Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Baxter Parp]

3 minutes ago, renton said:

Yeah, also in 1940/41 there was no realistic chance of getting back into Europe via France, and it was felt the Italians would be easier to pick off.

Perfectly correctly as it turned out, the Italians promptly surrendered and changed sides.  It was the Germans that "invaded" Italy and defended every inch that were the problem.

[renton]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

Perfectly correctly as it turned out, the Italians promptly surrendered and changed sides.  It was the Germans that "invaded" Italy and defended every inch that were the problem.

Promptly is maybe stretching it. The Italians made up the bulk of Rommel's army in the desert and were tough and skilled fighters by all accounts, if labouring on with obsolete equipment. It took until the allied landings on mainland Italy in late '43 for Mussolini to lose his position and the Italians to sign an armistice.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

I suspect that might have partly been Churchill trying to make up for his Gallipoli disaster which had a similar strategy. Think I read somewhere that Hitler was prepared to guarantee we could keep the Empire if we stayed out of the war.

He also promised not to invade Czechoslovakia. Welcome to the real world, Jeremy. /peep show reference

[Baxter Parp]

34 minutes ago, renton said:

Promptly is maybe stretching it. The Italians made up the bulk of Rommel's army in the desert

That wasn't a second front as per Gallipoli, we were already there and so were they.

36 minutes ago, renton said:

were tough and skilled fighters by all accounts,

By almost no accounts.  The Italians had one decent fighting armoured div and not much else.  They were given too much to do when Rommel showed up.

[renton]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

That wasn't a second front as per Gallipoli, we were already there and so were they.

By almost no accounts.  The Italians had one decent fighting armoured div and not much else.  They were given too much to do when Rommel showed up.

It's true that the British attempted to target Italian formations, and that the Germans attempted to sandwich their own formations in between the Italian ones, but that's more to do with the lack of decent equipment, rather than morale or general skill. Their armoured corps was well thought of by Rommel and gave the British a hard time during the 41 offensives. 

The Italian poor reputation is in someways undeserved. The initial Italian advance was smashed to pieces in 1940, but they performed well as part of the larger Axis formation fighting the British in North Africa. 

[Peppino Impastato]

I always thought the stereotype of Italians as crap soldiers and cowards was a bit strange.  The Romans did not bad no?

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

I always thought the stereotype of Italians as crap soldiers and cowards was a bit strange.  The Romans did not bad no?

Asterix and Obelix battered the f**k out of them.

[Bully Wee Villa]

I always thought the stereotype of Italians as crap soldiers and cowards was a bit strange.  The Romans did not bad no?

The Roman Army was multinational, I believe.

[NotThePars]

Yeah, also in 1940/41 there was no realistic chance of getting back into Europe via France, and it was felt the Italians would be easier to pick off. Unfortunately it doesn't take a large force to adequately defend a narrow, hilly front like Italy, as the allies found out. On the other hand, a striaght up assault on France was simply not viable before mid 1944 - it would've been a disaster.

Explosions are cool for a movie or a game but I don’t find it v interesting in history. I’m more of a Russian Revolutionary boy, of course.

[renton]

17 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

I always thought the stereotype of Italians as crap soldiers and cowards was a bit strange.  The Romans did not bad no?

Crap equipment and poor leadership hamstrung them, pretty much the same as the British. Difference being that the Brits were able to remedy that.

[renton]

2 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

Explosions are cool for a movie or a game but I don’t find it v interesting in history. I’m more of a Russian Revolutionary boy, of course.

 

Wasn't exactly explosion free, was it? I like the technical side and systems side of the war stuff, as an engineer I find interesting, and the ego and hubris makes for interesting reading. The social side of history I kinda gloss over at.

[NotThePars]

Wasn't exactly explosion free, was it? I like the technical side and systems side of the war stuff, as an engineer I find interesting, and the ego and hubris makes for interesting reading. The social side of history I kinda gloss over at.

I’m the opposite but then that’s probably because I am useless at understanding a lot of that. You want to see me playing an RTS. Useless.

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

I always thought the stereotype of Italians as crap soldiers and cowards was a bit strange.  The Romans did not bad no?

Yeah because the time period between the dominance of the city state and WWII was tiny.

 

 

 

Unless you're a creationist.  

[MrSpikey]

13 hours ago, renton said:

That makes little sense. British foreign policy (when it had one) has always fixated on the need to prevent the domination of Europe by any single power

...that wasn't Britain.

British foreign policy has never been about some altruistic view of fairness.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

...that wasn't Britain.
British foreign policy has never been about some altruistic view of fairness.

He never said it was driven by altruism or fairness

if you would prefer not to credit Britain with any positive traits then the "balance of power" strategy can be explained in terms of enlightened self interest

A single dominant, victorious and belligerent power on the European mainland under a Hitler or Napoleon would represent a deep threat to the British Isles.

[renton]

4 hours ago, MrSpikey said:

...that wasn't Britain.

British foreign policy has never been about some altruistic view of fairness.

Nothing to do with altruism or fairness. Britain never had the mass of men required to dominate Europe itself, instead it tried to stop others doing so for its own security.

[bob the tank]

The first world war was all about empire and big business. The dreadnought campaign of the late 19th early 20th century was protection of overseas territories or to try and get more territories in the case of Germany, who wanted more of what the French and the English had " conquered" previously. I read years ago that when the war went into a virtual stalemate it was proposed to start peace talks, but too many people on both sides, the armament, equipment and bully beef companies primarily, pushed to fight until there was a resolution.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

6 hours ago, renton said:

Nothing to do with altruism or fairness. Britain never had the mass of men required to dominate Europe itself, instead it tried to stop others doing so for its own security.

Although to be fair

Things like altruisim and fairplay will  probably have been, admittedly secondary, motivations that were in there as well. 

 

[Peppino Impastato]

6 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Although to be fair

Things like altruisim and fairplay will  probably have been, admittedly secondary, motivations that were in there as well. 

 

Not sure if sarcastic

[JamieThomas]

Hard to believe that German lad accused Brits of fixating on WW2.