Hello...to those who read this. I would just like your opinion on the Italian Navy. Do you think that the Italians Navy looses would have been lessened if the Lutwaffe and Italian Air Force had provided the support that it failed to give, by way of spotting enemy ships before the Italians were picked up on radar or spotted by enemy planes? Do you think that the Italian Navy Frogmen should have been used in greater numbers with the Human torpedoes, so that Allied shipping in the Med Sea would have been lessed, thus Italy would have gained more Naval Superioty in the Med Sea Area? Just a few questions...if you would like to mention something other then the Italian Navy, feel free to post. Mussolini.
I don't think that greater use of these units would have changed much in the war. The Italian forces were a mix of a few well trained, well lead, well equiped units with a great fighting spirit, but more often than not they were ill equiped, badly led and poorly trained soldiers. There are a few areas of greatness, here are only a few examples: The italians in Africa fought wholely better under Rommel's command and with better equipment. The post surrender italian air force was held in such high regard that they were slated to fly the me262. The volunteer SS 29th Infantry Division proved itself a formidable force. Unfortunatly, this was not the time for Italy's military glory. Mussolini, unlike Hitler, (who was voted into power and received approval votes of over 90%), siezed power in his "march on Rome", he would have always have strong opposition from the leftists in Italy. That the Italians have the ability to fight and fight well is without question, we need only look at the Roman Empire for this. However, political division between Northern and Southern Italy, combined with a military that was based on nepotism and corruption, sealed Italy as the the junior member of the Axis alliance, depending on Germany for support.
Many things you say are true. The Italians did fight better under Rommel, but that was because the majority of the Italian forces were not motorized, as they contained mostly Infantry on foot. Rommel brought to Africa German tanks, espically Panzers, that were far better then any the Italians had and greater then most of the Allied forces in the area. Rommel was also a daredevil and motivated his troops, Italian and German, and made unexpected moves against the Allies catching them off guard and using the element of suprise to his advantage. Rommel also doubled the fire power from when the first Italian units attacked in 1940 (?) and replaced some of the old equipment with more up to date equipment. I feel that if the Frog Men and Italian Airforce had stepped up their attacks in the Med Sea to gain sea dominace, or at least a well producted supply route to Africa, the Afika Corps maybe would have defeated the Allies in Al Alamein changing the course of the war greatly if they could capture a few of the ALlied Oil Fields in the Mid East. If it wasnt for the lack of supplies and the initiative and will to fight, the Italian troops and Motorized units would not have broken down in the middle of a battle. Patton also faced this problem in the Battle of the Bulge, but only because he had let his tanks run to far ahead and out of the supply radius so that most of teh tanks stopped minutes short of that rive (i forget its name right now). True, Mussolini took over Italy 'by force' but he had a dream like Hitler did and in a sense brought about a little order to Italy and broght the troops morale up, though they never achieved that "Roman Empire" status they had wanted.
> Mussolini, unlike Hitler, (who was voted > into power and received approval votes of > over 90%), siezed power in his "march on > Rome", he would have always have strong > opposition from the leftists in Italy. Yes, Hitler came to power in a democratic way, but he was hardy "voted into power" as the majority of the Germans voted against him. Are you saying that these "approval votes" were free and fair? In what dictatorship would not such votes show a (vast) majority in favour of the current leader? /Marcus Third Reich Factbook http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/
Hitler was voted into power and he was wildy successful in managing Germany after he siezed power in 1933. The point I was trying to illustrate was that his opposition was weak from the start because people didn;t feel he was pulling "a fast one" on them. He was their duly elected representative and he was doing very well. Mussolini on the other hand would always have opposition because he had siezed power. There would always be italians who felt that Mussoloni was a thug who stole freedom from Italy. (History however, would show who was the greater thug) And yes I do believe that Hitler's approval votes were fairly accurate. On the bad side, Hitler was opportunistic and had a great sense of public will, so he would call these approval votes at times he knew would be best for him. On the other hand Hitler was in power when Germany broke free of the depression. He was responsible for reclaiming Germany's identity, something that was stripped away after WW1. Don't forget; Time's Man of the Year for 1939 was Adolf Hitler, and when war broke out the US Nazi Party had 200,000 members! If he can get such support abroad, he must have gotten similar support at home.
US Nazi party with 200,000 members!!!! Those guys must have had it when war broke out with Germany in 41...
Obviously the party quickly disbanded once hostilities comenced. It should also be noted that while there were a few racists among the US Nazis, the racial intolerance that was the hallmark of the Third Reich was never a strong force in the US Nazi party until long after WW2, when the party was reconstituted as a purely race policy organization.
Musolini was correctly called a thug. His Blackshirts, about 40,000 of them i believe, were ex-WWI soldiers and thugs who did his dirty work and put down opposition, mostly by violence. The only reason why Mussolini gained power was that his Blackshirts marched on Rome, and the King handed the goverment over to him. Most of the blackshirts could have been routed by Police and the Army, but the King never gave the order for the blackshirts to be attacked. Basically, Mussolini gained power over a fluke mistake...almost a chep shot. The Italians were not Thugs though. There are personal accounts of how the Albanians were treated whilst the Italians were at war with Greece. They gave them food, clothing, etc and free materials for their Fascist Youth Groups that were set up all over the Italian Colonies for boys and girls aged 2 - 20odd years old. The Same Albanians also reported of the hardships they suffered under the Greeks. Everything was taken away from them and they had to scrape together all they had just to afford food, let alon clothing. Mussolini
> Originally posted by Mito: > I thought Hitler was voted into power, > with the majority of votes in the 30s.. No, that is not correct, the NSDAP never got more than 37,7% of the votes: "BETWEEN 1928 and 1932, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) became the most popular of Germany's many political organisations. It had won no more than 2.6 per cent of votes cast in the Reichstag election of 1928 but just two years later registered massive gains, winning 18.3 per cent of the popular vote. The Reichstag election of July 1932 saw even more spectacular success: 13.7 million German electors, some 37.3 per cent of all votes cast, opted for the NSDAP, making it the largest party in the Reich. This story of electoral success certainly forms the background to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933. However, even at the peak of the NSDAP's popularity before this moment, almost 63 per cent of the German electorate did not vote for the Nazis. What is more, in November 1932, the Nazi Party actually lost 2 million votes. This means that Hitler was not directly voted in to power; for in the Weimar system of absolute proportional representation, 37 per cent of the vote in July 1932 gave the Nazis nothing like a majority in the Reichstag." http://www.britannica.com/bcom/magazine/article/0,5744,66384,00.html?query=nsdap /Marcus Third Reich Factbook http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/
Generally speaking crews were of very good quality.......real troubles came from uncorrect tactics, misleading leadership and technical troubles as mistargeting artilleries, lack of radar, etc.
