Tango01 | 09 Apr 2015 10:33 p.m. PST |
"None of the major participants of World War II have suffered as much unjust and unfounded criticism as the military forces of the Kingdom of Italy. It really is just amazing how this false narrative has taken hold and grown ever stronger and more prevalent over time. According to most mainstream and popular histories, the royal Italian military and the overall part played by the Kingdom of Italy in World War II was totally inconsequential. In a way not seen with any other people, the Italian military is widely dismissed as a comic opera operation with cowardly troops, ignorant commanders and useless weapons totally dependent on their German allies for their very survival. It is truly astonishing that this stereotype has persisted as it is totally, completely, untrue in every way. Obviously, being on the losing side, Italy suffered plenty of losses but they also won their share of victories. It is true that a number of leaders in the Italian high command were incompetent but they also had generals with impressive records of success. The Germans did have to bail them out from time to time but, the truth be known, the Italians also came to the rescue of the Germans on several occasions. Likewise, while Italy was less industrially advanced than most other major participants and so often had to make do with antiquated equipment, there were also examples of Italian weaponry being well in advance of others. In short, as with any country, the Kingdom of Italy had both high and low points, successes and failures just like anyone else. In the first place, attacks on the Italian character display a blatant double-standard that most people simply never think about. For example, in entering the war, Italy started with an attack on southern France when the French were already, for all intents and purposes, defeated by the German blitzkrieg. American President Roosevelt famously referred to this as a ‘stab in the back' on the part of Italy. Does this apply to other powers? The same President Roosevelt, even more famously, referred to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as, "dastardly and unprovoked". That was certainly untrue ("dastardly" is a judgment call but calling it "unprovoked" is demonstrably false) but what of the simultaneous attacks on the British and Dutch? Britain was in a fight for its life but in particular the attack on the Dutch East Indies was an attack on the territory of a country whose homeland had already been completely defeated and occupied by the enemy. Was this then an even worse ‘stab in the back' than the attack on France? The same standard does not seem to be employed in viewing the joint Anglo-Soviet invasion and occupation of neutral Iran, possibly because most people have probably never even heard of it. For the Soviets, this is not too surprising as it was a monstrous regime that committed many monstrous crimes but for Britain, under Churchill, to invade a neutral country because of military necessity in a wider war after going to war with the German Empire in the First World War for doing exactly the same in regard to Belgium shows an obvious double-standard. In the conduct of the war, the Kingdom of Italy did not do well in the opening attack on France but then neither did Britain in their opening clash with the Germans or the Japanese in France and Malaysia nor did the Americans in their opening clashes with Japan in the Philippines or the Germans in north Africa. In Italian East Africa the Italians performed very well and were under the leadership of Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta who proved a very capable battlefield commander. His forces launched such a sudden and overwhelming offensive against British Somaliland that Churchill was furious at how quickly his forces had retreated with so few losses (his commanders rightly pointed out that suffering needless losses in a hopeless battle was not the mark of good leadership). Italian forces conquered British Somaliland as well as occupying border areas of the Sudan and British East Africa. When the Allies finally gathered overwhelming forces to take on Italian East Africa, the Italians offered fierce resistance that gained them the respect of the British and, when the end finally came, the Duke of Aosta won further admiration for the gallantry he displayed in surrender…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
ochoin | 10 Apr 2015 3:20 a.m. PST |
After Bardia:
Sorry, through my wife's Italian family I've spoken to many WW2 Italian veterans who all told me they couldn't wait to surrender. This is apart from some who served on the Russian front where surrender wasn't a good idea. They worked hard at getting disabling wounds in order to get evacuated. Personally, I attach no blame to the Italians in WW2. They were the dupes of a bad regime & allied to an even more evil bunch: the Nazis. |
olicana | 10 Apr 2015 4:33 a.m. PST |
That picture sums up how the British propaganda machine managed to give the Italians their bad reputation and spawned jokes like: "I say, I say, I say, what is the most common wound in the Italian Army?" "I don't know, what is the most commom wound in the Italian Army?" "Why, it's sun burnt armpits, of course." In actual fact, in the Desert, where the Italians were effectively supplied, and had sufficient transport, they fought well. This is especially true of their mechanised stuff – very brave men in rubbish tanks. In the open desert a lack of supply, without transport to re-connect, leads to surrender very quickly due to thirst as much as anything. |
wizbangs | 10 Apr 2015 4:50 a.m. PST |
Justifying your own moral standing by citing how some one else did something (you deem as worse) does not improve your status in anyway. It just makes you look like an immature whiner. It also speaks nothing about the military courage or prowess of the country's fighting force. I won't label them as cowards because so much of the war was the doings of Il Ducce & his crony commanders. The Italian soldiers were merely pawns in the game. A soldier who feels no loyalty to the nation's leadership & would rather be home drinking wine with his family can't be expected to fight courageously in a war he doesn't believe in. But please, any attempt to rewrite history justifying their military incompetence by citing the blunders of others is laughable. |
4th Cuirassier | 10 Apr 2015 5:08 a.m. PST |
Quite a lot of British and Allied propaganda has survived more or less intact since 1945. The Germans being inflexible and rigid is one such, and the Italians being cowardly is another. Italian forces were poorly equipped in general (notably their elderly tanks and their scarce and unreliable automatic weapons) and they were ill suited to a war of manoeuvre in the desert. They had large numbers of walking infantry who fell right into the bag when surrounded because they had no other way out. O'Connor's rout of the Italians in Compass was enabled largely by his relative mobility and by Ultra. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they were a poor army though. The Greeks beat them, even. |
ochoin | 10 Apr 2015 6:12 a.m. PST |
I certainly think "cowardly" is the wrong term. Unmotivated might be closer to the truth. One old, now deceased, Italian I once spoke to was a communist partisan & had no hesitation in facing the Fascists & Germans. |
Londongamer | 10 Apr 2015 6:46 a.m. PST |
That "article" is hilarious; broad, sweeping claims are made for Italian military successes with no supporting evidence whatever and real minor successes are turned into major victories. Massive defeats and failures are either quietly ignored or explained away as being due to bad luck. Having been aware of that website for a while, after finding it referenced fairly often on the neo-Nazi site "Stormfront", it is apparent that the owner/author's description of himself is well suited. |
Puster | 10 Apr 2015 8:13 a.m. PST |
Well, the initial campaign vs. Greece went not as planned. The invasion of France was – despite France being already on the loosing end of a war – not heroic, too. The invasion of Egypt… Overall it seems that the average Italian was not as eager to be a soldier as the Fascist propaganda claimed, and the army equipment was largely not up to its time. There were units in the Italian army that performed with the best of the Germans, especially when they were motivated and sufficiently equipped. Imho the Italians suffered (not unlike WWI) from a leadership with unrealistic expectations, delusions, logistical imcompetence and an unethical cause, while their regime lacked the ruthlessness that managed to make the Soviet or German army "work" under dire circumstance. I fail to see how the "soldiers" of any other nation would have performed different under similar circumstances. |
wminsing | 10 Apr 2015 9:05 a.m. PST |
Sorry, they were an under-motivated, badly lead, indifferently trained and poorly equipped force. Really two ways about it. Yes, there were stand-out units, but then one can find units that performed above-average in any military force, or times when an otherwise poor unit fought well. Doesn't change the reality of the situation though. -Will |
Murvihill | 10 Apr 2015 10:02 a.m. PST |
I only read Tango's copy above but it's obvious that the author was cherrypicking the high points in the Italian participation in WW2 and ignoring the much more numerous low points. The fact is that the overall performance of the Italian Army doesn't stand up to almost any other nation's. I don't blame cowardice, I actually think it has something to do with the officer culture in the Italian Army. It doesn't appear that they emphasized training or taking care of their soldiers the way other nations did. Having insufficient numbers of obsolete weapons simply compounded that issue. |
Tango01 | 10 Apr 2015 10:51 a.m. PST |
An interesting exercise would be a comparition performance between the Italian Soldier in WW1 and WW2. Amicalement Armand |
goragrad | 10 Apr 2015 4:45 p.m. PST |
Well if MM wants to refurbish Italy's military reputation, well and good (in his reply to one of the comments on that piece he quotes Freiherr von Senger und Etterlin who apparently had a high opinion of some Italian troops). However he might do well to look at the darker side of Italy's WWII military performance as well. Italian war crimes get even less press than her military accomplishments… |
Lion in the Stars | 10 Apr 2015 6:36 p.m. PST |
I certainly think "cowardly" is the wrong term. Unmotivated might be closer to the truth. And led by some utter idiots even more clueless than Hitler. I really like playing Italians in the Desert. Excellent troop organization once you get to the AS42 org, and quite good softskins. Tanks are hopelessly outclassed, of course, but I would not want to try to take ground held by Italian infantry! |
ochoin | 10 Apr 2015 8:10 p.m. PST |
that website….. referenced fairly often on the neo-Nazi site "Stormfront", That I did not know. OK the attempt at improving a poor reputation is now in context. |
piper909 | 10 Apr 2015 11:22 p.m. PST |
Isn't it one of the maxims attributed to Napoleon, "Better an army of sheep led by lions than an army of lions led by sheep"? The sad fate of the Italian army in WWII is that its leaders were far too often sheep. That plus deficient equipment can only make it surprising that the Italians ever fought well at all. |
wizbangs | 11 Apr 2015 6:01 a.m. PST |
Although we often point to obsolete equipment- and this is particularly true in the desert- remember the Japanese controlled most of the Far East using obsolete equipment. IMHO The ineptitude of its leadership and lack of motivation of the troops were a bigger factor. |
Legion 4 | 11 Apr 2015 9:02 a.m. PST |
Yes for a variety of reasons the WWII Italian Forces' preformance was generally less than satisfactory. Even though there were times when they generally fought well and bravely on a tactical level. However, nothing like their Roman ancestors of the ancient past … |
piper909 | 11 Apr 2015 9:45 p.m. PST |
Oops. I think the Nappy quote above should read "rabbits" for "sheep." Mea culpa. Brain fart. |
piper909 | 11 Apr 2015 9:46 p.m. PST |
Life in Italy is too pleasant for their own good. Sapped all the martial spirit when there's all that great food and drink and pretty women around. |
Legion 4 | 12 Apr 2015 10:50 a.m. PST |
La' Dolce' Vida' ! |
UshCha | 14 Apr 2015 3:54 p.m. PST |
In our recent work on the Italians army lists at the start of the war the organisation of the army in the desert was in principal at least as good as the allies and Germany. There tanks were not that bad for the early war period EXCEPT virtually no radios. For an armoured force where manoeuvre is key this is a major problem. One the Russian's got past by a lot of rehearsal. Also our analysis shows the Italians had nowhere near enough logistics to support a desert force and hence were never able to do that much. Who you blame it on is not a question that bothers me much. |
No longer can support TMP | 15 Apr 2015 10:14 a.m. PST |
The Commando Supremo site is a good resource for giving a more Italian-friendly view of WW2 comandosupremo.com |
Inkpaduta | 15 Apr 2015 10:17 a.m. PST |
I think we oversimplify things when we make the overall claim that Italian troops, especially on the gaming table, are always terrible. There are a number of examples when, well led, that Italian troops did well on the battlefield. Looking only at the campaigns then all one sees it Italian defeats. |
tuscaloosa | 15 Apr 2015 1:21 p.m. PST |
It should be kept in mind that the Italian Army in Albania, fighting in Greece, was a very different creature than the Italian Army fighting in North Africa. The divisions fighting in the Greek adventure were mostly cadre, reserve divisions filled out with conscripts with *no* training, and whose performance really doesn't compare to that of the Italians fighting in North Africa. |
Legion 4 | 30 Apr 2015 8:39 a.m. PST |
Also look at preformance of the Italian army fighting on the Eastern Front. They didn't even have their "best" MBT, the M13/40/41 there. They generally didn't fare well. More Italians were lost on the Eastern Front than anywhere else. Even though for many, their exploits in North and East Africa are more well known. |