German Strategy for Italy 1943/44

In this video Dr. Magnus Pahl from the MHM Dresden and I talk about the German strategy and view on Italy in 1943 and 1944. How did it fit in, what options were available, what strategies were proposed by Rommel and Kesselring?
Disclaimer: I was invited by Militärhistorische Museum der Bundeswehr Dresden in 2021. www.mhmbw.de/
Cover design by vonKickass.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribes...
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/...
» SOURCES «
Pahl, Magnus: Monte Cassino 1944: Der Kampf um Rom und seine Inszenierung. Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, Germany, 2021.
#GermanStrategyItaly,#Italy1943,#ItalyAndGermany

[@mensch1066]

Before someone leaves a comment, I should note that Dr. Pahl's use of 'fore play' is an exact translation of the German word "Vorspiel" (literally before the play). It's a term from classical music for a prelude or an overture (an instrumental piece that sets the mood before the singing begins). So it's entirely a good term to use to describe what set the scene for the battle of Monte Cassino . . . if the word did not have certain "adult" connotations in colloquial English that I doubt most German speakers are familiar with.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

That's one of the things that fascinate me about languages. There are so many little phrases and words that have meanings hidden to outsiders, and they change over time to. Read 100 year old popular fiction and some slang stands out, but some makes enough modern sense that you can get an entirely wrong meaning out of it. A Japanese language teacher told a story of an American who knew just enough Japanese to be dangerous. You may be familiar with the "o-" prefix, sometimes called an "honorary" prefix -- "cha" is tea, "ocha" is the fancy green tea. Put it in from of house, wife, and other words, and it means "your" house, wife, etc. This tourist got on a bus and asked if it went to Nara, but mistakenly thought adding the "o" prefix would make it more polite -- the driver and passengers nearby giggled when he said "onara", because that is some kind of slang for "fart", breaking wind, cutting the cheese. I don't know enough Japanese to know the slang itself, but I know the temptation to add "o" to things.

[@mensch1066]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 I remember when I first started reading Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories from the late 19th Century it was striking that he would often use "ejaculate" as a word to mean someone says something with some volume (e.g. "'Goodness, Holmes, look at the size of that hound!', Watson ejaculated."). Very likely this comment will be caught up in some filter because KZbin now thinks I said a naughty word, the way that early web filters in the 1990s and early 2000s would stop you from looking up Alfred Hitchcock or Middlesex County.

[@agdgdgwngo]

I knew exactly what he meant, though its pretty inappropiate (not that I care)

[@pRahvi0]

I kinda assumed the naughty meaning was not what he meant, but then again, I find it quite fitting anyway. It's all about getting excited and mentaly prepared for the act, whether or not the "act" involves violence or something else...

[@bjorntorlarsson]

I think Kesselring was one of the very best high level army commanders of Germany. He defended Italy excellently until it had no meaning anymore at the capitulation. Perfect timing, somehow, in cold blood.

[@PalleRasmussen]

Other youtubers; "Thank you for watching, remember to click the bell for notifications, like, share and subscribe, cya next time". Bernard (very fast); "Sources are linked in the description, remember to subscribe, bye".

[@davidbrennan660]

“Soft underbelly” or “tough old gut”.... history decided.

[@bloqk16]

That thumbnail illustration was most amusing of showing Hitler at a table, looking down on the table with I'd guess was a pizza, with a look of apprehension on his face that could describe his thought of: _What have I've gotten myself into?_

[@luisnunes3863]

Napoleon knew everything about invading Italy and said: "Italy is a boot, one enters it from the top." The history of the allied campaign seems to bear out his opinion.

[@michaeldunne338]

Completely different circumstances though. German controlled Southern France at the time, as well as Austria and the Balkans. What kind of counterfactual would have that looked like - invade the Riviera/Provence and then move against Turin, Genoa, and/or Milan?

[@watcherzero5256]

Well he did have a land border to invade from after already annexing some northern states, he didnt need to conduct an amphibious invasion.

[@tisFrancesfault]

Its also unrealistic and unwise to invade from the north as its the Italian heartlands, and geographically poor as a start point. Starting at the bottom gives one flank direction and one movement direction. Imagine invading Genoa? It would allow air bases across Italy to screen the invasion and supply lines, if you pushed to the alps you then have two horrid fronts to fight on. I mean if you were France it makes sense to take the north asap, securing key industry, and civ populations along the way, but the circumstances of ww2 for the allies? lord no. ...And even then It it could be argued that French border holds out, and force Italy in fighting from the south like IRL, is the better option, cos Italy cant fight that fight.

[@Seriona1]

@@tisFrancesfault If the Allies were able to do their original invasion, Italy may of been attacked from the North. I am making a huge speculation here but after Africa was secured, originally the Allies wanted to begin the European invasion starting with Greece. The Soviets protested this idea which is why it never happened.

[@steveellis7174]

The Allied invasion had to be covered by air. Thus an invasion had to be in the south.

Interesting Video. Somehow I always thought the frontline magically ended up on the line around Mount Cassino. But of course it makes much more sense that they planned that. Thx for opening my eyes to this today. And also for allowing me to be proud that I actually saw the "hidden map". Guss my glases work.

[@slartybartfarst55]

Thank you. Yet again, a fascinating interview

[@robertmarsh3588]

Very interesting video and speaker. Thank you!!

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

I am no military expert, and discussions like this clarify a lot of things to the point that I wonder sometimes how I could have been so ignorant. Kesselring's plan to keep Allied air power as far away as possible makes a lot of sense. One puzzle I have always had about the Allied Italian campaign is, Why bother? The mountainious (you ought to trademark that word, it is better than the real one) terrain seems like the last place you'd want to pour in resources. But I guess you have to go where you can. Sometimes it all comes down to air power; I have heard that until Big Week in February 1944, the Luftwaffe was still too strong to chance a landing across the English Channel (another side question: the French call it something else. What do other countries (Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark) call it?) and maybe the same applies to landing in southern France. Iwo Jima was barely occupied and not at all fortified even a year before the US landed there, and could have been taken in a single day with few casualties; but it was beyond any air support. My imagination thinks it could have been held easily since the IJN by then was in no condition to invade it, and resupplied well enough due to the small size of the holding force. But the US did not know its condition, nor how much it would be fortified, nor how weak the IJN was, and so it goes. My imagination knows more than everybody else ever, runs away with these ideas, and one of the reasons I come back here is to rein in my imagination.

[@mensch1066]

I think that the purpose in invading Italy was entirely to satisfy British geostrategic and geopolitical goals, and it was simply sold to the Americans via the argument that after their performance in North Africa (especially Kasserine Pass), they needed a "blooding" to gain experience and competence. Of course, the counter to the Iwo Jima in 1944 argument is that there was no strategic or operational reason to invade the island before B-29s were attacking Japan from the Marianas. So the USN would have to plan and take a small island deep in enemy territory that they would have to then resupply (against an IJN submarine force that remained large throughout the war, as the USS Indianapolis found out in the summer of 1945) for a long time before it would conceivably be of any use to American strategic goals.

[@peka2478]

i will tell you "why bother going through mounainteous Italy" once you answer me "why bother to fight for the Isonzo... twelve times, in one war." (WWI) -.-

[@agdgdgwngo]

Mountainious, a perfectly cromulent word

[@im8015]

Great video. Can't help to point out one thing though. Churchill, as far as I know, never said "the soft underbelly". In his volumes of the history of WWII, he said "underbelly", but never "soft underbelly". I don't mind being proven wrong, but as far as I know, this is just another of the way too many and long lived WWII myths.

[@Seriona1]

I believe the "soft underbelly" was more reserved for Spain who the Allies assumed were going to join the Axis at some point

[@hermannalberts6038]

Churchill was an underbelly expert indeed ! (No bodyshaming intended) :-)

[@johnlansing2902]

Thank you .

[@triklettriklerbu1592]

I would appreciate if you could add subtitles in English. Thanks for the video anyways.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

I have them for scripted videos, but not for interviews, since that would take several hours to make.

[@xmaniac99]

It is still somewhat ironic that the Allied conquest of Sicily, defended by demoralized and under strength Axis troops took almost as long as the German conquest of France. I wouldn’t call that an underbelly…

[@ismaeljunior8624]

To be fair, the management of France in this war is so horrendous, so bad, that makes me think they are actually want to lose.

[@michaeldunne338]

Good piece. All very interesting, but bit of a sad bit of history. Think the Allies had to secure the Mediterranean during the war. Unfortunately for the Italians, the mainland was put through misery from September 1943 to April 1945. And, many Italians were detained as Germans secured positions in the Balkans and the South of France that were previously occupied by Fascist Italy. On the plus side for the Allies, Tito's partisans gained strength, forcing the Germans to divert a non-trivial number of divisions to Yugoslavia. Churchill seemed keen on the Balkans and the concept of "the Soft Underbelly of Europe," but then was no sot keen on the operation that really did hit a soft underbelly, Operation Dragoon and the invasion of Southern France on August 15, which led to major German formations evacuating large parts of France, and the securing of Marseilles as a major port.

[@bryangrote8781]

Churchill never wanted to invade the mainland at all with a full scale invasion except as a mop up operation or as an emergency measure due to USSR being knocked out and forcing such an invasion. The Balkans were an exception as once it was clear USSR was not going to fall he wanted to secure Eastern Europe from the Soviets. Ironically delaying the Normandy invasion until 1944 virtually guaranteed the Cold War, exactly the opposite of what Churchill wanted. It’s debatable that the US desire to invade earlier could have been possible due to the forces and shipping shortages in ‘42-‘43 but Med operations made it completely impossible. An earlier invasion into France makes an interesting alt-history debate.

[@michaeldunne338]

@@bryangrote8781 What about the Quebec conference in the August 1943? It seems he was for knocking Italy out of the war, to the point of being open to operations against the Italian mainland (maybe he was for plans to take Sardinia and Corsica too?), no? He supported some sort of operation set for September, with Eighth Army and with what would be become Operation Avalanche with the Anglo-American landings at Salerno... Conversely, with the Balkans, "It was decided that operations in the Balkans should be limited to supplying guerrillas" Otherwise, have to wonder about conversation at Casablanca as well as during the Washington Conference in May 1943... Given the nature of the Soviet regime, think it was quite likely for a Cold War to emerge in Europe regardless of the timing of the Normandy invasion. And note, the success of the breakout and landings in the South of France meant much more of France was retaken earlier than expected (plans had a lodgement of sorts in Northern France over the winter of 1944-1945).

[@thebigone6071]

You’re the best ever Bernhard!!! Your videos give me a reason to live! The best!!!

[@michaelrostosky2986]

Mich würde ein Artikel zum Thema Generalstäbe im Vergleich interessieren und vielleicht auch die Entwicklungen in die Jetztzeit

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

kA ob es so einen Artikel überhaupt gibt, es gibt ein paar Bücher zum deutschen Generalstab. Ansonsten hier ein Interview mit einem Staff Officer: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqSniJxthNCbnK8

[@michaelrostosky2986]

Thx a lot! Vielen Dank!

[@malickfan7461]

Is it just me, or does the guy in the painting look a bit like Indy Neidell?

[@USAACbrat]

Did anyone Think that it was easier to start at the top of Italy instead of the bottom?

[@watcherzero5256]

The USSR did plan to invade and annex Italy as well so Churchill called that right.

[@looinrims]

The USSR (ie Stalin) planned to invade and puppet everyone, to everyone’s detriment

[@daddust]

Just like the Germans during the war, another German thinks the Med was crucial to the British Empire. Nope. First of all, there was a longer route to Britain which was viable. Secondly and most important, Britain was getting supplies from the USA. Italian in 1943 was smashed and couldn’t contest the Med and neither could the Germans.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

> Just like the Germans during the war, another German thinks the Med was crucial to the British Empire. source? Did not come across that yet in German sources, but then I did not look a lot into those for that aspect. The "artery of the Empire" is if I remember from a Cambridge History of the Second World War article. And definitely not a German book.

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

So, I guess the question is what should the allies do after Salerno? Sicily makes sense. Clear the lanes for British shipping in the Med. Up to the point of pounding their heads at Monte Casino, we have a reasonable campaign. At that point, the Italian Navy is not really an issue. The Allied air forces can suppress Axis air forces in the theatre. Seems to me there are 4 options: 1 - Do Anzio and go for Rome as actually happened. 2 - Go into the Po Valley directly. 3 - Go into Southern France similar to Operation Dragoon. 4 - Go somewhere in Greece. The advantage of the Po Valley is the terrain should be much easier to attack and be well behind the Axis lines. This would mean that the Germans south of Rome would have to consider retreat or be cut off. The disadvantage is that the supply situation gets much worse for the Allies and being that far behind lines might lead to the beachhead being surrounded by superior forces and destroyed. The advantage of Southern France is that you get past the Alps, which are always going to limit how fast of a path to Germany this is. If you are planning Overlord for later in 44, you will have sucked in a lot of troops that might have defended Normandy. The German troops in Italy won't be cut off so there is no need for them to retreat anytime soon. The logistical and other downsides are worse than the Po Valley. Greece has the same problem that Italy does in general. You can't really get to Berlin fast that way. You can probably liberate lots of Greeks and link up with the Yugoslavian partisans, but that is about it.

[@bozo5632]

Zero dislikes. Everybody loves MHV.

[@negativeindustrial]

Dislikes have been disabled because modern humans have become too fragile to accept criticism. This isn’t about MHV, the channel didn’t make the choice to engage in censorship. KZbin did.

[@bozo5632]

@@negativeindustrial YesIknow.

[@Ninja-Alinja]

@@negativeindustrial nope, this is not about criticism, that’s a yt corporate lie, it’s about hiding the dislikes for the large media and movie businesses.

[@negativeindustrial]

@@Ninja-Alinja There is definitely an big element of that, as well. I was watching the like/dislike ratio of all of the vaccine related videos from the MSM and they were all from 1:3 all the way down to 1:10. Many comments were dedicated to blatantly celebrating those ratios and using them to support opposing viewpoints and then KZbin announced they were shutting it down. I don’t believe for a second, their story that it was done to protect small channels. They don’t care about small channels.

[@bezahltersystemtroll5055]

@@negativeindustrial it probably was more because of organised downvoting.

[@nemiw4429]

Dude has the craziest german accent ever.

[@grahamthebaronhesketh.]

By this time it was already too late.

[@RodrigoFernandez-td9uk]

I have always wondered why the Allies did not land immediately at Anzio, before the Germans took control of Rome. The extra distance was not an impediment to air cover, and the flat terrain made the attack easier. Perhaps Rommel considered it impossible to defend Rome if it was directly attacked, and so he suggested establishing a line in the north. Better coordination with Badoglio would also have been possible. If the armistice had included clearly ordering the Italian forces to entrench themselves and defend themselves from the Germans, the Germans would not have been able to subdue them and defend themselves from the Allies at the same time.

[@michaeldunne338]

I thought due to air cover. Believe they wanted to carry out an operation closer to bases better positioned/prepared for ensuring air superiority. I would have to look but believe German formations were already in the south (like the ~50,000 troops evacuated from Sicily), and possibly around other parts of Italy (thought like 8 understrength divisions of varying condition?). Not sure if the Badoglio government had the confidence to order Italian forces to entrench and defend themselves. Regardless, the Germans moved pretty fast to secure/consolidate their position in both Italy, the Balkans and the South of France. From the Encyclopedia Britannica: "When the Italian government, in pursuance of a Badoglio-Eisenhower agreement of September 29, declared war against Germany on October 13, 1943, Kesselring was already receiving reinforcements and consolidating the German hold on central and northern Italy. "

[@RodrigoFernandez-td9uk]

@@michaeldunne338 It would certainly have involved other risks. But I don't think distance was such a big problem; Anzio is 350 km from Palermo, only 70 km further than Salerno from Messina. That's comfortably within the combat range of the bombers and also within range of the P38, P47, P40, and even Spitfires. One must also consider that the Allies dispersed troops across Messina and taking Tarentum, when they could have concentrated them in one place, while the Germans had a long coastline to defend. I'm probably losing more than one point, but I'm still surprised that there aren't other armchair generals discussing the matter on the internet. There are many far more absurd ideas about WW2.

[@michaeldunne338]

@@RodrigoFernandez-td9uk Thank you for your response. The Penguin History of the Second World War gave mention to the issue of range, when discover air cover over Naples (guessing accounting for loiter time, having sufficient fuel to engage opposition for some period of time, etc.): "Naples, with its prestige and its capacious port, was a prize worth having and, unlike Rome or Genoa, was within the range of allied air cover." (page 400) Interestingly enough, on the next page the authors claimed "The Germans had expected an allied landing from the sea near Rome combined with a parachute operation and they proposed to withdraw all of their forces south of Rome." (page 401). It seems around September 8 "the Germans immediately occupied Rome and its airfields" - after Gen. Dwight Eisenhower publicly announced the surrender of Italy to the Allies. The Allied landings at Salerno commenced the following day. Yes, surprised there had not been more "armchair general-ing" on the internet on this one. Maybe if the Allies had seized Sardinia in late August, following Sicily, then the Germans could have been given incentive to depart from southern Italy? Actually, thought the flight distance from Palermo to Rome was something like 410 kilometers? While Olbia to Rome was about 250 kilometers?

[@demonprinces17]

Didn't need to until stopped

[@michaeldunne338]

@@demonprinces17 Badoglio and others (I assume the king) wanted the Allies to land in the area, as well as bring parachute troops into local airfields. However, there were German formations around, including units landing at above mentioned airport or two ....

[@rogersmith7396]

Have you done a WWII history of Dresden?

[@PalleRasmussen]

That is fairly easy. 1939 - peaceful and idyllic. 1940 - peaceful and idyllic. 1941 - peaceful and idyllic. 1942 - peaceful and idyllic. 1943 - peaceful and idyllic. 1944 - peaceful and idyllic. 1945 - Two days of the worst hell on earth humans can create for each other. Population dead or relocated.

[@looinrims]

@@PalleRasmussen that is fairly stupid

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@looinrims it is true though. Dresden was a beautiful and quiet place for all the war, with no industry of importance to speak off and much cultural significance. People called "the Oxford of Germany" and thought it would not be bombed. They were wrong.

[@looinrims]

@@PalleRasmussen that’s not true at all, Dresden was an industrial center and a major rail hub

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@looinrims it was a rail hub, but it did not have any war industry to speak of no. Bombing it was a war crime, even though all Axis powers committed far worse.

[@Ninja-Alinja]

I appreciate this gentleman’s expertise, but he shouldn’t express it in English, that is clearly a chore for him and for us to listen to. I’d be happy with subtitles or a over-dub. I’m sure he’ll also benefit by being more eloquent and able to focus on his ideas not the language barrier.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

1) most people have no problems, 2) subtitles take a long time to make and really annoying to do. We once did them for a few minutes talking to the French Panther crews, same goes for over-dubbing, there it will take even long. As so often such a suggestion ignores the major aspects: logistics and time.

[@Ninja-Alinja]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized fair enough, I meant no disrespect, just stating my view.

[@bolan4185]

wow

[@forexdragon]

Is that portrait of the German soldier supposed to be a map of Italy/Mediterranean? Haha

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

yeah, it is behind him, as noted in the video caption.

[@forexdragon]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized "Military Maps Mentally Visualized" 😂

[@matej2733]

Its just me or there is an invisible map which we dont see? lol

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

behind the guy in the portrait, I actually point that out with the text as far as I know.

[@matej2733]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Ou, get it now... missed beginning of video.. my bad... thx for appointing.. and great work :-)

[@MrPepesmith21]

I noticed paratrooper symbol in the background didn't have the swastika on it

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

?

[@MrPepesmith21]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized that is what i get for not reading something before I post it lol

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

from what I know that was a post-war remembrance plate or something, so yeah, there would be no swastika. There were/are plenty of war-time memorabilia in the exhibition with swastikas etc.

[@MrPepesmith21]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized i knew that all Nazi symbols are banned

[@watcherzero5256]

Who else spent half the video wondering why they kept pointing at a portrait of an airman?

[@tallenta6071]

If you see clearly it's actually a map. Behind him is a map of Italy