I've been reading WW II books since forever. Italy was basically a gift to Hitler -- it's a country made for defense. But I'm not sure the Balkans, like Churchill wanted, would have been any better. And Stalin would have been very unhappy about it.
The Allies had enough troops and supplies later in the war that made sense to attack everywhere to force Germany to commit troops. The Germans had 27 divisions in Italy in 1944. The Allies could have been more aggressive like not letting German forces escape at Anzio. But could have been less aggressive in attacking defensive lines wasting troops for slow advance.
Also, the 15th Air Force operating from Italy brought lots of Eastern Europe in range of bombers.
Michael Howard (who served in Italy) wrote a book I remember as The Mediterranean Strategy of the Allies During WW II. Quite interesting.
The Balkans would have been hard to get at without having Italy in hand. Where would one have attacked, when the British couldn't take and hold the Dodecanese?
Look at a terrain map of the Balkans. With Italy, you at least have usable coastal highways that let you theoretically push forward no matter where you land [1], but the Balkans don't really have any coast-to-interior routes that can support a large force, and they don't offer that much worth capturing.
[1] But there's so few of them and the chokepoints so obvious that it's relatively easy to defend them.
His brother Tom Holland also has an excellent podcast with Dominic Sandbrook, "The Rest is History". James was a guest to talk about this book on episode 399.
Wow, thank you for this. I really enjoy Holland's work and will look forward to checking this out. I also had no idea until this thread that he had a brother who was also a historian.
Farley Mowat, later known for Never Cry Wolf served in the battle at Ortona, and wrote a most interesting book about his war service, And No Birds Sang. (This could well be mentioned in the article, but I haven't evaded the paywall.)
> On 1 August 1943 an air raid on Rome claimed the lives of a thousand civilians and injured twice as many. A fortnight later, another thousand died in Milan, where 3000 buildings were flattened or damaged
I sometimes think about how these "great conflicts" reduce multitudes to mere statistics. 1000 here, 1000 there. But they were all people with families and children or parents and jobs and friends.
Much of Spike Milligan's personal war reminiscences are about the Italy campaign and his life after shellshock. (the first parts are about the phony war and the africa campaign mostly)
I think his personal brand of humour was probably strongly informed by necessary escapism from the situations he found himself in, as a gunner. Not that he wasn't wierd going into the war, but he came out even wierder.
Like most of Churchill's disastrous hare-brained schemes, Europe's 'Soft Underbelly' turned out to be a 'Tough Old Gut' where many soldiers were killed pretty much unnecessarily.
Churchill is well-looked-upon by History, mainly because Churchill wrote that History. In truth, most of his schemes turned out be extremely costly in terms of politics, men and materiel. He demanded rationing and privation from the general public, but he dined on luxuries and champagne daily. Bit of an asshole, really.
He got Turkey into WW1 on the side of Germany. The Gallipoli defeat was a Churchill scheme. The Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme. Likewise the Italian Campaign.
There’s a great scene at the end of Babylon 5 season 4 when a bunch of pundits are talking about John Sheridan much like you are talking about Churchill. It all happened years after the fact and sounded so plausible and so truthful, like they absolutely knew what they were saying was gospel. Perhaps you are a foremost expert on Churchill and not just a rando on the internet.
On the other hand, using B5 (specific episode of course, as one does) as your straw man when there are mountains of easily googled real life, foremost expert created, not from moms basement critiques and analysis of Churchill's legacy is pretty much the definition of "just a rando on the internet". There's a Comic Book Guy in every intrawebs argument, and he just waddled into the room.
No British politician comes remotely close in terms of disaster; even Boris Johnson telling Ukraine to scrap their agreement with Russia and keep fighting instead seems mild in comparison.
Where did the river start always causes an argument about aquifiers, ponds and glaciers.
Meanwhile weather and geography are able to sneak from the room..
The world wars were caused by a world were empires and there atrocities were normal. Japan, Italy and Germany were all late comers to an empire world were starving out a nation was considered acceptable. They became thus desperately hyperimperialist by circumstance. The circumstances that made worldwar end, were free trade, traditional empires waning and nukes.
Were it otherwise, we would still be at it, every ten years a desperate mini empire emerging from rubble of "in between countries, to be then swallowed and eaten by the eldritch horrors that are traditional empires.
> He got Turkey into WW1 on the side of Germany. The Gallipoli defeat was a Churchill scheme. The Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme. Likewise the Italian Campaign.
Some of these claims are rather debatable. I'm not sure what you even mean by "the Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme"; that campaign began when Mussolini ordered his forces to attack Egypt.
In any case, weighed against all his negatives, Churchill has one thing very much in his favor: continuing to prosecute the war against Germany even after France surrendered was also a Churchill scheme.
Not only that, but North Africa (well, Operation Torch) was a far better idea than the Americans' plan to oand directly in France. It gave the fledgling American army a chance to learn many important lessons.
Oh, I see, GP meant Torch. That makes sense. I don't see why that would be considered "disastrous" or "hare-brained" though. It was pretty successful. It seems likely that invading France in 1942 would indeed have been disastrous, though.
If you had a relative who fought in the war but never talked about it this article may explain why. Yes, we saved Europe from fascist domination but there was nothing particularly noble about it. And it's beginning to seem like we learned nothing at all from the experience.
37 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadAlso, the 15th Air Force operating from Italy brought lots of Eastern Europe in range of bombers.
The Italian campaign was a meat grinder.
The Balkans would have been hard to get at without having Italy in hand. Where would one have attacked, when the British couldn't take and hold the Dodecanese?
[1] But there's so few of them and the chokepoints so obvious that it's relatively easy to defend them.
If Spain had been in the war that would have been the obvious choice, but they were "neutral."
Al Murray, who also plays the pub landlord, is an Oxford-educated author.
Sublime listening.
https://archive.ph/DQOwz
I sometimes think about how these "great conflicts" reduce multitudes to mere statistics. 1000 here, 1000 there. But they were all people with families and children or parents and jobs and friends.
I think his personal brand of humour was probably strongly informed by necessary escapism from the situations he found himself in, as a gunner. Not that he wasn't wierd going into the war, but he came out even wierder.
Churchill is well-looked-upon by History, mainly because Churchill wrote that History. In truth, most of his schemes turned out be extremely costly in terms of politics, men and materiel. He demanded rationing and privation from the general public, but he dined on luxuries and champagne daily. Bit of an asshole, really.
He got Turkey into WW1 on the side of Germany. The Gallipoli defeat was a Churchill scheme. The Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme. Likewise the Italian Campaign.
Few people were as disastrous for 20th century Europe as Churchill.
No British politician comes remotely close in terms of disaster; even Boris Johnson telling Ukraine to scrap their agreement with Russia and keep fighting instead seems mild in comparison.
* Actually WW2 had been going on since 1937 with the Japanese invasion of China.
Meanwhile weather and geography are able to sneak from the room..
The world wars were caused by a world were empires and there atrocities were normal. Japan, Italy and Germany were all late comers to an empire world were starving out a nation was considered acceptable. They became thus desperately hyperimperialist by circumstance. The circumstances that made worldwar end, were free trade, traditional empires waning and nukes.
Were it otherwise, we would still be at it, every ten years a desperate mini empire emerging from rubble of "in between countries, to be then swallowed and eaten by the eldritch horrors that are traditional empires.
Some of these claims are rather debatable. I'm not sure what you even mean by "the Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme"; that campaign began when Mussolini ordered his forces to attack Egypt.
In any case, weighed against all his negatives, Churchill has one thing very much in his favor: continuing to prosecute the war against Germany even after France surrendered was also a Churchill scheme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943