| Tango01 | 08 Jan 2021 10:10 p.m. PST |
Interesting What if here… link Amicalement
Armand |
| 4th Cuirassier | 09 Jan 2021 6:35 a.m. PST |
I could never figure out why the Allies didn't do in Italy what Japan did in Malaya, i.e. keep outflanking the defence with further landings behind them. I suppose there are several differences though: the weather, the terrain and the fact that in Malaya the Japanese were pushing the Allies into an inescapable cul de sac whereas in Italy the Allies were pushing the Germans back into the Reich. |
| John the OFM | 09 Jan 2021 7:03 a.m. PST |
To the Americans, Italy was always a side show.
The Allies tried that outflanking idea once. Anzio. Another one of Churchill's brainstorms. |
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 09 Jan 2021 8:18 a.m. PST |
Courtesy of Military History Online |
| donlowry | 09 Jan 2021 10:00 a.m. PST |
I believe it was a matter of landing craft -- which were wanted in Britain for Overlord. |
| Tango01 | 09 Jan 2021 12:11 p.m. PST |
Thanks!. Amicalement
Armand |
| Skarper | 09 Jan 2021 8:28 p.m. PST |
In Malaya the British and Commonwealth forces were too thinly spread and lacked a lot of equipment and material. Also – the road and rail network in the Malayan peninsular was poor – so a seaborne invasion could not be countered as easily as in Italy. I suspect Churchill wanted Italy to draw in large Allied forces and perhaps make Overlord unnecessary/impossible. He was a poor strategist despite his other qualities. |
 Legion 4  | 10 Jan 2021 8:36 a.m. PST |
|
| Tango01 | 10 Jan 2021 3:43 p.m. PST |
|
| Heedless Horseman | 10 Jan 2021 9:18 p.m. PST |
Beach Landings are a VERY risky undertaking…as was shown at Anzio. They require massive commitment of resources…which by 1944. were needed elsewhere. The Germans proved to be much more versatile in defence and as Skarper comments, the infrastructure in Italy was very different to Malaya. Also…in Malaya, the Japanese had Commonwealth forces 'on the wrong foot' and kept them there. There was little chance of this with German forces in Italy.
I am afraid that I cannot see why Churchill is being commented upon. Invading Italy was necessary to knock Italy out… and it could not be by-passed. The 'soft underbelly of Europe' has always sounded more rhetorical than an assessment…and by 1944 it was obviously not soft. Churchill 'may' have been cautious about the incredibly massive undertaking that was the invasion of Normandy…just imagine the consequences if D Day Had FAILED! However, he tended to favour 'the bold stroke'…sometimes too much so. The Header link and comments therein seem to show that an invasion of Southern France before it actually happened could have produced a very risky scenario…it is a 'what if', after all. |
| Raimondo | 11 Jan 2021 5:29 a.m. PST |
Anzio had many supporters including Marshall, Eisenhower and Brooke and not just Churchill.
As Operation Diadem showed the Allies did not need to keep outflanking the Germans to drive them back. Just a well developed plan and sufficient and well rested and prepared forces. That the Germans kept expecting to be outflanked by an amphibious landing was a bonus. A 2-3 division landing in Southern France before D-Day would, of course, be suicide. |
| Murvihill | 11 Jan 2021 8:32 a.m. PST |
I believe the landing craft argument is correct. Look at the timeline, major landings all happened one-at-a-time. Also, comparisons of Italy to Malaya aren't totally valid, Malaya doesn't have a sophisticated transportation network and the defenders didn't have the resources available the Germans did. |
| Tango01 | 12 Jan 2021 12:13 p.m. PST |
|
| Legion 4 | 12 Jan 2021 5:26 p.m. PST |
Beach Landings are a VERY risky undertaking Forced Entry Ops in general are. We know that is the very last option if at all … If we learned anything from WWII … that is it … |
