Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Invasion of Sicily 1943: Victory as a Strategic Mistake?
Townhall.com ^ | July 10, 2013 | Austin Bay

Posted on 07/10/2013 12:48:20 PM PDT by Kaslin

Seventy years ago this week, U.S. and British Commonwealth troops began Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily. Foreshadowing D-Day 1944, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower served as overall Allied commander. Like D-Day, Allied airborne soldiers led the Husky assault by parachuting (on the night of July 9, 1943) into olive groves and rock-strewn fields along the island's southeastern shores.

On July 10, seven divisions -- three U.S., three British and the 1st Canadian Infantry Division -- launched an amphibious attack on a 100-mile long front. Despite several successful Axis air attacks on ships and a brazen Italian tank attack on U.S. positions near Gela, by midnight July 10 all seven divisions were ashore.

Putting seven divisions ashore so swiftly was an extraordinary coup. Oh, grievous errors occurred as the buildup proceeded, the most notorious being the July 11 downing of 23 U.S. transports by Allied anti-aircraft fire. The planes were ferrying paratroop reinforcements. Yet in its initial phases Husky demonstrated that the Anglo-American team had learned a great deal since the Operation Torch landings in November 1942. Planning and coordination had improved. North African combat had honed the skills of American forces.

Then came the hard slog, over Sicily's godforsaken rocks.

For the next six weeks, the Germans and a diminishing number of Italians fought brutal delaying actions. German infantry stalled the Commonwealth's east coast advances, south of the city of Messina. The Axis frustrated an American thrust in central Sicily.

The conflicting egos of the two Allied army commanders, Britain's Bernard Montgomery and America's George Patton, sorely tested Allied cooperation. Cool-headed Ike and his combined staff finessed both powerful personalities. The stubborn Montgomery continued to slam his troops against Axis positions near Mount Etna. His was the shortest route to Messina, and Messina, Sicily's route to Italy, was the prize. Messina sits on the western side of the Strait of Messina, known in classical times as Scylla and Charybdis. Capture Messina, and Sicily became an Axis POW cage.

The Germans wanted a bloody slugfest. Patton didn't. He sent mobile units toward the weakly defended northwest sector. On July 22 his troops seized the port of Palermo, as the U.S. 45th Infantry Division cut the long highway connecting Palermo and Messina. The U.S. bagged 20,000 prisoners.

Now U.S. troops pushed east toward Messina. The British kept pounding from the south. The hard slog did not end until Aug. 17. The Allies suffered 25,000 casualties (killed and wounded). The Germans lost 4,700 dead, 14,000 wounded and 5,500 captured. Italians suffered 4,300 dead, 32,000 wounded and 100,000 captured (possibly more).

The Sicily campaign placed Allied troops less than 10 miles (the strait's width) from mainland Italy.

The oh-so-close proximity of large Allied forces to Italy was enticing. And that enticement leads to the biggest historical question tagging Operation Husky: Was taking Sicily the best strategic choice, since it made an invasion of Italy inevitable? From south of Naples to the Po Valley, Italy's rugged and rocky terrain is a defender's delight and attacker's sorrow.

Winston Churchill had sold Sicily as the next logical step. Sicily was the classical route to Rome from North Africa, and knocking fascist Italy out of the war would deal Adolf Hitler's Axis a heavy political loss.

Sicily geographically dominates the central Mediterranean. Husky's advocates noted that for three millennia the island served as the stepping stone of to-and-fro commerce and war between North Africa and Europe.

American military leaders were not convinced. The decisive route to Berlin goes through France -- make the all-out effort there. Churchill also claimed Europe had a "soft underbelly." Italian and Balkan terrain is not soft. Several senior U.S. planners thought Churchill was really trying to defend British imperial interests.

Axis-controlled Sicily had served as a big aircraft carrier for attacking Allied shipping. Under Allied control, those bases would extend air cover to northern Italy and Sardinia. U.S. planners agreed that Husky made operational sense if the goal was securing air bases. But can we stop there, at the strait? Sicily's hard slog was costly. A strategic thrust up Italy's mountainous spine will be as just slow and deadly.

And indeed it was.


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: douglasmacarthur; foreignaffairs; macarthur; operationhusky; sicily; war; worldwarii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 07/10/2013 12:48:21 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The U.S. was the biggest loser of World War II.


2 posted on 07/10/2013 12:50:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The U.S. was the biggest loser of World War II.


3 posted on 07/10/2013 12:50:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The invasion of Italy forced the Germans to deploy troops who were desperately needed elsewhere. Without it, the Overlord could have failed because the Germans would be able to bring more resources to bear on the invaders.


4 posted on 07/10/2013 12:54:18 PM PDT by Squawk 8888 (I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

3 of the BIGGEST BOOBS of WW II:
1. “Dugout” Doug MacArthur
2. Marc Clark
3. Omar Bradley


5 posted on 07/10/2013 12:55:43 PM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Clive; exg; Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; ...
To all- please ping me to Canadian topics.

Canada Ping!

6 posted on 07/10/2013 12:56:21 PM PDT by Squawk 8888 (I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
The U.S. was the biggest loser of World War II.

Care to elaborate?

Are you suggesting that we allowed ourselves to get suckered and act against our own interests?

Would a Soviet liberation of Paris been preferable?

Considering how Western Europe has degenerated, I wonder if they would now be on the road to recovery from Communism rather than degenerating into it.

7 posted on 07/10/2013 12:57:37 PM PDT by ClaytonP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I always thought the Germans were. Followed by the British.


8 posted on 07/10/2013 12:57:50 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
In the novel Catch-22, there is a character named Nately’s Old Man. He is an old Italian man, discovered by Nately and he has survived many wars. He knows the secret. He knows that losing the war is always best. Wining means fighting and dying — and for what? He just surrenders every time and goes on with his life.
9 posted on 07/10/2013 12:58:53 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (21st century. I'm not a fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Italian and Balkan terrain is not soft.

The terrain isn't, for certain. But against Italian and Balkan military prowess, that's quite another matter. IMHO, too many worthy American lives were needless sacrificed rescuing the ungrateful French. Had we taken Churchill's advice and gone through the Balkans, much of eastern Europe might have been spared the trauma of Communism and we most certainly would have reached Berlin before the Russians.

10 posted on 07/10/2013 12:59:08 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We all keep in mind that 80% of Wehrmacht was destroyed by USSR. USSR lost about 35 million people and 14.5 million soldiers, over a million second lieutenants.

Allies committed ~18 divisions to Italy, and tied down a smaller number of less capable German division, but also managed to get Allied units and commanders significant combat experience that was later used in France and Germany.

At the time of the Italy landings, it was announced that Germany called off their offensive in kursk to counter the invasion of Italy.


11 posted on 07/10/2013 1:00:39 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

Soviet Union (per Glantz who had access to Soviet archives) lost 14.5 million soldiers, and over a million second lieutenants. Who gets to be a 2nd lieutenant? A bright young man with potential for responsibility.


12 posted on 07/10/2013 1:04:00 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Douglas MacArthur was a great American who did such a splendid job with Japan's occupation that they are now more reliable allies than any non-Anglo ally we had in World War II. Yeah, he had some screw-ups, as did every general. But he learned from them. After gory and costly battles in places like Guadalcanal and Tarawa, he discovered the magic of bypassing islands and leaving enemy strongholds to die on the vine.

Omar Bradley was another fine general. Beloved by his men and one of the few who could get super-sized egos like Patton and Montgomery to cooperate.

Mark Clark? I won't disagree. He lost more men taking Anzio Beachhead than MacArthur lost taking the entire Pacific. And he was callous about it, too!

13 posted on 07/10/2013 1:05:07 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP; nickcarraway

IMO the USA and Canada were the biggest winners, as they are the only major belligerents to come out of the war stronger (in economic and military terms) than they were going in. Britain, Germany, Japan, China, France, the USSR and Eastern Europe took years to recover while we almost immediately entered an era of unprecedented prosperity.


14 posted on 07/10/2013 1:05:39 PM PDT by Squawk 8888 (I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

A lot of old men like that were murdered in German death camps. A lot of men like that were murdered at Kaytun Wood by Soviets.

Germany had over 42,000 detention sites that fed to the death camps.


15 posted on 07/10/2013 1:06:01 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I believe Napolean said - Italy is indeed like a boot. It can only be entered from the top.


16 posted on 07/10/2013 1:07:41 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

LS, your take?


17 posted on 07/10/2013 1:09:00 PM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Reading of America’s successes of the past depresses me since we have no ability to do this under the current circumstances.

We don’t even have a space program with the shuttle any longer. At least Obama made them do a fly over of the shuttle on the way to the mothballs so that it would look like we were doing something.


18 posted on 07/10/2013 1:22:00 PM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

No, doubt, MacArthur has a good case for being the worst general in U.S. history. But how about the U.S. general who landed in Italy, then waited for reinforcements? Can’t remember his name. And what about Friedenhall?


19 posted on 07/10/2013 1:23:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

No, doubt, MacArthur has a good case for being the worst general in U.S. history. But how about the U.S. general who landed in Italy, then waited for reinforcements? Can’t remember his name. And what about Friedenhall?


20 posted on 07/10/2013 1:23:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker; ClaytonP

One reason the number of Soviet Second Lieutenants lost during WWII is important:

Soviet doctrine called for officers at all levels, who had absolute control and knowledge of tactics, communications, strategy, logistics, etc. due to political considerations.

Senior non-commissioned officers in the Red Army were barely more capable than junior non-commissioned officers, who themselves were barely more knowledgeable (or reliable) than the conscriptees. Those conscriptees who survived battles, AND were vetted and recommended by the ever-present Political Officers, would then be considered for promotion to higher ranks.

In the Red Army, the ability to quote Party doctrine was more valuable than the ability to shoot straight.

Therefore, Wehrmacht tactics called for quickly identifying and targeting Red Army officers, confident in the belief that this would make an unit little better than a gaggle.


21 posted on 07/10/2013 1:27:15 PM PDT by JRios1968 (I'm guttery and trashy, with a hint of lemon. - Laz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

USSR lost about 35 million people and 14.5 million soldiers, over a million second lieutenants.
***Served them right. They started WWII when they teamed up with Hitler to divide up Poland.


22 posted on 07/10/2013 1:27:19 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

One interesting thing is that both MacArthur and Bradley each made one massive blunder in their careers, and it was the same one. Both occurred after a brilliant campaign led to a massive route of the enemy, Mac following the Inchon invasion, and Bradley at the Battle of the Bulge. Both refused to believe that the enemy was capable or launching a winter counter attack, even after it was clearly happening.

Still, most great generals have made at least one blunder.


23 posted on 07/10/2013 1:29:30 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

“After gory and costly battles in places like Guadalcanal and Tarawa, he discovered the magic of bypassing islands and leaving enemy strongholds to die on the vine.”

Guadalcanal & Tarawa were Navy/Marine Corps operations, not under the command of MacArthur. I’m sure he noticed those mistakes, but they weren’t his.

The “Dugout” tag comes from his departure from Corregidor — which was ordered.

Probably his biggest mistake was abandoning the planned defense of Bataan & Manila Bay by initially opposing the Japanese landings in Northern Luzon. That cost him men & materiel when he should have been husbanding his resources. Given the Navy’s predicament after Pearl Harbor, relief wasn’t coming, so it probably made little difference.

MacArthur probably made a few mistakes in the early operations on New Guinea, but he learned very quickly from those.

All-in-all, a very capable theater commander.


24 posted on 07/10/2013 1:40:54 PM PDT by Tallguy (Hunkered down in Pennsylvania)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

That would be General Lucas at Anzio.

Disagree that MacArthur was a bad general.


25 posted on 07/10/2013 1:42:26 PM PDT by Tallguy (Hunkered down in Pennsylvania)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
No, doubt, MacArthur has a good case for being the worst general in U.S. history.

How so?

26 posted on 07/10/2013 1:44:20 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
They started WWII when they teamed up with Hitler to divide up Poland.

Before the German-Soviet alliance, the Soviets had tried to form an alliance with Britain and France, aimed at containing Germany.

The talks failed. Some historians blame that on Britain and France, who did not want to have to go to war to defend Russia.

If those talks had succeeded, perhaps there would have been no WW II, in Europe at least.

27 posted on 07/10/2013 1:45:15 PM PDT by Leaning Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman; US Navy Vet
After gory and costly battles in places like Guadalcanal and Tarawa

Guadalcanal was crucial in preventing the Japanese from advancing farther south towards New Zealand and thereby severing the supply route to Australia. Tarawa was all on Nimitz.

28 posted on 07/10/2013 1:46:59 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Just finished a book titled Operation Mincemeat. Basically a diversionary ploy by the British to deceive the Germans into thinking the attack on southern Europe by the Allies would be Sardinia and in the eastern Med Greece, a two pronged attack, instead of single assault on Sicily.
The Germans were duped by this ploy and didn’t concentrate their forces on Sicily which was the logical Allied attack point. Interesting story.


29 posted on 07/10/2013 1:48:00 PM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
The “Dugout” tag comes from his departure from Corregidor — which was ordered.

Try finding a reference to that monniker in any newspaper prior to rumors of MacArthur eying the Whitehouse in '44.

30 posted on 07/10/2013 1:50:41 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Not until Jimmuh Cartuh forgave Europe’s war debt.


31 posted on 07/10/2013 1:51:18 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Macarthur isn’t even on the map.

Ambrose Everette Burnside


32 posted on 07/10/2013 1:53:57 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Probably his biggest mistake was abandoning the planned defense of Bataan & Manila Bay by initially opposing the Japanese landings in Northern Luzon.

Wouldn't have mattered not one bit.

The actual strategy of defending the beaches was a good one and had the green Filipino troops of Dec '41 not lost their nerve, the Japanese invasion probably would have been repulsed on the beaches. The same Filipino troops that lost their nerve on the beaches began badly mauling the Japanese one month later on Bataan.

33 posted on 07/10/2013 1:56:10 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
Followed by the British.

I'd argue that the French and the British never really recovered from WW I. The best and brightest of their populations were slaughtered.

What WW I started, WW II finished off. And here we are today.

34 posted on 07/10/2013 1:59:05 PM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Oh, yes, Sicily, the death of empires. A place that cost Athens the Peloponnesian War, where Rome fought Pyrrhus first and then Carthage twice in the Punic Wars, and then their own slaves in the Servile Wars - if anyplace on the planet has ghosts, it's Sicily.

Patton, for all his bluster, was a serious student of ancient military history. What he saw developing was something like what happened in the second Punic War, and what Rome had done about it was to hop the periphery of the island clockwise, south to north. Once you hit Messina, Italy is a short boat-ride away. We took 100,000 Italian POWs because we had them encircled.

There were other issue surrounding that particular attack at that particular time. Stalin had been (rightfully, in my opinion) demanding a second front to relieve pressure on his own. It was well-known that a channel crossing would take assets we did not have in place and technology that didn't even exist yet. Both the Brits and the U.S. were deployed to North Africa at that point, also over ground that the Carthaginians and the Romans had fought. Sicily was an obvious stepping stone.

That was not lost on the Germans, themselves students of ancient warfare. It partially explains, I suspect, why they managed to leave the Italians holding the bag (it was their own territory, after all) and retreat slowly up the length of Italy. My late father followed them step for step the entire route, and his descriptions of the terrain match those of the article, sans a few expletives about managing mules through the Italian mountains.

What Churchill meant by "soft underbelly" was that the Germans didn't have defense in depth there to the degree to which they did on the Eastern front or that they still were developing at the Atlantic Wall. German planners felt that a slow retreat through Italy would buy them the requisite time, and for the most part they were correct; what happened, however, was a shortage of assets to develop a fourth front north of there once the third opened on June 6, 1944, in Normandy.

35 posted on 07/10/2013 2:03:15 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Sicily and the Italian campaigns had as much to do with political considerations as strategy. The Allies couldn’t leave the fighting to the Russians while waiting for the main invasion in France, and they had two armies in the Med with nobody to fight. Perhaps if they had ignored the political issues and those divisions in Italy had been at Stalingrad instead, the fight on the Eastern Front would have been more drawn out, but when you have allies, you often have to do things more for their benefit that your own.


36 posted on 07/10/2013 2:05:46 PM PDT by yawningotter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
Ambrose Everette Burnside

OK, I think you won that one, but I'll try a weak parry with Beauregard and maybe McClellan. Naw, I still think you won. ;-)

37 posted on 07/10/2013 2:07:29 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: yawningotter

Yeah, allies. That’s the ticket.


38 posted on 07/10/2013 2:09:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

No, what he meant by, “soft underbelly,” is, it was economically in the best interest of the British Empire to occupy Sicily.


39 posted on 07/10/2013 2:26:28 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fso301; Tallguy
Both of you are, of course, correct in your assertion that Tarawa was a naval/USMC operation from the get-go. MacArthur's army also played merely a supporting role at Guadalcanal.

The point is that MacArthur was capable enough to have learned from the errors in both campaigns without making them himself.

Guadalcanal is a rather interesting study in military importance. The truth of the matter is that it was very costly for both sides in terms of men and material invested for little strategic importance.

Henderson Field, the focal point of the battle, was important only because it was the focal point of the battle. Certainly, when the battle begin, both sides felt it had great importance, coming so soon after the massive Japanese defeat at the Battle of Midway.

But the harsh truth (albeit in 20-20 hindsight) was that it was basically a frontier airfield which the Japanese were ill-equipped to use after the loss of so much air power and four carriers at Midway. Yes, it could have potentially extended their power toward Australia and New Zealand to bomb and open up invasion routes, if they'd had the men and material available for such an operation, but they didn't.

As for the Americans and Aussies, once we won uncontested control of Guadalcanal, Henderson field was actually used for little more than a convenience stopover between our bases in New Guinea and Australia's more developed east coast, a role which had been ably filled by less developed Australian bases on the northeast coast prior to the construction of Henderson Field.

Henderson Field played almost no role in neutralizing the large Japanese naval base at Rabaul. In fact, we really never did anything more than bomb Rabaul as it turned out to be one of those places which could be bypassed. There was still a substantial Japanese military presence in Rabaul which was in near starvation conditions when it was finally allowed to schedule surrender sideshow just a few days after the main unconditional surrender was signed in Tokyo Bay.

40 posted on 07/10/2013 2:26:43 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

The battles between Rome and Pyrrhus were in mainland Italy. Pyrrhus did go to Sicily but he fought the Carthaginians there. Rome forced Carthage to give up Sicily entirely in the peace treaty at the end of the First Punic War. After the battle of Cannae in the Second Punic War, Syracuse revolted from Rome and had to be reduced by siege—the Carthaginians did what they could to aid the Syracusans. Other than that the Romans and Carthaginians did not fight in Sicily in the Second Punic War.


41 posted on 07/10/2013 2:28:20 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
We'll have to agree to disagree there. Churchill detailed some of his actual correspondence in Closing The Ring, which is (IMHO) one of the best of his epochal Second World War series. Selectively, to be sure, but it's primary source. You can't do much better than that.
42 posted on 07/10/2013 2:33:17 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Pyrrhus did go to Sicily but he fought the Carthaginians there.

Precisely - that's what I meant by "death of empires" - as usual, I wasn't clear enough.

It was also his last western campaign IIRC. The guy really was a lot better than a lot of historians give him credit for.

43 posted on 07/10/2013 2:36:50 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JRios1968

Also note that there were commissars at all levels, adjacent to the commanders. Soviet Archives have command reports filed through command channels, and commissar reports, filed through commissar channels.

Commissars didn’t die in large numbers in wartime like commanders did. They did tend to have higher casualty rates in peacetime: They tended to be true believers, and thought that party doctrine was selected because it was scientifically correct.

“Guns Against the Reich” is a memoir of a soviet artillery officer. In his first action he was to identify a reverse slope at night, mark it, and bring up the guns to occupy it. In the dark on his way back he couldn’t find it, so before dawn, he decided to occupy a different site and camouflage the battery before dawn. As daylight broke he was horrified to realize that he was on the forward slope. The commissar made open threats that he must be a traitor to so locate the guns.

His battery was ordered to fire in support of the infantry, and complied, knowing that counter battery fire would soon be on the way.

The counter battery fire concentration landed on the carefully reconnoitered reverse slope position. Germans knew that competent battery commanders would locate their guns on the reverse slope. The soldiers were estatic, knowing that their commander had somehow arranged for them to dodge a number of very painful bullets. The commissar was silent, waiting for another chance.


44 posted on 07/10/2013 2:41:47 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

The high level politicians who started the war were not the ones who died by the millions in the trenches.

The various peoples of the USSR paid a high price for the decisions of their politicians, both before the war, and during the war.


45 posted on 07/10/2013 2:44:29 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

I’m not sure I understand the gist of what you are saying. Of course, Churchill’s correspondence, of course, backs up his point of view. But there is still 2500 years of military history going against that.


46 posted on 07/10/2013 2:54:08 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

Weasely Wesley Clark.


47 posted on 07/10/2013 2:57:39 PM PDT by rfp1234 (Arguing with a marxist is like playing Chess with a Pigeon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

I would counter with Hood, the Confederate General who Burned Atlanta.


48 posted on 07/10/2013 2:57:46 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Guadualcanal was rather like Iwo Jima: Attacks that didn’t do much toward winning the war but may have been necessary for politics.


49 posted on 07/10/2013 2:59:42 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Standard response.

It wasn’t high level politicians who were machine-gunning Cossacks, jews, Poles, etc. by the millions. Those machine gun carrying russians could have dispensed with the “high level politicians” many, many times. But they didn’t.


50 posted on 07/10/2013 3:01:10 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson