Were the Brits Right?

[Canoerebel]

I think so, but what do you guys think?

In 1942, Roosevelt and Churchill met at Casablance to prioritize Allied objectives. The Americans wanted to invade Northern Europe to create a second front. After finishing the African campaign, the Brits wanted to invade Sicily and strongly asserted that it would be a mistake to invade Northern Europe in 1943.

I think the Brits were right. I don't doubt that an Allied invaison would have succeeded in getting a strong lodgement in France, but I believe it would have been so early that the Allies would not have been ready to successfully mount a post-invasion offensive - and the Germans would have been better able to resist any offensive - so that by 1944 the Allies might have been little better off in Europe than they were by invading in June '44.

Also, opening a second front in 1943 probably would have meant the Allies wouldn't have invaded Sicily and Italy in '43, and would have taken most or all of the steam out of the American offensives in the Marshalls and Carolines (since part of the compromise at Casablanca was that since the Allies wouldn't invade France, the Americans would be able to allocate the force needed to proceed in the Pacific).

What do you gents think? Were the Brits right?

[SuluSea]

Absolutely!

[jackx]

What would a '43 invasion in Northern Europe (presumably still France) have meant for Italy? First thing that came to my mind, not that I think the Brits were wrong... 

[JudgeDredd]

Surely Italy "was" a second front? It required German resource...resources that were badly needed elsewhere.

The second front was created...just not where Ike wanted it to be. Besides - don't you attack where the enemy is weakest? I think the Italian campaign whilst perhaps being longer, was certainly the easiest way to get going...and whilst it was underway, German resources were being sucked there and on the Russian Front - all the while taking strength away from Normandy.

None of what I just said is fact by the way. I didn't read it anywhere, so could be compleely wrong...but it stands to reason.

Good decision in my opinion.

[DuckofTindalos]

Given what happened to US forces when they landed in North Africa, I think the priority was correct.

[wilecki]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

The second front was created...just not where Ike wanted it to be. Besides - don't you attack where the enemy is weakest? I think the Italian campaign whilst perhaps being longer, was certainly the easiest way to get going..

Remeber that the Italian campaign cost much more than French campaign in terms of resources and manpower. It required in the end 3 landings (Sicily, Salerno and & Anzio) and didn't give much back. The landscape favored defenders hugely and Germans could face the enemy with much less forces than it would normally require.

The alternative strongly considered by Allied command was a landing in Yugoslavia. That would be much much easier (strong partisan forces) and also would provide relatively short path to the Reich. Also Romanian oilfields in Ploesti would have been directly threatened. The problem was that Stalin wanted to keep Eastern Europe to himself and was not willing to give Yugoslavia up.

In my opinion a really bad decision but understandable given that this compromise was not easy to achieve

[Capt. Harlock]

I think the Brits were right. I don't doubt that an Allied invaison would have succeeded in getting a strong lodgement in France,

I have my serious doubts. The raid on Dieppe showed that the western Allies were not nearly as accomplished at amphibious landings as they would later become -- and that was by British troops. The Americans had a long way to go before their divisions were up to fully manned, equipped, and above all, trained.

And the point about Italy being a "second front" was well made. Technically, the front opened with the invasion of Sicily, which was the soil of an Axis power. The invasion of Italy led to the Italian government not merely ceasing the fight against the Allies but joining them, meaning that the Germans lost large numbers of potential troops. (Many German soldiers were needed to disarm the Italian troops in areas still under Axis control.)

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

... The raid on Dieppe showed that the western Allies were not nearly as accomplished at amphibious landings as they would later become -- and that was by British troops. ...

(cough cough) Those were Canadian troops! [:-] Kind of a touchy subject here as the British were in command and "wasted" our boys....

Back on topic: Landing in Yugoslavia would not have been any easier as the terrain is just as rough/mountainous. Plus the Russians would have been PO'ed.

Sicily/Southern Italy really were the better choice for learning how to do a large scale invasion. Drew units from eslewhere and lead to the collapse of Italian armed forces. Just my opinion though....[8D]

[wilecki]

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
Back on topic: Landing in Yugoslavia would not have been any easier as the terrain is just as rough/mountainous. Plus the Russians would have been PO'ed.

Yeah, you're probably right. Some like to say that this whole Yugoslavian landing might have been only a bluff to show the claw to the Russians and to help Americans to accept the lesser evil Italy seemed to them.

It just doesn't seem fair that such a huge sacrifice didn't give any direct profit. Rome was liberated on 4th of June 1944. Two days later nobody remembered it anymore as the public opinion's eyes turned to France.

But then if you notice how perfectly did the allied war machine work in Normandy, you may think that it was a valuable lesson learned from Italy.

[sullafelix]

Also remember the strength of the German army at that time. This was the time for their big build up for Citadel. With no Italian invasion they might have started to look closely at France. Churchill really wanted a Balkan invasion, Italy was a compromise with the US.

[KG Erwin]

I beg to differ, but the only front that mattered was the one in Russia. Anything the Western Allies did was nothing more than a diversion of effort, which, of course, the Russians demanded as early as 1942. Arguably, by 1944 is was a moot point.

This is an interesting "what if", but we are gamers, not trained diplomats. Inevitably, this will lead into politics, which is inseparable from the conduct of war. However, political discussion is frowned upon here, so it will also inevitably lead to the thread being locked up.

Now, to answer your question: no, the Brits were NEVER right. They consistently made shortsighted judgements, and thus lost their empire, starting in the 18th century up until the 20th.

[jackx]

[troll]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I beg to differ, but the only front that mattered was the one in Russia.

I'm not so sure the Western Allies were in the business of replacing one totalitarian dictator with another, then arguably even more powerful one.

Nice try at making sure you have the last word, though. Too bad the Russian ultimately didn't matter either, because the SU lost its empire, too, and thus, everything they ever did was wrong. >:|

Oh, and *cue dramatic voice*: In the heat of internet arguments shall your death be found!
[/troll]

With all that out of the way (and don't take it too seriously, please), I'd like to repeat my question with regard to Italy, i.e. what could've been possible scenarios for further development there without an invasion, and what might've been the political consequences of Italy not changing sides when it did with regard to other not-so-happy members of the Axis alliance?

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I beg to differ, but the only front that mattered was the one in Russia. Anything the Western Allies did was nothing more than a diversion of effort, which, of course, the Russians demanded as early as 1942. Arguably, by 1944 is was a moot point.

The Allied Bomber offensive was a diversion of resources? [&:]

This is an interesting "what if", but we are gamers, not trained diplomats. Inevitably, this will lead into politics, which is inseparable from the conduct of war. However, political discussion is frowned upon here, so it will also inevitably lead to the thread being locked up.

Now, to answer your question: no, the Brits were NEVER right. They consistently made shortsighted judgements, and thus lost their empire, starting in the 18th century up until the 20th.

It gets into politics when you make rather sweeping generalisations at a national level. Given the Empire didn't actually get started until the 18th century, we were doing rather well to build it into the most powerful entity of its era and lose it all at the same time.

I'm not sure what "short sighted judgements" actually refers to, but the decision to leave France until 1944 was certainly not one of them.

Marshall and the Americans were hopelessly optimistic. Any landing in France before 1944 would have been defeated. US troops and commonwealth forces would have been handed their head on a plate inside of a week. The troops weren't seasoned enough and until the bomber offensive and Mustang decimated the Luftwaffe in early 1944, the operational conditions simply weren't in place.

The importance of the western front was less about defeating Hitler and more about short circuiting Stalin. In that sense, the sacrifices made were every bit as important.

[105mm Howitzer]

Hum, but if the aim was to short-circuit Stalin, then it seems to me they went about it the long way. The Balkans would have been a better choice to block Russian Westward advances, however the Western leaders seemed to want to grant Russia every single demand ( more supplies, more bombing raids, still more supplies) SAVE a Second Front in France. Perhaps they were afraid that Stalin might seek separate peace with the Germans, and what that would entail for the Western Allies.
Just a thought.
Cheers
MC

[H. Hoth]

8 out of every 10 German Infantry that was killed happened to be on the Eastern Front.  Had the Allies invaded France in 1943, they would have faced a larger German force with Air to cover them, which would be better than none at all in 1944.  Also the Germans would have had Italian units in the mix also. 

[gunny]

Italy was very "economical" for Kesserling to defend. No doubt it tied up major common wealth and american units versus comparatively few German formations to defend. or at least german units without any reinforcement. Luffwaffe infantry for example. True it was THE easier landing at the time for the allies. Did the allies ever transfer units later from Italy to France? Ironically they were called D Day dodgers partly because the public perception was progress was slow.

[Shawkhan]

I think that if a 'McArthur' type general who was capable of thinking outside of the box had been in command, an island hopping campaign would have paid bigger dividends than the historically wasteful campaign in Italy.
I believe that invading Sardinia/Corsica was seriously considered as well as an invasion of Greece or the Balkans after invading islands in the Aegean(possibly even Crete).
Utilizing the Allies overwhelming air and naval strength, occupying the strategic islands of the Med would have been both easy and lead to important air and naval bases allowing easy access to mainland Europe. Stretching German defenders much more effectively than advancing up the narrow Italian front, invasions of Southern France or Yugoslavia could certainly have been undertaken in 1943, perhaps shortening the war by 6 months or so.

[Capt. Harlock]

Utilizing the Allies overwhelming air and naval strength, occupying the strategic islands of the Med would have been both easy and lead to important air and naval bases allowing easy access to mainland Europe. Stretching German defenders much more effectively than advancing up the narrow Italian front, invasions of Southern France or Yugoslavia could certainly have been undertaken in 1943, perhaps shortening the war by 6 months or so.

And also possibly preventing the Iron Curtain from covering as much of Eastern Europe as it did. All the more reason for Matrix to produce a War in the Med game!

[gunny]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

...........And also possibly preventing the Iron Curtain from covering as much of Eastern Europe as it did. All the more reason for Matrix to produce a War in the Med game!

War in the Medriatic: General's Edition
Close Combat: Medriatic
Gary Grisby's Medriatic
Panzer Command: Medriatic
John Tiller's Medriatic Campaign

[Andrew Williams]

Close Combat: Medriatic

I like the sound of that!