The goal for Comando Supremo is to provide a web presence where members from around the world can discuss all aspects of Italian's military involvement in 2ª guerra mondiale (2nd World War): their successes and their failures; the challenges that they met and the challenges that remained unresolved; and to discuss the individuals that shaped those events.
Courteous, professional and knowledgable discussion.
One doesn't need to be an expert to participate in the forum; one does need to both offer and listen to reasoned debate. One must be willing to challenge other's individuals opinions with facts, but also must be willing to allow their own beliefs to be challenged by facts. One must be willing to offer research and to check the research of others. One can ask questions if they wish to learn, and also feel free to challenge statements to gain greater insight. When challenging, there is a difference between 'what about XXXX' and 'I disagree because of YYYY'. The former seeks greater understanding of the issue and a willingness to accept a reasonable response; the latter is offering research on the issue for discussion/resolution.
I closed the thread 'Myths concerning Italian leadership, morale and combat performance' because it had moved from dealing with the facts to shifting blame. It stared well being driven by an article, but then moved into opinion with no supporting research. Italy wasn't forced to do anything during the war. Like all the governments/militaries involved in the war, they had choices/options. They made their decisions based on what they wanted/believed.
Decisions have consequences (both good and bad), and those decisions open and close options. Decisions at the national/service-branch level have a long half-life. A system of training that is ineffective/broken for the war being fought will take a long time to repair. Production decisions have a long lead time to implement. There is much truth in the statement that a nation fights with the army they have, not the one they want. Italy made many decisions that, in hindsight, were not good for the nation.
The history of the Italo-German relationship is quite clear: Germany didn't want Italy as an active partner in the war. Germany didn't ask for Italian help in the Battle for France, Battle of Britain and Russia. Germany didn't want Italy to invade Greece and stir up the Balkans. Italy made these decisions free of (or in-spite of) Germany's desires. This all has been well documented from primary sources. If anyone has facts/data that challenges this understanding, then lets discuss it by using those facts/data as the starting point. We don't need opinions. Without solid sources to challenge this understanding, the blame for Italy's military failure must reside with Italy.
What is worthwhile to discuss is the why and how these decisions impacted Italy's military. Italy has been poorly served in English language histories covering the war, but that poor service does contain some truth. Italy could have been a game changer for the Axis, but instead was a a drain on German warfighting efforts. Some of that was due to German decisions, but one must remember that Italy didn't bring to the table what Italy had promised: an effective military machine. Why Italy's military didn't rise to the prewar expectations is our main focus. Along the way members will discover that Italy wasn't the completely helpless foe as it is too often painted, but to some extent worked hard to overcome the result of many poor decisions.
I let pass the use of some degrading terms in the closed thread. No more. Lets keep the language respectful when addressing the various players in the drama.
Thank you.
v/r Jeff
Courteous, professional and knowledgable discussion.
One doesn't need to be an expert to participate in the forum; one does need to both offer and listen to reasoned debate. One must be willing to challenge other's individuals opinions with facts, but also must be willing to allow their own beliefs to be challenged by facts. One must be willing to offer research and to check the research of others. One can ask questions if they wish to learn, and also feel free to challenge statements to gain greater insight. When challenging, there is a difference between 'what about XXXX' and 'I disagree because of YYYY'. The former seeks greater understanding of the issue and a willingness to accept a reasonable response; the latter is offering research on the issue for discussion/resolution.
I closed the thread 'Myths concerning Italian leadership, morale and combat performance' because it had moved from dealing with the facts to shifting blame. It stared well being driven by an article, but then moved into opinion with no supporting research. Italy wasn't forced to do anything during the war. Like all the governments/militaries involved in the war, they had choices/options. They made their decisions based on what they wanted/believed.
Decisions have consequences (both good and bad), and those decisions open and close options. Decisions at the national/service-branch level have a long half-life. A system of training that is ineffective/broken for the war being fought will take a long time to repair. Production decisions have a long lead time to implement. There is much truth in the statement that a nation fights with the army they have, not the one they want. Italy made many decisions that, in hindsight, were not good for the nation.
The history of the Italo-German relationship is quite clear: Germany didn't want Italy as an active partner in the war. Germany didn't ask for Italian help in the Battle for France, Battle of Britain and Russia. Germany didn't want Italy to invade Greece and stir up the Balkans. Italy made these decisions free of (or in-spite of) Germany's desires. This all has been well documented from primary sources. If anyone has facts/data that challenges this understanding, then lets discuss it by using those facts/data as the starting point. We don't need opinions. Without solid sources to challenge this understanding, the blame for Italy's military failure must reside with Italy.
What is worthwhile to discuss is the why and how these decisions impacted Italy's military. Italy has been poorly served in English language histories covering the war, but that poor service does contain some truth. Italy could have been a game changer for the Axis, but instead was a a drain on German warfighting efforts. Some of that was due to German decisions, but one must remember that Italy didn't bring to the table what Italy had promised: an effective military machine. Why Italy's military didn't rise to the prewar expectations is our main focus. Along the way members will discover that Italy wasn't the completely helpless foe as it is too often painted, but to some extent worked hard to overcome the result of many poor decisions.
I let pass the use of some degrading terms in the closed thread. No more. Lets keep the language respectful when addressing the various players in the drama.
Thank you.
v/r Jeff