PDA

View Full Version : Why did the Italians lose?



jungleguerilla
08-06-2010, 09:33 PM
Hey guys, I have a few ideas why the Italians in North Africa lost the battle.

1.) Because of lacking in supplies.
2.) The German Afrika Armee didn't put them to a right location.
3.) They didn't have enough support.


I need to be corrected guys, so, what do you say why the Italians lose to the British in North Africa?
All feedbacks will be respected. :)

tankgeezer
08-06-2010, 11:25 PM
No's 1, and 3 are pretty much the same thing, and was there such a thing as a"right location" in N. Africa? I suspect that nearly any google search will answer your questions.

pdf27
08-07-2010, 01:49 AM
1) Lack of supplies is certainly why the Germans lost. Since the Italians lost early on in the war before supply became a major issue, we need to look deeper.
2) Again, the Italians suffered some huge defeats before the Germans got involved in North Africa (the magnitude of the defeat was why Germany got involved in the first place). So This one doesn't fly either.
3) Support from who? In their initial defeats they outnumbered the British something like 10:1! Something other than numbers is at play here.

Other potential issues for you to ponder:
1) The British forces in North Africa were 100% motorised or mechanised. The Italians never even got close. This enabled the British to run rings around the Italians.
2) Fighting spirit. There is a famous photograph (which I can't find on google right now) of a large group of Italian prisoners being guarded by a single British soldier. It's a hot day, and he's given his rifle to one of the Italians to carry. You'll never get troops like that to willingly risk their lives in battle.
3) Leadership. The Italian leadership was locked in a WW1 mindset and did everything slowly, trying to secure their flanks, etc. This is impossible in the Western Desert, while moving slowly against a mechanised enemy just makes life easier for them.
4) Equipment. The Italians started modernising their military much earlier than everybody else. Unfortunately, this meant that in 1940 they had equipment which was outdated but not old enough to be replaced.

Nickdfresh
08-07-2010, 07:04 AM
Yeah, what pdf said. The Italian Army was completely outmoded and was years away from a projected modernization program in September 1939. And I think we can add to the leadership question here. From (what little) I've read, the Italian Army had one of the worst levels of junior leadership and a systemic class divide between officers and enlisted men/NCOs that was poisonous to any sort of espirit de corp and resolve the Italian fighting man might have had. That doesn't mean in certain circumstances that they weren't often fierce and effective, like when under senior German leadership and when properly equipped and supported. Or in cases where their enemies couldn't use their mechanized advantage. There were instances of fierce fighting in the mountains of North Africa where Italian soldiers sometimes were throwing rocks at American soldiers when they ran low on ammo and many only surrendered well beyond the end of their means of resistance. Some sons of Italy were said to have resisted to the bitter end fighting from caves...

Chevan
08-07-2010, 12:35 PM
just to add a bit to written above.
Italian army fought much worse then germans under the GErman command either.Their soldiers were also no match for Germans soldiers.And the war professionalism wasn't the only the difference.The reason was another- the Italian soldiers were MUCH less motivated in THAT war. If it was war for survival for Nazi Germany.Italian troops ( as most of German European allies) were not that much involved itno that Ideological battle that "Hitler waged against the Jewry";)
Albert Speer in his memours wrote that Hitler almost despised the his Italian "ally" for its pure military helplessness. In Stalingrad, Speer added, the Romanians and Italians surprised German unpleasantly by "lack of will to fight".

Deaf Smith
08-09-2010, 06:06 PM
Will power.

Yes the will to win. An awful lot of Italians didn't want the war.

Yes their material support as bad. Their pistols were pitiful, their rifles inadequate, their tanks and artillery obsolete, and their aircraft few in number and quality. Even their navy’s ships were nowhere near enough to challenge such as Great Britain.

But it was their will power, or lack of it. Mussolini may have had dreams of a second Roman Empire, but most of his country men didn’t.

Deaf

Rising Sun*
08-10-2010, 09:21 AM
Here is a useful consideration of the Italian armed forces and some aspects bearing on their capacity to fight and willingness to surrender: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344344/Italian-Army-in-Wwii

Another factor which might explain the huge surrenders of Italian troops is that, despite the issues covered in the link and despite Mussolini's posturing, Italy was in many areas outside, and perhaps even in, the major cities still little more than a village society with citizens who had no great conception of nationality or nationhood, let alone undying allegiance to Mussolini's new Roman republic to be wrought from their blood sacrifice in North Africa and elsewhere.

Oddly enough, much the same could probably be said of Japan in WWII, but its citizens were at the other extreme in being willing to die rather than surrender in a national cause.

There is probably a significant element of national character (whatever that means and involves in any given nation and however it is influenced by various national circumstances) which helps to explain the performance of a nation's armed forces in WWII, and no doubt in other conflicts.

Nickdfresh
08-10-2010, 10:42 AM
But the Japanese had the Emperor, and the benefit of the mythology of Bushido to unify the masses...

Deaf Smith
08-10-2010, 05:56 PM
But the Japanese had the Emperor, and the benefit of the mythology of Bushido to unify the masses...

Yes, and as P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." And the Japanese were the suckers who took it, hook, line, and sinker.

Deaf

Rising Sun*
08-10-2010, 07:52 PM
But the Japanese had the Emperor, and the benefit of the mythology of Bushido to unify the masses...

Good point. I didn't think it through when posting.

Japan under the Emperor gave a sense of unity or nationality that was absent in Italy.

Moreover, Italy wasn't united as a nation until the 1860s where Japan's Emperor had been there for about 2,600 years, albeit with varying degrees of significance and control in that period.

Then again, Germany wasn't united as a nation until 1871 and that didn't seem to cause any absence of national identity or nationalistic feeling in Germany before and during WWII.

Nickdfresh
08-10-2010, 08:04 PM
Yes, and as P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." And the Japanese were the suckers who took it, hook, line, and sinker.

Deaf

To be fair, I don't think the average Japanese had much choice and most were indoctrinated from birth...

Chevan
08-10-2010, 11:17 PM
Japan under the Emperor gave a sense of unity or nationality that was absent in Italy.

yet Japaneses had an effective race Ideology though.
Formally they fought for "freedom of Asia from western colonial system".Their "yellow brothershood" also had the race roots - the fight against WHITE in asia.

Nickdfresh
08-11-2010, 06:24 AM
yet Japaneses had an effective race Ideology though.
Formally they fought for "freedom of Asia from western colonial system".Their "yellow brothershood" also had the race roots - the fight against WHITE in asia.

The Chinese would have found this a rather ironic pretension...

Rising Sun*
08-11-2010, 10:00 AM
yet Japaneses had an effective race Ideology though.
Formally they fought for "freedom of Asia from western colonial system".Their "yellow brothershood" also had the race roots - the fight against WHITE in asia.

Their 'fight' against Western colonialism was somewhat inconsistent with their own pre-war imperial colonialism in China and with the whole purpose of their imperial colonial expansion in WWII.

As for a 'yellow brotherhood', it went beyond China to the systematic massacre of thousands of Chinese in Singapore to the deaths of an unknown but very large number, perhaps around 100,000, of Asian labourer deaths on the Burma Railway. The Asian labourers died in numbers roughly six or more times higher than the Allied POWs.

Put another way, maybe a quarter of the roughly 60,000 Allied POWs employed on the Railway died while roughly half of the roughly 200,000 Asian labourers died.

(I'm relying on ancient memory for these figures and calculations, but they'll be close enough to show that the forgotten - and in the West not even heard of - Asian labourers were even worse off than the Allied POWs in some terminal respects, whether or not they were volunteers or conscripted labourers.)

The Japanese made some attempts to implement their supposed anti-colonial campaign, such as in the Philippines by creating a supposedly independent government, but only to the extent that these attempts supported Japan.

Chevan
08-11-2010, 11:57 PM
The Chinese would have found this a rather ironic pretension...
hmmmn, but problem is that the CHina itself look rather ironic complaining to Japane. We well known the own CHinese cruel imperialism toward the neighbourd asiatic nations. And their own Civil war succesfully competite with Japanes in reducing the own population.

Chevan
08-12-2010, 12:44 AM
Their 'fight' against Western colonialism was somewhat inconsistent with their own pre-war imperial colonialism in China and with the whole purpose of their imperial colonial expansion in WWII.

But the same did all the european nation, didn't they?
The entire ww1 has been started and waged for , in sense ,colonies.
The own Japane "invention" was a yellow race based imperialism.


As for a 'yellow brotherhood', it went beyond China to the systematic massacre of thousands of Chinese in Singapore to the deaths of an unknown but very large number, perhaps around 100,000, of Asian labourer deaths on the Burma Railway.
The systematic massacre in China was in sense , the anti-guerrials punitive actions in their new colony
Let me remind you the same did the :
Britain in India,
USA in Phillipines,
Russia in Caucause,
France in Algire
and so on..
Why nobody wish to calculate how much locals died becouse of that colonisation?


Put another way, maybe a quarter of the roughly 60,000 Allied POWs employed on the .
Railway died while roughly half of the roughly 200,000 Asian labourers died.
I'm relying on ancient memory for these figures and calculations, but they'll be close enough to show that the forgotten - and in the West not even heard of - Asian labourers were even worse off than the Allied POWs in some terminal respects, whether or not they were volunteers or conscripted labourers.)
Allied POWs were much more organized and had a primary medical treatment though. It seems you told me this.
From the another hand this fact tells that Japanese didn't creat the special worst condition for Whites labourers, that tells, sure, not about their humanity but rather about pragmatism.


The Japanese made some attempts to implement their supposed anti-colonial campaign, such as in the Philippines by creating a supposedly independent government, but only to the extent that these attempts supported Japan.
That imply at least they provided them a chance to for self-determination. For Japane profit , but though. The chance they had never before.

Der Toten Kaiser
07-07-2011, 08:39 PM
Poor commanders, italian industrial capacity wasn't sufficient, poor tanks, little help from hitler, italian navy was designed to combat the french, not the english, they didn't conquer malta. Those were, summarizing, the reasons of the Italian defeat.

fredl109
07-08-2011, 06:41 AM
Dear Jugleguerilla , we answered these questions in a post, but you just summarize the situation, you just understand that when Mussolini declared war his army is just not ready. The material is in the majority of another age and there are few modern equipment. This has nothing to do with the pugnacity of the Italian soldiers, there's ask the Australians and New Zealanders who have fought on the other the German retreat is made ​​through the sacrifice of soldiers Italians and especially the Folgore.
Friendly Fred

Der Toten Kaiser
07-08-2011, 01:05 PM
fred109 YOU JUST SAID IT! i totally agree with you!

Byron
07-10-2011, 10:01 PM
The Italians were not bad fighters at all; they gave good account of themselves on several occasions during the NA campaign in spite of their very poor weaponry. Like every other army, there were good formations and poor ones. In the Italian army it seemed that the formations tended to be extreme in this regard; they either fought with great valor or crumbled with little or no fight. I have read accounts of German troops breaking during combat while the Italians next to them held their ground to the last man.

It's true that the Italians did not care for the conflict but that doesn't mean they weren't willing to fight. They fought out of duty, not for nationalism (the common soldier was typically not a hard-core fascist). Most had little love for Germany and disliked being treated like the little brother in the alliance, but the general viewpoint was to "win this war now, and settle accounts later".

Their war plans were for a war in the Alps and Balkans. They expected to "hold on the defensive" in Libya and the army was built with this in mind. (It is one reason their tanks were so small; they had to be able to fit through mountainous terrain). The army in Africa was given short shrift early on; the generals told Mussolini it was not fit for an advance into Egypt but he would not listen.

Their industry was terrible as well and, just as important, it was not controlled by the government. In fact, the companies making the weapons for the armed forces could dictate what would be produced and their main goal was to make money not equip the armed forces adequately.

Leadership was either good or very, very bad. However it, as well as combat performance, improved dramatically once the colonial mindset was discarded and the better formations, such as the Ariete, were sent to Africa.

To my mind, the central reasons for the Italian defeat had nothing to do with "fighting spirit" or the common soldier, but were instead rooted in a regime that was "far more style than substance" and a corrupt and inefficient industry that would have been hard-pressed to adequately supply the army if had been a picture of nationalistic efficiency. Just my thoughts.

ubc
07-16-2011, 05:08 PM
The article "Rising Sun" posted is informative [Italian Army in WW-II] and it does show the Italian mechanized forces were quite good and I do recall that histories of the Africa Korps also make mention of this. That the Italian mechanized units worked well along side the German mechanized Divisions. Lack of mechanization in campaigns , where ones enemies are mechanized, puts one at a decided disadvantage in such battles/campaigns. Essentially you must cede initiative to your adversary. However mechanized units consume twice as much supplies compared to simple leg-mobile infantry units of corresponding size and this became a critical problem for the Axis.

With reference to the naval situation, I was reading O’Hara’s "Battle for the Middle Sea" and it looks like the Italian navy did very well in its primary mission of supplying the forces in North Africa. It seems that despite occasional incidents like the RN attack on "Beta convoy", most such convoy attacks were failures. Overall something like 90% of the supplies and troops, the Axis sent, reached their destination. In its worse incarnation only in late 1942 did the supply fall to maybe 3/4 reaching destination. Infact a primary factor in the Axis defeat looks like the arrival of the Americans in late 1942.It was just too much for the Axis to handle.

Further if you look at the combined aero-naval campaign the Axis waged against the Allied forces in the Med, it was quite effective through late 1942. Through out 1940 the Italians convoyed 5 times as much supply as the Allies did and as long as the RM functioned, Allied convoys from Gibraltar through Alexandria were impossible. In Malta during 1942 only 1/2 the supplies sent to the Island actually arrived, forcing the inhabitants into starvation diets of 1200-1800 calories a day. At several points the Governor of Malta reported they were just a couple of months away from having to capitulate, because of this situation.

DVX
07-17-2011, 03:52 PM
UBC,

another point is ULTRA. The British Secret Service knew everything about Italian convoys thanks to Ultra. The 90% of convoys reached safely NA until the first months of 1941 when the communication codes were only Italian, after that time with the German arrival, the German communication were punctually intercepted... and the convoys sunk...
And of course the British forces like to spread voices about "Italians chatterboxes"... This fable remains...

DVX
07-17-2011, 04:23 PM
Albert Speer in his memours wrote that Hitler almost despised the his Italian "ally" for its pure military helplessness. In Stalingrad, Speer added, the Romanians and Italians surprised German unpleasantly by "lack of will to fight".

Of course it was absolutely false. Obviously the Soviets attacked the "weak points" around Stalingrad: Hungarians, Rumenians and Italians, all lacking of AT guns, heavy artillery, motorization and tanks. All left, by the German command, to cover positions too wide for infantry moving by feet.
And even with this obvious consideration, the cause of the failure of German leaders becomes "the cowardice of Italians and Rumenians". Nazi fables. Read the book of Adolf Galland...
And nevertheless, Italian Armir resisted more than the others allies armies, and his first backdown was caused by the sudden and not communicated retreat of the German 298th division that should had reinforced the Italian line.... The Alpine corp resisted fiercily, mpuntain troops wasted in the steppe plains by the German command that should use it in Caucaso.
Another think was true instead: of course Italian soldiers fought just for duty, and not for hate. Perhaps many of them hated the communism, but certainly not the Russian people.
When the Soviet-German war was an annhilation war between the soldiers and the civilians too and an old affair, Italian soldiers simply did their duty without hate in a far country. You should know that Russian people used to say "Talianski karascị" "Italian good people", especially respect to the hard German ruling... German people had been brooding spirit of revenge for 20 years, Italian people hadn't.
Italy was pushed into the war just for political reasons, realistic or cinic, but of course they never are enough to make into a people a "fierce will" against a "political" enemy that's not too an "historical" enemy (like for example Austria for Italy in WWI).

http://www.ww2incolor.com/?g2_view=comment.ShowComments&g2_itemId=572721

DVX
07-17-2011, 04:39 PM
I believe to summarize the main reasons of the Italian defeat - far from a complete view of course - repeating what I wrote in an another discussion.
Apart the big lack of industrial output, the Italian war was just a bet over the idea that "Germany has already won, just some months and a bit of blood and we'll seat among the winners". The Comando Supremo, apart the fact the the armed forces would still needed at least 3 years of preparation to be quite ready for a great conflict (like agreed in the Steel pact) guaranteed 6 months of authonomy for such a conflict. If the war had lasted less, that would had been perfect, but after that time, nothing could be assured.
In fact what strategical planes were prepared for the war? None. "Now we enter into the war, then we'll see what to do". To delay the invasion of Malta after june 1940 was a mistake consequenting a big general mistake based on these mistaken basis. The war against Greece was another worse mistake in the mistake. After the German military intervention in Romania, Mussolini wanted its own success in the Balkans. Mussolini, Ciano and general Visconti Prasca prepared a useless campaign without the mininum good sense, political and military. Few and insufficent troops, without moral motivation, in the worst season for an attack, should suddenly attack an enemy clearly stronger, morally fierce and motived in defending the homeland, and alerted by months of useless menaces, if the fate was to attack and not just warning about some disliked political attitudes. Apart the political disaster by Ciano and Mussolini, Visconti Prasca should be shot for inaptness and airiness.
Still in 1941 the economy was not a war-economy: the Duce, the first year and more wanted to limit the fatigues of the population, under the usual idea the war should last no long.
Even in september - october, the veterans in Albania were dismobilited, for the same reason: Mussolini, would a peace-time attitude in the homefront. A few weeks later those men were recalled with the confusion - many already at home - and the moral conseguences easily guessable.
Troops that would hardly served in Africa, were wasted in Greece, without useful motivation and in the worst possibile military conduction. Discredit covered the Italian armed forces, that fought well, as usual, in their duty, for the ineptitude of the political and military leaders. Being not finished after december 1940, the war was already lost for Italy, as the Comando Supremo itself had already meant 6 months before. After that time Italy was towed by Germany, and this was not in the intentions. To send the CSIR and the ARMIR in Russia, was another military mistake, even if the political reasons of the move were understandable. Especially considering that the Germans wasted the Alpini Corp in the steppe's plains and not in the Caucaso mountains, for wich it was allotted.
So, apart the army not ready, apart the completely insufficient industrial output, the absence of deep moral motivations, the Italian war was a big mistake from the start, with other and worse big mistakes in the tecnical conduction...
So, considering all this, as the famous historician of the US navy Morison wrote, it's not surprising that Italy lost the war, it's surprising that was able to resist three years!
And over with the RSI.

ubc
07-17-2011, 06:31 PM
UBC,

another point is ULTRA. The British Secret Service knew everything about Italian convoys thanks to Ultra. The 90% of convoys reached safely NA until the first months of 1941 when the communication codes were only Italian, after that time with the German arrival, the German communication were punctually intercepted... and the convoys sunk...
And of course the British forces like to spread voices about "Italians chatterboxes"... This fable remains...

The Italians had penetrated the RN Codes and knew when the British knew about convoys.Infact the 90% figure is for the entire naval war. O'Hara reports that from June 1940 to Sept 1943, 98% of the personnel and 90% of the supplies convoyed by RM, reached their destination. So for the most part RN commerce warfare against the Axis was a failure in the Med, while RM was successful in its convoy mission.

If the supply to North Africa was a problem it was not due to convoying. But probably more to do with the quantity sent. From what it appears, the Axis had ~30 divisions deployed across North Africa, while the bulk of these were infantry/Garrison divisions with little or no vehicles, they all needed food ammo and water to survive. Given 2.15 million tons delivered over 1188 days this averages out to 1810 tons per day . During the peak stretch in 1941-42 daily tonnage reaching NAfrica topped 2000-2700 tons. In combat the daily reqirment would have been in the region 10-12,000 tons including Africa Korps + LW and coastal naval traffic & civilian needs. If the needs of garrison divisions is cut to 1/3 , this might reduce the needed daily tonnage to 7,000-9,000 ton region. It still means the Axis Troops in N Africa were getting at best 1/4 to 1/3 of the supplies they needed to function properly in combat.

DVX
07-18-2011, 02:43 AM
Anyway the tankers convoys were punctually sunk by the British forces... and this stopped the Axis movements and made worse the Mussolini's ulcer...

Nickdfresh
07-18-2011, 03:24 AM
The Italians had penetrated the RN Codes and knew when the British knew about convoys.Infact the 90% figure is for the entire naval war. O'Hara reports that from June 1940 to Sept 1943, 98% of the personnel and 90% of the supplies convoyed by RM, reached their destination. So for the most part RN commerce warfare against the Axis was a failure in the Med, while RM was successful in its convoy mission.

Um, do you have any literary basis for that statement or are you just making shit up again?

leccy
07-18-2011, 02:37 PM
Hard to imagine over 98% of personnel and 90% of supplies got through when over 2000 Italian Merchant Vessels were sunk from 1940 to 1943.

In one convoy of five Merchant ships escorted by 3 RM ships all 5 merchants and 2 of the escorts were sunk for the loss of one allied ship.

ubc
07-18-2011, 04:35 PM
I agree that its hard to believe especially if you read British Histories of the war. The case you site is the exception rather than the rule.

Nick as usual your lack of respect does you in.

I already pointed out the source, so go read it. O'Hara "Struggle for the Middle Sea" and it is also mentioned in his collaberative work "On Seas Contested" where they state....
" Between 1940 and 1943, section B deciphered 13.3 % of British Radio traffic-slightly less than the 13.75% British Code breakers achieved against Italian traffic. ...Sighting reports of Italian submarines and convoys were routinely intercepted , allowing the threatened units to take avoiding actions". pp 131

BTW even the germans penetrated the RN codes before the war.

DVX
07-19-2011, 11:26 AM
What ubc is saying matches with some Italian sources and statistics about the matter. Some links:

http://digilander.libero.it/planciacomando/WW2/convogli.htm
http://www.regioesercito.it/articolivari/battaglia%20dei%20convogli.pdf
http://www.regiamarinaitaliana.it/Battaglia%20dei%20convogli.html

leccy
07-19-2011, 12:09 PM
You can now get to a different point though and that is that the Italian Merchant fleet was decimated during 1940 to 43. Even if the transports were sunk empty that impacts on their possibility of being available later on.

If they are not there especially the tankers then no troops or supplies can be carried in them, so can't be sunk. Supplies were so short that fuel was being flown in rather than tankered why would that be.

Was there always a surplus of shipping that meant that the Commando Supremo decided not to supply the forces in Africa, or was there a shortage of shipping due to allied interdiction.

leccy
07-19-2011, 12:29 PM
From one of the websites (excuse the translations)

Hence the shocking truth: the desperate efforts of the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine in the hardest 29 months in which the battle took place the Libyan convoys made it possible to deliver 91.6% of men, 80% fuel, 88 % of vehicles and weaponry, and 86% of the other loads

November 1941
The month of November was indeed tragic was lost 70% of the material transported and more than 90% of fuel senca count all the ships, military and merchant ships, lost.

Jan to July 1942 (Malta neutralised)
Ultimately though, in the months that some have called decisive, during this long period as much as 96% fuel and 93% of the material was handed over to Libyan ports.

Tunisia
Men 93%
Fuel 71%
Vehicles and spares 80%
Weapons and Ammunition 68%
Other stores 70%

I have picked all the figures quoted and I cant see how the figures could be as high as you claimed.

DVX
07-19-2011, 01:40 PM
The Italian merchant fleet was decimated before the war started: the 37% of the vessels over 500 tons (the most important), plus others, were surprised abroad by the Italian declaration of war and lost; another clear demonstration that the Italian war was a sudden decision trusting on the behaviour of a "conflict already over".

leccy
07-19-2011, 05:40 PM
I noticed on several websites the figure of 212 merchant ships over 2000 tonnes (many the newest) being caught out of the Med when war was declared.

Seemed like Mussolini was hoping for a quick easy victory.

Laconia
07-21-2011, 12:51 AM
Like someone said here before, they just weren't very motivated. I also think it was because of who they are as a people. I mean no offence, but just look at them since the war up until today. They have had like 40 or 50 different governments and they can't even agree to pick up the trash arond Naples. (That has been going on for years now). It's ironic, Americans of Italian descent fought well in WW2 and all our succeding wars. John Baslione the Medal of Honor winner is one name that comes to mind. I think it is more in the Italian national character to eat good food, drink good wine, and to make love than to fight in wars. The modern Italian simply has no similarity to any of Caesar's legions.

DVX
07-21-2011, 08:35 AM
Like someone said here before, they just weren't very motivated. I also think it was because of who they are as a people. I mean no offence, but just look at them since the war up until today. They have had like 40 or 50 different governments and they can't even agree to pick up the trash arond Naples. (That has been going on for years now). It's ironic, Americans of Italian descent fought well in WW2 and all our succeding wars. John Baslione the Medal of Honor winner is one name that comes to mind. I think it is more in the Italian national character to eat good food, drink good wine, and to make love than to fight in wars. The modern Italian simply has no similarity to any of Caesar's legions.

Sorry, but I have to disagree totally. You are talking about the usual cliches about Italians "spaghetti & mandolino".
I have to say, first of all, that the shit politicians that rule Italy from 1945 are here thank to you Americans... do you remember Calogero Vizzini and the other mafiosi that were soon installed as new political leaders of "free Italy"? The actual shit dedscends from those... like Andreotti and Berlusconi. Prodi and Berlusconi are two massons, the first a man of Goldman too and the second a mafioso too. And yes, thank you America for saving Italy from communism, but after the war Italy was ruled just by an oligarchy of stelalers some slaves of USA and CIA and some of CCCP. Your own slaves were and are just shit.
If Mussolini di not entered the war, he would had been here still now, and most likely Italy - as a state entity - would not be the shit that is now.

As you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSrrxBhiHnA

Italy of 1939 was a century before the trash of nowdays, in every sense. And that's not fault of the Italian people, but of the shit politicians and camorristi - that is the same - that ruled this country, thanks to you, since 1945.
I cite, for reaching a conclusion, an opinion of James Gregor, professor at UC Berkeley. In his book "Interpretation of Fascism", the author points out that the Italian industrial production, compared to 1913, went up 81 points in the years before the great depression. Italy stunned the world, writes James Gregor, presenting an increase of 41% of overall production globally, outstripping France (40%) and German (31%), American (26%), the English (16, 5%) productions. Add to this that in those years, the regime offered to workers and their families, a number of social proposals, hitherto unknown not only in Europe but worldwide. Yes, of course, Italy had still a big delay respect to the western industrialized countries, but this gap was reduced as never before. And the economical basis and structures put in the Fascist years permitted the reconstruction and the Italian ecomical boom after the war.
And yet James Gregor stating: <A good reason can therefore support the thesis that fascism was a dictatorship of development and modernization of mass dedicated to the modernization of the Italian economy (in contrast) for example to the disastrous decline in agricultural and industrial production which characterized the first decade of Bolshevik rule in the USSR>.

fredl109
07-21-2011, 06:11 PM
Laconia forgiveness but I fully agree with DVX, it is still fun in the 21st century the American you still have this kind of vision of European countries, it is not only wrong, but they prove that you are still living in your small world, without knowing anything about the mentality or a life of European peoples, it is high time to wake up. Also your view of politics, that of Italy notament is childish, and you ask the study a little closer, you'll find that you will remove a lot of things.
Friendly Fred

Chevan
07-22-2011, 06:38 AM
Of course it was absolutely false. Obviously the Soviets attacked the "weak points" around Stalingrad: Hungarians, Rumenians and Italians, all lacking of AT guns, heavy artillery, motorization and tanks. All left, by the German command, to cover positions too wide for infantry moving by feet.
And even with this obvious consideration, the cause of the failure of German leaders becomes "the cowardice of Italians and Rumenians". Nazi fables. Read the book of Adolf Galland...

Just without personal insulting. I just was quoted the original Hitler's oppinion that Albert Speer posted to the the true in his memours.
as fo me , i absolutly agree with you that catastrophe in Stalingrad was determined NOT by "Italian cowardice". Actualy the real catastrophe has happend when the Red Army had stopped the tank group of Mainstein, which went to Stalingrad to de-blocade the frozen 6 army.
But for sake of true i have to ad that Germans also had lack of AT artillery and ammo at all.So their allies wasn't an exclusion.


And nevertheless, Italian Armir resisted more than the others allies armies, and his first backdown was caused by the sudden and not communicated retreat of the German 298th division that should had reinforced the Italian line.... The Alpine corp resisted fiercily, mpuntain troops wasted in the steppe plains by the German command that should use it in Caucaso.
Another think was true instead: of course Italian soldiers fought just for duty, and not for hate. Perhaps many of them hated the communism, but certainly not the Russian people.

that fact the GErmans knew for sure..
therefore they never actualy trust enough to Italians.But this is not your failure.:)


When the Soviet-German war was an annhilation war between the soldiers and the civilians too and an old affair, Italian soldiers simply did their duty without hate in a far country. You should know that Russian people used to say "Talianski karascị" "Italian good people", especially respect to the hard German ruling... German people had been brooding spirit of revenge for 20 years, Italian people hadn't.
Italy was pushed into the war just for political reasons, realistic or cinic, but of course they never are enough to make into a people a "fierce will" against a "political" enemy that's not too an "historical" enemy (like for example Austria for Italy in WWI).

.. that is just another one more point against ..Mussoliny. Who let Hitler to involve italia into the sensless ( for you) war.

Chevan
07-22-2011, 07:02 AM
....first of all, that the shit politicians that rule Italy from 1945 are here thank to you Americans... do you remember Calogero Vizzini and the other mafiosi that were soon installed as new political leaders of "free Italy"? The actual shit dedscends from those... like Andreotti and Berlusconi. Prodi and Berlusconi are two massons, the first a man of Goldman too and the second a mafioso too. And yes, thank you America for saving Italy from communism, but after the war Italy was ruled just by an oligarchy of stelalers some slaves of USA and CIA
You did not see yet whom they have installed on ...Germany;)


And yet James Gregor stating: <A good reason can therefore support the thesis that fascism was a dictatorship of development and modernization of mass dedicated to the modernization of the Italian economy (in contrast) for example to the disastrous decline in agricultural and industrial production which characterized the first decade of Bolshevik rule in the USSR>.
But why then such an "industrialized and mechanized" Italian army has come to Russia on horse traction,without single AT guns and tank:)?Where they were suddenly attacked by bolshevick army with tanks and artillery. Seems to me the James Gregor nothing read about second decade of Bolshevic rule;)

Rising Sun*
07-22-2011, 07:59 AM
I have to say, first of all, that the shit politicians that rule Italy from 1945 are here thank to you Americans... do you remember Calogero Vizzini and the other mafiosi that were soon installed as new political leaders of "free Italy"? The actual shit dedscends from those... like Andreotti and Berlusconi. Prodi and Berlusconi are two massons, the first a man of Goldman too and the second a mafioso too.

Didn't Italians vote for Italian governments?

How did America control all post-war elections?

Since when has the mafia been an American creation? I thought it went the other way, with the Italian mafia infiltrating American public, commercial and criminal life. If so, why is it America's problem if Italian mafia infiltrated Italian politics, as well as Italian commercial and criminal life?

Your complaint seems to me like the usual anti-American 'blame America for everything that's wrong in the world' approach. I'll happily agree that America has been outstanding in some clumsy international ****-ups of mammoth proportions and an awful lot of smaller stuff and that American arrogance at times is unbearable, but that has also been the case for just about every lesser nation in proportion to its own conception of its own political and military power before and after WWII. Not unlike Italy's misadventures in Ethiopia, Libya and Greece leading up to and during WWII.

While those of anti-American sentiment will never admit it, America was the lynchpin in facing down the now forgotten aggressive communism which emanated from the USSR, and to a lesser extent a more isolationist China, in the first few decades following the end of WWII. Given a choice between living in a world run by Eisenhower or Kennedy and Stalin or Kruschev, it's a no-brainer for anyone who prefers a good and free life to government regulated deprivation and misery.


And yes, thank you America for saving Italy from communism,

I think the original purpose was to defeat the Axis powers, of which Italy was one of the two main ones in Europe.


but after the war Italy was ruled just by an oligarchy of stelalers some slaves of USA and CIA and some of CCCP.

Why do you focus in your earlier comments only on the US while ignoring the USSR when you regard both as members of an oligarchy which ruled Italy?


If Mussolini di not entered the war, he would had been here still now, and most likely Italy - as a state entity - would not be the shit that is now.

Well, Mussolini did enter the war, so you'll just have live with that decision by an Italian to start the process you claim subordinated Italy to American control. However, if Mussolini was here now he would be about 128 years old, which is about as likely as some of his ambitions and some of your anti-American complaints. And that was a purely Italian decision by an Italian running Italy. I don't see how it's America's fault that an Italian dictator started a war and then lost it, unless you think America (and Britain and New Zealand and Brazil and others) should have taken a dive in the ninth round to make Mussolini look better than he was.


Italy of 1939 was a century before the trash of nowdays, in every sense. And that's not fault of the Italian people, but of the shit politicians and camorristi - that is the same - that ruled this country, thanks to you, since 1945.

Could you show how it is that the Italian people have been excluded from voting for their governments since 1945 and that these governments have all been imposed by the US, CIA and USSR?

It seems to me that you want to blame America for everything that's gone wrong in Italy since Mussolini started a war. It also seems to me that it might be fairer to blame Mussolini for starting the war, and to blame the Italians for the governments they have elected since.

DVX
07-22-2011, 12:55 PM
Seems to me the James Gregor nothing read about second decade of Bolshevic rule;)

But how many millions lives did it cost? Surely the forced industrialization of Soviet Union was a great success, industrially speaking, but how much did it cost? This price was worth it?

DVX
07-22-2011, 01:51 PM
Didn't Italians vote for Italian governments?

How did America control all post-war elections?

Elections it's not a synonimous of democracy. A formal and apparent domocracy doesn't mean a substancial one. In Italy there is a substancial oligarchy and the role of the people is just to put a cross over a paper (or a bit more). For example the politicians are elected by the parties, the people just put the cross over the party symbol...

How they influenced the Italian politics? Dollars, pressions and last but not least covered operations (see in italian "strategia della tensione").
Here, for example (in Italian) like the CIA and the NATO financed a righty party: http://www.ilcovo.mastertopforum.net/msi-braccio-armato-della-dc-come-l-area-oggi-vt434.html
And this one was not the most important for USA politics in Italy.



Since when has the mafia been an American creation? I thought it went the other way, with the Italian mafia infiltrating American public, commercial and criminal life. If so, why is it America's problem if Italian mafia infiltrated Italian politics, as well as Italian commercial and criminal life?

Absolutely true, but one of the merit of the fascism was the defeat of the mafia, that was KO and silenced for 20 years. It was resumed by the Allies that asked (in USA) its help for the operation Husky. After that time the problem reappered worse and better connected with the new political parties, (all antifascists) especially those near the US positions (like the DC). After the war many mafiosi made themselves to pass as "victims of political persecution" by the fascism...



While those of anti-American sentiment will never admit it, America was the lynchpin in facing down the now forgotten aggressive communism which emanated from the USSR, and to a lesser extent a more isolationist China, in the first few decades following the end of WWII. Given a choice between living in a world run by Eisenhower or Kennedy and Stalin or Kruschev, it's a no-brainer for anyone who prefers a good and free life to government regulated deprivation and misery.


I agree and in fact I said better the USA rule than the USSR one, there is no match. But this doesn't mean that the USA "sons of a bitch" - to paraphrase a famous statement of Henry Kissinger - are not sons of a bitch. There must be a reason if in south America peoples dislike the USA and Kissinger style US politics: all the criminals, as long as "anticommunist", installed and protected by the USA had done perhaps worse than they would be communists. And these criminals, often, are reckognized for what they are only when they revolt against the USA interests.
Some examples? The military dictature in Argentina, Contras, Noriega, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, all Kissinger's good "sons of a bitch, but our sons of a bitch" and friends until functional to the US interests.
In Italy the same, even if they're more stealers than killers.



Why do you focus in your earlier comments only on the US while ignoring the USSR when you regard both as members of an oligarchy which ruled Italy?

Because Italy remained under the western control (fortunatly). But we had the biggest communist party of Europe, and the communists stealed and steal like their other same/opposite parties, obeied to foreign orders like their same/opposite parties and they have the same biggest responsabilities in the actual disaster.



Well, Mussolini did enter the war, so you'll just have live with that decision by an Italian to start the process you claim subordinated Italy to American control. However, if Mussolini was here now he would be about 128 years old, which is about as likely as some of his ambitions and some of your anti-American complaints. And that was a purely Italian decision by an Italian running Italy. I don't see how it's America's fault that an Italian dictator started a war and then lost it, unless you think America (and Britain and New Zealand and Brazil and others) should have taken a dive in the ninth round to make Mussolini look better than he was.

I'm the first to say that by the war Mussolini ruined Italy, himself and his regime (btw, France and UK forced him to approach Germany). But apart this final disaster, the fascism did more for Italian people in 20 years than this gang of foreign-directed stealers had done later in 60. There must be a reason if in the international statistics about corruption Italy results worse than Ruanda. The worst fascist hierarcs was a giant respect to the actual shit robber politician. And even if the lefty Italian historical reasearch tried to find out a wide corruption in the Fascism, there is no historical evidence about that and Mussolini personally ever resulted totally clear. Yes, of course there were some episodes of corruption among the hierarchs and in the colonies, but in the complex small facts respect to the actual shames that have been involving from years and years the highest offices of the Republic.

leccy
07-22-2011, 05:41 PM
Elections it's not a synonimous of democracy. A formal and apparent domocracy doesn't mean a substancial one. In Italy there is a substancial oligarchy and the role of the people is just to put a cross over a paper (or a bit more). For example the politicians are elected by the parties, the people just put the cross over the party symbol...

I think you will find that is most democracy's vote, definitely how it is done in the UK. We do not select the candidates their party does. In the UK we also have corrupt MP's, political and monetary considerations with business's and country's to further a particular governments or individuals aims. It is not just an Italian thing to be blamed on another country.

Rich people can pay for party's and votes and get who they wish to be elected into power, no matter the party they have to pay back in some way the financial support etc the received.

At the end of the day it is the voters in the country who make the choice not some mythical foreign power forcing them to put the 'X' against party 'Y'.

Mussolini more than anyone else led Italy down the path it has ended up on. blaming others for your own past mistakes is not very productive.

Nickdfresh
07-22-2011, 09:23 PM
...

How they influenced the Italian politics? Dollars, pressions and last but not least covered operations (see in italian "strategia della tensione").
Here, for example (in Italian) like the CIA and the NATO financed a righty party: http://www.ilcovo.mastertopforum.net/msi-braccio-armato-della-dc-come-l-area-oggi-vt434.html
And this one was not the most important for USA politics in Italy...



The CIA did indeed deliver funds to Italian centrist and rightist parties. But was that any worse than the Soviets providing vastly more financing for Italian communists? This was indeed why the CIA did so to begin with--in response to the KGB (or was it then still the NKVD?) subsidies if the Italian left. And funding political parties is not the same as fixing elections...

Nickdfresh
07-22-2011, 09:29 PM
Like someone said here before, they just weren't very motivated. I also think it was because of who they are as a people. I mean no offence, but just look at them since the war up until today. They have had like 40 or 50 different governments and they can't even agree to pick up the trash arond Naples. (That has been going on for years now). It's ironic, Americans of Italian descent fought well in WW2 and all our succeding wars. John Baslione the Medal of Honor winner is one name that comes to mind. I think it is more in the Italian national character to eat good food, drink good wine, and to make love than to fight in wars. The modern Italian simply has no similarity to any of Caesar's legions.

I think these comments are bit on the ignorant and cliched side. I think you need to read a bit more, I suggest Rick Atkinson's excellent An Army at Dawn followed by Day of Battle. Perhaps you'd have a little more respect for them, especially since I the city you mentioned actually held a bloody uprising against retreating German troops with little aid from the Allies and suffered horrendous reprisals, IIRC. I think there is also a good deal in there about Italian soldiers fighting bitterly in the North African mountains, sometimes well past the time where their ammunition was expended and where both sides were reduced to throwing rocks at one-another...

Chevan
07-23-2011, 05:35 AM
The CIA did indeed deliver funds to Italian centrist and rightist parties. But was that any worse than the Soviets providing vastly more financing for Italian communists? This was indeed why the CIA did so to begin with--in response to the KGB (or was it then still the NKVD?) subsidies if the Italian left. And funding political parties is not the same as fixing elections...
Soviet financial help to Western European communists was endeed very tiny. Not coz USSR was poor, but due to fact that the communist were almost banned in West after ww2. So there were no effect to sponsore the legal communist parties..Formally they existed but under strong pressure and not much popular.( and fully infiltrated by CIA) I do believe, if the first post war elections were really democrartic, communist might got the majority in govenments in such a countries like France and Italy( not to mention Israel). After the Tehrain agreements the Stalin has installed pro-russian gov in Eastern Europe while USA forcedly had excluded all the possible pro-communist powers in the West. Democraty sucked on both sides of Iron Curtain.

Chevan
07-23-2011, 05:52 AM
But how many millions lives did it cost? Surely the forced industrialization of Soviet Union was a great success, industrially speaking, but how much did it cost? This price was worth it?
Not actualy so much as pro-fascist press liked to portray in propogand. About 2 milloion for almost 20 years of terror. Keep in mind we loose up to 1,5 million per YEAR CURRENTLY. Russia is dying couintry , no mach for ussr.

Chevan
07-23-2011, 06:03 AM
Absolutely true, but one of the merit of the fascism was the defeat of the mafia, that was KO and silenced for 20 years. It was resumed by the Allies that asked (in USA) its help for the operation Husky. After that time the problem reappered worse and better connected with the new political parties, (all antifascists) especially those near the US positions (like the DC). After the war many mafiosi made themselves to pass as "victims of political persecution" by the fascism...


I did actualy hear the Mussolini fought the Sicily mafia.That's why the italian mafia has supported the Allied invasion of 1943.After the ww2 the Sicily mafiosy payed by infiltrating the USA as "refuges" and began to terrorise the average americans.

Rising Sun*
07-23-2011, 08:50 AM
I think you will find that is most democracy's vote, definitely how it is done in the UK. We do not select the candidates their party does. In the UK we also have corrupt MP's, political and monetary considerations with business's and country's to further a particular governments or individuals aims. It is not just an Italian thing to be blamed on another country.

Rich people can pay for party's and votes and get who they wish to be elected into power, no matter the party they have to pay back in some way the financial support etc the received.

At the end of the day it is the voters in the country who make the choice not some mythical foreign power forcing them to put the 'X' against party 'Y'.



Agreed.

Same here.

And no better current example than the Murdoch press in the US, UK and Australia where Rupert happily manipulates news coverage and thus much public opinion to favour politicians who favour his interests. On the other hand his news outlets are remorseless in attacking those who oppose his interests.

But Rupert is no different to other interests with deep pockets which have the means and ability to influence the result of elections by shaping public opinion in favour of, usually, conservative causes. Against which we have the other extreme which claims the moral high ground on all sorts of issues, from condemning the invasion of Afghanistan to eliminating farting cows to reduce climate change, and is fairly effective in influencing some public opinion with none of the resources of the likes of Rupert.

Those who get the support of the latter crew also have to pay their dues, as does the current Australian minority government in enacting a carbon tax to pay its dues to the Greens despite our Labor Prime Minister having assured us all before the last election that 'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'.

Almost all politicians ultimately are ****s and all ****s ultimately will sell themselves to whomever will keep them in power, be they Italians, Yanks, Brits, Aussies, or that slimy little **** with the fur hat in Afghanistan who can't make up his mind whether to stick with the Yanks etc who are sort of holding his shitty country together or to flip flop over to the Taliban who would do a much better, albeit more repressive and brutal, job of holding his country together (after the little **** in the fur hat accepts the inevitable and ****s off to some other country where he can enjoy the squillions of dollars he's ripped out of the Yanks etc).

Rising Sun*
07-23-2011, 09:26 AM
Elections it's not a synonimous of democracy. A formal and apparent domocracy doesn't mean a substancial one. In Italy there is a substancial oligarchy and the role of the people is just to put a cross over a paper (or a bit more). For example the politicians are elected by the parties, the people just put the cross over the party symbol...

See my last post.


How they influenced the Italian politics? Dollars, pressions and last but not least covered operations (see in italian "strategia della tensione").
Here, for example (in Italian) like the CIA and the NATO financed a righty party: http://www.ilcovo.mastertopforum.net/msi-braccio-armato-della-dc-come-l-area-oggi-vt434.html
And this one was not the most important for USA politics in Italy.

I'm old enough to remember strong suspicions that the US engineered or at least assisted in the downfall of our government in 1975 because it wasn't sympathetic to various US aims and interests.

But currently we have China buying votes in the UN by pouring money into parts of Africa and expanding its interests in the Pacific by pouring money into minor countries there.

Meanwhile Australia is regarded with some hostility by some Pacific nations because of its arrogance in dealings with them.

All countries behave badly in pursuit of their perceived (i.e. perceived by whichever political party happens to be in power at the time) national interests and all countries try to influence the internal politics of countries of substantial interest to them, whether by the surreptitious methods of the US in toppling Allende in Chile or the overt means in toppling Saddam in Iraq. Or the UK in the Suez fiasco in 1956 or France in the absurd Rainbow Warrior sinking in New Zealand, and countless other examples.



Absolutely true, but one of the merit of the fascism was the defeat of the mafia, that was KO and silenced for 20 years. It was resumed by the Allies that asked (in USA) its help for the operation Husky. After that time the problem reappered worse and better connected with the new political parties, (all antifascists) especially those near the US positions (like the DC). After the war many mafiosi made themselves to pass as "victims of political persecution" by the fascism...

I didn't know that.

I'd be interested to hear more about Mussolini suppressing the mafia.


I agree and in fact I said better the USA rule than the USSR one, there is no match. But this doesn't mean that the USA "sons of a bitch" - to paraphrase a famous statement of Henry Kissinger - are not sons of a bitch. There must be a reason if in south America peoples dislike the USA and Kissinger style US politics: all the criminals, as long as "anticommunist", installed and protected by the USA had done perhaps worse than they would be communists. And these criminals, often, are reckognized for what they are only when they revolt against the USA interests.
Some examples? The military dictature in Argentina, Contras, Noriega, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, all Kissinger's good "sons of a bitch, but our sons of a bitch" and friends until functional to the US interests.
In Italy the same, even if they're more stealers than killers.

But America wasn't alone in supporting some sons of bitches regimes etc. Israel played a big part in creating Hezbollah in the mistaken belief it could control Hezbollah. The UK and others were all in favour of Saddam for years. The US and just about every other Western country still support Israel, despite that support being contrary to every obvious strategic and plain commonsense interest those countries have in a remote bit of sand inhabited largely by a bunch of displaced European etc religious fanatics who have displaced the locals and thereby created a festering sore which for the past sixty years has caused more trouble than it is worth and fostered an opposing crew of religious fanatics who think that it's a good idea to fly planeloads of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people in the country of Satan and to expand that war to other places. My point is simply that there isn't a lot of rationality in the way nations and those involved in international politics behave. It all makes sense if you are a believer, and it makes no sense if you're not.


Because Italy remained under the western control (fortunatly). But we had the biggest communist party of Europe, and the communists stealed and steal like their other same/opposite parties, obeied to foreign orders like their same/opposite parties and they have the same biggest responsabilities in the actual disaster.

Are you saying that the Italian communists were more responsible than the Americans for the disaster?

Which disaster?


I'm the first to say that by the war Mussolini ruined Italy, himself and his regime (btw, France and UK forced him to approach Germany). But apart this final disaster, the fascism did more for Italian people in 20 years than this gang of foreign-directed stealers had done later in 60. There must be a reason if in the international statistics about corruption Italy results worse than Ruanda. The worst fascist hierarcs was a giant respect to the actual shit robber politician. And even if the lefty Italian historical reasearch tried to find out a wide corruption in the Fascism, there is no historical evidence about that and Mussolini personally ever resulted totally clear. Yes, of course there were some episodes of corruption among the hierarchs and in the colonies, but in the complex small facts respect to the actual shames that have been involving from years and years the highest offices of the Republic.

Might there be a degree of misty-eyed historical romanticism there, in the same way that there are people in Russia and other parts of the former USSR, and in China, who resent the current conditions in their countries and believe that everything was better for everyone under the old communist regimes?

Chevan
07-23-2011, 09:59 AM
Might there be a degree of misty-eyed historical romanticism there, in the same way that there are people in Russia and other parts of the former USSR, and in China, who resent the current conditions in their countries and believe that everything was better for everyone under the old communist regimes?
Just people who lived enough long time on earth might to compare, mate. Although i doubt our new friend lived under Mussolini rule:) me still remember the former USSR. And yes , some things were much BETTER under old regime.And hardly this is romantism. Firstly coz current regime( and this is still "regime" - as western media calls the Putin's autocraty) really does everything like regime. Not everything and definitelly not for everyone, but in many aspects previous regime was better.

DVX
07-23-2011, 10:57 AM
I didn't know that.

I'd be interested to hear more about Mussolini suppressing the mafia.

I can suggest some books in Italian, look for foreign or in English edtions:

"La guerra del Fascismo in Sicilia contro la Mafia", articolo di Michelangelo Ingrassia su Storia del Novecento (non ricordo numero e data)

G.F. Di Marco "Clima di un'impresa storica" Palermo 1937

G. Tricoli "Il fascismo e la lotta contro la mafia" Palermo 1989

A. Petacco "Cesare Mori. Il prefetto di ferro" Milano 1975

AAVV Bonifica integrale e colonizzazione del latifondo in Sicilia, ISSPE, Palermo, 1983

Alfredo Cucco "un Siciliano per la Nuova Italia", ISSPE, Palermo,1987




Are you saying that the Italian communists were more responsible than the Americans for the disaster?
Which disaster?


You don't live here and you can't know... just a few information: the 30% of young people until 30 years is unemployed. Other 3 millions people under 40 don't work, don't study and don't look for a job (demoralization, impossibility to find something). People that works a month or two for years is calculated in the statiscs as "employed" for ridicolous political purposes. This generation won't have pensions. 20% of population live in absolute or relative poverty (official statistics by ISTAT). This generation could not afford sons or houses. This generations is much poorer than the previous. The corruption in public administrations is simply widest and to get a public job, or see your rights respected you MUST to know the right person in the right place.
The economical growth is 0, something % and this nothing should restore an enormous public debt. The internal consumption is going every day lower. With the Lira Italian products were competitive, with the Euro the prices had doubled and the Italian products too expensive here and abroad. This country is going badly for 20 years, but the last 10 are the the worst and the future is even darker. Do you understand?

Chevan
07-24-2011, 01:55 AM
...This generation won't have pensions. 20% of population live in absolute or relative poverty
Lucky Italia. Russia have 60% of who libes in poverty. And Kremlin's mafia still proud that "communism dead" and now we live in "democracy". Your are not alone sir. But i hardly can blame the USA for al desasters, howerev america definitelly responsible for impose the carrent oligarhy regime of Yeltsyn in 1990-y ( as the lesser evil that communism) but that fact doesn'e deny that WE carry the major guilt for our shit politicans. Every nation is deservs those politicans which they have. Your are not not an exclusion.

leccy
07-24-2011, 03:43 AM
DVX

Italys average retirement age is 57 or 58 (Cant remember if it has been raised) the UK is 65 raising to 68 shortly, this is to help pay off the pensions deficit we have.

Our employment inactive currently stands at 22.7% (May 2011, Government Office of National Statistics) of those between 16 and 64 years old. They live on state benefits as they say there is no work (there are jobs but they would earn less than they get from the state so the jobs are taken by cheap foreign workers). Companys want people with experience but there are no apprenticeship or training schemes to train them so skilled foreigners are brought in to fill the skills gap.

Manufacturing Industry has been shipped abroad where labour is cheaper so reducing British Exports, where it has not been shipped abroad it has been bought out by foreign companys. this all adds to our increasing trade deficit and therefore to our huge National Debt.

You have then ended up like we have now with a state benefit system that is running rampant, less people wishing to work, chronic uncontrolled immigration (legal and illegal). Higher taxes, having to work longer before getting a pension, inflation running higher than wages so increasing poverty.

Don't think that it is solely an Italian thing based on what other countrys have done. Ours has been done by our elected Governments being crap and not budgeting correctly. We are the ones to suffer.
As an example our last Labour Government ran up a Defence Budget overspend of over 30 Billion pounds on a Budget of just over 40 Billion. That is they allotted 40 billion Pounds to Defence but spent 70 Billion Pounds, and people say the bankers were reckless with their money.

DVX
07-24-2011, 04:10 AM
This confirms that the plutocratic system is failing like the communism is failed. The third way "nor communism nor plutocracy" perhaps was the better solution.

Rising Sun*
07-24-2011, 08:41 AM
I can suggest some books in Italian, look for foreign or in English edtions:

"La guerra del Fascismo in Sicilia contro la Mafia", articolo di Michelangelo Ingrassia su Storia del Novecento (non ricordo numero e data)

G.F. Di Marco "Clima di un'impresa storica" Palermo 1937

G. Tricoli "Il fascismo e la lotta contro la mafia" Palermo 1989

A. Petacco "Cesare Mori. Il prefetto di ferro" Milano 1975

AAVV Bonifica integrale e colonizzazione del latifondo in Sicilia, ISSPE, Palermo, 1983

Alfredo Cucco "un Siciliano per la Nuova Italia", ISSPE, Palermo,1987

Thanks for those references.

I'll see if I can find English translations, as my Italian is limited to restaurant menus. ;) :D


People that works a month or two for years is calculated in the statiscs as "employed" for ridicolous political purposes.

That's consistent with our political manipulation of employment statistics, based on international standards.


Labour Force Survey

3.9 The definition of employment used in the Labour Force Survey aligns closely with the concepts and international definitions outlined above. Employed persons are defined as all persons 15 years of age and over who, during the reference week:

worked for one hour or more for pay, profit, commission or payment in kind, in a job or business or on a farm (comprising employees, employers and own account workers); or

worked for one hour or more without pay in a family business or on a farm (i.e. contributing family workers); or

were employees who had a job but were not at work and were:
away from work for less than four weeks up to the end of the reference week; or
away from work for more than four weeks up to the end of the reference week and received pay for some or all of the four week period to the end of the reference week; or
away from work as a standard work or shift arrangement; or
on strike or locked out; or
on workers' compensation and expected to be returning to their job; or

were employers or own-account workers, who had a job, business or farm, but were not at work.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/0/47BFB611A97C91F2CA25710E007321C6?opendocument

Surprisingly, as soon as we adopted that standard instead of full time employment our unemployment rate dropped dramatically. :evil:


This generation won't have pensions. 20% of population live in absolute or relative poverty (official statistics by ISTAT). This generation could not afford sons or houses. This generations is much poorer than the previous. The corruption in public administrations is simply widest and to get a public job, or see your rights respected you MUST to know the right person in the right place.

Things are a lot better here.

Maybe you should think about migrating. We took a lot of Italians before and after WWII. Many of the post WWII migrants were Italian POWs who spent their captivity working for farmers and others and impressed their involuntary employers to the extent that the employers sponsored them as migrants after the war.

Of course, we also got the Italian mafia, but they were pretty soft compared with the ****s we've got from Asia and especially the Middle East and the former USSR.


The economical growth is 0, something % and this nothing should restore an enormous public debt. The internal consumption is going every day lower. With the Lira Italian products were competitive, with the Euro the prices had doubled and the Italian products too expensive here and abroad. This country is going badly for 20 years, but the last 10 are the the worst and the future is even darker. Do you understand?

I understand, and I understand it from the perspective of someone who lives in a country lucky enough to be riding the China boom by exporting raw materials to China. But I also understand it from the perspective that, as Australia has done for close to the last couple of centuries, we are too stupid to do much more than chop it down; dig it up; send it out; and buy it back as finished products from cheap labour countries. Sooner or later, we are going to be comprehensively ****ed economically when reality sets in. Which will probably be about the time China revalues its currency, which will **** America over as badly or possibly worse and change the balance of global power.

Rising Sun*
07-24-2011, 08:53 AM
DVX

Italys average retirement age is 57 or 58 (Cant remember if it has been raised) the UK is 65 raising to 68 shortly, this is to help pay off the pensions deficit we have.

Our employment inactive currently stands at 22.7% (May 2011, Government Office of National Statistics) of those between 16 and 64 years old. They live on state benefits as they say there is no work (there are jobs but they would earn less than they get from the state so the jobs are taken by cheap foreign workers). Companys want people with experience but there are no apprenticeship or training schemes to train them so skilled foreigners are brought in to fill the skills gap.

Manufacturing Industry has been shipped abroad where labour is cheaper so reducing British Exports, where it has not been shipped abroad it has been bought out by foreign companys. this all adds to our increasing trade deficit and therefore to our huge National Debt.

You have then ended up like we have now with a state benefit system that is running rampant, less people wishing to work, chronic uncontrolled immigration (legal and illegal). Higher taxes, having to work longer before getting a pension, inflation running higher than wages so increasing poverty.

Don't think that it is solely an Italian thing based on what other countrys have done. Ours has been done by our elected Governments being crap and not budgeting correctly. We are the ones to suffer.
As an example our last Labour Government ran up a Defence Budget overspend of over 30 Billion pounds on a Budget of just over 40 Billion. That is they allotted 40 billion Pounds to Defence but spent 70 Billion Pounds, and people say the bankers were reckless with their money.

Similar here in general terms if not in all details.

Our latest defence triumph was to build landing ships which were too big for the carrier ships, but it didn't matter as the carrier ships were rusting and couldn't carry anything anyway.

God help us if we have to go to a real war.

royal744
07-30-2011, 12:59 PM
I can only add what Mussolini said after the debacle in Greece: "The human material I have to work with is worthless." In truth, it was Mussolini who was worthless.

royal744
07-30-2011, 01:09 PM
I didn't know that.

I'd be interested to hear more about Mussolini suppressing the mafia.

You might be interested to know, Rising Sun, that the reason for the resurgence postwar of the Mafia in Italy - after Mussolini was hung upside down in Milan - was directly attributable to the US Occupation of Sicily, Too lazy to run an effective occupation government, the Americans accepted the Mafia's "assistance" in running that government. This is a shameful episode in postwar history and has led to a great deal of bloodhsed in Italy and elsewhere as a direct result.

horst
08-01-2011, 11:36 AM
You might be interested to know, Rising Sun, that the reason for the resurgence postwar of the Mafia in Italy - after Mussolini was hung upside down in Milan - was directly attributable to the US Occupation of Sicily, Too lazy to run an effective occupation government, the Americans accepted the Mafia's "assistance" in running that government. This is a shameful episode in postwar history and has led to a great deal of bloodhsed in Italy and elsewhere as a direct result.

There is a well documented book on this issue that you can buy at Amazon, Rodney Campbell's "The Luciano Project: The Secret Wartime Collaboration of the Mafia and the U.S. Navy"

It is one of the most contradictory and embarrassing aspects of WW2, the goods reestablishing the mafia in Italy after being banished by the evil fascist government for 20 years.

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the CIA's parent and sister organizations, cultivate relations with the leaders of the Italian Mafia, recruiting heavily from the New York and Chicago underworlds, whose members, including Charles 'Lucky' Luciano, Meyer Lansky, Joe Adonis, and Frank Costello, help the agencies keep in touch with Sicilian Mafia leaders exiled by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Domestically, the aim is to prevent sabotage on East Coast ports, while in Italy the goal is to gain intelligence on Sicily prior to the allied invasions and to suppress the burgeoning Italian Communist Party. Imprisoned in New York, Luciano earns a pardon for his wartime service and is deported to Italy, where he proceeds to build his heroin empire, first by diverting supplies from the legal market, before developing connections in Lebanon and Turkey that supply morphine base to labs in Sicily. The OSS and ONI also work closely with Chinese gangsters who control vast supplies of opium, morphine and heroin, helping to establish the third pillar of the post-world War II heroin trade in the Golden Triangle, the border region of Thailand, Burma, Laos and China's Yunnan Province.
http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/congress-cia-drug-history-doc.html

tankgeezer
08-01-2011, 02:35 PM
Rising Sun* : "I'll see if I can find English translations, as my Italian is limited to restaurant menus. :) ;) "

The only words you need know are "Bierra" and "Grappa"

Laconia
08-01-2011, 08:03 PM
Sorry, but I have to disagree totally. You are talking about the usual cliches about Italians "spaghetti & mandolino".
I have to say, first of all, that the shit politicians that rule Italy from 1945 are here thank to you Americans... do you remember Calogero Vizzini and the other mafiosi that were soon installed as new political leaders of "free Italy"? The actual shit dedscends from those... like Andreotti and Berlusconi. Prodi and Berlusconi are two massons, the first a man of Goldman too and the second a mafioso too. And yes, thank you America for saving Italy from communism, but after the war Italy was ruled just by an oligarchy of stelalers some slaves of USA and CIA and some of CCCP. Your own slaves were and are just shit.
If Mussolini di not entered the war, he would had been here still now, and most likely Italy - as a state entity - would not be the shit that is now.

As you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSrrxBhiHnA

Italy of 1939 was a century before the trash of nowdays, in every sense. And that's not fault of the Italian people, but of the shit politicians and camorristi - that is the same - that ruled this country, thanks to you, since 1945.
I cite, for reaching a conclusion, an opinion of James Gregor, professor at UC Berkeley. In his book "Interpretation of Fascism", the author points out that the Italian industrial production, compared to 1913, went up 81 points in the years before the great depression. Italy stunned the world, writes James Gregor, presenting an increase of 41% of overall production globally, outstripping France (40%) and German (31%), American (26%), the English (16, 5%) productions. Add to this that in those years, the regime offered to workers and their families, a number of social proposals, hitherto unknown not only in Europe but worldwide. Yes, of course, Italy had still a big delay respect to the western industrialized countries, but this gap was reduced as never before. And the economical basis and structures put in the Fascist years permitted the reconstruction and the Italian ecomical boom after the war.
And yet James Gregor stating: <A good reason can therefore support the thesis that fascism was a dictatorship of development and modernization of mass dedicated to the modernization of the Italian economy (in contrast) for example to the disastrous decline in agricultural and industrial production which characterized the first decade of Bolshevik rule in the USSR>.

As I said before, I meant no offence. As an American of french descent I say the same thing about the French. How long did they last against the German invaders, 60 days? It's enough to make one ashamed of their ancestry! The Germans could have been stopped cold much earlier in the war but the French failed to act initially when Germany marched into the Rhineland in 1936. But when given a chance to fight amongst others, the French and Italian peoples fought well in the American and Canadian armies.

I'm sorry, but there is some type of Western European mindset when it comes to this sort of thing. In my opinion, it happened then and it is happening now with Afghanistan. We , the Americans, are doing the brunt of the fighting while most of our NATO allies are only in support roles and with minimal troops at that!

I do not question the bravery of the individual Italian soldier or other European soldiers, but the facts are facts. The Russian people fought the Germans like tigers, the whole nation joined in. The Western Europeans? Well, we all know what happened there.

Nickdfresh
08-02-2011, 04:15 AM
As I said before, I meant no offence. As an American of french descent I say the same thing about the French. How long did they last against the German invaders, 60 days?

Probably a bit less actually...


It's enough to make one ashamed of their ancestry!

Are you ashamed to be an American, then? After all, we sort of came to the war very late. It's easy to be a blustery American regarding the events of 1933-1940--when your country with its army in a shambles--wasn't on the border of Germany facing a 2:1 manpower deficit and a then state-of-the-art air force. America was a nation that politically had to use the Fall of France as a reason to rebuild its armed forces in order to justify and pay an economic toll anywhere near what the French had paid to maintain their ill-fated armed forces...


The Germans could have been stopped cold much earlier in the war but the French failed to act initially when Germany marched into the Rhineland in 1936.

Hindsight. Of course Germany could have been stopped, but there was a lack of political will amongst the former Allies of WWI, not just the French. They would have had to act unilaterally in a situation in which many in Britain and America were actually sympathetic to the aims of German national sovereignty and believed that they had the right to control their own territory by projecting power, irregardless of whom the German Chancellor was...


But when given a chance to fight amongst others, the French and Italian peoples fought well in the American and Canadian armies.

There are many cases in the Battle of France where Frenchman fought very well, ironically, especially after it was clear that the strategic coup de main attack of Germany was a catastrophe that the French Army could not recover from. But only a small portion of this had to do with the silly ****ing simpleton notions of "cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys," disparaging cliches largely the result of two poorly trained and equipped "B" divisions of guarding the Ardennes sector along with a series of strategic blunders by the French high command...


I'm sorry, but there is some type of Western European mindset when it comes to this sort of thing. In my opinion, it happened then and it is happening now with Afghanistan. We , the Americans, are doing the brunt of the fighting while most of our NATO allies are only in support roles and with minimal troops at that!

Maybe its because Europe is the recipient of all the heroin our "allies" in Kabul are enriching themselves from? We Americans also suffered the brunt of the 9/11 terrorist attacks which started the whole thing. So shouldn't we actually bear the brunt of the fighting?


I do not question the bravery of the individual Italian soldier or other European soldiers, but the facts are facts. The Russian people fought the Germans like tigers, the whole nation joined in. The Western Europeans? Well, we all know what happened there.

(((((riiggghhhtttt))))).... :rolleyes:

Really? The "Russians all fought like tigers?" You mean the over one million that surrendered in the beginning of Operation Barbarossa surrendering vastly more territory than the Wehrmacht had seized in the entire Western Campaign as the Heer (in the words of one very astute German soldier) was "conquering itself to death"?

Do yourself a big favor, and look at a map of Russia. Then look at a map of France. Then maybe read some books like Beevor's Stalingrad or Hornes To Lose a Battle for starters....

pdf27
08-02-2011, 04:17 AM
I call bull*hit


I'm sorry, but there is some type of Western European mindset when it comes to this sort of thing. In my opinion, it happened then and it is happening now with Afghanistan. We , the Americans, are doing the brunt of the fighting while most of our NATO allies are only in support roles and with minimal troops at that!
1) France took more combat casualties in 1940 than the US did in the entire war in Europe.
2) The US was attacked from Afghanistan, the Europeans were not. One could make similar comments about Libya - the US isn't involved at all there, that's a European war.


I do not question the bravery of the individual Italian soldier or other European soldiers, but the facts are facts. The Russian people fought the Germans like tigers, the whole nation joined in. The Western Europeans? Well, we all know what happened there.
And how long did it take the Germans to conquer an area of Russia the size of France, with how many casualties in the doing? The Russians were extremely fortunate to have a huge land area with poor transport infrastructure. The French were not.

Chevan
08-02-2011, 06:43 AM
hey WTF you touch the Russia here?Hands out from Laconia, you both , brainwashed , dudes;)


And how long did it take the Germans to conquer an area of Russia the size of France, with how many casualties in the doing? The Russians were extremely fortunate to have a huge land area with poor transport infrastructure. The French were not.
You ,honestly, also were a damn fortunate to have a .. Channel. If to look how you fough with Japane entire the two first years , just god know what might to happend in case of Wermacht invasion.If to consider the "infrastructure and territory" we shall conclude Britain hardly may hold more then a couple of weeks.


Really? The "Russians all fought like tigers?" You mean the over one million that surrendered in the beginning of Operation Barbarossa surrendering vastly more territory than the Wehrmacht had seized in the entire Western Campaign as the Heer (in the words of one very astute German soldier) was "conquering itself to death"?

Not like a tiger , but at least ..desperately.
If to look at map of Asia where you skedaddle from Japane entire 1942 i would not bet the size of territory is MATTER.And that million lost has finally denied the Barbarossa BTW.

Rising Sun*
08-02-2011, 06:59 AM
The Russian people fought the Germans like tigers, the whole nation joined in.

Soviet soldiers often had a degree of encouragement behind them, in the form of political commissars and others prepared to use draconian powers to urge them forward, which the Western Allies generally lacked.

As for the whole nation joining in, Russia and the wider Soviets weren't entirely free of those who went over to the Nazis, whether for military service or as civilians administering Russian territory under the Nazis. Which makes the Russians about on par with most of the rest of Europe in WWII.

As I've said many times before, no nation has a monopoly on courage, or cowardice.

Rising Sun*
08-02-2011, 07:39 AM
The Germans could have been stopped cold much earlier in the war but the French failed to act initially when Germany marched into the Rhineland in 1936.

The Germans could have been stopped dead if GM hadn't provided it with synthetic fuel technology without which, according to Speer, Hitler would not have invaded Poland and if Ford had not provided Germany with motor vehicles made in Germany.

Or Henry Ford and GM heavyweight James Mooney could have declined the highest civilian awards Hitler could give them in 1938, which might have signified their distaste for rather than acceptance of the Nazi regime which would soon expand across Europe in various machines and courtesy of various technology supplied by Ford and GM. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

Somewhat overblown more here http://www.dogandlemon.com/sites/dogandlemon.com/files/Cars__Nazis.pdf

Anyway, what did isolationist America do in 1936 or even almost all of 1941 to stop WWII, in part under the influence of self-centred and obscenely rich capitalist ****s like Henry Ford who wanted the war in Europe to go on forever as he was profiting from supplying both sides?

America, as significant elements of its nation such as Ford and GM although not as a government, was heavily involved commercially and politically in facilitating German aggression in Europe while conveniently and safely remote from the warlike and other nasty consequences of those actions.

France, having lost vastly more people and suffered vastly more damage in WWI than America could begin to imagine from its relatively minor losses of men despite America converting those relatively minor losses into a national catastrophe in subsequent film and culture, did not have the luxury of being able to interfere in and profit from dealings with Germany while happily separated from it by the Atlantic Ocean.

France can't be criticised from an American perspective for 'failing to act' at any time before WWII when significant elements in America were contributing substantial war materiel and political support to the Nazis on France's doorstep and when those elements were not stopped from doing so by the American government.

Rising Sun*
08-02-2011, 08:03 AM
Rising Sun* : "I'll see if I can find English translations, as my Italian is limited to restaurant menus. :) ;) "

The only words you need know are "Bierra" and "Grappa"

Mate, I've had grappa made by displaced Italian peasants down here. These are the sort of blokes who in my manual working youth when we'd have two or three glasses of beer with a counter lunch (cheap and basic lunch in a bar, e.g. mixed grill = sausage, lamb chop, small piece of steak, a rasher or two of bacon, potato chips, grilled tomato, fried egg, baked beans, couple of teaspoons of salt, unlimited tomato sauce -ketchup for you -, and decorative lettuce leaf which nobody ever ate) would have five or six pots of beer (about half as much again as a glass) and each pot with whisky or brandy chasers - often a few doubles - for each beer. Then they'd go back to work and lay concrete and terrazzo perfectly, while we'd have been falling into the concrete if we'd drunk like they did.

If NASA had collared a couple of barrels of their grappa it could have landed men in the next galaxy.

I'll stick with the bierrra. Nastro Azzuro is fine.

tankgeezer
08-02-2011, 08:42 AM
Grappa is a force of nature, one to be wary of,, I met Dame Grappa in Europe. My Italian friends enjoyed it with us, and our next morning debilitated state. We very kindly returned the cultural exchange with a bottle of Southern Comfort. It was then our turn to enjoy. I met many Italian people, and found them all to be industrious, and meticulous, nose to the grindstone people, but they never turned aside from celebrating life, and family, and were always very warm, and welcoming even when times were tough.

pdf27
08-02-2011, 09:09 AM
You ,honestly, also were a damn fortunate to have a .. Channel. If to look how you fough with Japane entire the two first years , just god know what might to happend in case of Wermacht invasion.If to consider the "infrastructure and territory" we shall conclude Britain hardly may hold more then a couple of weeks.
Unarguable - in fact if the channel had miraculously dried up in 1940 Britain would probably have fallen before France did...

Laconia
08-02-2011, 10:35 AM
Probably a bit less actually...



Are you ashamed to be an American, then? After all, we sort of came to the war very late. It's easy to be a blustery American regarding the events of 1933-1940--when your country with its army in a shambles--wasn't on the border of Germany facing a 2:1 manpower deficit and a then state-of-the-art air force. America was a nation that politically had to use the Fall of France as a reason to rebuild its armdided forces in order to justify and pay an economic toll anywhere near what the French had paid to maintain their ill-fate armed forces...

No, not ashamed to be an American. We basically saved the free world! Our immense industrial base and our brave soldiers did the job that needed to be done. Without us the world would have remained under the iron boot of the dictators.



Hindsight. Of course Germany could have been stopped, but there was a lack of political will amongst the former Allies of WWI, not just the French. They would have had to act unilaterally in a situation in which many in Britain and America were actually sympathetic to the aims of German national sovereignty and believed that they had the right to control their own territory by projecting power, irregardless of whom the German Chancellor was...



There are many cases in the Battle of France where Frenchman fought very well, ironically, especially after it was clear that the strategic coup de main attack of Germany was a catastrophe that the French Army could not recover from. But only a small portion of this had to do with the silly ****ing simpleton notions of "cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys," disparaging cliches largely the result of two poorly trained and equipped "B" divisions of guarding the Ardennes sector along with a series of strategic blunders by the French high command...

Yes, there were many cases where the French fought well, but the country itself lacked the will for a prolonged do or die fight. Less than 60 days and they were in a railcar signing the surrender papers. That'll show em!



Maybe its because Europe is the recipient of all the heroin our "allies" in Kabul are enriching themselves from? We Americans also suffered the brunt of the 9/11 terrorist attacks which started the whole thing. So shouldn't we actually bear the brunt of the fighting?

Have you ever heard of what the concept of NATO is, where an attack on one is an attack on all? I stand by my analysis.



(((((riiggghhhtttt))))).... :rolleyes:

Really? The "Russians all fought like tigers?" You mean the over one million that surrendered in the beginning of Operation Barbarossa surrendering vastly more territory than the Wehrmacht had seized in the entire Western Campaign as the Heer (in the words of one very astute German soldier)dwas "conquering itself to death"?

They held out at Lenningrad for 900 days and despite the surrenders the Russians just kept on coming. Whole factories were dismantled and sent east. It was General Paulus who surrendered Stalingrad and the Germans who eventually retreated. I stand by my comments.

Do yourself a big favor, and look at a map of Russia. Then look at a map of France. Then maybe read some books like Beevor's Stalingrad or Hornes To Lose a Battle for starters....

I've read a lot and you do not have me convinced of your viewpoint.

Nickdfresh
08-02-2011, 11:59 AM
hey WTF you touch the Russia here?Hands out from Laconia, you both , brainwashed , dudes;)

You ,honestly, also were a damn fortunate to have a .. Channel. If to look how you fough with Japane entire the two first years , just god know what might to happend in case of Wermacht invasion.If to consider the "infrastructure and territory" we shall conclude Britain hardly may hold more then a couple of weeks.

Not like a tiger , but at least ..desperately.
If to look at map of Asia where you skedaddle from Japane entire 1942 i would not bet the size of territory is MATTER.And that million lost has finally denied the Barbarossa BTW.

Chevan, I mean no disrespect to the soldiers of the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War. What I'm saying is that "victory" and "defeat" is a very narrow run thing. But there is a definite comparison between the six week Battle for France and the initial time period of Barbarossa. That's not to say the Soviets did not often "fight like dogs." But many Frenchmen also "fought like dogs." The situation is simple--the Soviet Red Army had time and space to make good the blunders of the opening days of battle and to turn its massive material and industrial advantage to bear on Germany. What's often ignored in the "French only lasted six weeks" comment is that the French were actually improving dramatically and came up with a formula for stopping a "Blitzkrieg" through the use of hedgehog defenses and what became "defense in depth" after there massive cock-up of the initial "continuous front" operations. But it really didn't matter what the French did after May 15-17 1940, since they no longer had any significant mobile forces for counterattack. They were monumentally ****ed....

DVX
08-02-2011, 02:15 PM
I'm sorry, but there is some type of Western European mindset when it comes to this sort of thing. In my opinion, it happened then and it is happening now with Afghanistan. We , the Americans, are doing the brunt of the fighting while most of our NATO allies are only in support roles and with minimal troops at that!



I think that actually, military speaking, USA are quite strong to not need other NATO allies support. But this is not the point: I think too that was a duty, for an ally, to help USA after the attack of the 9/11. Help meaning support or lightening some tasks, because I repeat, strictly speaking, USA can do everything by themselves.
Other are the considerations in my opinion:
1) The war in Iraq was an aggression war and a mistake. Even if the USA are quite strong to open and manage wars on more fronts, it was an error (political and military) open a new front when the mission in Afghanistan was not yet accomplished.
Of course for guys like **** Chiney's and his companions the point of view is different. But I think that Chiney, like Kissinger for example, represent the worst face of USA, not the best.
The lackey Berlusconi followed this error in Iraq, of course (speaking about Italy). And with ridicolous engagment rules, in a first time (we enter in a political-military problem too long to discuss, see on my forum IlCovo).
2) Anyway, after 10 years in Afghanistan, if of course the USA are rightly tired, let's imagine the US allies! And this in a bad context: the world economic crisis that is fault, in the biggest part, of the same US plutocratic system.
Speaking about Italy, we've troops in Afghanistan, in Balkans, in Africa and in Lebanon and against Gheddafi. A bit too much, especially in time of crisis.

I would retreat all the Italian troops from, in this moment, useless frontlines, to concentrate them against Gheddafi to resolve as soon as possible this problem just outside "our gates". Of course the shit Italian politicians, firstly Berlusconi, after 40 years of servile disposition with the Tripolis Bedouin, have not clear ideas about what to do and let the troops where they're now, with enormous costs and none interest for Italy, during a terrible economic crisis.
The only right thing done by Berlusca was the bright friendship with Russia, especially during the crisis Russia - Georgia (in fact the only criticism against him by USA, was about this point). And Russia was right in that accident, not Georgia, USA and Israel...
The problem is that it's not an Italian foreign policy attitude, like should be, but it's a personal attitude of Berlusconi. And not for the Italy's interests, like would be (and it is), but for his PERSONAL interests in Gazprom...

The conclusion is, one more time, that Mussolini was a giant respect to these little stealers of nowdays, and even if he ruined Italy with the war and become a prisoner of Hitler after april 1941, before he was the only one to represent an Italy proud of its own rights, indipendent and effective in the State apparatus, in the contemporary era.

DVX
08-02-2011, 05:53 PM
Coming back in topic.... why did Italy lose?

Because Mussolini desobeyed to God... :D

"03 April 2011, Pope Benedict XVI received in a private audience Cardinal Angelo Amato, sdb, prefect of the Congregation of the Causes of the Saints. During that audience, the Holy Father authorized the Congregation to promulgate the following thirteen decrees regarding:

A miracle, attributed to the intercession of the Venerable Servant of God ELENA AIELLO, founder of Congregation of the Minim Sisters of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ; born on 10 April 1895 in Montalto Uffugo, Cosenza (Italy) and and died on 19 June 1961 in Rome (Italy); declared venerable on 22 January 1991 by J. Paul II.
[....]

In september the venerable Nun Elena Aiello will be officially beatified in a solemn ceremony. And her santification cause is going on with fast steps...."

Here the letters that the (newly) Blessed nun Elena Aiello wrote to Mussolini:

Cosenza, 23 April 1940

At the Head of Government
Benito Mussolini

Duce,
I come to you in the name of God to tell you what the Lord has revealed to me and wants from you. I did not want to write, but yesterday, 22, the Lord appeared again, commanding me to let you know the following:

"The world is in ruins, and especially for the many sins of impurity for the sins that came full in front of the Justice of my Heavenly Father. So you will have to suffer and be the propitiation for the world and particularly for Italy, where is the seat of my vicar. My kingdom is a kingdom of peace, but the world is all over the at war.
The Governors of the people are excited to acquire new territories. Poor blind! ... They do'nt know where God is not there cann't be real breakthrough! In their heart there is only evil and do nothing but abuse, mock, despise me! They are demons of Discord, subversive of the people and try to overwhelm in the terrible scourge Italy also, where is God in the midst of so many souls and the seat of my Vicar, Pastor Angelicus.
France, so dear to my heart, for his many sins, will soon fall into disrepair and will be overwhelmed and devastated as Jerusalem thankless.
To Italy, because the seat of my Vicar, I sent Benito Mussolini, to save her from the abyss toward which it had started, otherwise Italy would had come in worse conditions than Russia. In many dangers have always saved him, and now he has to keep Italy out of the war, because Italy is a civil and is the seat of my vicar on earth.If this will make extraordinary favors and I will bow down before him any other nation. He instead decided to declare war, but know that if not prevent, will be punished by my Justice! "
All this I said the Lord. Do not think, Duce, who I take care of politics. I am a poor nun dedicated to the education of poor and abandoned children, pray much for your salvation and the salvation of our Fatherland.

With sincere esteem
Yours
Sister Elena Aiello

(The letter was delivered to the Duce's sister, Donna Edvige, May 6, 1940, and she handed it to Mussolini a few days later).

But here is another letter from Sister Elena Aiello, this time directly to Donna Edvige, in which she mentions the contents of the letter above:

Montalto Uffugo (CS), May 15, 1943

Dear Donna Edvige

my long silence that you will perhaps think that I have forgotten you, but instead I will remember every day, in my poor prayers, always following the painful events of our beautiful Italy.
We find ourselves out of Cosenza, due to the bombing. The barbaric enemy has vented his hatred, dropping bombs on the city of Cosenza, causing devastation, pain and death among the civilian population.
I was in bed with the pain: three bombs fell near our institute, but the Lord has saved us in his infinite goodness and mercy. To keep away the children from the danger of new raids, we took refuge in Montalto Uffugo, my native country, where we are certainly uncomfortable, but all offer the Lord for the salvation of Italy.
The reason for my writing is to appeal again to you, as in May of 1940, when I was in Rome presented by Baroness Ruggi to deliver in writing to the revelations from the Lord about the Duce. Remember when 6 May 1940, saying that the Duce had decided to go to war, while the Lord let him know in my letter that was to save Italy from the war or he would be punished by His Divine Justice? "In many dangers," said Jesus, "I have always saved: he now has to save Italy from the scourge of war, because it is the seat of my vicar. If this will give him the extraordinary favors and I will bow down before him any other nation, but instead he decided to make war, but know that if not prevent, I will be punished by justice. "
Ah ... if the Duce had heeded the words of Jesus, Italy would not have found such a sad condition now! ...
I think that the heart of the Duce will be very saddened to see Italy from a flower garden turned into a deserted field, strewn with pain and death. But why continue this war's cruel, if Jesus said that no one will win? So, dear Lady Hedwig, tell the Duce, in my name, that this is the last warning that the Lord sends him. Can still save by putting it in the hands of the Holy Father. "If you do not do this" said the Lord "will soon come upon him, the Divine Justice. The other Governors who do not heed the warnings and directives of my Vicar (1) will be reached and punished by my Justice. "Do you remember July 7 last year when I wondered what would become of the Duce and I told you maintained that if he had not joined the Pope would have ended up worse than Napoleon?! Now I repeat the same words: If the Duce will not save going back to Italy and will tell you what the Holy Father will soon fall, even from heaven, Bruno asks his father for the salvation of Italy and of himself.
The Lord often said that Italy will be saved by the Pope, expiatory victim of this scourge, so there will be no other way to true peace and salvation of the people, outside of what the Holy Father will draw.
Dear Lady Hedwig, think well how all that the Lord has said is perfectly true.
Who is it that has caused so much ruin to Italy? Was it not the Duce not to have heard the words of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Now you can still fix it by doing the will of the Lord.
I will not forget to pray.
Sister Elena Aiello

Have you undertood the Lord? Italy could really be the new Rome... :D

I report this as historical fact, we've discussed much about it on IlCovo... :lol:
You are free to keep from it your conclusion.
I let to your own curiosity to deepen the story of nun Elena Aiello, who, furthemore, was protagonist of a series of supernatural phenomena and miraculous, inexplicable to all doctors who have visited her. Just for example, I mention the fact that she suffered in her flesh, every Holy Friday, with extensive bleeding, the passion of Our Lord.

Chevan
08-03-2011, 10:42 AM
The situation is simple--the Soviet Red Army had time and space to make good the blunders of the opening days of battle and to turn its massive material and industrial advantage to bear on Germany. What's often ignored in the "French only lasted six weeks" comment is that the French were actually improving dramatically and came up with a formula for stopping a "Blitzkrieg" through the use of hedgehog defenses and what became "defense in depth" after there massive cock-up of the initial "continuous front" operations. But it really didn't matter what the French did after May 15-17 1940, since they no longer had any significant mobile forces for counterattack. They were monumentally ****ed....
I knew Nick you didn't want to attack me:)
I just point it out IMO that the military competence of officer corp is rather determine the success of Wermacht in first period of war. Not the territory. The "factor of territory" is the bitch for both sides. The resisted side also had a damn troubles moving the troops to giant distances. So as you said about France "French only lasted six weeks" i'm totally agree. But this is rather matter of competence of French command.

DVX
08-04-2011, 01:26 PM
Oi think I will have it mentioned too that you forgot something else: mindsets - did you realise that the Italians didn't just lose to the British, but to the Ethiopians at Adowa and to the Greeks in Albania, despite having better equipment? .

The Britons too lose at Khartoum and in Sudan, at Isandlwana and in Afghanistan, having better equipment. The same USA in Vietnam and Russia in Afghanistan. In Greece, on ground, the stronger forces were the Greek ones (Italians committed a political suicide, before than military). I think your vision is a bit superficial.

DVX
09-17-2011, 08:54 AM
Another point is, in my opinion, (but anyway it's a conseguence of what we already said) that Hitler, as leader of the most powerful Axis country, was the effective leader of the Axis coalition. No worst strategist than him was possible.
Mussolini, even with his own mistakes was a politician, first of all, but a strategist too, incomparably better than Hitler. Mussolini asked many times to not attack Russia, to ask France her North Africa strongholds as strategic military bases, to build up a Charter of the New Europe against the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter, to create, well or bad, indipendent new Poland and Ucraina. Furthermore, Mussolini asked to Hitler to accept the Stalin peace proposals, that 2 times the Soviet leader advanced to Germany (the first in late 1941, the second the following year). Hitler refused digging his graveyard...
Even in advanced 1943 Mussolini, high value politician, would be able to avoid (perhaps) the complete defeat Hitler was running on. In fact, when Hitler refused for the last time to find an arrangement with Russia and to put all the forces against the Anglo-Americans, even after the failure of the Citadelle Operation (july 1943), Mussolini, in complete agreement and cooperation with the governments of Japan, Hungary and Romenia (and last but not least, some importan German personalities in background), was going to put in action a plan to force the Hitler's hand.
That was: after a meeting with Goering (that shared the Mussolini point of view) the july 27th, Italy would had launch a sort of ultimatum to Hitler: armistice with Russia or Italy had taken her own way. The following day, 28th, the Japanese government with a personal letter of Tojo to Hitler, would had declared the complete sharing of the Japan with the Duce's will. Soon after, Hungary and Romenia would had officialy declared to join the postion of Italy and Japan for opening soon negiotiations with Soviet Union.
Furthermore, Mussolini would had opened before mid august an International Conference of the Axis and neutral nations (like Spain and Turkey) for the Charter of the New Europe against the Anglosaxons powers.
Mussolini not only knew that all the Axis powers shared with him the idea that the war against Russia was useless and had led to defeat, but too that in the German high levels many people shared this consideration (sometime even in a strategic point of view, since the times of Von Clausewitz onwards...).
In this new international situation, the disappointment in a big part of the German leadership would had finally come out, putting more strenght against Hitlers strictness, changing the Axis strategy.
In fact the first real plot against Hitler was in april 1943 (the bomb that not exploded in his aircraft). Then, Russia was still far from the German fronteers, and differently from the Anglosaxons, above all, Russia had not spoken about "inconditional surrender" but instead had advanced proposals of armistice.
Unfortunatly, the keen political move of the Duce was prevented by the king's and military putch tha pulled him down. So the Axis lost the last possibility and Italy fronted the shaming ways of her armistice.
In 1944, when it was too late and things changed in worse, the German military plot against hitler didn't think anymore to an agreement with Russia: now the Soviets were at the German borders and were felt as the worst menace. And now they had no more peace proposals... Stauffemberg, Rommel and the others hoped to an agreement with the Anglosaxons, now. Probably too late, and in the bad direction, because the Allies were still firm in the unconditional surrender formula. Who had been opened for an armistice, was Russia, not Anglosaxons, despite Hitler wills (in 1939-41) and despite the plotters wills (in 1944).
Concluding, even in mid 1943, with a different leadership respect to the Hitler's disasters, Axis could had perhaps avoid the complete defeat.
Germany, and Axis coalition, would had needed a new Bismarck, or Mussolini himself, like effective leader, not an Hitler.

leccy
09-17-2011, 10:20 AM
The Britons too lose at Khartoum and in Sudan, at Isandlwana and in Afghanistan, having better equipment. The same USA in Vietnam and Russia in Afghanistan. In Greece, on ground, the stronger forces were the Greek ones (Italians committed a political suicide, before than military). I think your vision is a bit superficial.

Just some little points.
Khartoum is in Sudan, Britain and Egypt lost at Khartoum after an 8 month siege when they were outnumbered, the British Government did not send any relief forces during that period. It was reconquered a year later by troops under Kitchener.
Isandlwana was British troops heavily outnumbered by the Zulu forces who were well led and trained. Those same Zulus were defeated a few days later at Rorkes Drift by an even more outnumbered British force.

Better equipment is only one part of a battle and rarely wins on its own, tactics and strategy are arguably more important, with training and morale/motivation close behind.

royal744
10-25-2011, 11:50 AM
Frankly, the Italians lost because they had no real desire to win; they hated their "ally"; and they were not equipped to fight a modern war. End of story. My opinions, of course.

DVX
10-25-2011, 12:48 PM
Frankly, the Italians lost because they had no real desire to win;

???
Everybody would win. Italians knew they did not have the means to fight a world war, but supposed to participate in a war already over and won. This blunder has conditioned their entire war from beginning to end. It 's also clear that theirs was a war with little underlying moral motivation, apart ideological antipathies. Anyway ideologies contest the political systems and regimes, rather than countries or peoples, and it's impossible "to hate" the enemy by order.
Russia, Germany, Britain, France had ancient moral reasons under the fire of the war, against an ancient enemy. Italy had right reasons, for example, of recrimination towards his former allies of WWI, but is this sufficient for a strong will against the enemy? No. But the will of duty was however strong, generally, in Italian troops. Just will of duty, also because the true italian moral reason was: "The war is over, let's take our little share of the booty before it ends". Is it possible to hate Greece in this way?
Of course there were many people, especially young, volounteers, fascists etc. that sincerely believed to support a just cause against selfish, plutocratic and corrupted powers, but the general motivation of the Italian war were different: simply, of cynical realpolitik. If France had resisted by a "new Marne", Italy would never have gone to war. This is the true point.

leccy
10-26-2011, 03:55 AM
DVX
If France had resisted by a "new Marne", Italy would never have gone to war. This is the true point.

Thats pretty much saying Italy under Mussolini only went to war because others had crippled France. He then decided that while France was down (due to Germany's efforts) he would kick France in the privates and steal its watch.
Mussolini saw an opportunity to cash in much like a thief finds an unconscious man and robs him because he can not fight back (unfortunately he still got spanked by the unconscious man).
His big mistake was expecting Britain to be beaten by Hitler as well, so allowing him to claim British territorys (he also expected to gain territory in French Africa).

Chevan
10-26-2011, 04:44 AM
That was: after a meeting with Goering (that shared the Mussolini point of view) the july 27th, Italy would had launch a sort of ultimatum to Hitler: armistice with Russia or Italy had taken her own way. The following day, 28th, the Japanese government with a personal letter of Tojo to Hitler, would had declared the complete sharing of the Japan with the Duce's will. Soon after, Hungary and Romenia would had officialy declared to join the postion of Italy and Japan for opening soon negiotiations with Soviet Union.

This is quite new matter for me, and honestly , if true, it should turn on my previous oppinion about non-german axis coalition leaders and Stalin. If Stalin really offered the armistice to Hitler in 1941,42 and 43 this makes him not such and diehard maniak who ready to send all the peoples to die for his will. Seems he was even more cunning and adaptable that it usially is portrayed. I however have a couple of questions regarding the new information. How could STalin trust to Hitler after 22 june? We already had a peace with Germany , which Hitler dastardly has violated.What make Stalin to think - he will not be attacked again when Nazis will have got another good opportunity for it? And the another serious argument - is why the west keep silense about Stalin's proposals for peace with Hitler?


Concluding, even in mid 1943, with a different leadership respect to the Hitler's disasters, Axis could had perhaps avoid the complete defeat.
Germany, and Axis coalition, would had needed a new Bismarck, or Mussolini himself, like effective leader, not an Hitler.
but was it NOT Mussoliny who started so bad compain in Africa against Britain before the Hitler's unlucky Barbarossa has began? Finally the Duce hold its own gult for disaster on Eastern front, forcing the Wermacht to withdrew so needed forces from Barbarossa to Africa dn later Italy, didn't he?

DVX
10-26-2011, 07:37 AM
Thats pretty much saying Italy under Mussolini only went to war because others had crippled France. He then decided that while France was down (due to Germany's efforts) he would kick France in the privates and steal its watch.


It's famous the Mussolini's cynical statement: "I just need a thousend of deads to seat at the peace table". Just that explains many things. Anyway Stalin did the same, and mch worse, towards a Poland already downed by Germany, and towards a Japan already destroyed by the atomic bombs...
Anyway, even if often the Italian declaration of war to a France already defeated by Germany is described as "stab in the back", the situation was a bit more complex. Read here (in Italian):
http://www.ilcovo.mastertopforum.net/la-pugnalata-alle-spalle-falsita-vt1157.html

DVX
10-26-2011, 08:11 AM
This is quite new matter for me, and honestly , if true, it should turn on my previous oppinion about non-german axis coalition leaders and Stalin. If Stalin really offered the armistice to Hitler in 1941,42 and 43 this makes him not such and diehard maniak who ready to send all the peoples to die for his will. Seems he was even more cunning and adaptable that it usially is portrayed. I however have a couple of questions regarding the new information. How could STalin trust to Hitler after 22 june? We already had a peace with Germany , which Hitler dastardly has violated.What make Stalin to think - he will not be attacked again when Nazis will have got another good opportunity for it? And the another serious argument - is why the west keep silense about Stalin's proposals for peace with Hitler?

We enter in the field of "what if". Anyway I think that the suspicion of Stalin that the Angloamericans wanted to let him bleed against Hitler was as strong as the suspicion towards Hitler.
Furthermore he probably would had requested conditions (territorial, political, military) quite strong to allow adequate safety margins, at least in the medium term.


but was it NOT Mussoliny who started so bad compain in Africa against Britain before the Hitler's unlucky Barbarossa has began? Finally the Duce hold its own gult for disaster on Eastern front, forcing the Wermacht to withdrew so needed forces from Barbarossa to Africa dn later Italy, didn't he?

Mussolini thought to a "parallel war". Alliance with Germany, but everyone would have conducted his own war. The Italian Comando Supremo had warned that in a world war the Italian armed forces would had resources for about 6 months and no more. After 6 months nothing could be guaranteed. But the Italian leaders thought that in 6 months the war would have already finished, and Great Britain have surrendered or invaded. Things went in different way, and after that time Italy had "already lost" her war or bet, that is the same, and from the biginning of 1941 Italy was just towed by Germany.
Unfortunatly, we don't know the content of the secret correspondence between Churchill and Mussolini, that could open unsuspected new points of view, and explain decisions of the Italian command apparently difficoult to understand; in fact probably Mussolini was killed because of his secret documents.
The war in Africa was a logical conseguence of the African colonial borders between Italy and Britain, and of the opposite interests in the area. So I can reverse your question: was Mussolini guilty for badly leading the war in Africa, or was Hitler guilty for opening a new front in Russia before England was out of war? Was Hitler guilty for his obesessions towards the east, when instead the Mediterranean front offered much better prospects in the general economics of the war, at least surely until Britain had continued to fight?
Hitler feared so much the war on two fronts, and finally hopened by himself the second front.... so who was the true guilty?

leccy
10-26-2011, 12:42 PM
Unfortunatly, we don't know the content of the secret correspondence between Churchill and Mussolini, that could open unsuspected new points of view, and explain decisions of the Italian command apparently difficoult to understand; in fact probably Mussolini was killed because of his secret documents.

This is often quoted and with authority by some, that Churchill was conversing with Mussolini despite no evidence being found. The mythical suitcase of documents.
If there were embarrassing or awkward documents it does not also follow that they concerned Churchill, they could have concerned any of a number of people in high positions, always assuming there were any.

DVX
06-09-2016, 08:42 AM
Letter of Mussolini to Hitler, august 25th 1939:

I am replying to your letter which has just been delivered to me by Ambassador von Mackensen.

(1) Concerning the agreement with Russia, I approve of that completely. His Excellency Marshal Goring will tell you that in the discussion which I had with him last April I stated that a rapprochement between Germany and Russia was necessary to prevent encirclement by the democracies.

(2) I consider it desirable to try to avoid a break or any deterioration in relations with Japan, since that would result in Japan's return to a position close to the democratic powers. With this in mind, I have telegraphed to Tokyo and it appears that after the first surprise of public opinion passed, a better psychological attitude prevails.

(3) The Moscow treaty blockades Rumania and can alter the position of Turkey, which accepted the English loan, but which has not yet signed the treaty of alliance. A new attitude on the part of Turkey would upset all the strategic plans of the French and English in the Eastern Mediterranean.

(4) As regards Poland I have complete understanding for the German position and for the fact that such strained relations cannot continue permanently.

(5) As for the practical position of Italy, in case of a military collision, my point of view is as follows:

If Germany attacks Poland and the conflict remains localized, Italy will afford Germany every form of political and economic assistance which is requested.

If Germany attacks, and Poland's allies open a counterattack against Germany, I want to let you know in advance that it would be better if I did not take the initiative in military activities in view of the present situation of Italian war preparations, which we have repeatedly previously explained to you, Fuhrer, and to Herr von Ribbentrop.

Our intervention can, therefore, take place at once if Germany delivers to us immediately the military supplies and the raw materials to resist the attack which the French and English especially would direct against us.

At our meetings the war was envisaged for after 1942 and at such time I would have been ready on land, on sea, and in the air according to the plans which had been arranged.

I am also of the opinion that the purely military preparations which have already been undertaken and the others which will be entered upon in Europe and Africa will serve to immobilize important French and British forces.

I consider it my implicit duty as a true friend to tell you the whole truth and inform you about the actual situation in advance. Not to do so might have unpleasant consequences for us all. This is my point of view and since within a short time I must summon the highest governmental bodies of the realm, I ask you to let me know yours as well.

MUSSOLINI

Mussolini himself was saying: I'm not ready for a World War at least until 1942, and I've already told you dear Adolf.

When the war was almost won by Hitler (which later decided to loose by himself opening unnecessarily, and at least too soon, a second front with Soviet Union), and the Allies didn't fight "a second Marna battle" (like il Duce had hoped), Mussolini thought to bet on a fast war already won by Germany.
The Italian Command had given 6 months of time. Over this time, Italy simply didn't have power, tools, outputs for fighiting alone such a world war. For a world war fighting capability the Italian armed forces still needed at least 3 years of time.
Any day after this "six months" lasting war, was a day closer towards the Italian defeat. That's all. Other mistakes done or not, later, anyway depended on this first decision.
If this decision was encouraged by the famous problem of the secret agreements between Mussolini and Churchill... is another point to study...

Chevan
06-09-2016, 11:07 AM
If this decision was encouraged by the famous problem of the secret agreements between Mussolini and Churchill... is another point to study...
Well well well;);)
That's most fascinating moment of the reading, thanks DVX. Sadly , you haven't mentioned the source of the article.
We are serious forum and don't tolerate the irresponsible conspirasies. Am i right, gentlemens-britanophiles?;)
But what was that mysterical agreement? The official historians deny the existence any regular correspondence between Mussolini and Churchill , where , allegedly, the Churchill offered the british lands to Mussoliny to keep neitrality in ww2. However the recent confession of former italian partisan Bruno Lonati, who says he was ordered to kill both Mussolini and Petacci, claimed that he acted with a British Special Operations Executive agent codenamed Captain John, real name Robert Maccarone, who had been sent to Italy to eliminate Mussolini and retrieve “very important” documents. The documents have never been found . Some readers , thus , can make the amazing conclusion that "Winston Churchill 'ordered assassination of Mussolini to protect compromising letters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/7978285/Winston-Churchill-ordered-assassination-of-Mussolini-to-protect-compromising-letters.html). So what was that?

Chevan
06-09-2016, 11:39 AM
So I can reverse your question: was Mussolini guilty for badly leading the war in Africa, or was Hitler guilty for opening a new front in Russia before England was out of war? Was Hitler guilty for his obesessions towards the east, when instead the Mediterranean front offered much better prospects in the general economics of the war, at least surely until Britain had continued to fight?

Which economical prospects could hope Hitler to get in Africa? Bananas ? The real economic booty lied in Ukraine ( grain and food) and Caucaus ( oil). So the attack of USSR was although a risky but though a strategic plan for Hitler. And what was hoping Mussoliny to take in african desert , starting an colonian war with Britain and involving Hitler there? Who know what might happend near Stalingrad if Rommel's troops were here fighting the Red Army?The Germany might probably win the war on the East.


Hitler feared so much the war on two fronts, and finally hopened by himself the second front.... so who was the true guilty?
Hitler never opened the second front- he started only one front - Eastern. He never made an mystery for German's plan of Eastern lebensraum and openly told about it to everyone western politic he can meet . The second front was a British trap for Hitler- the Britain started the war ( real world war) becouse of Poland. Hitler sincerely belived Britain would never dare. But they done. So for Hitler, whose eastern plans throug Poland( becouse through the Poland was only way to the East) weaged only ONE front compain. Luky for USSR, he has been delayed for two years beouse of the Britain.

DVX
06-09-2016, 02:51 PM
Dear Chevan, just some books to read: :D

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php/12290-quot-Mussolini-the-secret-of-his-death-quot-by-Luciano-Garibaldi

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php/12159-The-German-betrayal-Like-the-Third-Reich-ruined-Italy-by-Erich-Kuby

http://fncrsi.altervista.org/Carteggio_080414.pdf

http://fncrsi.altervista.org/10_giugno_1940.pdf

As soon as possible I'll suggest ant article in Italian, you should read...

DVX
06-09-2016, 03:18 PM
Which economical prospects could hope Hitler to get in Africa? Bananas ?

And the Middle East oil industry? And the Mediterranean Sea, strategical way on seas and vital link for the British Empire communications? (It was not a case if GB possessed its doors, Gibraltar, Suez and Malta)
Are these bananas?
You continental (Germans, Russians...) have a conception too earthy, or landed-oriented (as you like) and not consider the importance of the possession of the seas. This was the biggest Hitler's mistake. Britain was going into crisis by the siege of German submarines and the cut of her strongholds and supply lines in the Mediterranean Sea.
It 's a fact that Hitler attacked Russia without his back covered, because England has not given up nor treated.
You are completly right in saying that the objective of Hitler was the Central Europe and Russia, but he had the duty of targeting it only in the right conditions, with the back covered and protected by any menace, and about this was completely wrong, when Mussolini had told him not to move towards east at least before the United Kingdom was defeated. And its defeat was first of all in the Mediterranean.

imi
06-09-2016, 10:19 PM
Hey guys, I have a few ideas why the Italians in North Africa lost the battle.

1.) Because of lacking in supplies.
2.) The German Afrika Armee didn't put them to a right location.
3.) They didn't have enough support.


I need to be corrected guys, so, what do you say why the Italians lose to the British in North Africa?
All feedbacks will be respected. :)

On the one hand there were the Italians have outdated weapons opposite the heavily and modern armed fanatical Germans, the Italians were much more relaxed in the WW2
In many cases and reports, the Italians were useless because they surrendered immediately to the Allies, rather fight against them

The British were able to win just because Hitler had seized a multi-front war that time can't help the Afrikafront with the Wehrmacht or the SS, and the British and they allies were outnumbered and the Italians are against the Germans anyway

Allies
*United Kingdom
*India
*Southern Rhodesia
*Australia
*Canada
*New Zealand
*South Africa
*United States
Free France
France, Algeria
Tunisia Tunisia
Morocco Morocco
Troops of Poland
Czechoslovakia Czechoslovak Legions
Greece

Against

Italy and Germany
France Vichy troops
France Algerian troops
Tunisia Tunisia troops
Troops from Morocco

Bad ratio for the Italians and the Germans, especially the large number of the Allied troops

Rising Sun*
06-10-2016, 06:00 AM
And the Middle East oil industry?

I'm happy to be corrected as I'm commenting from general knowledge but, apart possibly from some modest production in Egypt, I don't think there was any "oil industry" or strategically useful oil production in North Africa and particularly in the Italian territories in Libya and Eritrea.


And the Mediterranean Sea, strategical way on seas and vital link for the British Empire communications? (It was not a case if GB possessed its doors, Gibraltar, Suez and Malta)

But wasn't Italy was well placed to effect some control of the Suez Canal traffic if it had placed naval forces in Eritrea at the narrows between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden?

I confess that I've always been a bit mystified by Italy's involvement in North Africa beyond the obvious defence of its territories there after Italy declared war in 1940 which led to war with the British in North Africa and Germany getting drawn in to bolster Italy, as happened about a year later in another Italian overreach in Greece. There doesn't seem to be a clearly thought out and achievable strategy beyond, perhaps, Mussolini's usual extravagance in wanting to make the Mediterranean an Italian lake denied to every other nation.

As was mentioned above, Germany's war in the East might, perhaps, have turned out differently without the diversion of troops and logistics to North Africa and Greece.

Rising Sun*
06-10-2016, 06:36 AM
On the one hand there were the Italians have outdated weapons opposite the heavily and modern armed fanatical Germans, the Italians were much more relaxed in the WW2
In many cases and reports, the Italians were useless because they surrendered immediately to the Allies, rather fight against them

The British were able to win just because Hitler had seized a multi-front war that time can't help the Afrikafront with the Wehrmacht or the SS, and the British and they allies were outnumbered and the Italians are against the Germans anyway

Allies
*United Kingdom
*India
*Southern Rhodesia
*Australia
*Canada
*New Zealand
*South Africa
*United States
Free France
France, Algeria
Tunisia Tunisia
Morocco Morocco
Troops of Poland
Czechoslovakia Czechoslovak Legions
Greece

Against

Italy and Germany
France Vichy troops
France Algerian troops
Tunisia Tunisia troops
Troops from Morocco

Bad ratio for the Italians and the Germans, especially the large number of the Allied troops

I don't know where you got those figures and 'facts' from, but they are hopelessly wrong so far as the opening war between Italy and the British Commonwealth in late 1940- early 1941, about a year before the US got into the war and about two years before the US got involved in North Africa.

The Italians vastly outnumbered the British at the time Italy declared war, in artillery, tanks and troops. Troop ratio was something like 4 to 1 in Italy's favour.

DVX
06-10-2016, 07:08 AM
I'm happy to be corrected as I'm commenting from general knowledge but, apart possibly from some modest production in Egypt, I don't think there was any "oil industry" or strategically useful oil production in North Africa and particularly in the Italian territories in Libya and Eritrea.

And Iran and Iraq? And the Arabic peninsula?
You're forgetting them. How could GB defend and control them after a Suez fall? In fact the dream of Rommel was to reach the Caucaso from the middle East.



But wasn't Italy was well placed to effect some control of the Suez Canal traffic if it had placed naval forces in Eritrea at the narrows between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden?

If you have sufficient means there, and above all the freedom to supply them.... if the way is cut by the enemy doors it becomes difficoult after a bit of time.


As was mentioned above, Germany's war in the East might, perhaps, have turned out differently without the diversion of troops and logistics to North Africa and Greece.

A leader must have the ability to flex the plans following the reality of the time and of the moments. Germans were too strict as usual, to change their plans following the reality rather than their blind will.
The Germans would like the Italian help without putting their power aside the weaker ally. It was a bad idea, and politics and wars don't work so.
Hitler should say: ok Ben, thank you, but we prefer you stay out. We can't help you if you can't make by yourself, because we don't want to change our plans. But instead, if you accept Italy as an ally, you have to respect her request:

"Our intervention can, therefore, take place at once if Germany delivers to us immediately the military supplies and the raw materials to resist the attack which the French and English especially would direct against us".

Because at last it's the same your interest.

DVX
06-10-2016, 07:14 AM
The Italians vastly outnumbered the British at the time Italy declared war, in artillery, tanks and troops. Troop ratio was something like 4 to 1 in Italy's favour.

Italy outnumbered the British forces in Africa just about men and bayonets, in the "heavy tools" there was no match, worsening day by day, especially for the Eastern Italian Africa too far from home supplies.

Rising Sun*
06-10-2016, 07:29 AM
And Iran and Iraq? And the Arabic peninsula?
You're forgetting them. How could GB defend and control them after a Suez fall? In fact the dream of Rommel was to reach the Caucaso from the middle East.


I'm not forgetting them. I'm excluding them, as they were theatres far removed from Italy's war in North Africa and with entirely different strategic considerations.

Rising Sun*
06-10-2016, 07:39 AM
. Germans were too strict as usual, to change their plans following the reality rather than their blind will.

Germany changed its plans very quickly to rescue Italy from its failed invasion of Greece, which possibly put Barbarossa back by six weeks which became critical as Germany approached Moscow.

imi
06-10-2016, 08:46 AM
I don't know where you got those figures and 'facts' from, but they are hopelessly wrong so far as the opening war between Italy and the British Commonwealth in late 1940- early 1941, about a year before the US got into the war and about two years before the US got involved in North Africa.

The Italians vastly outnumbered the British at the time Italy declared war, in artillery, tanks and troops. Troop ratio was something like 4 to 1 in Italy's favour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign

The whole world into war, it became part of the German negatively when Americans entered the war against Hitler
With this US action seriously divided the Wehrmacht and the SS,and now they not only had to deal with the Russians but also a large number of Americans
As already mentioned, the Italians were not too bright due to warfare with their old weapons and loose morale and without German support their lost the battle, because their opponents were outnumbered and have much more modern weapons than the Italians
The English or Soviet Union probably would never have won without the large number of US personal army support, as it would Hitler took Moscow for the second time if the USA not enter into the world war 2
Hitler wary of going in a two-front war again like ww1, but the arbitrary Japan are caused the two front war and this cause the downfall of the Third Reich

DVX
06-10-2016, 05:32 PM
Germany changed its plans very quickly to rescue Italy from its failed invasion of Greece, which possibly put Barbarossa back by six weeks which became critical as Germany approached Moscow.

They just rescued their southern side from the sudden Jugoslavian anti-Axis and pro-Britain "rebellion"... when Italy was being already involved in Greece for 6 months... And the Germans opened a new front with a strong enemy still fighting in the back. A crazy mistake much worser than the Italian war in Greece.
Hitler thought to knock out Soviet Union in a few months... the worst mistake of the war.

Rising Sun*
06-11-2016, 04:29 AM
And the Germans opened a new front with a strong enemy still fighting in the back. A crazy mistake much worser than the Italian war in Greece.

The craziest mistake in Greece was Churchill's decision to commit British Commonwealth land forces there without, consistent with his flawed strategy in Malaya, adequate air support.

The Australian commander in Greece, General Blamey, saw it was a doomed campaign from the outset. One of his first actions on arriving in Greece was to identify embarkation points for his soon to be defeated troops.

Not only did Churchill waste his troops and resources on a pointless exercise to show support for Greece in a strategically irrelevant campaign for Britain, he also took those troops and resources from North Africa where they could have been much better employed.

Any impact the British involvement had on Barbarossa was entirely accidental rather than part of a well thought out strategy.

Chevan
06-13-2016, 07:00 AM
And Iran and Iraq? And the Arabic peninsula?
You're forgetting them. How could GB defend and control them after a Suez fall? In fact the dream of Rommel was to reach the Caucaso from the middle East.

I think nothing has been forgotten- it was a dream of Hitler and von Manstein - to reach the Iran and Turkey through the Caucaus. Therefore the 6 army so desperatively fought in Stalingrad. In fact the germans were much closer to the Meddle East oil , beeing on top of its eastern advance in late 1942.

gumalangi
07-25-2016, 02:37 AM
Freemason

DVX
07-28-2016, 07:09 AM
The craziest mistake in Greece was Churchill's decision to commit British Commonwealth land forces there without, consistent with his flawed strategy in Malaya, adequate air support.

The Australian commander in Greece, General Blamey, saw it was a doomed campaign from the outset. One of his first actions on arriving in Greece was to identify embarkation points for his soon to be defeated troops.

Not only did Churchill waste his troops and resources on a pointless exercise to show support for Greece in a strategically irrelevant campaign for Britain, he also took those troops and resources from North Africa where they could have been much better employed.

Any impact the British involvement had on Barbarossa was entirely accidental rather than part of a well thought out strategy.

I don't agree, perhaps it was a military mistake, but Churchill had also political duties: often politics must prevail on military.
Churchill couldn't leave alone, in front of the world, Greece and later Yugoslavia (where the anti-Axis golpe wasn't stranger to the British plots...).
Sometime the political needs force some military moves that, considering them only under a military view, are not good.
In my opinion you're neglecting those Churchill's hard political needs.

Rising Sun*
07-28-2016, 09:30 AM
I don't agree, perhaps it was a military mistake, but Churchill had also political duties: often politics must prevail on military.
Churchill couldn't leave alone, in front of the world, Greece and later Yugoslavia (where the anti-Axis golpe wasn't stranger to the British plots...).
Sometime the political needs force some military moves that, considering them only under a military view, are not good.
In my opinion you're neglecting those Churchill's hard political needs.

I'm not neglecting the political aspects of Churchill's decisions.

The problem is that Churchill neglected the military difficulties, to the point of almost certain failure, of offering military support in Greece to demonstrate ultimately pointless political support for Greece.

All he succeeded in doing was demonstrate to the world that, as in France earlier, Britain couldn't defeat Germany in Europe. That was at least as bad in front of the world as not leaving Greece alone.

His actions were a massive political negative as far as demonstrating effective support for Greece and, worse, a significant military disaster for the loss of troops, weapons, and materiel in a pointless and unnecessary diversion of those resources to Greece and then Crete, along with substantial naval resources, from the land war in North Africa and the Royal Navy's Mediterranean operations.

Even allowing for the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the fact remains that before British Commonwealth forces were committed their local North African commanders (Wavell and notably the Australian Blamey) foresaw the looming disaster and that the Greek military commanders had also opposed British intervention because they knew any chance of resisting a German invasion required a force many times larger than that which Churchill and his Chiefs of Staff decided to commit to Greece.

War is ultimately about military force prevailing over the enemy. No hot war has ever been won by demonstrating futile political support for an ally leading to military defeat of the ally and expulsion of the supporting force from the ally's territory. Greece stands as a clear lesson to politicians not to waste their military resources in what the military men already see as a futile exercise.

What is little known is that Britain (as distinct from British participation in wider British Commonwealth forces in 1941) invaded Greece twice: in 1941 and 1944. The second invasion was, like the first, essentially to support the Greek government but, unlike the first, primarily to ensure that the Soviets did not occupy Greece in contravention of an agreement between Britain and the USSR. The second invasion turned into a British anti-communist action against the Greek communist partisans who had contributed to the Allied war effort by their courageous actions against the occupying Germans. Churchill's aim in the second invasion was to suppress that part of the Greek population which was pro-communist and to use military force to do so. So much for Churchill's grand commitment to democracy and, worse, in its birthplace.

leccy
07-29-2016, 03:26 AM
Churchill did not have the manpower nor equipment to really defend Greece against the combined German, Bulgarian (although despite German 'requests' did not participate with troops in the actual invasions) and Italian forces - but politically he was required to do something.

Greece was wavering with support for the Axis as opposed to the Allies, with intervention it sort of forced Greeces hand, as a result large numbers of Axis men and equipment (far more than the allies lost) was tied down for the duration. The Greek merchant fleet had 638 ships totalling 1.9 million GRT (most of which was cargo ships 607). It had the third largest merchant fleet in 1939. If Greece went to the Axis camp that fleet plus the Greek Navy (although the major units were quite old) could or would be available to the Axis. This was during the first U Boat 'Happy Time' as well so an important consideration for Churchill with the loss of so many British merchant ships.

With Italy's beligerancy Greece was not going to stay Neutral, Germany would deal with it either by forcing it to join the Axis forces in some way (much like Bulgaria) or invade anyway. The Balkans had a large Soviet/Russian sympathy (Yugolasvian republics particularly) so would need to be neutralised and that would include Greece.

There is still a debate about the reason for the delay in attacking the USSR - the reserves for Barbarossa (who were to take no part in the initial stages) outnumbered the troops sent to Greece (although they were not the best forces), the Rasputitsa lasted much longer than usual, during the first week of June the Polish and Russian river valleys were still flooded and impassable to the invading forces. So at most a week to two weeks (which is what actually happened) would have been the delay. By the time the Germans got to Moscow the forces were suffering from exhaustion and lack of man power, units being a shell of their former selves - much like the myth of Dunkirk - the Germans were stopped because they could not go further, but it is much better to blame some other force or nature rather than that the German army had fought itself to a standstill.

The intervention in Greece also continued Churchills theme (which he was desperate to prove to the US mostly), that wherever was threatened by the Axis he would resist, no matter the cost. This helped (along with payments and supplies) to keep other nations out of direct action (Spain and Turkey for instance).

With hindsight I can still say he had a hard call to make, Commonwealth and allied nations in North Africa was desperately short of equipment, supplies and the troops and equipment they did have were tired or worn out (high in moral though). Those troops and equipment sent may have been enough to push the Italians completely out of North Africa - although I doubt it before the Germans intervened, they may have been enough to resist the Axis advance though.

Chances are though the Greek merchant fleet would not have sailed to join the Allies (75% of the Greek freighters were sunk in WW2 by the Axis), or at least would not have joined in early on, during the most desperate days.

Hindsight and/or looking at a single action without looking at what Churchill could see of the bigger picture (including knowing that Germany was going to attack the Soviet Union in 1941) can lead to conclusions that may not be in tune with what was known and thought at the time. Its very difficult to look back and ignore hindsight and to limit a view to just that action.

Much like the Dardeneles in WW1, Churchill gets all the blame but his initial idea was to force the straights with an Anglo/French naval force carry troops direct to the capital - which (unknown to the Allies) almost succeded. The seaborne landings was not part of his original idea, Generals on the ground tend to get less blame for their failures to advance on day one.

Churchill with hindsight made some huge blunders, some which are considered blunders if taken in the wider context can be considered otherwise. He also did many great things and was possibly the only leader in Britain who would have kept Britain in the war against the Axis (the make peace lobby was quite strong in parliament at the time).

Rising Sun*
07-29-2016, 07:38 AM
Churchill did not have the manpower nor equipment to really defend Greece against the combined German, Bulgarian (although despite German 'requests' did not participate with troops in the actual invasions) and Italian forces - but politically he was required to do something.

Greece was wavering with support for the Axis as opposed to the Allies, with intervention it sort of forced Greeces hand, as a result large numbers of Axis men and equipment (far more than the allies lost) was tied down for the duration. The Greek merchant fleet had 638 ships totalling 1.9 million GRT (most of which was cargo ships 607). It had the third largest merchant fleet in 1939. If Greece went to the Axis camp that fleet plus the Greek Navy (although the major units were quite old) could or would be available to the Axis. This was during the first U Boat 'Happy Time' as well so an important consideration for Churchill with the loss of so many British merchant ships.

With Italy's beligerancy Greece was not going to stay Neutral, Germany would deal with it either by forcing it to join the Axis forces in some way (much like Bulgaria) or invade anyway. The Balkans had a large Soviet/Russian sympathy (Yugolasvian republics particularly) so would need to be neutralised and that would include Greece.

There is still a debate about the reason for the delay in attacking the USSR - the reserves for Barbarossa (who were to take no part in the initial stages) outnumbered the troops sent to Greece (although they were not the best forces), the Rasputitsa lasted much longer than usual, during the first week of June the Polish and Russian river valleys were still flooded and impassable to the invading forces. So at most a week to two weeks (which is what actually happened) would have been the delay. By the time the Germans got to Moscow the forces were suffering from exhaustion and lack of man power, units being a shell of their former selves - much like the myth of Dunkirk - the Germans were stopped because they could not go further, but it is much better to blame some other force or nature rather than that the German army had fought itself to a standstill.

The intervention in Greece also continued Churchills theme (which he was desperate to prove to the US mostly), that wherever was threatened by the Axis he would resist, no matter the cost. This helped (along with payments and supplies) to keep other nations out of direct action (Spain and Turkey for instance).

With hindsight I can still say he had a hard call to make, Commonwealth and allied nations in North Africa was desperately short of equipment, supplies and the troops and equipment they did have were tired or worn out (high in moral though). Those troops and equipment sent may have been enough to push the Italians completely out of North Africa - although I doubt it before the Germans intervened, they may have been enough to resist the Axis advance though.

Chances are though the Greek merchant fleet would not have sailed to join the Allies (75% of the Greek freighters were sunk in WW2 by the Axis), or at least would not have joined in early on, during the most desperate days.

Hindsight and/or looking at a single action without looking at what Churchill could see of the bigger picture (including knowing that Germany was going to attack the Soviet Union in 1941) can lead to conclusions that may not be in tune with what was known and thought at the time. Its very difficult to look back and ignore hindsight and to limit a view to just that action.

.....

Churchill with hindsight made some huge blunders, some which are considered blunders if taken in the wider context can be considered otherwise. He also did many great things and was possibly the only leader in Britain who would have kept Britain in the war against the Axis (the make peace lobby was quite strong in parliament at the time).

Excellent summary, and puts Churchill's decision in full context, which I confess I'd ignored in looking at British Commonwealth action in Greece in 1941 in isolation from the other factors you mention and which bore on Churchill's decision.

Very good and important point about the Greek ships, which is reminiscent of the British concerns about the French fleet about a year before and which, following French refusal to bring the ships over to the British or to sail to a neutral country led Churchill to order the attack on the French fleet at Mers el Kebir to prevent them being used by the Axis powers, despite French Navy assurances that this wouldn't happen. Also reminiscent in a different way of the significant impact and benefit to the Allies of the Dutch Navy and merchant ships which escaped the Japanese, with the merchant ships being a major contributor to MacArthur's campaigns in the critical early years and the Dutch Navy ships and especially submarines making a solid contribution to Allied naval operations.

Rising Sun*
07-29-2016, 08:02 AM
Much like the Dardeneles in WW1, Churchill gets all the blame but his initial idea was to force the straights with an Anglo/French naval force carry troops direct to the capital - which (unknown to the Allies) almost succeded. The seaborne landings was not part of his original idea, Generals on the ground tend to get less blame for their failures to advance on day one.

Not something I've studied, but recently I heard a radio interview with Mark Baker, the author of this book https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/biography-autobiography/Phillip-Schuler-Mark-Baker-9781760111656 and who seems to have studied the Dardanelles sea and land campaigns closely and for many years, where he mentioned that the Turks probably would have failed successfully to resist a second RN attempt to force the Dardanelles soon after the first attempt. He seemed to support Schuler's contemporary view that if the Allies had persisted with the land campaign in 1915 they would have succeeded, but that other journalists prevailed in influencing the decision to abandon Gallipoli. His assessment of the journalists' views and actions and how they have subsequently influenced popular understanding, and factual misunderstandings of the Gallipoli campaign and the major actors, especially in Australia, is covered in this extract from his book: http://www.smh.com.au/national/rupert-murdochs-airbrushing-anzac-history-to-make-his-dad-hero-20160607-gpe0ld.html

JR*
07-29-2016, 10:00 AM
Regarding the Dardanelles - there is evidence that the Turks were breaking under British/Commonwealth attack, in part, due to the limited skills of their earnest but less than competent junior officers. One must allow for myth-making, but it does appear that they were rallied by Mustapha Kemal and other middle-ranking officers and sundry German "advisers", and just held. Whether they would have held off a further Allied attack must remain a matter for speculation.

As to the Greek campaign - a very chilly military appreciation would have placed Greece at the time as "threatened/lost territory the recapture of which would not have been justified by reference to a balance of advantage against cost. This would have been a strategic version of a doctrine developed at tactical level by the Germans in mid-WW1. But - like Hitler's decision to intervene in the Balkans to support his Italian allies - this is not a matter that can be assessed without regard to political considerations. Best regards, JR.

royal744
10-05-2016, 10:34 PM
This is all true as far as it goes. Japan played on the theme of getting the white man out of Asia and it was effective. Initially, at least. The only trouble with this is that Japan didn't give a damn about Asians other than themselves, They were going to be the new colonial masters. Their idea was to replace European colonialism with Japanese colonialism. It was "bait and switch" on a grand and cynical scale. The Filipinos saw through this from the beginning and it infuriated the Japanese. Filipino guerrillas operated in many places throughout the duration of the Japanese occupation.

Nickdfresh
10-06-2016, 08:47 AM
The Japanese tended to be far worse to their Asian "brothers" than did the European whites. Those unfortunate enough to fall under Japanese control found that soon enough. One of the great ironies is that when the IJA took Hong Kong, they often (but not always) attempted to protect the interned British and other non-Asians while battering the Chinese population and making Asian organized crime gangs their nominal allies in an occupation puppet gov't...

Rising Sun*
10-07-2016, 08:40 AM
This is all true as far as it goes. Japan played on the theme of getting the white man out of Asia and it was effective. Initially, at least.

Not only initially, but ultimately.

Japan's failed war southwards provided the groundwork for the post-war anti-colonialist successes all over South East Asia by removing the former European colonial powers for the duration and leaving a bit of a vacuum post-war.

If Japan had confined its expansionism to China, there is a fair chance that the post-WWII map from India to the Pacific would have remained as it was pre-war for many more decades. And that this might have seen less success in anti-colonialist movements in Africa, not least because the continuation of European colonialism in Asia would have legitimised continuation of colonialism in Africa, as well as allowing some European powers to avoid dilution of their military forces by trying to retain power in Asia, notably the French in Indo-China culminating in Dien Bien Phu.


The only trouble with this is that Japan didn't give a damn about Asians other than themselves, They were going to be the new colonial masters. Their idea was to replace European colonialism with Japanese colonialism.

True, but it is also the case that the Japanese were just doing on a vastly more aggressive and brutal, and monumentally clumsy and stupid, scale what the main European powers had been doing for the previous few centuries in Asia, notably the British and Dutch, and to a lesser extent the Portuguese, for the previous few centuries and more recently most of the major European powers as well as the US in carving up China for their own benefit.

If one contrasts, say, the British ways of gaining and maintaining control of India through forging alliances with local rulers (not unlike the ancient Romans doing much the same) with Japan's remorselessly brutal conduct in China, it becomes clear that Japan was operating on a much less sophisticated level, which is consistent with the contemporary Japanese idiocy of 'spirit' being able to overcome all, including America's vastly greater industrial capacity and the development of superior weapons and various tactical and strategic successes by the Allies.

I'm not putting this forward as an excuse for Japan's conduct but as an explanation: Simply put, compared with the Allies (but not necessarily Chinese forces and especially Chinese Nationalist forces) Japan was operating on a more primitive level than its enemies which freed Japan of the constraints largely observed by its enemies up to Pearl Harbor and in the conduct of subsequent warfare. This flowed from Japanese history, culture and society as modified to some extent by the supposed 'militarists' who supposedly took Japan to war in China and later southwards, although in reality Emperor Hirohito either acquiesced in or was the driving force behind Japan's aggression but this was concealed and misrepresented after the war by MacArthur and his cabal with the active co-operation for their own purposes (essentially to preserve the Emperor and the imperial house and the various fictions that supposedly surrounded it in Japanese society) of Hirohito and his cabal.