Talk:Military history of Italy during World War II

message: One of the most interesting counterfactuals emerging in World War II history is what would have happened if Italy had been engaged earlier.  The tantalizing prospect glimmers that if Britain and France had been able to declare war on Italy as well as Germany in 1939, Mussolini's house of cards could have been torn apart before Germany could have intervened [and German intervention itself would have been a distraction from the upcoming campaign in the West].
There is an even more compelling counterfactual: the British and French gave way to Italy in its Abyssinian adventure, partly, it seems, because they were genuinely impressed by the evident power of Fascist Italy.  But it was a sham then, just as much as it was a sham later.  One can argue that the history of the 20th Century would have been radically different [for the better] had Fascist Italy been suppressed in the middle of the 1930s!
From this counterfactual comes a significant question: we know now how feeble Italy was, but why did the military advisors of the day not realize this?  The answers to this question have the potential to illuminate not only past history, but also many of the perplexing military questions we face today.
:Well, everybody miscalculated the international situation in the years before the war. The British were paralysed by fear of the Italian Navy throughout the '30s, but they discounted the small and apparently weak German fleet: a serious error
:Mussolini and Stalin also underestimated German power: they were expecting Germany vs. France/Britain to be another slow war of attrition which would take years to decide. If they had foreseen the rapid German victories of 1940 they would have stayed away from Hitler and supported the Allies.
:And of course, Hitler in turn seriously miscalculated Russian power...
:The lesson of the whole sorry episode is "expect the unexpected"
:Mmartins
::The reason France and Britain didn't move against Italy during the 30s is part military and part political. Military, it couldn't be known in advance that the British Matilda tanks would be so important in the African war against Italy and neither could the triumph of air power over the battleships be known beforehand. So even though Britain/France had clear advantage over Italy they still saw that they would need to pay a heavy cost in ships and resources to defeat her (the whole point of the Italian navy versus British and the French). If they'd attacked Italy in 1939, they would not only be launching a war of aggression against a neutral nation, but they would also have to gather much bigger forces to defeat the Italians in Africa (which would drain manpower from Europe) than was the case in Operation Compass were a British force defeated the Italians in spite of severe numerical inferiority that wasn't of the British choosing. The political reasons which have been lost in the post-WWII propganda of the allies as the altruistic saviors of mankind is that the French and British governments (if not their populations) prefered a fascist government in Italy (and Spain and Germany) over the leftist government that surely would've taken it's place had Mussolini been brought down, say by military defeat at the hands of the British over Abyssinia. It was this preference that gave the fascist governments such leeway during the 30s although it is generally forgetten. Even Churchill wrote at the time that he would want a Hitler to save Britain should Britain ever face the same ruin as Germany. --Sus scrofa 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: Before Italy decalared war, there was a massive and highly complex set of naval demonstations performed with Hitler in attendance. I remember reading about something like 70 Submarines firing deck guns in formation, then submersing and surfacing in perfect formation. There was also some record-breaking fleet sail-past at something like 37 Knots. Does anyone know the details of this, and if so, should it be included in the article? --Zegoma beach 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre War Naval Demonstration for Germany 

message: I've taken out the Tone tag because I don't see what is wrong with the tone of this article and because I don't think it appropriate this tag should be added by an unidentified IP address. I feel the same way about the citation tag but will leave it pending debate. This article is a summary article and each section has an underlying 'Main article' in Wikipedia cited. The contents therefore summarise the underlying articles and don't need citations. If there is a problem with citations this should be addressed in the underlying articles. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any response to the above, I've taken out the unreferenced tag as well Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone and Citation Tags

message: I must say, the notion that two states formerly at war that although for a long time now at peace have failed to agree a peace treaty somehow makes them still "theoretically" at war seems to me rather preposterous. There is no realistic sense, even theoretical, in which one can claim that Italy is still at war with Japan. (This is not even comparable to the two Koreas, which still have a significant military buildup targeted against each other, and in the case of which a return to hostilities is still conceivable -- Italy and Japan do not target each other militarily, and the thought of a resumption of hostilities between them is simply unimaginable.) It seems far saner to say that a peace treaty is not necessary to end a state of war (even a "theoretical" state of war), than to claim that Italy and Japan are still in any sense (however theoretical) at war. --SJK (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "and thus they have remained theoretically at war with each other up to the present time." 

message: The history of Italy during the Second World War does not begin with the Nazi invasion of Poland nor with Mussolini's 10 June declaration.  While I don't have the time to write this section now, I would hope someone would edit this piece to add Italy's invasions of Ethiopia (1935), Albania, and other territories, without which it is not really possible to understand Italy's position in 1939.  Italy's irredentism and Mussolini's ideas about resurrecting a "Roman Empire" begin much earlier than Poland and should be reflected on this page.  While Italy may not have been allied with Germany and fighting Britain and France right away, its actions in the Mediterranean and Red Sea were very much a part of the situation in Europe that led to war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.241.30 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrative must begin earlier 

message: Who gives him the right to decide that the broadcasts by Radio Rome and Radio Berlin concerning the role of Axis forces are unreliable and of dubious nature. I'd hate to see him work for BBC. What has he got the mentality of a child?? Isn't it obvious that historians would've discovered by now that Radio Berlin and Radio Rome had got it all wrong, inventing units that didn't exist and placing them in wrong areas, and ofcourse, getting the dates, timing and weather all wrong when describing actions. Nick Dowling, get real, and have a read of the pages that deal with "Siege Of Tobruk", "Operation Brevity", "Operation Crusader", etcetera, to see that you got it all wrong mate. GENERALMESSE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded at Talk:Italian participation in the Eastern Front and have reported you for incivility. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Censoring by Nick Dowling

message: This is a sensitive topic for some. From what I have learned, there are some that have essentially spammed and vandalised the page with unfounded bias and propaganda. There are some that have been battling the propaganda. Others have been constructive. Yet, there are some that are aware that this is a topic with a historical legacy of being incorrectly depicted and simply wish to get the facts out. 
Further there are others who would not be aware that a ubiquitous number of books have dismissed the Italian involvement in the war. For them it may be difficult to believe as we inherently grew up to believe that non-fiction books are generally gospel. Well, even a technical text book or the most cutting–edge work is prone to mistakes. The whole premise of scientist/philosophical reporting is  about constructive critique in order to build on what we currently know. There is plenty to warrant a reassessment of the reputation of Italian soldiers. Their memories are equally as worthy as those of the other participants. To not appraise their involvement based on facts is a disservice to them, and also denigrates those who fought bravely against them. It always cuts both ways.
I would hope that if anyone has any concerns regarding the content in this subsection that they present their arguments here. Lets work together, rather than against each other. Feel free to comment.
I will start with an excerpt to illustrate some of the relevant background, and provided justification for the subsection. This comes from relevant fragments form the first 3 pages of:  ; 
:::In Britain and the wider English-speaking world almost everyone is familiar with the Desert War fought in North Africa between June 1940 and May 1943. They have all herd of the famous Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and his 8th Army. They are equally familiar with his legendary opponent Field Marshall Erwin Rommel and his Deutches Africa Korps (DAK). The epic encounter between these two rivals an their two forces that took place at El Alamein is viewed as one of the key battles of World War II. There are countless book on the North African campaign, ranging in scope from academic studies of the grand strategies through to personal memoirs. In their entirety these works manage to touch on almost every conceivable aspect of the conflict.
:::In spite of this, I hope to offer an entirely different perspective on this familiar campaign of World War II. This will come form a focus on the hitherto neglected Italian involvement. In all previous accounts in English, the Italians have either been ignored completely or afforded little more than an acknowledgement of their presence – yet they made up the bulk of the axis forces involved in this campaign, a fact not yet reflected in existing accounts. They are sometimes allowed a place during the first phase of the campaign as Britain’s only opponents, but the arrival of Rommel in early 1941 quickly relegates them to obscurity thereafter.....In terms of their influence on fighting, however, they are usually dismissed in a few paragraphs that primarily concentrate on describing their many deficiencies. Thereafter, they are usually ignored.....In Britain pople are familiar with the war time propaganda images of endless lines of Italian prisoners...This strong visual image was reinforced by contemporary newsreel and newspaper accounts of Italian military incompetence and cowardice, often involving the use of racial stereotypes. This image was often deliberately contrasted with German military efficiency and ferocity. This produced a strong British prejudice against the Italians very early in the war, which has consistently been reinforced in most histories produced since its end....All this has left a powerful legacy in English-speaking accounts, in which the Italians are widely seen as a nation of dilettantes, devoid of military skills and entirely lacking courage. It high is time, however, that this view was re-examined to reveal what, if any, truth lies behind it. It is only by doing so that we will be able to assess what impact the Italians actually had on this campaign. ....The process really requires a complete re-evaluation of the Italian economy and the political and military systems......
I recommend this book as part of ones library to all who are interested in the North African campaign, in particular.
I’ll state now that I will reinsert verifiable statements that are deleted, within reason. 
Romaioi (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputation of Italian fighting efficiency during World War II

message: I was much suprised to find out that the Italian army defeated a number of Commonwealth units at Alamein. Of course that information is no longer visible, due to vandalism? I believe readers need to know about the successes at battalion-level of the Sabratha, Trieste and Trento at El Alamein. After all these battalions were representative of their divisions and the perception out there is that these divisions simply 'melted away in the fighting' but in reality these divisions rallied and indeed fought well. Sadkovich pointed this out and extracts from his work about the Italians at El Alamein, that were available for all to see in Wikepedia, have been removed by noclador who sees his work as an 'incovenient truth'. I have just pointed this out (as teresita100403) in the page about the First Battle of Alamein, that the Sabratha recovered her lost positions and that the Trento did the same in its sector, but I gather both edits will be removed by vandals in the disguise of editors. I say goodbye for now but encourage everybody, including noclador and his team of puppets to stop 'sweeping the truth under the carpet,' and to read the following extract(p.141-142)from World War II in Europe, Africa, and the Americas, with General Sources: A Handbook of Literature and Research(by Loyd E. Lee and Robin D. S. Higham, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997,):
:::Because many writers have uncritically repeated stereotypes shared by their sources, biases and prejudices have taken on the status of objective obervations, including the idea that the Germans and British were the only belligerents in the Mediterranean after Italian setbacks in early 1941. Sadkovich questioned this point of view in 'Of Myths and Men' and 'The Italian Navy', but persistent stereotypes, including that of the incompetent Italian, are well entrenched in the literature, from Puleston's early 'The Influence of Sea Power', to Gooch's 'Italian Military Incompetence,' to more recent publications by Mack Smith, Knox and Sullivan. Wartime bias in early British and American histories, which focused on German operations, dismissed Italian forces as inept and or unimportant, and viewed Germany as the pivotal power in Europe during the interwar period. For a discussion of this, see Sadkovich, 'Anglo-American Bias and the Italo-Greek War.
:::Bias includes both implicit assumptions, evident in Knox's title 'The Sources of Italy's Defeat in 1940: Bluff or Institutionalized Incompetence?' and the selective use of sources. Also see Sullivan's 'The Italian Armed Forces.' Sims, 'The Fighter Pilot,' ignored the Italians, while d'Este in 'World War II in the Meditaranean' shaped his reader's image of Italians by citing a German comment that Italy's surrender was 'the basest treachery' and by discussing Allied and German commanders but ignoring Messe, whose 'Come fini la guerra in Africa' is an account of operations in Tunisia, where he commanded the Italian First Army, which held off both the U.S. Second Corps and the British Eighth Army. Like Young, whose 'Rommel the Desert Fox' created the Rommel myth, authors can appear biased because they echo sources that reflect the prejudices and assumptions of the period. Indeed, many of our unconscious assumptions about the war have been shaped by documentaries like 'Victory at Sea', by sophisticated propaganda like Frank Capra's wartime 'Why We Fight' films, and by Hollywood films, television programs, and popular fiction in general. Dependence on non-Italian sources compromised Murray's analysis of the Italian military in 'The Change in the European Balance of Power', it led Van Creveld to conclude in 'Supplying War' that Italians were "useless ballast," and it caused Fraser, 'And We Shall Shock Them', to dimiss Graziani as an anxiety-ridden procrastinator but praised Wavell as a fearless problem solver. Liddel Hart's German sources led him to conclude in 'The Generals Talk' that "Italian jealousy of the Germans" had helped save Egypt. Such conclusions later lead Mearsheimer to question Liddell Hart's objectivity, though Liddell Hart's history of British 'Tanks' and his concise 'History of the Second World War' remain useful, as do Jackson's 'The Battle for North Africa' and Lewin's 'Rommel' and 'The Life and Death of the Afrika Corps'.
:::If stereotypes make it hard for readers of English to credit any acts of heroism or any display of competence or persistence by Italians, the official Italian service histories, De Felice, Faldella, and Sadkovich in works previously cited, have sought to set the record straight -- 200.253.161.2 (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What we need is much broader evidence, of allied, German generals and later historians (kirrages 05.08.08)

message: Is the first map of 1940 or 1941? I am adding the image to Italian Unification as 1940, per the file's title.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.183.72 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's 1941 since the Italian area extends halfway into British-controlled Egypt.--Sus scrofa (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it must be 1940. In 1940 the Italians advanced well into Egypt to Sidi barrani but in 1941 the Axis advance past Tobruk halted more or less on the Egyptian border. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, sorry, you're right. I got my dates mixed up.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Benito Mussolini also says 1939.--189.121.183.72 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1940 or 1941 

message: Since you guys seem to know about this subject, File:Italian empire 1940.PNG in (Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)#Foreign and colonial policy (1922-1946)). This file I labeled 1939 in Italian Unification. If it is 1940, the month, or at least the season, of both this file and the previous should be known. Otherwise, having two 1940 maps might seem redundant.--189.121.183.72 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Benito Mussolini also says 1939.--189.121.183.72 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1939 or 1940

message: As noted above and in the tag, it's not clear this even merits a refutation, it's just wrong.  Moved to the talk page for posterity in case others disagree and/or want to bring this somewhere more relevant.
Some historians believe that Mussolini was induced to enter the war against the Allies by secret negotiations with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, with whom he had an active mail correspondence between September 1939 and June 1940.Garibaldi (2001), p.142 The journalist Luciano Garibaldi wrote that "in those letters (which disappeared at Lake Como in 1945) Churchill may have extorted Mussolini to enter the war to mitigate Hitler's demands and dissuade him from continuing hostilities against Great Britain as France was inexorably moving toward defeat. In light of this, Mussolini could urge Hitler turn against the USSR, the common enemy of both Churchill and Mussolini". However, the limited correspondence on which these claims are based has been inspected and rejected as false.</pre>
:Hi SnowFire, This is a good place to park it for now. Never liked it in the intro (not even sure its on the right page), as it is a side issue. I recently purchased a book by Frank Joseph, in which Chapter 17 (pp. 202-209) focusses specifically on this topic:
:: 
:A quick count shows this chapter uses 12 separate sources. Some are Italian (including Mussolini's memoirs), some are 'English' (e.g. the famous Irving). Three of the sources are internet pages (365Articles Worldpress Site, a Telegraph article on Churchill ordering the assassination of Mussolini) and an English DVD documentary, but the rest are published books. Interestingly (for me), one is by Luciano Garibaldi (review here) - I have a copy of his 'Century of War', which had the first mention of this topic that I ever saw (and used that as a citation in the text you moved, as the original passage only cited an obscure web article).
 
:Joseph's is an interesting book in general; reads like an action novel, according to the forward by a retired Lt. Colonel; but I think it needs revising/editing in some areas. Happy New Year! ----Romaioi (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Frank Joseph is Frank Joseph aka Frank Collin,  ex-Nazi and writer of New Age and fringe archaeology material and is not a reliable source, Also see the discussion about him at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill conspiracy section removed to talk page 

message: "In fact, the Greeks planned to use the bulk of their forces to hold the Italians, but to offer only token resistance against the Germans, thus allowing the Germans an easy victory in Greece."
Does the source offer an explanation as to why the Greek's, apparently, decided to allow their country be overrun?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The quoted sentence seems implausible on its face, I also think the source needs to be checked.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree, however I do not have access to it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just checked the reference. The sentence up to "thus allowing" is a copy-and-paste from the article. The argument seems like nonsense though, and is probably based on a misinterpretation of Greek military deployments. From memory, the British were frustrated that the Greeks kept the bulk of their forces facing the Italians (on the grounds that they were enjoying a fair degree of success) rather than make proper preparations to meet the looming German invasion. This doesn't mean that the Greeks wanted the Germans to conquer their country! This appears to be either a WP:FRINGE view or an error on the part of the historian, and I've removed it. If other reliable sources provide support for this view I'd be in favour of including it in some form, but it sure looks like nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  problematic sentence regarding Greece 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Military history of Italy during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:It309CLhAZIJ:www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/gallipoli.htm+Winston+Churchill+%22soft+underbelly%22&hl=sv&ct=clnk&cd=21 with https://web.archive.org/web/20161109232241/http://eyewitnesstohistory.com/gallipoli.htm on http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/gallipoli.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Italy during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221214657/http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/sicily.htm to http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/sicily.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110922045913/http://historicalresources.org/armistice-with-italy-september-3-1943/ to http://historicalresources.org/armistice-with-italy-september-3-1943/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Correct bad english but don't revert.All you are defending is unsoureced.I posted some new valid sources.I don't like easy reverting without valid references or war edit games.Kingofwoods (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm not sure I agree with the content either, sometimes which seems to verge into pro-fascist Italy point-of-view.  It's possible I'm misinterpreting, so please don't be offended.  That said, put bluntly, it is not our job to be your free copyeditor.  We're all volunteers here.  You can't just insert poorly written, poorly sourced content and expect others to fix it up for you.  Please slow down and explain the content of your desired changes and go slow.  SnowFire (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct bad english