Nazi mosquitoes drew blood on Italian front

[2RHPZ]

Nazi mosquitoes drew blood on Italian front

February 15, 2006

ROME: The Nazis tried to halt the advance of British and American troops through Italy during World War II by unleashing malaria-carrying mosquitoes in what is believed to be the only biological warfare attack carried out in Europe, according to new research.

It was meant to hinder the Allied push from the south and to punish the Italian people for what the Germans saw as treachery after Italy switched sides.

The Sydney Morning Herald (http://smh.com.au/news/world/nazi-mosquitoes-drew-blood-on-italian-front/2006/02/14/1139890737125.html)

[Cabbage]

Nazi mosquitoes drew blood on Italian front

February 15, 2006



The Sydney Morning Herald (http://smh.com.au/news/world/nazi-mosquitoes-drew-blood-on-italian-front/2006/02/14/1139890737125.html)

Considering the Germans were "allies" with the Italians. I'm surprised by how badly they treated the Italian populace and the despicable acts they did on Italian soil.

No wonder the Italians changed sides. If friends treat you like that, who needs enemys? LOL

[Vandervahn]

Errr, the Italians retreated from the "Axis" before the Americans set their foots on the Italian mainland, Mussolini was thrown out of office and a few weeks later Italy even declared war on Germany. Thats why they were treated so lightly after the war.

So
...No wonder the Italians changed sides. If friends treat you like that, who needs enemys? LOL
is rather pointless since they cancelled the alliance themselves and were enemies of the Germans at that time.

[Cabbage]

Errr, the Italians retreated from the "Axis" before the Americans set their foots on the Italian mainland, Mussolini was thrown out of office and a few weeks later Italy even declared war on Germany. Thats why they were treated so lightly after the war.

So

is rather pointless since they cancelled the alliance themselves and were enemies of the Germans at that time.

Wrong. And I would research a bit before making such a statement.

In May 1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943) the Anglo-Americans completely defeated the Italians and the Germans in North Africa, and in July they landed in Sicily. King Victor Emmanuel III reacted by arresting Mussolini and appointing the army chief of staff, Marshal Badoglio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Badoglio), as Prime Minister.
The new government officially continued the war against the Allies, but started secret negotiations with them. Hitler did not trust Badoglio, and moved a large German force into Italy, on the pretext of fighting the Allied invasion. On September 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_8), 1943 the Badoglio government announced an armistice with the Allies, but did not declare war on Germany, leaving the army without instructions. Badoglio and the royal family fled to the Allied-controlled regions. In the ensuing confusion, most of the Italian army scattered (with some notable exceptions around Rome and in places such as the Greek island of Cefalonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cefalonia)), and the Germans quickly occupied all of central and northern Italy (the south was already controlled by the Allies). The Germans also liberated Mussolini, who then formed the fascist Italian Social Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Republic), in the German-controlled areas.
While the Allied troops slowly pushed the German resistance to the north (Rome was finally liberated in June 1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944) [see Battle of Monte Cassino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino)], Milan in April 1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945)) the monarchic government finally declared war on Germany, and an anti-fascist popular resistance movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_resistance_movement) grew, harassing German forces before the Anglo-American forces drove them out in April 1945.


from many sources and history books...but the above quote is from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Italy_as_a_monarchy_and_in_the_World_Wars

[Vandervahn]

The funny thing is that there ARE enough sources (including Wikipedia) that back up my statement. I was wrong with saying that Italy surrendered before the allies invaded the mainland - by two days. Nevertheless the main invasion (codenamed "Operation Avalanche") commenced AFTER the armistice with the Italian government. Everything else is correct. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Second_World_War#September_5) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Second_World_War#September_5)

The only thing YOUR quote says is that with the armistice of 8th September no war was declared on Germany. Thats because this happened later, on the 13th of October, with Italy agreeing to fight alongside the allies (even without a formal declaration of war, that alone was a belligerent act against Germany, as well as the massive prisoner taking of Germany following the armistice was hostile against Italy).


September
3: Allied invasion of Italy begins.
5: Italy surrenders to the Allies.
8: The Italian government announces a treaty with the Allies; the Italian army is left without orders to follow and goes into disarray.
[...]

October
13: Italy declares war on Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Second_World_War#September_5

---------

Italy changes sides: AD 1943

One difficulty is that the Germans, whose cause Italy is now eager to abandon, are all around. The other is that the Allies have resolved [...] that they will accept only unconditional surrender from any of the Axis powers.

Surrender on this basis is an alarming leap into the unknown, but secret negotiations with the Allies [...] bear fruit. On September 8 Italy surrenders. Three weeks later Badoglio signs an agreement committing Italy to change sides. And on October 13 Italy declares war on her recent ally, Germany. But meanwhile the Germans, in possession of most of Italy, have had time to bring in reinforcements and improve their defences.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=3432&HistoryID=ac52

--------

8 September 1943, "Fall Achse": Disarming of the Italian Army. Italy surrenders to Allied forces, by Marshall Badoglio.
[...]
13 October 1943,
Marshal Badoglio announces: "Italy declares war on Germany" (in the presence of General Maxwell Taylor).
http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1943.htm

--------

1943: Italy declares war on Germany
One month after the surrender of the Italian army, Prime Minister Pietro Badoglio declares war on Germany, Italy's former Axis partner. Much of Italian territory, however, was still in German hands, and a puppet state led by deposed Italian leader Benito Mussolini was established in the north. Nevertheless, most Italians opposed Mussolini's new government, and the Allies received invaluable aid from Italian resistance fighters during their continuing liberation of German-controlled Italy.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/this_day_in_history/this_day_October_13.php


Anyway, all this number juggling and "who-did-what-when" is only of secondary importance, since the only thing that is important to this thread (and as response to your first post) is that Germany and the non-Mussolini southern Italy were enemies when it came to the Battle of Anzio.

[Cabbage]

I read somewhere that the way the Germans acted in Italy towards the Italian populace had a strong influence on Italy turning against them, as a whole. German soldiers would wipe out whole villages, including women and children, if they were suspected of helping the Partisans.

You know...that's not exactly winning hearts and minds. Especially when you treat your allies that way. ;-)

[Freibier]

It was never about winning hearts and minds ;)

[Cabbage]

It was never about winning hearts and minds ;)

What was it about then? Having their arses kicked? Cause that's what they got.

[Freibier]

What was it about then? Having their arses kicked? Cause that's what they got. Yeah, but not because of some pissed off italians.

[Cabbage]

Yeah, but not because of some pissed off italians.

It didn't help though having the local populace against them. Especially when they p!ssed in their tea.

What I don't understand is...it seems the Germans were happy with having their arses kicked in WW2. Was it masochism on a national scale? In Russia the Germans treated people of the Ukraine badly, even though they were the closest to allies they had in that part of the world. The Italians also, even though the Germans were inside Italy.

Don't understand it...

...but what goes around comes around. Look at what the Russians did when they reached Berlin. Also a tragedy...but partly as payback for the German soldiers being such utter bastards.

Why?

p.s. Oh yeah...and the Russians didn't have their arses kicked by some p!ssed off Germans, either.

[Freibier]

It didn't help though having the local populace against them. Especially when they p!ssed in their tea.

What I don't understand is...it seems the Germans were happy with having their arses kicked in WW2. Was it masochism on a national scale? In Russia the Germans treated people of the Ukraine badly, even though they were the closest to allies they had in that part of the world. The Italians also, even though the Germans were inside Italy.

Don't understand it...

...but what goes around comes around. Look at what the Russians did when they reached Berlin. Also a tragedy...but partly as payback for the German soldiers being such utter bastards.

Why?

p.s. Oh yeah...and the Russians didn't have their arses kicked by some p!ssed off Germans, either.
I'm not suprised that you don't understand it since it's a rather complex matter and you don't seem to be a very bright person ;)

[Cabbage]

I'm not suprised that you don't understand it since it's a rather complex matter and you don't seem to be a very bright person ;)

So apart from not having a proper answer and just resorting to personal insults, do you have anything else to say?

...and I'm not the bright one? :roll:

[Gladiatore]

It didn't help though having the local populace against them. Especially when they p!ssed in their tea.

What I don't understand is...it seems the Germans were happy with having their arses kicked in WW2. Was it masochism on a national scale? In Russia the Germans treated people of the Ukraine badly, even though they were the closest to allies they had in that part of the world. The Italians also, even though the Germans were inside Italy.

Don't understand it...

...but what goes around comes around. Look at what the Russians did when they reached Berlin. Also a tragedy...but partly as payback for the German soldiers being such utter bastards.

Why?

p.s. Oh yeah...and the Russians didn't have their arses kicked by some p!ssed off Germans, either.

Hello people,

This thread is probabably long forgotten but here it is, for whatever it's worth.
Although the German armed forces were never kind to Italians after 8 September 1943 (although there were some unkindly behaviours even before that) it must also be noted that it was always, I believe, the Waffen SS or the SS Polizei to commit atrocities against civilians; I don't know of any cases involving the army.
We must then also considers that the fascist militia, particularly the black brigades, were not too kind on people suspected of supporting the partisans either.
It was the worst kind of war, next to the Allies and the Germans (with a few Italian units) fighting themselves on the front, there was the partisan/guerrilla war and the civil war between fascist and anti-fascist italians. Atrocities were committed more or less on every side. About the Allied ones I am not referring to the bombing of populated areas, which was a sad but inevitable reality. I am rather referring to the atrocities committed by Tunisians, Algerians and Maroccans that made up most of the troops of the French Expeditionary Corps (under Gen Juin who apparently encouraged these acts) which was fighting with the allies.

Regards

[Kitsune]

@Cabbage:

The Italians were not "treated badly" before they switched sides. They were an ally and a souvereign nation and this was respected even by the Nazi leadership. (Interestingly the Italian possession of South Tyrol was always accepted by Hitler - which was downright treason for some patriotic Germans).
After Italy switched sides did they were treated badly. The Italian turn was depicted as an act of treason and cowardice by the Nazi leadership, basically backstabbing (especially after German troops had bled helping Italy in the Balkans, Greece and Africa). On top of it the NS "sense of justice" thought of treason and cowardice as especially heinous and totally unforgiveable crimes. As a result, whenever German soldiers died through the acts of Italian partisans the retributive measures were harsh and cruel.

I don't think it is necessary to comment on some of your other remarks, they speak for themselves.

[Gladiatore]

I did not use the expression "treated badly" Kitsune but "unkindly behaviours"; the Germans (or rather nazi Germany) were a tough ally and never really a "friendly ally".

[Vandervahn]

...
Don't understand it...
Thats one reason why WW1 and 2 are still so popular - why? ;)

Anyway, the problem Germany had with most of their allies and Italy in particular was that they proved inept, uncommitted and unreliable from the German perspective.

In more than one case Mussolini idiotically picked fights against numerically inferior enemies, in unimportant regions and at the wrong time, got totally trashed and Germany had to commit troops to do the jobs for them. Mussolini waited to attack France until Germany had already taken 1/3 of that country, and he never got further than the Alps.

He attacked Greece which wasnt even planned to be inaded by Hitler and was beaten back by a peasant army while Hitler rather had needed his help in preparing Britain for Invasion. This made all the political plans for southeastern Europe topple and the Germans had to intervene and finish the work started by the Italians.

He attacked the numerically inferior troops in Africa and nearly lost everything. The Germans had to come and try to salvage what was left of strategical importance again. Italy has the best strategical position in the Mediterranian Sea and a large Navy and still the Italians werent capable of even controlling the allied fleets, much less fight them back. So Germany had to commit parts of the Navy to the Mediterranean.

All in all the Italians accomplished zero while increasing the workload for the Germans and forced away valuable resources from the more important fronts. They committed and lost less troops than Britain and about as much as the much smaller Yugoslavia. In the end Germany had to protect Italy to prevent a third front from the south - I guess its understandable why the Germans werent too fond of the Italian government, their military and subsequently their people.

[ClydeFrog]

He's talking to cabbage, Gladiatore. Btw. That "article" seems rather dubious to me. Kinda reminds me of that article about the man who talked to Hitler we had recently.

[Kitsune]

I didn't refer to your post at all, Gladiatore. But as far as your "tough not friendly" remark is concerened, the respective governments of Italy and Germany had actually been rivals until the last years before WWII (when the "Axis" was formed...before that Mussoloni was not at all a friend of Hitler). Also, there was still some disgruntlement in Germany about Italy's role in WWI.
In the war the relationship was also often difficult. Mussolini was surprised and a bit frustrated that the Germans were militarily so successful and tried to emulate that. It is not too much to say that there was a certain degree of envy involved on the Italian side. On the other hand, the discrepancy in effectivity between the German and Italian military performance gave rise to arrogance on the German side. Not that this was a historic one time occurance: if in any alliance one guy is noticably stronger than the other, he will sooner or later demand to have more say in all matters, as a result the other guy will feel shoved around - in the end both may end up feeling frustrated.

Ah yes, as far as the article is concerned: I agree with ClydeFrog that this Malaria thing is most probably utter BS. But if it is true, we will hear more of it in the future.

[Gladiatore]

Aknowledged about you having replied to other posts Kitsune, I go trough them too quickly and sometime miss something.

Your comments about Mussolini and his failed "parallel war" are correct.

But I was referring to other matters; which impartially could be determined by the "un-natural" alliance between Germany and Italy, that was forced by political and geostratigical situations in the years before WWII. The subordination in which Italy found its-self at a certain point worstened it of course, but there was always a mutual distrust, and being the Germans stronger....

I will not reply to the approximative remarks of some of the posters.

One more for Kitsune; pardon my ignorance but what does Kitsune mean? Sounds rather Japanese.

[Cabbage]

Ok, excellent posts, thanks Kitsune and Vandervahn. I apologise if some of my comments sounded anti-German. It wasn't my intention, just that when you have people like Freiber who go on the defensive it just get's ridiculous.

Ok, all your points have been considered. Though Vandervahn, I totally agree with you about Mussolini's bizzare invasion choices. But you have to remember, he was just trying to get back old Italian colonies. Also, Italy didn't have much choice where it would exapnd without stepping on Germany's toes.

But about the Italian navy. I think you're a bit harsh, since the Italian navy was all but destroyed at the start of the war by the British RAF. Also, from what I've picked up, Italy was divided with the north who was anti-mussolini and the south who supported him (mostly because he suppressed the mafia).

And finally, the most important point of all. The 2nd World War, on the Axis side, was really a war about Germany and Japan. Italy didn't have any real exapnsion plans going into the war. Unlike Germany and Japan who were seeking extra living space. So is it really fair to expect a country like Italy, which wasn't really it's war and wouldn't be taking the whole of Europe or Asia over, to do just as much...for a fraction of the reward? Seems hardly fair.

And here you'll also have the answer why the Italians didn't really fight. Because it wasn't their war. They weren't hard done by, by the Treaty of Versailles etc. like the Germans were.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Well hell I think the Germans were limited on "allies" on the European continent...who else is left outside of Italy...they invaded the Czechs, Poles, French, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and eventually Russia (with whom they had signed a non-aggression pact) etc...of course some of these countries did not resist the occupation as much but I don't think they were keen on the Nazis being there. The British weren't going to let the Germans shift any power away from their empire, so basically without a better way of putting this the Germans were ****ed on getting "better" allies, they were forced to go with Mussolini who shared similar views and some smaller nations that wanted a share of the prestige. **** after the Germans backstabbed Russia they were lucky to have anyone on their side in any limited capacity.

But hey thats just my OPINION!

Also, the Germans on this site seem to be some of the most moderate and accepting of criticism on this site, so I don't mean this to be some post about how Germans are bad or something. Just my opinion on a complicated matter.

[ClydeFrog]

**** after the Germans backstabbed Russia they were lucky to have anyone on their side in any limited capacity.
From the very beginning Hitler's number one goal was the "Lebenraum" thing: Expansion into the east. He mentions it in Mein Kampf and many, many times later. Basically whenever he's not b1tching about Jews he's b1itching about Bolsheviks. So Soviet Russia and Germany were never really allies on a long term basis like USA and Britain, it was all temporary and that was clear to both Hitler and Stalin. Whenever it comes to these "what was Hitler's biggest mistake"-debates people say "invading Russia", which might be true, but it was his agenda.

And "backstabbing" really is the wrong term here. Stalin was surprised about the attack in '41, true, but he was merely surprised it would happen so soon. He thought he'd have another year, but it was inevitable that there would be war between the Reich and the Soviet Union.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

hhhhmmmm i see

[oregongrunt]

How did the mosquitoes become brainwashed nazis?

[AROUETLJ]

This is bollocks. The Germans didn't need to "unleash" anything, since malaria was an endemic disease in Italy at that time.

[ClydeFrog]

How did the mosquitoes become brainwashed nazis?
As Freibier would say: Ve ask ze qwestions here! ;)

[oregongrunt]

Aryan skeeters attack.

[TheRussian1]

Yeah, but not because of some pissed off italians.
oh no pissed of Italians, like they actually did jack during the war. Except for surrender en masse to the BRitish in Africa.

and no offense meant to Italians today. In retrospect, they did the right decision by surrendering instead of fighting to the death alongside their fascist partners.

[Cabbage]

oh no pissed of Italians, like they actually did jack during the war. Except for surrender en masse to the BRitish in Africa.

and no offense meant to Italians today. In retrospect, they did the right decision by surrendering instead of fighting to the death alongside their fascist partners.

Idiotic comment....

...Italians were split. Half supporting Mussolini and half fighting against him (the Partisans). If you actually read up on the history of the Second World War, you'll find that most of north Italy was liberated by the Italian Partisans before the Allies arrived.

You also took the quote out of context. He was referring to Italian civilians. If that's the case, p!ssed off German civilians were also powerless against the Red Army. Civilians v Army?...the outcome is always the same.

[TheRussian1]

Idiotic comment....

...Italians were split. Half supporting Mussolini and half fighting against him (the Partisans). If you actually read up on the history of the Second World War, you'll find that most of north Italy was liberated by the Italian Partisans before the Allies arrived.

You also took the quote out of context. He was referring to Italian civilians. If that's the case, p!ssed off German civilians were also powerless against the Red Army. Civilians v Army?...the outcome is always the same.
bull****, Italian partisans, although brave men and women, were powerless against the GErman army, and although they operated wih relative freedom in many sections of Italy, their overall contribution against the GErmans was totaly insignifican compared to that of the Allied armies fighting up the country. They certainly helped in terms of harming retreating german columns and hampering German communication and suply lines, but like partsians from other fronts, they were mostly inefective in cleansing large territories from enemy occupation.

[Cabbage]

bull****, Italian partisans, although brave men and women, were powerless against the GErman army, and although they operated wih relative freedom in many sections of Italy, their overall contribution against the GErmans was totaly insignifican compared to that of the Allied armies fighting up the country. They certainly helped in terms of harming retreating german columns and hampering German communication and suply lines, but like partsians from other fronts, they were mostly inefective in cleansing large territories from enemy occupation.

Well obviously any militia will be powerless against a modern, well organised army. But the fact remains they did liberate a vast majority of towns and cities in the north, albeit with only a German garrison left. Look it up if you don't believe me.

But what you fail to understand is, Italy was a divided nation. Mussolini was a dictator and was generally loathed in the north of Italy. According to my history books, anyway.

So I think your comments are a bit unfair...

[Cabbage]

Apologies.....double post


*deleted*

[TheRussian1]

Well obviously any militia will be powerless against a modern, well organised army. But the fact remains they did liberate a vast majority of towns and cities in the north, albeit with only a German garrison left. Look it up if you don't believe me.

But what you fail to understand is, Italy was a divided nation. Mussolini was a dictator and was generally loathed in the north of Italy. According to my history books, anyway.

So I think your comments are a bit unfair...

i believe you, perhaps my comments sounded a bit rude to the Italian partisnas who bravely sacrificed themselves, and often their families to fight their former allies.
Go Partisans!

[Mastermind]

The Italians ultimately did strike at the Germans with the Allies. God Bless 'em...Now, if only the Germans had come to their senses before the final invasion of Berlin. I wonder what would have happened if the assasination attempt against Hitler had succeeded.