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 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 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