Was the invasion of Italy necessary in ww2

Definitely keep the resources in European theater.
Lots of discussion here on taking Sardinia/Corsica after Sicily. If that leads Italy to the negotiating table, there is no invasion.
If Italy stays in the fight, they have to keep units along the entire coast.
Allies are then free to attack a different location.
 
Pushing Axis airfields out of range of the shipping routes through the Mediterranean saved time shipping equipment and men to India and returning with resources from there, Australia, New Zealand etc. Improving ship usage and representing around a million tons of additional ships without having to build and man them. This means that Sicily and at least southern Italy - up to about Rome - needs to be occupied. In addition many of the troops that were historically used for the invasion of Europe in 1944 are not yet equiped nor ready to deploy.
 
Don’t think the Allies need to have southern Italy to keep the med shipping route open.

The ships will hug the coast and efforts to intercept with air power become a battle of attrition that the Axis can’t sustain for long.
 
Well, the argument for Italy is pretty simple: Where else could they attack? The resources weren't there for Sledgehammer, which was too weak anyway, and they had to launch a major attack due to the political pressure from Stalin, and Churchill had the only real idea, which was Italy. Plus, Italy surrendering gave the Allies what they saw as an opportunity to land relatively unopposed, flawed however that assumption may be.
 
The invasion of Sicily was absolutely necessary, when Germany went balls deep into its former ally an invasion of the Peninsula became too good an opportunity to pass up.
 

McPherson

Banned
Was the invasion of Italy by allies necessary to win ww2 or could the resources used in the invasion used somewhere else like maybe fighting Japan?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy
Bombrange.jpg


You absolutely need Foggia. Italy gets invaded. No choice in the matter.
 
Was the invasion of Italy by allies necessary to win ww2 or could the resources used in the invasion used somewhere else like maybe fighting Japan?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy
Italy was actually a fully paid up member of the Axis, so defeating Italy is non-optional.
And given the way that Hitler reacted in 1941 to the Yugoslavian coup, Hitler probably isn't going to just let the government of Italy switch sides and do nothing about it, so the Allies are going to need some sort of troops in Italy to slowly roll back the remaining overt Italian fascists and the Germans who will end up trying to prop them up.
Plus if the Allies can get that far, there's a propaganda coup in conquering/liberating Rome, and shooting film footage of allied soldiers being greeted by and blessed by a major Western European religious leader - the Pope.
And as McPherson has demonstrated with the map in post #10, some of the airfields are rather useful as bomber bases if you can gain sufficient territorial depth around them to secure them and supply routes for all the bombs/fuel needed to use them.
 
Last edited:
Italy was actually a fully paid up member of the Axis, so defeating Italy is non-optional.
And given the way that Hitler reacted in 1941 to the Yugoslavian coup, Hitler probably isn't going to just let the government of Italy switch sides and do nothing about it, so the Allies are going to need some sort of troops in Italy to slowly roll back the remaining overt Italian fascists and the Germans who will end up trying to prop them up.
Plus if the Allies can get that far, there's a propaganda coup in conquering/liberating Rome, and shooting film footage of allied soldiers being greeted by and blessed by a major Western European religious leader - the Pope.
And as McPherson has demonstrated with the map in post #10, some of the airfields are rather useful as bomber bases if you can gain sufficient territorial depth around them to secure them and supply routes for all the bombs/fuel needed to use them.
Mussolini was voted out of power by his own Council and he left. By the time that the Allies invaded Italy, he was already on his way out.
 
Mussolini was voted out of power by his own Council and he left. By the time that the Allies invaded Italy, he was already on his way out.

I wouldn't say so.

First thing, you might be using "Italy" in the sense of the Italian continental mainland; but politically, Sicily was and is Italy, and up until the invasion of Sicily, Mussolini's popularity had been shaken but he still was in the saddle. It was the invasion of Sicily - and the bombings of Rome - that convinced the other Italian powers that Mussolini had to be ousted and peace be made.

That said, while the new government immediately opened negotiations with the Allies as soon as Mussolini was taken away ("left" seems to assume he did this of his own free will - he was secretly arrested), the new Italian government was never going to be able to stand as an independent neutral, let alone as a co-belligerent on the Allies' side, without Allied boots on the ground. That's because there were already a lot of German boots on the ground. Things might have been different with a different Italian military and political leadership, but with what was in place, the coat-turning was a dog's meal, and the Allied landings would have been necessary in any case.
 
Was the invasion of Italy by allies necessary to win ww2 or could the resources used in the invasion used somewhere else like maybe fighting Japan?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy
In fact, the invasion of Italy resulted in a lot of resources being sent to the Pacific to fight Japan. General George Marshal wanted a cross-Channel invasion of France in 1943, but the invasion of Italy made that impossible. So he connived with Admiral King to send a lot of resources, especially landing craft, to the Pacific.
 
I think as well as the practical and strategic aspects there's another big aspect to this, morale (both troops and at home).

Yes the wallies have kicked the axis off N.Africa after three years of hard fighting, and yes that did involve an invasion and US troops earning their spurs in the western theatre both good things. But the invasion of Italy is the first time that the Wallies step foot on axis home soil (not axis conquests, contested land or colonies). OK the soviets have been pushing the axis backwards in their territory since Stalingrad, and yes Italy is a 2nd tier axis power. But I think the act of taking the fight to the axis not just in terms of dropping bombs on them but actual troops, tanks and seizing cities etc is an important one.


1943 is a bad year for the axis, off N.Africa, losing hold of the Eastern Med, Kursk and now the invasion of Italy The myth of Axis invincibility still felt from just 3 years earlier is gone. And I think it's also important going into 1944 that that myth is well and truly dispelled (on both sides) because everyone know's what's coming next!
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say so.

First thing, you might be using "Italy" in the sense of the Italian continental mainland; but politically, Sicily was and is Italy, and up until the invasion of Sicily, Mussolini's popularity had been shaken but he still was in the saddle. It was the invasion of Sicily - and the bombings of Rome - that convinced the other Italian powers that Mussolini had to be ousted and peace be made.

That said, while the new government immediately opened negotiations with the Allies as soon as Mussolini was taken away ("left" seems to assume he did this of his own free will - he was secretly arrested), the new Italian government was never going to be able to stand as an independent neutral, let alone as a co-belligerent on the Allies' side, without Allied boots on the ground. That's because there were already a lot of German boots on the ground. Things might have been different with a different Italian military and political leadership, but with what was in place, the coat-turning was a dog's meal, and the Allied landings would have been necessary in any case.
From what I remember, he was voted out by the Grand Council and the King formed a new government with Badogluo to make peace. He was arrested, it he didn’t try to fight it until the Germans came to install him as the puppet leader of the Social Republic.
 
Brooke wanted Italy as a 'strategic trap' for German forces. The more Germans sitting in Italy, the less troops can be used in Normandy.

… and it is not easy to move huge amounts of troops and their materiel up from Italy. It had to be via rail and how many North-South Railway connections were available? I think it was like 2, but in essence only one.

THAT is why Italy had to be invaded!

Remember as well, Brooke was convinced that the 'real' battle had to be in France and his strategy was to prepare the (global) battlefield. He saw the invasion as the last step in a chain of events. Marshall had a tendency to see it as the first step.

The amount of troops in Italy in April '44 (says Wiki):

Allied: 619,000
Germany: 365,000

The Allied could probably afford it, but surely Germany could not. An additional 365,000 Germans in Normandy could have caused a lot of hassle.
 
Brooke wanted Italy as a 'strategic trap' for German forces. The more Germans sitting in Italy, the less troops can be used in Normandy.

… and it is not easy to move huge amounts of troops and their materiel up from Italy. It had to be via rail and how many North-South Railway connections were available? I think it was like 2, but in essence only one.

THAT is why Italy had to be invaded!

Remember as well, Brooke was convinced that the 'real' battle had to be in France and his strategy was to prepare the (global) battlefield. He saw the invasion as the last step in a chain of events. Marshall had a tendency to see it as the first step.

The amount of troops in Italy in April '44 (says Wiki):

Allied: 619,000
Germany: 365,000

The Allied could probably afford it, but surely Germany could not. An additional 365,000 Germans in Normandy could have caused a lot of hassle.

It had a lot of advantages for the allies. It finally eliminated the RM as a force in the Med, it led to Italy surrendering, it caused the Germans to commit land and airforces to secure their southern flank further complicating German logistics. It allowed the Wehrmacht to play to their strengths in defence which caused a lot of allied casualties, some of the cack handed Allied generalling resulted in a lot of missed opportunities for the Wallies (Anzio cough).
 
Not all those 365,000 would be available for Normandy though. With Sardinia in allied hands, many troops would have been assigned to Rome and coastal defense. Similar to the tons of troops defending Norway against an invasion that never came.
 
Top