Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 21:57:48 GMT
I cant see what alternative there was. We tried (and failed) to take the place without damaging it, so the alternatives were to flatten the place or stop the advance in Italy. Anzio was the alternative. Landings which were meant to outflank the Winter line. The Allies screwed up badly at Anzio mostly due to poor generalship. The idea behind it was sound but the forces allotted to it inadequate, at first just a couple of divisions of US VI Corps, though half these forces were actually British. Reinforcements were on their way but not quickly enough. Nevertheless the initial opposition was extremely light and under good leadership much more ground could have been gained. But General Lucas in command was excessively cautious to say the least and waited over a week before attempting a significant advance, by which time the Germans had had sufficient time to collect substantial reinforcements. Lucas was replaced by Truscott but it was too late to rectify the missed opportunity. Not until May, some four months after the initial landings, did the forces in the bridgehead succeed in breaking out. A golden opportunity then presented itself for the Anzio forces to advance east and cut off most of the German forces in Italy. The British general Harold Alexander, in overall command in Italy gave orders for the US 5th Army to do just that. But its commander general Mark Clark was so utterly obsessed with the glory of capturing Rome that he only directed a single division eastwards as a token compliance with Alexander's orders and directed the rest towards Rome, which fell to him on June 4th 1944. But the more important objective of cutting off the German forces in Italy was missed. And ironically Clark got little glory for capturing Rome anyway, since the D Day landings two days later totally drowned it out in the news. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 22:10:47 GMT
To broaden the threads horizon does anyone want to comment on the allied bombing of Monte Cassino? Personally I think the bombing was justified but had the negative effect of providing more cover for axis forces. Like the detruction of Satlingrad by the Nazis it was a Russian snipers paradise. The bombing of the monastery at Monte Cassino was wholly unnecessary though the Allied commanders could not have known that at the time. The Germans had in fact not occupied it and somewhat uncharacteristically had respected its status and even helped ship some of its treasures to safety. This was certainly untypical conduct by Nazi standards and was likely the result of initiatives by local German commanders who thought such things still mattered. But the Allies could not reasonably have expected that the Germans would be so scrupulous. It was somewhat uncommon for them to be so. The monastery occupied a good defensive position so when false reports were made of German snipers being in occupation, the decision was made to bomb it. But such a decision was flawed from a tactical point of view, since bombed out ruins tended to make better defensive positions than buildings still standing, something which should have been learned by 1944. And of course after it had been bombed the Germans moved in to make effective use of those ruins in defence. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 21, 2023 22:12:56 GMT
The Germans were indeed the intended targets for nuclear attack. The fact that they were defeated before the bombs were ready is what saved them from such a fate. I dont think either ourselves or the USA were have hesitated to nuke Germany in 1945. We have to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. It was not yet a world of mutually assured destruction. We as yet had no concept of the end of civilisation as we knew it. And we would have been at the end of a long and murderous war in the course of which we had become used to suffering and inflicting mass death and destruction. In 1945 nukes were still seen as just a bigger and more effective bang and a way to bring the war to a speedier end. We had also become numbed to the horror of mass civilian death. Six years of war had normalised that for many. The nuke bombing of Japan saved more lives than it took in those 2 horrendous events. Not a good thing to say and tastes like vinegar in the mouth but true all the same. i’m sure it did. That’s not really the point. The yanks committed an act if mass destruction with a nuclear weapon. twice. And then invented a kangaroo court that they refuse to send any of their own to answer their failings in, solely for the purpose of crucifying anyone else who did to them what they did to the japanese. I was involved in building stuff designed to do the same to tbe cold war enemies of the uk. I would have launched them myself. I’m not interested in the ethics I am interested in the utter hypocrisy and bullshit of those who even remotely defend the nuking of japan while criticising firebombing of germany A chap i met as a teenager told me to have a care about wishing to jump into the cockpit of a fighter aircraft as having done it, he knew it was nothing more than climbing to a higher altitude than the enemy so you could shoot the poor sod in the back before he had a chance to do it to you. That sort of stuck in my mind. |
|
