WI:Allies land in Genoa instead of Dragoon

This something I have been looking at for a while. Firstly the map below does show that their was a high amount of partisan actively fighting the germans in the area, if the map is correct. Secondly according to a book I have read, the forces in the area around the time were mainly Italian constricts trained in Germany who were used to garrison the area, mainly due to their general combat effectivetive, which was almost zilch. One decent German division was in the area as well. Presuming this is chosen over dragoon, could this be a good move on the allies part? They can hopefully cut off the Germans from retreating by cutting across into the Adriatic.
 
The French pressed the invasion of Southern France. Invading Italy like that would mean nothing to them. Winston Churchill wanted to invade the Balkans instead but i think he eventually was persuaded by French pressure as well. If the target would have been Genoa however, i don't think they would have come to an agreement on that. Basically defeating Italy and Crushing German opposition there was not as high a priority as liberating France. Genoa was far away from the French border.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Marseilles and Toulon were (and are) huge port complexes

Marseilles and Toulon were (and are) huge port complexes that directly connect with the French internal transportation net (rail, road, and river/canal systems) which meant they were key to opening a second logistics line for the Allies for both the liberation of France and the defeat of Germany.

ANVIL/DRAGOON also brought both the US 7th and French 1st armies and their supporting airpower into the fight against Germany in northwest Europe; considering these were two of the seven Allied armies that invaded Germany in 1944-45, this was a necessity.

The operation also forced the Germans to face a second front within the theater that already was the second front, provided the 12th Army Group with a secure flank to the south, and sped the liberation of France.

All of the above are not only desirable, they are essentially requirements for an allied expeditionary force to be ready in invade Germany in 1944-45.

Genoa not only does none of the above, it leads to the Alps.:(

Best,
 
...
Genoa not only does none of the above, it leads to the Alps.:(

Best,

Amen

Genoa is a nice port, but not in the same class as Marasilles. Genoa also has some reasonable railway connections, but again not like the high capacity tracks that led north into central France from the Marsailles/Toulon port group. The serious problem is the mountain range that sits just inland from Genoa. The mountain passes make the Monte Cassino massif look like lowland hills. Any Allied army landing at Genoa could be boxed in by third rate infantry & waste a lot of time fighting eastwards to the upper end of the Po River basin. Turning west towards France runs into a even larger and more rugged extention of the Alps, which runs straight into the sea.
 
Unless the French are allowed to keep Genoa, I don't think they (who made up the majority of troops for Operation Dragoon) would be interested in taking Italian cities whilst France was still mostly under German control.

There is also a logistical reason to take the ports of Toulon and particularly Marseille (which remained relatively undamaged) as well. It is these ports that did the heavy lifting for many of the Western allied troops in France as many of the Northern and Western ports were damaged in one way or another. Capturing Genoa may allow this to occur as well, however it just stretches the line (trucks would need to go around the mountain ranges and around Switzerland).
 
The key question is when?
If WALLIES went straight from Sicily to Genoa, they could have avoided a miserable slog the wrong way up the mountainous spine of Italy. A solid landing in Genoa threatened to cut off German retreat, so Kesselring might have withdrawn his crack paratroopers much earlier in the battle. Without fallschirmjagers, the battles for Ortona and Monte Casino would have been half as long and half as bloody.
 
The key question is when?
...

The airfields in Corsica & Sardinia were ready to support operations along this region in mid January 1944. It took roughly seven to eight weeks to prepare them & rebase 1100+ fighter & light or medium bombers there. If the attack on Sardinia & Corsica is accelerated from October to September, or earlier then the airfields may be ready earlier.

...
If WALLIES went straight from Sicily to Genoa, they could have avoided a miserable slog the wrong way up the mountainous spine of Italy. A solid landing in Genoa threatened to cut off German retreat, so Kesselring might have withdrawn his crack paratroopers much earlier in the battle. Without fallschirmjagers, the battles for Ortona and Monte Casino would have been half as long and half as bloody.

As per a couple previous posts pointed out; Genoa is overlooked by a mountain range, that is taller and more rugged than that which blocked the Allied armies south of Rome. It is actually a step backwards in terrain advantage. That is it gives a larger advantage to the defense.
 
Top