• Get Paid to Write for Comando Supremo: We are looking for talented researchers/writers who are fluent in English and can write original content on Italy in World War Two. Please reach out to webmaster@comandosupremo.com if interested!

Courteous, professional, and knowledgable discussion

jwsleser

Administrator
Staff member
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
 

Annales

New Member
Jeff,

I have read widely but only works after 2000 as I consider anything before tainted and unreliable. The book you have mentioned, is a German work first published in 1990 and translated into English. I don't consider much written by German authors reliable.

As Gerhard Weinberg declared in a speech somewhere, "there has been far too much denigration of the Italians in WW2". Now, if this doyen of WW2 declares this, there must be something to it and we all need to sit up and listen!

I have taken what I have read and processed it carefully in my mind into usable information. Nearly everything I have written to date on this forum and others, can be footnoted to a reliable source. Of course on a forum, I am not going to footnote every line I write, but you can rest assured that what I write comes from what I have read and understood from somewhere else. These are not my opinions from thin air, but what I have read and understood from wartime historians of repute. I don't waste my time reading popular histories. What I write is not simply my opinion, but the opinion of others more learned than myself.

I am not attempting to whitewash Italian wartime history as there is nothing to whitewash. The Italians performed well, they were pretty much like any other military organisation at the time, they had their faults like any other country, and they had their virtues. They fought well and honorably and there really isn't much more to say than this.

There were shortcomings ( like every other belligerent in the war) - the Italians certainly are no exception to this. So why concentrate and waste so much time focusing on the supposed "problems" and "shortcomings" of the Italians as if every other belligerent had none? I would like to see more positives about the Italian military, especially to answer this question:

"How on earth did the Italians manage to keep fighting 3.5 years in a conflict they only had the resources to fight for 1 year?" Now surely this is a question that needs proper attention.

It is ridiculous to only focus on the Italian side of the equation and ignore their main Axis partner, Germany. It would be like seeing the war as a solely English affair. As far as choice is concerned, Mussolini did not have a real choice but follow his Axis buddy, Hitler. I suppose one could say the same about the British and French - they didn't have to declare war on Germany - it was their choice to! What "choice" did they really have?

There are historians who do blame Hitler for starting a war he could not win, and for dragging his Axis partners along with him. Yes, Italy's downfall and lack of preparedness is largely due to Adolf. Don't forget that after Germany defeated France, Hitler had won the war. There was only England to deal with, which would not have been a problem of itself - either accommodation or invasion. As one author wrote: Hitler chose to not attack an enemy he could defeat (with eager Italian assistance) to one he couldn't (Russia). This decision would finally doom Italy and the other Axis countries.

Rest assured Jeff, that I only deal in facts when I write, unless you want me to footnote every line?

In the coming weeks, I will post information as to the real reasons Hitler did not want Italy to get involved, and why the Italians were compelled to. One reason is because Hitler wanted to dominate all of Europe and not share anything with his Axis partners. This in itself was not an option Mussolini could allow. For every action, there is a consequential and foreseeable reaction. An all too powerful Germany would have been an unacceptable threat to the Italians. But more later!!! :cool:
 
Top