You should clearify that the Italian army did not defeat Greece, on the contrary the Greek forces routed the Italians and enterrd Albania. It's only when the Germans come in that Greece is finally defeated.

My ex wife's uncle was South African infantry (later MP) in 8th Army, North Africa. I posed this very question to him. He stated that they fought bravely until supplies ran out, only then surrendering. He had the highest regard and respect for their artillery men. He stated they would keep on firing until their positions were overrun, often refusing to surrender and keep manning their guns until killed at close range.

The conquest of the Ethiopian empire was not slow, neither easy. The British had estimated that Italy would have taken two to three years. Ethiopia was conquered in seven months. Yet, that war, and even more the participation in the Spanish civil war, which engaged entire division and costed millions of artillery ammunition, and generally speaking a lot of money, retarded all the necessary modernization of the Italian military apparatus. In 1940 Italy lacked oil reserves, electronics on submarines, radars on ships, and the planes were mostly obsolete, without radio, without pressurization system. Italy had a great Navy in 1935 (100 submarines! Modern ships) and the best planes by 1935, but technology made great progresses in aviation and electronics and Italy had an obsolete defence by 1940, having spent all the money in Ethiopia and Spain rather than in modernization.

Mostly right, but some things should be noted. The campaign of Greece was undertaken, initially, under the agreement with Bulgaria that Bulgaria would have invaded Greece simultaneously. Italy had her army already engaged in Libya and Somalia, and could send to Greece only six divisions or so, but Bulgaria would have sent more than ten. Turkey warned Bulgaria that if Bulgaria had invaded Greece - to reclaim a territory which was also claimed by Turkey - Turkey would have entered the war against Bulgaria (by the Greek side!). Bulgaria decided to not enter the war. Italy invaded nonetheless with the few divisions she had (I don't know whether they knew already about the decision by Bulgaria). Initially the Italian army advanced, but then Greece moved all the divisions she had on the Bulgarian front - being certain there would have been no invasion there - and could place 18 divisions against the 6 Italian divisions. Italy found a 3:1 Greek division ratio, in favour of Greece. Also, as a testimony of the total loss of common sense by Mussolini, Italy invaded Greece in November, imagine waging an offensive war, in a mountain theatre, in November! While the Greeks were retreating (initially) there were bridges that were destroyed by the floods rather than by the Greek themselves. Mussolini decision - even in this case - was totally wrong, both for the choice of time and the risk of invading a Country with a small army. Also, considering that Italy had already the control of Albania, i.e. of the Valona harbour, Italy was not in the necessity to control the Aegean Sea to block access to the Adriatic Sea. Valona was necessary, Greece was not.

Desppide the Italian Inferiority the "mediterranean War" war tattically a draw, Italian sunk to the british the same quantity of navy that the british sunk to the Italian ! In north africa Rommel army was mostley Italian. In russia the latest army to retreet from the Don were the Alpini and they retreat because the Russian were already on their back .

THE MUSIC IS TOO LOUD!

Parlano male degli italiani. I giapponesi catturarono 85.000 prigionieri INGLESI e australiani😂. Sempre onore ai caduti. Anche i tedeschi, ci “ criticano” fanno i professori del piffero. Poi…, le guerre le perdono TUTTE 😂.

And.. they’re, well.. Italians

I bought an old Italian WWII rifle- only dropped once and never fired!😎

06:50 "The Italians were a *miasma* of opinions..." Perhaps you meant "a myriad of opinions..." Surely their opinions cannot have been that odious?🙂

Second, Italy was really on the winning side after the Great war, 1914 to 1918. Post-war Germany will say that Italy betrayed Reich in WW1, like in WW2 . But, that was just partially correct. Italy wanted after unification, after 1870, turned back all Latin territories on the east coast of the Adriatic sea. That included Istria, all Adriatic islands and Dalmatia. Problem for them was in that time much stronger Austrian Empire and that was not feasible before 1914 in just one single war with much stronger opponent. That's a reason why Italy was chosen opposite side of Austria, Hungary, Turkey and Germany. But, after WW1 Italy was not satisfied with territories what it got after 1919. When Benito Mussolini come on the power in Italy, on 31st of October, 1922, he wanted immediately back for Italy all eastern Adriatic coast, but that was not possible before 1939. So, he decided to join Germany with Alliance in 1936 and later when was the Axis powers founded on November, 1940. Situation, in that time, in Italy, was different. On the North, Mussolini was very popular. On the South was different. Situation like that stayed even during WW2 and later. That is a reason why the Civil war ( 1943 - 1945 ) was happened on Italian peninsula. South stayed pro-Royalist and pro-Allies and North stayed pro-Fascist and pro-German. Later, North lost Civil war and King abdicated in 1946. But, defeat got a price for Italy. They lost Istria, Fiume, Zara and rest of the interwar territories. At the end, why Italy lost WW2? Italy was really bad prepared for WW2 with bad planning and a lots of not realistic ambitions. But, can Italy passed better in that war if it better collaborated with Germans? Yes! Because, if Italy proved to Germany that the Mediterranean strategy is the best option for all Axis powers, in Europa, that they could win WW2 with minimally casualties and fast movements. But, for that Italy needed Germany in the Mediterranean sea, the North Africa and the Middle East too. So, that was crucial for Italy and all the Axis powers. And, war must be over before Christmas, 1942. Be saluted!

My grand fathers one fought the Italians in the Alps, the other the Germans in Narvik. Both used to say that both Italians and Germans were good tough soldiers but the Germans were much better lead and equipped, the Italians were brave but missing munitions, food and having a worse management. Corruption is what killed the Italians army.

First, your map of Italy from WW2 is wrong. That is a map of Italy after 1947 and 1954. Because, Italy on that map don't got Istria, Fiume, Zara, ect. For example, my Grandad was Italian soldier, during WW2 ( 1940 - 1943 ) and he was served in North Africa. I am from Istria and even i am now technically Croat in that time my peninsula was Italian territory and that army ( Italian forces ) were technically army of my Grandad and me today. So, about that map, my Grandad was never served like Italian soldier and he was never in Libya, Tunis and Egypt by you?! So, now do you understand how that map is so wrong? Be saluted!

You should have reviewed the performance of the troops from the province of Trentino Alto-Adige.

Very good analysis, but you're forgetting something: 1) The Germans attempted at Hitler life a few times. Had they succeded they would have asked for peace as well. Otherwise what was the point? They just were unlucky. 2) Italians didn't have the Soviet, true. they actually had the nazi occupation which was brutal. In facts Italians kept fighting in Italy until 1945 and Italian resistance was one of the fiercest with Rome being the European capital that gave the Germans the hardest time.

imma subscribe

Stop music . It ruins video.

Mussolini forever to be hated for what he did to his fellow Italians, what shame there is is his and his alone

Great job! Keep going!

not of Italy surrender or changed sides

Don't believe everything you read in the History books History is written by the winners who overhyped their victory and belittled their opponent's

I agree but you are missing the main point, Italy fought in terrain that was highly unfavorable, try to think about a single war that italy fought in since the 1870 that DIDN'T have terrible terrain, not ethiopia, not libya, not the alps, not greece. Italy preformed quite well in yugoslavia or the eastern front mainly due to the not terrible supply.

I came to goon, to Mussolini.

⛑️🥼🧵🪡

thanks to france and frenc to exist

The book, "MUSSOLINI'S WAR IN THE EAST 1941-1943" covers the Italian war effort in Ukraine and Russia. General Messe led the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia, during 1941-1942. The Italians fought quite well under Messe, and his successor, General Gariboldi (commander of Italian 8th Army). Many units were proficient, elite formations, such as the Blackshirts, the cavalry regiments, the Alpine divisions, and the semi-motorized infantry. The Italians also sent a flotilla of mini-submarines and motor torpedo boats that operated effectively in the Black Sea.

My father (class 1920) was a partisan commander in northern Italy from September 1943 till the April 1945. They fought with bravery the nazi fascist forces in a very bloody civil war. Unlike Germany, in Italy many soldiers were against Mussolini and his desire for conquest

Italy's small arms were pretty good and competitive with most of its WW2 opponents (Except the US), however it's biggest let down and most important small arm was its LMG the Breda Model 30.

the music 🥲👹👹

Dio porco how this is a honest look ?

Italians had built good fighter planes and battleships. Effective military machines.

Culture. Dramatic cultural differences are the bedrock reason behind all the differences between the Germans and Italians as fighters.

Doctrines also screwed over France in the First World War. They were caught up with taking more land, as they had done in the Napoleon War. A country not modernizing is a country that is dooming itself. Weapon wise or mindset wise.

Why have you only made one video?

This is an engaging, if succinct, look at Fascist Italy in WWII. Mussolini was an extremely effective politician and writer; we must remember that Hitler emulated him in nearly every aspect. However, he wasn't the most efficacious general. His personal credo of, "Mussolini is never wrong," says it all. General Armellini was accurate; Mussolini had little idea of the adversities or logistics of military campaigns. You stated, "The combined arms doctrine used to such devastating effect by the Germans could not have been pulled off by (the Italians.)" Italian military doctrine, developed without German intervention, was almost identical to that of Nazi Germany. My grandfather was an early member of the Italian Blackshirts; MVSN, (Camicie Nere, CCNN). Among others, he fought in the Ethiopian and Greek campaigns, was wounded, and won several decorations some awarded by Mussolini himself. Until his death, he was a genuine and passionate Fascist; many an evening was spent listening to his memories of the war and how Italy could have won.

The Italians were not eager to fight for Mussolini much less die for him. As soon as the casualties mounted they would retreat or surrender. And who could blame them. Hitler's cause was not their cause.

I love, that you actually used ww2 italian music in the video

Greece and Metàxas were Italy's allies ffsakes, and Mussolini still attacked them - got his teeth bashed in and - WORST THING OF ALL - it meant the Germans had to postpone "Barbarossa" by at least a couple of months to secure the Balkans, which infuriated Hitler so much he went speechless for a couple of days. That was possibly the most important strategic blunder of the War by the Axis powers. Had they started "Barbarossa" in May, they quite probably wold have taken both Moscow and st. Petersburg.

Bro your content is good but the music is so annoying, I am Italian and hearing two languages I can fully understand at once makes it so hard to follow, besides you shouldn't be playing fascist songs PS: I'm sorry I can't genuinely watch it even if I try, the music is an earrape.

This country is the weakest modern army have ever known. I don’t think they ever won war since the Roman days.😂

I just watched the scarlet and the black in 1943 Rome. Highly recommend

an honest assessment of Italy's forces can be had from books by Brian K. Sullivan, Ian Walker and Walter Zapotoczny

wow this vid sucked

A very informative and exceptional book relating to Italian wars between 1935-1943 is: “Regio Esercito: The Italian Royal Army in Mussolini’s Wars 1935-1943” by Patrick Cloutier.

Without America ww2 is in the hand of German

When a country Lost more than 300.000 thousand men fighting along the Germans, and saying that was a minor role is a huge lack of respect for those hundreds of thousand of men who fought and died only for the Vanity of a Delusional Man like Mussolini. As a matter of fact the German Army without the huge Italian Sacrifice at Stalingrad would probably had surrender much earlier. In Africa the Italians were more a waste of space than a proper fighting force capable of helping the Germans the way Rommel so much needed. But overall the Historians are wrong by constantly Undermine the Role of the Italians in WW2. They fought bravely with what they had,wich was few and very bad equipment,but nevertheless without them Army Group South from 1941/1943 most likely wouldn't have been so Successfull, specialy on the first stages of Operation Blau,and by holding for so long at Stalingrad. The same can be said abaut the Romanian Army,who sacrifice an Entire Army also in Stalingrad. The ammount of casualties suffered by the Italians and Romanians on the Eastern Front were Appalling.

The Italian navy didn't do that badly and held their own against the British.

The biggest mistake, militarily speaking, committed by Italy post-WW1, was not restructuring the leadership with WW1 veterans. This is part of why Germany was so effective I think, many of their best generals and really the foundation of the whole Nazi movement was the veterans of WW1 who had learned to adapt in the trenches.

Italy 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Unfortunately this video was disapointing and the interpretations on wwii events remain as lame as always, and as biased as always, with weak social economic development of the study