axis troops in Yugoslavia as well as the bombing of oil refineries which turned out to be the 'achilles' heel of the Axis.

    Also, Winston Churchill always thought political and in his mind he was already thinking of the next chapter in the war, the end. He was astute enough to know that the next big threat to the western world was soviet Russia and he did propose a landing in Yugoslavia in order to 'cut off' the Soviet Russians and enter Berlin by the back door. But this was dismissed and we know the rest of the story.

    In my mind there is no doubt that the invasion of France had to happen, for all of the very good reasons already shared.

    One comment was made concerning the declaration of war on the Germans after the invasion of Poland, but the same level was not attached to the soviet occupation of eastern Poland.

    A country does not always have the luxury of choosing who his allies will be in any conflict. Churchill knew that he needed the Soviets on his side and so did not make an issue of it. After all, the Germans crossed the border first and the soviets waited a few weeks. Just as the US and China were seemingly good friends in the pacific, the Chinese held down immense amounts of Japanese troops which could have been used against us. Once the war was over, it did not take long, either in Europe or the Pacific to discover who the next apponents would be.

    Some things to Ponder, not just military.

    Joe
     
  18. paulyb102

    paulyb102 Member

    Italy should have been attacked at a point much further north, from the outset.
    Doing this would have cut off a large number of germans in the south and ferocious battles such as cassino and anzio would never have happened.
     

    Attached Files:

  19. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Originally posted by paulyb102@Jan 9 2005, 04:11 PM
    Italy should have been attacked at a point much further north, from the outset.
    Doing this would have cut off a large number of germans in the south and ferocious battles such as cassino and anzio would never have happened.
    [post=30567]Quoted post[/post]

    I could have been a possible option, but leaving the Allies with two fronts in Italy itself.

    Without the invasion of Normandy the Germans could have slowed the allies in their requirement of crossing the Alps if not have stopped them all together. The Soviets, could have advanced even further west but the whole time the industrial heart of Germany was left uncaptured. It is this heart that eventually stopped the Nazi war machine.
     
  20. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Tha way this is written and presented suggests that the Invasion of Normandy. and the subsequent battles were a doddle. Not for me ! It was a bitterly fought war where pure savagery, real hand to hand combat, was not uncommon.

    A battle where our men were murdered in cold blood, along with the Canadians.

    Its along time ago, but I still carry the wounds as do many others like me.
    Sapper
     

Share This Page