Posted on 08/08/2013 6:40:45 AM PDT by cutty
The two most ardent boosters of the Normandy invasion were Stalin and Harry Hopkins
...
Churchill famously urged that the advance on Germany continue from already-won bases in Italy and elsewhere in south-central Europe.
Stalin’s demand for the big U.S.-British push in northern France, however, prevailed. According to the tally of one peeved letter to the editor in the New York Times, this would put the Allies on track to open their ninth front.
Of course, in order to gather sufficient forces for the June 1944 D-Day invasion, men and equipment, particularly landing craft, had to be withdrawn from the European continent – in Italy – to reinvade the European continent – in France.
In his memoir, Calculated Risk, Gen. Mark Clark, commander of U.S. forces in Italy, explains how gutting his forces in Italy in the months before D-Day stalled Allied progress against German forces. (Italy had already surrendered.) Meanwhile, the disappearance of Allied men and materiel from the battlefield completely mystified the Germans.
For weeks, Clark writes, Allied counterintelligence “was catching enemy agents who had orders to find out 'where in hell' were various Allied divisions that were being sent to France.” They couldn’t believe the Allies weren’t dealing them the death blow they had expected.
Italy... “was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valley of the Po. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself."
"Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany,” he explained. The commander went on recommend “operations in the Aegean”: "From here the Balkans could be kept aflame, Ploesti would be threatened and the Dardanelles might be opened.”
That commander’s name was Dwight D. Eisenhower.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Churchill actually advocated a strong allied thrust through south central Europe. He actually ordered a British offensive that cost the lives of many brave soldiers. In his defense he was never fooled by Hitler and understood Stalin. The post war history of Eastern Europe would have been far different if a significant Anglo-American force had been present with the Russians. However those who pointed out that the logistics of fighting in South Central Europe would have been a nightmare and therefore causalities would have been similar to what the Russians suffered were probably correct. IMHO Churchill was always haunted by his role in the disaster at Gallipoli in 1915 and in an odd way was trying to vindicate his strategy that victory over Germany was achieved through the “soft underbelly of Europe”.
I always thought that the presence of the Alps led to this preference in strategy.
Much of what I've read about Monty is he did not trust the intel coming down from ULTRA/Bletchley Park. In the North Africa campaign Monty would be told that Rommel would be at a specific location and he would not act on it fearing the intel was bad. This happened many times I've read and it would totally frustrate Churchill.
I've read that if Monty had acted and attacked Rommel would have been destroyed and the whole European theater would have been won at least a year earlier.
Without American Lend/Lease supplies, German would be spoken from Caen to the Urals.
From what I've read, it was more like De Gaulle seized the opportunity himself. Luckily we had enough folks with brains that considered him a better alternative than the communists and bucked our own state department, allowing him to do it.
Marshall and Hopkins wanted to invade France in 1943 which would have been an absolute disaster. Only Churchill's insistence prevented this major error. The invasion of Normandy was planned by the British with oversight from Eisenhower. The invasion was the greatest amphibious success in the history of warfare. But soon after the invasion the allies were being defeated on the ground despite superior men and material and complete air superiority.
Pattton was finally returned to active command. He quickly outflanked and soundly defeated the Germans. The German Army was low on supplies and close to starvation in late 1944. Its ranks filled with boys and middle aged men. The Allies should have won the war in late 1944 but the Allies failed to secure the Port of Antwerp until December 1944. They wasted resources and time on the failed Operation Market Garden.
The Allies had an enormous advantage by 1944. The Germans were fighting on two fronts and their resources were being rapidly depleted. Allies had total air superiority by late 1944. German cities were being bombed day and night.
The invasion of France and the maintenence of the front in Italy helped to end the war. Leaving more troops in Italy would have made little difference.
Do you understand warfare that poorly?
Because that whole Dardanelles thing worked out so great in WWI???
Sometimes, just because someone we don’t like wants it ... doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do.
Yep. The mountains of Italy lent themselves far better to defense than the plains of Western Europe. Ask Patton about that one.
Thank you #16 ‘Ditto’ Check out the Brenner Pass. Armies have been stopped there for centuries.
Hannibal didn’t have to worry about a column of elephants being trapped by German bombers taking out a mountain pass.
Ya he did, but he didn't have any opposition when crossing the Alps. I doubt the Nazis would have extended the same courtesy. It was bad enough fighting in the Italian mountains on the way up the boot. Crossing the Alps against a skilled and determined enemy... that would be ugly.
One of the more interesting "What If" scenarios I've heard is "What if we deposed Hitler, and allied with the Germans vs Russia?"
I think that the Russians would have won, simply because they'd throw men at an objective until it was won, and they had the political will to do it. But German engineering and technology, combined with Allied industrial might, might have made it interesting. Approximately a shooting version of the Cold War, 20 years early.
Of interest to our group.
And really West is backwards in calling D-Day the Stalin strategy. The strongest argument for the invasion of Sicly and Italy was the fact that at the time Stalin alone was facing German ground forces. The Allies had cleared North Africa and the invasion of France was, according to the plans at the time, a good 18 months away. Neither Churchill or Roosevelt felt that we could let Stalin shoulder the entire burden for that long. So it was Italy that was the sop to Stalin and not France.
Even after D-Day, the Nazis were rounding up whole French villages of suspected civilian Maquis and French Communists and killing them.
You’re exactly right.
Metz and gasoline shortages were the only things that help Patton up.
OK, but Rome wasn’t liberated until June 5, 1944.
You're probably right. Many in the West are unaware of just how large the Soviet army of 1945 was.
The Soviet generals of 1945 were also first-rate, much better than their leaders were in 1941.
In a hypothetical spring 1945 match up between the Western allies and the Soviets, the West would have had the advantage in strategic bombers. Every other advantage would have belonged to the Soviets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.