3 ms·

I've been reading WW II books since forever. Italy was basically a gift to Hitler -- it's a country made for defense. But I'm not sure the Balkans, like Churchi

I've been reading WW II books since forever. Italy was basically a gift to Hitler -- it's a country made for defense. But I'm not sure the Balkans, like Churchill wanted, would have been any better. And Stalin would have been very unhappy about it.

ianburrell 3y ago
The Allies had enough troops and supplies later in the war that made sense to attack everywhere to force Germany to commit troops. The Germans had 27 divisions in Italy in 1944. The Allies could have been more aggressive like not letting German forces escape at Anzio. But could have been less aggressive in attacking defensive lines wasting troops for slow advance. Also, the 15th Air Force operating from Italy brought lots of Eastern Europe in range of bombers.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  True enough. I don't have a better alternative, as an armchair strategist. The Italian campaign was a meat grinder.
- MomoXenosaga 3y ago
  Stalin was also pushing for the allies to do something constructive.
cafard 3y ago
Michael Howard (who served in Italy) wrote a book I remember as The Mediterranean Strategy of the Allies During WW II. Quite interesting. The Balkans would have been hard to get at without having Italy in hand. Where would one have attacked, when the British couldn't take and hold the Dodecanese?
- jcranmer 3y ago
  Look at a terrain map of the Balkans. With Italy, you at least have usable coastal highways that let you theoretically push forward no matter where you land [1], but the Balkans don't really have any coast-to-interior routes that can support a large force, and they don't offer that much worth capturing. [1] But there's so few of them and the chokepoints so obvious that it's relatively easy to defend them.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Yep. Churchill mastered a lot of topics but "military strategy" wasn't one. If Spain had been in the war that would have been the obvious choice, but they were "neutral."

ianburrell 3y ago

The Allies had enough troops and supplies later in the war that made sense to attack everywhere to force Germany to commit troops. The Germans had 27 divisions in Italy in 1944. The Allies could have been more aggressive like not letting German forces escape at Anzio. But could have been less aggressive in attacking defensive lines wasting troops for slow advance. Also, the 15th Air Force operating from Italy brought lots of Eastern Europe in range of bombers.

AlbertCory 3y ago
True enough. I don't have a better alternative, as an armchair strategist. The Italian campaign was a meat grinder.
MomoXenosaga 3y ago
Stalin was also pushing for the allies to do something constructive.

cafard 3y ago

Michael Howard (who served in Italy) wrote a book I remember as The Mediterranean Strategy of the Allies During WW II. Quite interesting. The Balkans would have been hard to get at without having Italy in hand. Where would one have attacked, when the British couldn't take and hold the Dodecanese?

jcranmer 3y ago
Look at a terrain map of the Balkans. With Italy, you at least have usable coastal highways that let you theoretically push forward no matter where you land [1], but the Balkans don't really have any coast-to-interior routes that can support a large force, and they don't offer that much worth capturing. [1] But there's so few of them and the chokepoints so obvious that it's relatively easy to defend them.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Yep. Churchill mastered a lot of topics but "military strategy" wasn't one. If Spain had been in the war that would have been the obvious choice, but they were "neutral."