WW2 musing.

[Russian_dude]

I was just reading about the Allied invasion of Italy and it has struck me as one unnecessary, badly planned and badly executed campaign.
What made me wonder is why did the Allies not invade Spain. It was fascist, badly armed with obsolete weapons, and terrain was perfect for mass mechanised movement and air superiority. Also, after ejecting the Germans from NAfrica they already had a foothold just a few clicks across the straights. Instead of fighting through the mountains and being stuck in the bocage, the Allies could have smashed German armies in Spain.

[Vehemence]

They did not invade Spain because it was neutral. No sense in making more enemies!

As for Italy, the invasion successfully knocked them out of the war.

[tanks_alot]

The allies invaded Italy in order to relief to a degree the pressure on the Soviets that were taking on the Germans head on since 1941.
Stalin was pushing for an allied invasion and it was successful in knocking the Italians out of the war.

there was no point in making another enemy that remained neutral through out the war.

if there is something i don't understand about the allies decision making in WW2, is why did they invade Europe through France and pushed towards Germany from there, instead of landing in Germany itself.

the resistance they would have faced might have been much more fierce but it would have had a strong morale effect on the Germans, it would have forced them to centeralize their forces from east and westand and in case the Germans would have kept fighting, it would have enabled the allies to work their way from east to west with out worrying about the Soviet expansion.

[Vehemence]

They invaded through France cause they were liberators. In addition they attacked at the front of the enemy, so to speak, rather than in the middle, where they would automatically be outflanked.

[AROUETLJ]

T
the resistance they would have faced might have been much more fierce but it would have had a strong morale effect on the Germans, it would have forced them to centeralize their forces from east and westand and in case the Germans would have kept fighting, it would have enabled the allies to work their way from east to west with out worrying about the Soviet expansion.

And whereabouts in Germany would they have landed? Have a look at your atlas.

[tanks_alot]

And whereabouts in Germany would they have landed? Have a look at your atlas.

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Tour/Map-Germany.jpg

Am i missing something...?

[Morboute]

well, longer route to ship supplies? More exposed to subs and aircraft.
Suitible landing site is an issue aswell, harder to get air support etc etc.

Landing in France was much easier, and even then it was a risky operation.

[chuckster]

well, longer route to ship supplies? More exposed to subs and aircraft.
Suitible landing site is an issue aswell, harder to get air support etc etc.

Landing in France was much easier, and even then it was a risky operation.


Plus, the Allies barely made it ashore in Normandy. The Germans held back some of their forces initially because they thought the attack may just be a diversion for another invasion closer to Germany (Such as Calais). If the Allies had invaded Germany proper there would have been no doubt and the Allies would have been facing much more equipment.

[Russian_dude]

Franco was a fascist dictator, why not give him an ultimatum to let the allied armies through on the way to France?

[Lord Of War]

I was just reading about the Allied invasion of Italy and it has struck me as one unnecessary, badly planned and badly executed campaign.

Maybe a bit exessive in your discription there. But really, badly planned? Badly executed? can you elaborate a bit on those points?


What made me wonder is why did the Allies not invade Spain. It was fascist, badly armed with obsolete weapons,

The country was also diplomatically netural


and terrain was perfect for
mass mechanised movement and air superiority.

It was?


Also,after ejecting the Germans from NAfrica they already had a foothold just a few clicks across the straights. Instead of fighting through the mountains and being stuck in the bocage, the Allies could have smashed German armies in Spain.

So uh, what German military units were stationed in Spain in 1943?

[Russian_dude]

Well, landing too far south meant the allies had to fight longer. Anzio was a near debacle too. Italy is great defensive land with little room to manoeuver and mountains along the length of the country.


As for Germans in Spain, I meant that if the Allies invaded Spain, the Germans would have sent troops into Spain to meet up with them. The Allies could have demanded passage for their troops first, Franco refused, voila, pretext for invasion. I mean Franco was a fascist in cahoots with Hitler.

[James]

Well, landing too far south meant the allies had to fight longer. Anzio was a near debacle too. Italy is great defensive land with little room to manoeuver and mountains along the length of the country.

The Allies invaded from Sicily. Look at a map and see what part if Italy it's close to. If they'd landed in central Italy, their would have been two fronts to worry about - north and south.


As for Germans in Spain, I meant that if the Allies invaded Spain, the Germans would have sent troops into Spain to meet up with them. The Allies could have demanded passage for their troops first, Franco refused, voila, pretext for invasion. I mean Franco was a fascist in cahoots with Hitler.

Sounds more like German behavior in Sudetenland...

Anyway, why invade a neutral country to get to France, where the Allies would fight the Germans anyway? The Allies could just invade France directly from the UK. Going through Spain makes no sense.

[Lord Of War]

As for Germans in Spain, I meant that if the Allies invaded Spain, the Germans would have sent troops into Spain to meet up with them. The Allies could have demanded passage for their troops first, Franco refused, voila, pretext for invasion. I mean Franco was a fascist in cahoots with Hitler.

How is that A valid pretext for invasion?

It couldn't possibily be expected that Franco would accept or cave-in to such a threat, I mean what could Spain have to gain from letting Allied forces cross through the country? Its quite possible that the Germans would stage an invasion of Spain from the north in a attempt to halt the Allied advance.

[Russian_dude]

Well yes, but fighting in Spain would ahve been much easier then in Italy or Normandy.

[baboon6]

Well, landing too far south meant the allies had to fight longer. Anzio was a near debacle too. Italy is great defensive land with little room to manoeuver and mountains along the length of the country.


As for Germans in Spain, I meant that if the Allies invaded Spain, the Germans would have sent troops into Spain to meet up with them. The Allies could have demanded passage for their troops first, Franco refused, voila, pretext for invasion. I mean Franco was a fascist in cahoots with Hitler.

1. Had to be within range of land-based fighter cover
2. Already covered by other people, why make another enemy and still leave Italy in the war? And cross the Pyrenees into France with a mechanised army?

[James]

Well yes, but fighting in Spain would ahve been much easier then in Italy or Normandy.

Why do you insist that an invasion of Spain would have been a walkover? Regardless, an Allied invasion of Spain would have been completely and utterly pointless. Even if Spain had been invaded, the Allies STILL would have had to fight in France and Italy.

[Labud]

Invasion of Italy was product of Churchil's "Hit in the stomack" strategy. There were two options:invasion of Balkan (Yugoslavian coast) and Italy. Invasion of Balkan would be much more succesfull because of two big Yugoslavian resistance armies (NOVJ and JVuO) with free territories. But Russians didn't want to see western allies so close to them, so Churchil decided to invade Italy.

[wiking]

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Tour/Map-Germany.jpg

Am i missing something...?

The fact that Germany then was not just germany. The german navy could attack from 3 directions, from Norway (Tirpitz leaving Norway alone would have sent every allied ship scurrying for the nearest harbor) from bases in NW Germany and the Netherlands and from the Baltic. On top of all that comes a considerable amount of Luftwaffe units stationed in Germany and Occupied Holland, Denmark and Norway. Add to that coastal artillery and the sheer logistical problem of moving ships with supplies along half the European coast instead of accross the english channel, and you'd have a disaster in the making.

Its' a highly limited front with considerably fewer places to place troops than the french coast, and you would be surrounded on all sides, continuously attacked and within reach of a hell of a lot more of troops of all branches than in France. On top of all that, the Germans would have had a much shorter supply line, while the allies would have had a much longer and highly exposed one.

[Vehemence]

Franco was a fascist dictator, why not give him an ultimatum to let the allied armies through on the way to France?

This is ridiculous. Consult a map before posting.

[Lord Of War]

Invasion of Italy was product of Churchil's "Hit in the stomack" strategy.

IIRC Churchill refered to Italy as the "soft underbelly" of Eroupe


There were two options:invasion of Balkan (Yugoslavian coast) and Italy. Invasion of Balkan would be much more succesfull because of two big Yugoslavian resistance armies (NOVJ and JVuO) with free territories. But Russians didn't want to see western allies so close to them, so Churchil decided to invade Italy.

The Allies also drew-up plans for the invasion of Greece and Sardinia in 43', though this was mearly a deception (Operation Mincemeat) which the Germans fell for.

[Stu B]

After North Africa the nearest place to attack to keep pressure on axis forces was Sicily and after sicily it was a short crossing to Italy. The Americans were not that keen on taking resources away from the planned north west europe theatre so the numerical and material superiority that was later enjoyed in France wasn't the case in Italy. The Germans also carried out an expert defensive campaign showing themselves to be very good at the tactical level. Add this to the geography and the allies had a very difficult task.

[Calanen]

Franco was a fascist dictator, why not give him an ultimatum to let the allied armies through on the way to France?

Spain was a real dark horse, had a significant army that was battle hardened from defeating the communists. I think the allies were really glad that he was not involved in the war, and were happy to let sleeping dogs lie. What a nightmare to have an allied Spain rampaging north into France in support of the Germans as well.

[Major_Ass]

The Allies already had large forces in the region from the defeat of the German and Italian armies in N'Africa and Sicily. It was relatively easy to move this large force into in offencive on the Italian Penninsula to open a second front against the Germans to releave the pressure on the Soviets.

I would think the Allies would have also used this as a chance to test out landing and invasion tactics in the lead up to the penultimate invasion of Normandy.

The Italian invasion would also tied up "Battle Harden" German units keeping them away from the French coastlines. Thus making a French invasion a little easier.

The decisions of any General could be questioned, but those decisions have been made, the war was won, so to say now that it was a bad decision is irrelevant.

[Limeyfellow]

The main problem we had with Italy was when the Germans escaped off Sicily mainly because of Patton disobeying orders and going after Messina instead of helping to cut off the escape over the straights. He should have been thrown in the brig for it and cost alot of servicemen their lives in the end because of his ego. If they had been cut off the Italy invasion would have been far more successful.

[Doublethinker]

Normandy was the first amphibious assault in human history to be carried out on such a scale. In fact, its the FIRST one to involve massive amount of men, tanks and equipmet.

To call it "bad" or "poorly planned", one must come up with examples of previous operation which Eisenhower, Marshall or Monty should have learned from.

As for Spain, this proposal is ridiculous, aren't you forgetting a certain chain of mountains called the Pyrenees?

[Russian_dude]

Bypass them in another landing trapping the Germans in the mountains. Or simply invade Normandy and watch them be drawn away.

[Hydro]

Thank the good Lord you're not a strategist or a tactician.


We're at war with Germany and Italy, so let's invade Spain.

[lightfire]

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/849/grandiw0.png

[Roldwin]

This Rusian dude forget tha Spain is, after Switzerland, Europe's most mountainous country

[Labud]

^Montenegro is more mountainous than Spain. :D

[tecumseh]

Spain was a real dark horse, had a significant army that was battle hardened from defeating the communists.

That's a bit rough! Republican Spain was made up of Spanish and international folks with all sorts of political viewpoints.

[Mastermind]

Spain would have been a wasted effort. First of all, it was filled with German sympathizers...remember, Germany was an ally to the Franco side (the Nationalists) in the Spanish Civil War and there were many Spaniards who would have gladly reported if not impeded allied movement (not to mention the pissed off Spaniards resenting such an affront to Spanish sovereignty). What was to happen once the allies reached the Pyrenees? There are only a few viable routes through the mountains into France and the bottleneck would have been a nightmare to not only navigate, but to invade into France on a single narrow front would have been sheer suicide. The Germans would have had plenty of time to get ready for such an invasion and they would have known the exact locations of the invasion routes. The artillery and panzer divisions ready to welcome them would have been something to see.MM