View Single Post
  #37 (permalink)  
Old December 7th, 2007, 12:42 AM
Carl W Schwamberger Carl W Schwamberger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 581
Salute!: 0
Saluted 2 Times in 1 Post
Carl W Schwamberger has a spectacular aura aboutCarl W Schwamberger has a spectacular aura about
Default Re: Italian campaign uses Hannibal's plan...not Montgomery's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturmkreuz View Post
Indeed, Italy was worthless as ally, their real succes was taking Etiopia (Ethiopië) because the civilization there still fought with sticks. Germany always had to rescue the Italians in North-Africa..

Italy never had to join the war. Mussolini waited till Germany invaded France and had beaten it and then declared war to them in hope to get some land. But Mussolini lost almost every where he went. Italy wasn't ready for war and were unprepared surely in Greece and North-Africa. He made early succes in Tripoli but they lost again.

Mussolini dreamed about a new Italian / Roman Empire. He needed some easy gains for it. He thought that Germany would've ended the war in matters of months but it wasn't. Still some Italian troops fought with Germany side-by-side.. But they were incapable to fight a war, Mussolini gambled and as result for gambling he lost.
It might have been smarter for the Allies to leave Italy alone and let Il Duce's bumbling continue to drain Germany. After clearing Africa air and naval superiority could be established in the Mediterianian, and then Allied deception efforts, like Mincemeat or Fortitude drawn many more German corps southwards to fend off phantoms.

As it was 'liberating' Italy left the industrial north of Italy in Germanys hands for two more years and the US got to feed the impovrished and stratigicly worthless Southern Italy.
Reply With Quote