You just beat Rommel in N. Africa - what do you do nxt?

I posted this on the "other site" but thought a few over here might enjoy it as well.

Last few weeks in AZ – I drove down to Window Rock to see my wife, chase the suitors away, then on to Tucson for a few weeks in the sun with our son. He borrowed a Netflix account so we could watch movies on his computer in the evening. One night it was “Patton.” Great movie, but here's where it gets good:

After wrapping up the Afrika Corps, there is a scene where Patton, Monty, Bradley and some others are planning their next move. Where will they go next? Italy? Sicily? The Balkans? Sardinia? Someone suggests invading southern France.

This is where it gets good. My wife says they should invade southern France right away. She says Sicily is a sideshow and invading Italy will just tie up trops without doing much harm to Germany. “It's just a blind alley, they should have struck at the main German force.” She went on to say the Germans would take over Italy and Vichy France once the allies moved into Europe. After telling her by now astounded husband and son about the tactical advantages the Panther and Tiger tanks gave the Germans, she finished out by saying: “They should have listened to Stalin.”

When I moved out, I left a lot of my books in Window Rock. I knew right away that she was basing her opinion on David Kennedy's “Freedom from Fear.” I stopped a couple days on my way back to Idaho and re-read the chapters on the war in Europe. She followed pretty closely on Kennedy's analysis, but reached her conclusion about the right next move after Torch on her own. Kennedy barely mentions Operation Anvil, the invasion of southern France, which eventually materialized as Dragoon in August of '44.

I had to think about that one. She may have been right. The Allies might have had enough men and materiel resources to just barely pull it off, provided they could get Churchill and Montgomery to go along. (They couldn't) Then I thought some more: what if I disagree with her? Can you imagine a husband and wife fighting over whether the Allies should have invaded France instead of Sicily and Italy? What would we tell the judge at the divorce hearing?

so, in the thead most people were working out their views on Italy, but one person asked, "Who is this girl?"

Salisa Chaiyapruk. We met in Philadelphia 30-some years ago. she is from an upper middle-class Thai family, had won a national competition for a full-ride scholarship to Penn. I followed her to Bangkok, we came back after a few yeaRS and ended up working for the Navajo Nation. She's still there, likes it fine, I'm trying to talk her into moving in with me in Idaho.

She's always got a surprise for me. I think she read the Kennedy book in 6 evenings. Recently she told me she thinks in English. "It's easier because there are more words to think with." I don't necessarily agree with her about Italy, butI'm not going to argue unless I have my facts straight first.


Just when you think you know someone, they totally surprise you!

jn

Italy was a side show for Churchill. Soft underbelly, and all.
I agree, a quick invasion on the south of France, like we did in July of 44, may have done it.

It couldn't have gone much worse than The Italy campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon_norstog

I posted this on the "other site" but thought a few over here might enjoy it as well.

Last few weeks in AZ – I drove down to Window Rock to see my wife, chase the suitors away, then on to Tucson for a few weeks in the sun with our son. He borrowed a Netflix account so we could watch movies on his computer in the evening. One night it was “Patton.” Great movie, but here's where it gets good:

After wrapping up the Afrika Corps, there is a scene where Patton, Monty, Bradley and some others are planning their next move. Where will they go next? Italy? Sicily? The Balkans? Sardinia? Someone suggests invading southern France.

This is where it gets good. My wife says they should invade southern France right away. She says Sicily is a sideshow and invading Italy will just tie up trops without doing much harm to Germany. “It's just a blind alley, they should have struck at the main German force.” She went on to say the Germans would take over Italy and Vichy France once the allies moved into Europe. After telling her by now astounded husband and son about the tactical advantages the Panther and Tiger tanks gave the Germans, she finished out by saying: “They should have listened to Stalin.”

When I moved out, I left a lot of my books in Window Rock. I knew right away that she was basing her opinion on David Kennedy's “Freedom from Fear.” I stopped a couple days on my way back to Idaho and re-read the chapters on the war in Europe. She followed pretty closely on Kennedy's analysis, but reached her conclusion about the right next move after Torch on her own. Kennedy barely mentions Operation Anvil, the invasion of southern France, which eventually materialized as Dragoon in August of '44.

I had to think about that one. She may have been right. The Allies might have had enough men and materiel resources to just barely pull it off, provided they could get Churchill and Montgomery to go along. (They couldn't) Then I thought some more: what if I disagree with her? Can you imagine a husband and wife fighting over whether the Allies should have invaded France instead of Sicily and Italy? What would we tell the judge at the divorce hearing?

so, in the thead most people were working out their views on Italy, but one person asked, "Who is this girl?"

Salisa Chaiyapruk. We met in Philadelphia 30-some years ago. she is from an upper middle-class Thai family, had won a national competition for a full-ride scholarship to Penn. I followed her to Bangkok, we came back after a few yeaRS and ended up working for the Navajo Nation. She's still there, likes it fine, I'm trying to talk her into moving in with me in Idaho.

She's always got a surprise for me. I think she read the Kennedy book in 6 evenings. Recently she told me she thinks in English. "It's easier because there are more words to think with." I don't necessarily agree with her about Italy, butI'm not going to argue unless I have my facts straight first.


Just when you think you know someone, they totally surprise you!

jn

---

One little problem, not enough ships, men or materials to back the origional landing force up. Also, the germen army had not been worn down by the russian army, remember, Kursk had not yet taken place and the germans would have rapidly reallocated troops to the south of France. Furthermore, the terrain in the south of France is much more suitable for defence then the plains in the north.
Consider also the fight the germans put up in 1944, it would have been much worse in 1943.
Lastly, by taking Sicily and the south of Italy, a million tons of shipping were freed up juts by shortening the lines of communication alone.

After

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibbs505

One little problem, not enough ships, men or materials to back the origional landing force up. Also, the germen army had not been worn down by the Russian army, remember, Kursk had not yet taken place and the germans would have rapidly reallocated troops to the south of France. Furthermore, the terrain in the south of France is much more suitable for defence then the plains in the north.
Consider also the fight the germans put up in 1944, it would have been much worse in 1943.
Lastly, by taking Sicily and the south of Italy, a million tons of shipping were freed up juts by shortening the lines of communication alone.

---

Agreed. Obviously they made a good decision because the Allies won the war. It is possible that they could have won with the other course of action, but getting Italy out of the way first knocked out an entire ally for the Axis that may have otherwise made a southern France invasion much more difficult. Postponing the France invasion also gave the Allies a whole year to build up and train their forces for Operation Overlord. Though, I'm no strategy scholar, just my opinion. Without the hindsight of history now, I may have had a different opinion if I were in their shoes back then.

Agreed, by knocking Italy out of the war, Germany had to replace Italian troops with their own, this posed additional problems for them!

The stratgey of clearing North Africa, then Sicily/Italy, finally invading France was FM Alan Brookes from the very beginning of his becoming CIGS. He stuck with it throughout the war, fighting for it with the americians, other british generals and even Churchill!

Concentrate on Naval power and secure the North Sea. Mass troops in Norway and push down in an early summer invasion, directly into Germany. Or wait for the bomb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onlycrimson

Concentrate on Naval power and secure the North Sea. Mass troops in Norway and push down in an early summer invasion, directly into Germany. Or wait for the bomb.

---

Really? Norway would be an even worse place to fight in then Italy! Churchill wanted to go back there a number of times and Alan Brooke had to fend him off!!
Then where to go? A crossing into Denmark, very narrow country, easy to seal off!!

A reason why they went were they did in France was that it was in the operational radius of the spiture, the most numerous fighter that the allies had! Denmark and northern Germany is a consideral distance further away and the seas are a lot rougher!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibbs505

spiture

---

Never heard of that one: I presume you mean Spitfire. But you are touching on a relevant point. Any invasion "hop" had to be within fighter range. From Africa right across the Med to Southern France was out of the question, because effective air support would have been impossible. And any force that managed to gain a foothold in that area would have simply been pounded to bits with no air defence, no possibility of a breakout, and any seaborne supplies also being pounded by air from France and Italy. Geography beats armchair strategy.

France summer 1943? Anglo-American Allies would have been defeated by the Axis, no doubt. Waiting 1 more year and draining much of a large enemy of it's logistics, manpower and some of it's weak but valuable allies packing it in like Italy,Romania, etc, was the correct decision.