Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know my grandfather fough Germans and Italians in the war, and met a lot through POW duties late and shortly post war. I don't know a lot about my grandfather specifically fighting the Italians beyond a few accounts. One of which was where italian troops had dug shallow trenches to hide in, so his unit drove the tanks along them crushing the people in them. Afterwards the crews had to wash the remains from the running gear, one guy lost his mind and was sent home. They don't tell you stuff like that most of the time on TV.

I understand my grandfather disliked the Italians after the war due to their treatment of an orphan boy. My dad referred to him the brother he never had, we only have a photo. In Italy my grandfathers unit picked up a stray boy, aged about 6 I think, displaced or orphaned by the war. He stuck with them for some time when they weren't on the front line. The men put together a bit of money and looked for a family to take him in. But they never found one, it became increasingly clear that the Italian families only wanted the money and had no intention of taking the child in. Eventually the troops were told to move on, presumably near the front line, so had to leave the boy behind. Last my grandfather saw of him was the boy running down the road after the trucks crying. After the war my grandfather wanted to go back to find the boy, but my grandmother didn't want him leaving her to go around Europe again.

It was my grandfathers feeling that his experience in the war told him a German or British family would have taken the boy in good faith, but that the Italians were selfish and only interested in the money. He had no issue with Germans after the war I know of, but that really soured him against the Italian people.

 sebster wrote:


Probably the Americans were least afflicted, not because they had better processes for promoting generals, but because they had the strongest ethic of pulling ineffective generals off the line. Deliver or get sent back to the US

Politics in the US army tend to be less about your relationships with civilian leadership and more about your relationships with your immediate commanders, which of course is probably a more reliable way to get good commanders moving up the ranks, but it favoritism did still occur. A good example are the Eisenhower men. Generals like Bradly and Arnold benefited a lot from their strong relationships with Eisenhower. Of course it benefited the US military that both men were very capable. On the other hand, Patton was a capable general as well but he was generally seen as unreliable, wild, and an annoyance by the military political structure. It's no coincidence that he was rapidly side lined as the war began winding down and Eisenhower and his close circle of military leaders began planning for the post-war order and the future of Army (and Air Force) to which Patton would have been a constant thorn in the side. Had he not died he probably would have been forced to retire as the Army started down scaling from its war readiness.

At the same time a similar relationship existed in the Pacific between MacArthur and generals there, but that ended up the opposite of Eisenhowers well run machine cause MacArthur was simultaneously a sycophant and not quite as qualified as many liked to think he was for that level of command.

 LordofHats wrote:

At the same time a similar relationship existed in the Pacific between MacArthur and generals there, but that ended up the opposite of Eisenhowers well run machine cause MacArthur was simultaneously a sycophant and not quite as qualified as many liked to think he was for that level of command.

Things are about to get real in this thread! I think the OP is a MacArthur fan if I recall correctly.

 Easy E wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

At the same time a similar relationship existed in the Pacific between MacArthur and generals there, but that ended up the opposite of Eisenhowers well run machine cause MacArthur was simultaneously a sycophant and not quite as qualified as many liked to think he was for that level of command.

Things are about to get real in this thread! I think the OP is a MacArthur fan if I recall correctly.

You are correct.

As far as I'm concerned, MacArthur is the greatest general the USA ever produced. I think it's ironic that I seem to have more faith in American generals than the average American!

But that is a discussion for another thread.

As for this thread, I've carefully considered the arguments, done some research, and I've reached the folowing conclusions:

1. Your average Italian infantryman had no great desire to go to war, but a small minority of blackshirts obviously welcomed it.

2. The majority of Italian units were average to poor, but with inspired leadership (Rommel) and better equipment, could give a good account of themselves.

3. The cream of the Italian army (Mountain and Paratroopers) were very good, but too few in number.

4. The navy, despite boasting impressive modern ships, were not as agressive as they should have been, and lost the initiative to the Royal Navy.

6. The Italian army command structure was poor, with many incompent commanders who owed their status to Mussolini's patronage.

7. Italian fighter planes were very good, and highly regarded by the Luftwaffe.

8. The war came too early for Italian industry.

So to conclude, I have to agree with the majority of voters: the Italian military deserves its poor rep.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


So to conclude, I have to agree with the majority of voters: the Italian military deserves its poor rep.

You may be interested in this website: http://www.comandosupremo.com/

It does certainly take a pro-Italy stance at times, but it has pretty good information about Italy's performance during WWII using Italian sources and archives.

Whoever writes it does take a bit of an aggressive stance at times, but considering how most of the world regards the Italians as useless I woud be too.

As a starter, try this article. Don't care if you agree with it, just read it.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/some-myths-concerning-italian-leadership-morale-and-combat-performance.html

There are also a bunch of articles regarding the war with Greece and how Italy had stabilized the situation and was already pushing back before the German intervention.

 aldo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


So to conclude, I have to agree with the majority of voters: the Italian military deserves its poor rep.

You may be interested in this website: http://www.comandosupremo.com/

It does certainly take a pro-Italy stance at times, but it has pretty good information about Italy's performance during WWII using Italian sources and archives.

Whoever writes it does take a bit of an aggressive stance at times, but considering how most of the world regards the Italians as useless I woud be too.

As a starter, try this article. Don't care if you agree with it, just read it.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/some-myths-concerning-italian-leadership-morale-and-combat-performance.html

There are also a bunch of articles regarding the war with Greece and how Italy had stabilized the situation and was already pushing back before the German intervention.

Maybe Italy was not quite as bad as some accounts.
It is true North Africa in the end was a German, not twin campaign.

It was Germans making up bulk of Afrika Corps in the end.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As far as I'm concerned, MacArthur is the greatest general the USA ever produced. I think it's ironic that I seem to have more faith in American generals than the average American!

The guy would probably get more credit if he hadn't turned the Korean war into an even bigger boondoggle (a truly spectacular feat) and if all his self-aggrandizement during WWII managed to reflect reality.

The man's one true great achievement was the post war occupation of Japan, but even there historians and political scientists have charged that the occupation worked in spite of MacArthur instead of because of him. Guy really can't catch a break really.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As far as I'm concerned, MacArthur is the greatest general the USA ever produced. I think it's ironic that I seem to have more faith in American generals than the average American!

The guy would probably get more credit if he hadn't turned the Korean war into an even bigger boondoggle (a truly spectacular feat) and if all his self-aggrandizement during WWII managed to reflect reality.

The man's one true great achievement was the post war occupation of Japan, but even there historians and political scientists have charged that the occupation worked in spite of MacArthur instead of because of him. Guy really can't catch a break really.

The fact he kept commands despite losing the Philippines, and other areas early on. He had luck.
He knew how to do a landing operation, and mantain a army on extended supply line.

However. I feel his legend, is partly somewhat overly expanded too.

MacArthur couldn't have saved the Philippines. Removing the guy for that wouldn't have been good administration. He wasn't exactly bad at command of military operations, the issue is that when you're a general you also have to manage the political aspects of military force and in that regard MacArthur sucked. he sucked really really hard. Arguably it's the most important trait for a general of his rank to have, and he just sucked at it compared to men like Eisenhower and Bradly. That he survived the war with his career on the high end has a lot less to do with his ability and more to do with the ability of the men around him.

 LordofHats wrote:
MacArthur couldn't have saved the Philippines. Removing the guy for that wouldn't have been good administration. He wasn't exactly bad at command of military operations, the issue is that when you're a general you also have to manage the political aspects of military force and in that regard MacArthur sucked. he sucked really really hard. Arguably it's the most important trait for a general of his rank to have, and he just sucked at it compared to men like Eisenhower and Bradly. That he survived the war with his career on the high end has a lot less to do with his ability and more to do with the ability of the men around him.

He had right anti communist thinking for the time.
Plus in Korea, he had commanded in the area, and was used to fighting a fanatical enemy force.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Mountbatten?

In Britain, he's generally seen as a safe pair of hands. Nothing flashy, but a solid commander.

I will have to look into that.

Mountbatten was the guy who drove the Dieppe raid. Which was a disaster not just in concept and execution, but in the lines of command - Mountbatten went miles outside of his authority in organising the raid. He was also behind building the giant pykrete carrier base, an idea where the novelty of the engineering overwhelmed the reality that the plan was not even slightly viable in terms of value and resources required.

He did some good things as well, such as championing Hobart's funny tanks, I'm not trying to say he was absolutely terrible or anything like that. But note that even with those massive disasters the guy still got constantly, rapidly promoted. This came down primarily to his close relationship with Churchill. The UK was far from immune from promoting guys based on connection to political leaders instead of just on performance, is what I'm saying.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As far as I'm concerned, MacArthur is the greatest general the USA ever produced. I think it's ironic that I seem to have more faith in American generals than the average American!

The guy would probably get more credit if he hadn't turned the Korean war into an even bigger boondoggle (a truly spectacular feat) and if all his self-aggrandizement during WWII managed to reflect reality.

The man's one true great achievement was the post war occupation of Japan, but even there historians and political scientists have charged that the occupation worked in spite of MacArthur instead of because of him. Guy really can't catch a break really.

I think MacArthur was very good at most of the jobs he was given. The problem is that he was the closest to a true warlord the US has every produced. He was the Allied supreme commander in the Pacific from the get-go, when there were far more cooks in the kitchen for Europe. (For example, Ike didn't exactly command the Soviets, and his work involved coordinating with the British, while MacArthur was clearly the pointman against Japan.) He essentially ruled Japan as a dicatator (in the classical sense) after the war. It's not shocking that after those experiences, he resented being controlled by Truman, but there's a good chance that if MacArthur had his way, Korea would have turned into WWIII. With the benefit of history, we can see that avoiding that paid off, because the Cold War ended without ever going hot, but that was not clear in the 50s. I think that's why his reputation has suffered, because he saw war with the USSR, and communism in general, as inevitable, and through luck, it wasn't. If Cuban Missile Crisis had led to nuclear war, we all would have regretted not fighting the Soviets in 52.

MacArthur clearly believed his own hype, but there's plenty of steak under that sizzle. In the end, he undermined civilian control of US foreign policy, which the president cannot and should not tolerate.

 LordofHats wrote:
MacArthur wasn't exactly bad at command of military operations, the issue is that when you're a general you also have to manage the political aspects of military force and in that regard MacArthur sucked. That he survived the war with his career on the high end has a lot less to do with his ability and more to do with the ability of the men around him.

Men around him, yes - but wasn't a big part of his Korea screw-up that he'd in many cases replaced the competent men around him with yes-men (or made them such) who might still have been good but didn't dare tell him things his ego couldn't tolerate? You have those men around you to help carry out your orders, sure, but also to give you needed information and advice when situations change or you're not seeing every detail. But his Chief of Intelligence was afraid of telling him there might be hundreds of thousands Chinese troops in Korea!

I'd be more than happy to debate MacArthur in a dedicated thread, or even send me a PM, but sweet holy dakka! What has MacArthur got to do with the WW2 Italian military?

To the best of my knowledge, he never encountered the Italian army on the field of battle.

That was Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton et al

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I know my grandfather fough Germans and Italians in the war, and met a lot through POW duties late and shortly post war. I don't know a lot about my grandfather specifically fighting the Italians beyond a few accounts. One of which was where italian troops had dug shallow trenches to hide in, so his unit drove the tanks along them crushing the people in them. Afterwards the crews had to wash the remains from the running gear, one guy lost his mind and was sent home. They don't tell you stuff like that most of the time on TV.

I understand my grandfather disliked the Italians after the war due to their treatment of an orphan boy. My dad referred to him the brother he never had, we only have a photo. In Italy my grandfathers unit picked up a stray boy, aged about 6 I think, displaced or orphaned by the war. He stuck with them for some time when they weren't on the front line. The men put together a bit of money and looked for a family to take him in. But they never found one, it became increasingly clear that the Italian families only wanted the money and had no intention of taking the child in. Eventually the troops were told to move on, presumably near the front line, so had to leave the boy behind. Last my grandfather saw of him was the boy running down the road after the trucks crying. After the war my grandfather wanted to go back to find the boy, but my grandmother didn't want him leaving her to go around Europe again.

It was my grandfathers feeling that his experience in the war told him a German or British family would have taken the boy in good faith, but that the Italians were selfish and only interested in the money. He had no issue with Germans after the war I know of, but that really soured him against the Italian people.

My grandfather was a tank driver in the desert war. His tank was a Valentine. He got malaria and missed El Alamein, and then he was made a billeting officer when the war moved to Italy. He had to follow the front line and find houses to billet officers in.

During one of these expeditions he found two Italian orphan girls on the side of the road near Salerno. They were too young even to know their surname. He took them in and protected them. Somehow he found them a home and a new name -- Fimiani, after the town where he found them.

Our families are still friends now, though one of the sisters died of cancer a few years ago.