Great presentation. With my Korean War hat on yet again, I urge anyone studying Clark to read his book "From The Danube To The Yalu". He had more in common with MacArthur than Ridgeway in terms of conducting the war. His obvious frustrations are laid out in a brutally honest memoir.
When I first wargamed the Italian campaign I was surprised by how close the troop numbers were on either side. And the German Divisions tended to be of their highest quality. Italy was pretty cost effective for grinding down huge German resources. Also James' point about global shipping schedules can't be overstated. The Allies were locked into strategic decisions at least 6 months in advance. It's a major part of why they weren't able to respond to the Bengal famine with overseas aid as quickly as they would have liked. Lots of good points by James. Just wish I could agree with him about Clark 😁 Good show.
My Grandfather was a BAR gunner in the 88th division. He was original cadre, and landed in Naples. He lost his best friend Americo Bonosoro when he stepped on a mine near Casino. There is an interesting story about the incident in the book “Blue Devils in Italy”. Grandpa was wounded sometime after liberating Rome by shrapnel. Americo is buried in the Sicily-Rome military cemetery in Nettuno.
That was a brilliant presentation. And by using some of the language folks use today to describe organisations it made things more human because this closed the distance between now and then.
My father was on the Anzio Beachhead with the US 36th Engineers. He said a number of times that he wished Patton was there. He knew that they’d take high causalities breaking out, but it would be less over all getting the shit shelled out them on the that beachhead for 4 months.
I appreciate the way in which Jim always reminds us of the larger picture surrounding the events of Anzio, the breakthrough, and how the capture of Rome fit into that viewpoint. It is very much how he writes, as I have read his book about the Allied efforts in 1942 which takes this very same approach. The war was so vast that one can scarce take it in in many ways. It is a wonder that Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, the Australians, the Canadians and so many others (no offense for not naming them individually) could ever have made a coherent strategy at all.
Just so you know the only public tribute to Mark Clark is a bridge that crosses what’s actually a swampy estuary in Washington State. That is his legacy lol.
"From 1949 to August 17, 2010, the Mark Clark Bridge in Washington connected Camano Island with the adjacent town of Stanwood on the mainland. It was then superseded by the Camano Gateway Bridge, and the Mark Clark Bridge was demolished the following month." From Wikipedia; there are several other legacy items listed there.
This reminds me of spending hours with my friend playing the Avalon Hill game “Anzio” - grinding down units and crawling up Italy with a plethora of international divisions and brigades. I’m glad that the global context was so well represented in this episode and I’ve become a big James Holland fan as he takes on the established interpretations that came from hindsight (not 20 20 apparently. I also highly recommend Truscott’s “Command Missions” for getting an operational-scale view of the campaign, as well as some amusing anecdotes about food and interpersonal relations among the Allied commanders.
My father even paraded in front of him in Siena in July 1944 after his division had taken the town. (in fact , the town was surrounded with one exit road for the garrison to flew to Florence : The reason is that De Monsabert, the commanding general had swore to avoid any destruction in the highly historical and artistic city ...and forbade for the artillery to aim at "anything older than XVIII th century").In the following days the French Corps was put out of action for reorganization for the landing in Southern France one month later.
Regarding the Montecassino monastery, from soldier interviews, the building was seen as an occupied structure snd the troops believed that the artillery fire was being directed from it by the Germans. Morale was already low due to the helpless feeling of being pounded by artillery so destroying it was seen as a way to lift morale.
Interesting conversation that has me reconsidering Clark. Especially the points about lack of resources and shipping. If he had bypassed Rome, could 2 German armies have been destroyed? Or, like Falaise, would it have be an incomplete victory with much of the 10th personnel escaping? “He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day”
Talking of the Italian campaign, theres one figure who may be of interest to you, a lesser known general called Richard Mcreery, described as the last great cavalryman. His biographer Richard Doherty said of him "Sir Richard McCreery had managed one of the finest performances of a British army in the course of the war. He had done so through attention to detail, careful planning and a strategic flair that had few superiors.'
Great discussion! Really engaging. I learned a lot. Love this channel! Also interesting timing to be watching this video as I’m in the midst of reading Craig Symonds’ engaging book World War II at Sea and just read the section in that discussing the competition for shipping resources that affected the Italian campaign as overlord and anvil being planned (with of course other parts of the world also competing for shipping resources). Never have read / heard much about the effect of shipping resources on WW2 so interesting to coincidentally at the same time watch this video discussion at the same time as reading Symonds book
LIBERATION OF ROME: LANDINGS IN FRANCE HC Deb 06 June 1944 vol 400 cc1207-11 1207 The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill) I must apologise to the House for having delayed them, but Questions were gone through rather more rapidly than usual. The House should, I think, take formal cognisance of the liberation of Rome by the Allied Armies under the Command of General Alexander, with General Clark of the United States Service and General Oliver Leese in command of the Fifth and Eighth Armies respectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I suspect Clark may have known he was leaving (to Op Dragoon) making the 10th Army somebody else's problem. Why would anybody let an Army get away to have to fight it later, unless he knew he wouldn't.
Yeah, it's always great to hear James and Woody challenge common historical perspectives. Is James Holland the rock star of historians? Do crowds erupt in cheers when he makes an appearance?
I have some indirect ties to the Italian campaign. My father was in the 15th Air Force stationed near Foggia in 1944-45. In addition, while growing up in Colorado, I learned mountaineering/rock climbing from a veteran of the 10th Mountain Division of Riva Ridge fame. James Holland certainly gives an interesting impression of General Mark Clark. Like Patton, Montgomery or MacArthur it’s all too easy to confuse personality traits like arrogance and impertinence with battlefield competence. Mr. Holland’s interpretation of General Clark, who seems nearly universally reviled, challenges the status quo with some interesting evidence and should stimulate a rethink.
James Holland is an engaging speaker. I am dubious about his claim that the Allies could not risk stopping at the Gustav Line in case both the 10th and 14th German Armies counterattacked. The Germans would have found the going on offensive difficult for much the same reason that the Allies found it difficult.
Clark did not get blamed for the Rapido River disaster, they blamed General Walker. They threw him under the bus to save their rears. They being Clark and Keyes. Walker in his book said that he even had a new spot to cross and Clark himself turned it down.
an egotist who travelled with his own personal photographer. A man who disobeyed a direct order from his superior to trap the 10th Army and chose self-glory. An act which caused the Italian campaign to drag on for another year and more death. His treatment of the 36th Texan Div at the Rapido River was shameful and caused the death of many good young American men.
Great discussion that shows we need to keep an open mind even about the history and people we think we know well. The thought Mark Clark might be an effective commander let alone a good one will take more getting used to then getting used to lite beer. Good points the challenge of commanding the polyglot coalition forces in Italy was unique for the allies in that war, at the least the Anzio position was a way of extending the front line and forcing more German troops into contact and attrition and that the allies could not have gone to pure defensive in Italy bc that would have been inviting the Germans to making an attack at the time and circumstances of their choosing. That being said, Clark did make a mistake going for Rome and not cutting off and destroying the retreating German troops even if no one criticized him for it at that time. It seems to me Allied Commanders in Italy would have benefited from an Orde Wingate or a Lawrence, someone to prod them into thinking outside the box and away from orthodox military thinking and make really effective use of the highly trained non-conventional units available to them and not waste those troops using them solely as elite light infantry. Finally, can we get something on Popski's Private Army and the battles of Kos and Leros?
The Rapido was completely ill-conceived; it should have been clear to Clark that it would fail. Walker even told him as much, that terrain combined with the river depth made the operation far too difficult with available resources. He also correctly predicted the British push at Garigliano to his left would fail as well (which should have caused the Rapido crossing to be cancelled), and proposed the operation crossing north of Cassino instead (that the 34th later tried), but was told there was no time. Clark was delusional in thinking they could succeed on the 20th, and would have been better off not attacking at all than to waste his troops like that. Either he was deluded or bungled his time table so badly he couldn’t fix it; either way a major lack of generalship.
25:05 yes! Somebody points out the strategic impact of taking Italy out of the war! This cost the Germans so much, but nobody ever seems to consider that when asking whether going into Italy in 1943 was the right move.
That's not what's up for debate. What is up for debate is how far north the Western Allies should've advanced into Italy. In my humble opinion, the Western Allies should've just stopped at the Gustav Line. There quite simply just wasn't a need for Operation: Shingle, the extremely wasteful Battles of Monte Cassino or the liberation of Rome (an immensely invaluable cultural/historical/moral target, to be sure, but absolutely worthless in the context of military, economic, geostrategic or even political value). They already had the Foggia airfields through which the United States 15th Air Force could support the Combined Bomber Offensive against Festung Europa not to mention that with absolute control over southern Italy, Sicily and the entire northern African coastline, the Western Allies already had total dominance over the Mediterranean Sea. The near-total surrender of the Regio Esercito, the Regia Marina and the Regia Aeronautica also fully guaranteed and further reinforced said Western Allied mastery of the Mediterranean Sea, as well. A penny for your thoughts?
Howdy there folks! Always great to see James Holland in the lineup, this time on Anzio. Clear crisp descriptions, deep depth of understanding and useful maps. Entertaining and informative info from two of the best. Thanks Woody.
When the Allies tried amphibious assault to outflank enemy defensive lines, probably second time the Allied did this in ETO/Med/Africa, Torch probably counts as landing behind the enemy front lines at Libya and Tunisia at Monty's army axis of advance.
In regard to General Freyberg. He was a WW1 Victoria Cross recipient. And also received 3 Distinguished Service Orders. Inclusive of WW1 and 2. He spent over 10 years in the British and New Zealand Forces, fighting the Germans and the AXIS powers. So, not just an Office Military Administrator. Or a stranger to battle front realities! Of course like all Military Leaders, he had successes and failures. However on balance, he was a good soldier. Who served the Allied cause and NZ well. He was British born, but grew up in NZ. Anyway, it has to be remembered, all the Commonwealth Dominions Military Leaders, Canada Australia New Zealand, South Africa etc....Were in a different position to other British Officers. Even those of higher rank. In that while they were part of the Commonwealth and Allied Forces. They were also Commanders of National Military Units, with responsibilities to their respective governments! In that regard, no different to US Forces. As to the "mutinies" in NZ. Some long service soldiers on leave, felt others who hadn't yet served overseas, should be selected for overseas duty before sending veterans back to the war. But of greater significance was the fact...This was at a time when Japan was engaged in its Asia / Pacific onslaught. So the Pacific war was moving directly south to Australia and New Zealand! Indeed Australia withdrew its Forces out of North Africa and Europe to meet the Japanese threat! And many in New Zealand, including service men, thought the country should do the same! Also, at the time NZ was raising another Army Division plus Air and Naval Units to serve in the Pacific. The upshot was. In order to relieve the pressure on shipping, and not wanting to remove any more experienced Forces from Europe. Winston Churchill asked the NZ Govt to keep the NZ troops where they were. And in lieu of this. As part of their Pacific build up. US Forces, would be sent to NZ. Cheers.
Minor correction 4x DSOs, a very unique achievement particularly for one who's "not very sharp." Funny how Rommel, Churchill & Monty all wrote of him, highly rating him, but what would that trio know? Monty did him no favours by continually saying he'd ride to Clarke's rescue in Italy with Freyberg & 2NZDIV. As Freyberg did in April\May '45, advancing 2NZDIV 150miles ahead of the army to get to Trieste taking the German\Chetnik surrender, who avoided the Yogoslav 4th Army (who arrived & surrounded 2NZDIV HQ with tanks!), This shifted Trieste away from Stalins reach, to then become Italian & use it's port to sustain\supply Austria as Europe is rebuilt. The Blunt Knife cuts the Iron Curtain.
What is not addressed is the quality of troops on both sides. It strikes me that the Americans and British were prime military age manpower, while the New Zealanders were volunteers, the Indians were volunteers and mostly regular units, the Poles were highly motivated, as indeed were the French. But were the Germans such good manpower after four years of attrition? With a few exceptions, is it not an A Team versus B Team situation?
An interesting UA-camr in regard to the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign goes by the nome de Tube Lord Hardthraser. Very amusing and some interesting insights. His views on the Norden bombsight (‘it was fucking useless’ and basically a con scam) are of particular note. Great show guys! 👍✌️
Quite the scholar, if you sift through his reply's to comments on his The B17 was Crap he makes a statement something to the effect; "Americans flew daylight because they were afraid to fly at night.", conveniently forgetting the Link Trainer for IFR training was invented in the USA.
lucas stuffed up-8 miles what a joke -he should have advanced 32 and cut the road and rail links to the south-the armoured division started to arrive on day 3-the main base was still within german artillery range
This is Hogwarts the Allies had air superiority by late 1943 if not mid 43 it's amazing how much stuff people believe and then repeat. It was absolutely no reason for the Allies to March up the boot. The Soviet Union essentially pushed Germany back in 1943 to defensive lines that they were no longer nor ever going to be able to defend James come on man you're just defending Churchill with his 2nd version of the Gallipoli campaign which was much deadlier and stupid.
@WW2TV armchair historian? Lol. Oh no. I just educate myself and don't believe some guy on TV or the web. Just cause I don't have a fancy title or a position in a university or on tv,media, doesn't mean my educated views and beliefs, makes my opinion an " arm chair" historian as yoi replied. It amazes me bow Western society speaks about those without these positions or titles. Lol 😆 🤣
@WW2TV plants, is a big one, tik history, my own reading of all sources I can. I don't follow one person but several, and I don't believe Everything that is brought upon my viewing abd or reading. I have beliefs that the US through FDR knew exactly what he was doing and speed the US in to going the war so he could destroy the British empire and French empires, as well as establishing a US empire across the globe. I don't need a title or position to educate myself. It's called life
😂😂😂 what a joke is a general threw away hundreds of thousands of American lives just so he could have some glory then powdered when he didn't get it instead of caring about all the lives he was responsible for 😂😂😂
@@tedcopple101 Most don't consider Clark a good general but James Holland does, so we are to agree with Holland? Holland is clearly a Clark fan boy who seems to use shipping as excuse for any of Clark's failings. I am not buying it.
@@Peorhum And how many weeks did you spend in the archives reading Clark's correspondence and those of people around him? Because that's how James has formulated his opinion
@@Peorhum Clark met all of his objectives in the face of appalling weather, an experienced and determined enemy who had the benefit of time and terrain and he was under resourced, what with the upcoming overlord swallowing up the lions share of supplies. What else could he have done? Ok he may not of been everyone's cup of tea but was Montgomery? Patton? Harris? Judge people on results. Montgomery was always seen as a failure in Normandy but by day 100 he was exactly where he said he was going to be, having achieved everything he said he was going to do. It's a results business, personalities are tertiary at best.
Great presentation. With my Korean War hat on yet again, I urge anyone studying Clark to read his book "From The Danube To The Yalu". He had more in common with MacArthur than Ridgeway in terms of conducting the war. His obvious frustrations are laid out in a brutally honest memoir.
Another great appearance by James Holland on WW2TV. Brilliant stuff.
Late to this one. Fascinating as usual and James is such a great guest. I really need to step up my Italian campaign knowledge.
Excellent discussion. Thanks Paul and James.
When I first wargamed the Italian campaign I was surprised by how close the troop numbers were on either side. And the German Divisions tended to be of their highest quality. Italy was pretty cost effective for grinding down huge German resources.
Also James' point about global shipping schedules can't be overstated. The Allies were locked into strategic decisions at least 6 months in advance. It's a major part of why they weren't able to respond to the Bengal famine with overseas aid as quickly as they would have liked.
Lots of good points by James. Just wish I could agree with him about Clark 😁 Good show.
My Grandfather was a BAR gunner in the 88th division. He was original cadre, and landed in Naples. He lost his best friend Americo Bonosoro when he stepped on a mine near Casino. There is an interesting story about the incident in the book “Blue Devils in Italy”. Grandpa was wounded sometime after liberating Rome by shrapnel. Americo is buried in the Sicily-Rome military cemetery in Nettuno.
The infantry casualties on all sides were horrendous. Was truly a human tragedy.
That was a brilliant presentation. And by using some of the language folks use today to describe organisations it made things more human because this closed the distance between now and then.
Well argued and a much needed revision of the Italian campaign.
I remember hearing that Gen Clarke, said or referred to having 3 Divisions.
1 in the field.
1 in the hospital.
1in the grave.
Apologies if I am wrong.
My father was on the Anzio Beachhead with the US 36th Engineers. He said a number of times that he wished Patton was there. He knew that they’d take high causalities breaking out, but it would be less over all getting the shit shelled out them on the that beachhead for 4 months.
I appreciate the way in which Jim always reminds us of the larger picture surrounding the events of Anzio, the breakthrough, and how the capture of Rome fit into that viewpoint. It is very much how he writes, as I have read his book about the Allied efforts in 1942 which takes this very same approach. The war was so vast that one can scarce take it in in many ways. It is a wonder that Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, the Australians, the Canadians and so many others (no offense for not naming them individually) could ever have made a coherent strategy at all.
Awesome as ever Paul and James thank you! Best combo and JD :)
Always great to hear so many knowledgeable historians with their diverse opinions here on @WW2TV.
Just so you know the only public tribute to Mark Clark is a bridge that crosses what’s actually a swampy estuary in Washington State. That is his legacy lol.
"From 1949 to August 17, 2010, the Mark Clark Bridge in Washington connected Camano Island with the adjacent town of Stanwood on the mainland. It was then superseded by the Camano Gateway Bridge, and the Mark Clark Bridge was demolished the following month."
From Wikipedia; there are several other legacy items listed there.
Superb Jim and Woody, great to see a focus on Italy
Woody/James. A very interesting presentation. Learnt a lot especially the various on both sides. Thanks, Bob
This reminds me of spending hours with my friend playing the Avalon Hill game “Anzio” - grinding down units and crawling up Italy with a plethora of international divisions and brigades. I’m glad that the global context was so well represented in this episode and I’ve become a big James Holland fan as he takes on the established interpretations that came from hindsight (not 20 20 apparently. I also highly recommend Truscott’s “Command Missions” for getting an operational-scale view of the campaign, as well as some amusing anecdotes about food and interpersonal relations among the Allied commanders.
Great stuff. I have always thought that the Italy campaign was under appreciated in its impact.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great show Woody and James!
My father even paraded in front of him in Siena in July 1944 after his division had taken the town. (in fact , the town was surrounded with one exit road for the garrison to flew to Florence : The reason is that De Monsabert, the commanding general had swore to avoid any destruction in the highly historical and artistic city ...and forbade for the artillery to aim at "anything older than XVIII th century").In the following days the French Corps was put out of action for reorganization for the landing in Southern France one month later.
ua-cam.com/video/MdoguTWkdGA/v-deo.html
GFreat stuff. Italian Campaign is my favorite theater.
James gives another excellent presentation. I am conflicted about General Clark, he seems to have made many mistakes in Italy.
Most enjoyable as always.
Regarding the Montecassino monastery, from soldier interviews, the building was seen as an occupied structure snd the troops believed that the artillery fire was being directed from it by the Germans. Morale was already low due to the helpless feeling of being pounded by artillery so destroying it was seen as a way to lift morale.
Interesting conversation that has me reconsidering Clark. Especially the points about lack of resources and shipping.
If he had bypassed Rome, could 2 German armies have been destroyed? Or, like Falaise, would it have be an incomplete victory with much of the 10th personnel escaping?
“He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day”
That's what James always does, gets you thinking
Talking of the Italian campaign, theres one figure who may be of interest to you, a lesser known general called Richard Mcreery, described as the last great cavalryman.
His biographer Richard Doherty said of him "Sir Richard McCreery had managed one of the finest performances of a British army in the course of the war. He had done so through attention to detail, careful planning and a strategic flair that had few superiors.'
He features a lot in James' books
Good stuff (as usual)!!
Great discussion! Really engaging. I learned a lot. Love this channel! Also interesting timing to be watching this video as I’m in the midst of reading Craig Symonds’ engaging book World War II at Sea and just read the section in that discussing the competition for shipping resources that affected the Italian campaign as overlord and anvil being planned (with of course other parts of the world also competing for shipping resources). Never have read / heard much about the effect of shipping resources on WW2 so interesting to coincidentally at the same time watch this video discussion at the same time as reading Symonds book
Markus Aurelius Clarkus, the man who would rather be the next Roman Emperor than cut off the German 10th army
Hitler’s favourite general
LIBERATION OF ROME: LANDINGS IN FRANCE
HC Deb 06 June 1944 vol 400 cc1207-11 1207
The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill) I must apologise to the House for having delayed them, but Questions were gone through rather more rapidly than usual. The House should, I think, take formal cognisance of the liberation of Rome by the Allied Armies under the Command of General Alexander, with General Clark of the United States Service and General Oliver Leese in command of the Fifth and Eighth Armies respectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I suspect Clark may have known he was leaving (to Op Dragoon) making the 10th Army somebody else's problem. Why would anybody let an Army get away to have to fight it later, unless he knew he wouldn't.
interesting presentation
Yeah, it's always great to hear James and Woody challenge common historical perspectives.
Is James Holland the rock star of historians? Do crowds erupt in cheers when he makes an appearance?
I have some indirect ties to the Italian campaign. My father was in the 15th Air Force stationed near Foggia in 1944-45. In addition, while growing up in Colorado, I learned mountaineering/rock climbing from a veteran of the 10th Mountain Division of Riva Ridge fame. James Holland certainly gives an interesting impression of General Mark Clark. Like Patton, Montgomery or MacArthur it’s all too easy to confuse personality traits like arrogance and impertinence with battlefield competence. Mr. Holland’s interpretation of General Clark, who seems nearly universally reviled, challenges the status quo with some interesting evidence and should stimulate a rethink.
James Holland is an engaging speaker. I am dubious about his claim that the Allies could not risk stopping at the Gustav Line in case both the 10th and 14th German Armies counterattacked. The Germans would have found the going on offensive difficult for much the same reason that the Allies found it difficult.
I would recommend Wynford Vaughan Thomas ' account as a very enjoyable read
Clark did not get blamed for the Rapido River disaster, they blamed General Walker. They threw him under the bus to save their rears. They being Clark and Keyes. Walker in his book said that he even had a new spot to cross and Clark himself turned it down.
an egotist who travelled with his own personal photographer. A man who disobeyed a direct order from his superior to trap the 10th Army and chose self-glory. An act which caused the Italian campaign to drag on for another year and more death. His treatment of the 36th Texan Div at the Rapido River was shameful and caused the death of many good young American men.
Great discussion that shows we need to keep an open mind even about the history and people we think we know well. The thought Mark Clark might be an effective commander let alone a good one will take more getting used to then getting used to lite beer. Good points the challenge of commanding the polyglot coalition forces in Italy was unique for the allies in that war, at the least the Anzio position was a way of extending the front line and forcing more German troops into contact and attrition and that the allies could not have gone to pure defensive in Italy bc that would have been inviting the Germans to making an attack at the time and circumstances of their choosing.
That being said, Clark did make a mistake going for Rome and not cutting off and destroying the retreating German troops even if no one criticized him for it at that time.
It seems to me Allied Commanders in Italy would have benefited from an Orde Wingate or a Lawrence, someone to prod them into thinking outside the box and away from orthodox military thinking and make really effective use of the highly trained non-conventional units available to them and not waste those troops using them solely as elite light infantry.
Finally, can we get something on Popski's Private Army and the battles of Kos and Leros?
"Finally, can we get something on Popski's Private Army and the battles of Kos and Leros?"
If I can find experts - yes. Any suggestions please?
Thanks for the Reply! But, I just ask the questions I don't know enough to actually answer them! @@WW2TV
The Rapido was completely ill-conceived; it should have been clear to Clark that it would fail. Walker even told him as much, that terrain combined with the river depth made the operation far too difficult with available resources. He also correctly predicted the British push at Garigliano to his left would fail as well (which should have caused the Rapido crossing to be cancelled), and proposed the operation crossing north of Cassino instead (that the 34th later tried), but was told there was no time. Clark was delusional in thinking they could succeed on the 20th, and would have been better off not attacking at all than to waste his troops like that. Either he was deluded or bungled his time table so badly he couldn’t fix it; either way a major lack of generalship.
442/100th.
GO FOR BROKE, BABY!
25:05 yes! Somebody points out the strategic impact of taking Italy out of the war! This cost the Germans so much, but nobody ever seems to consider that when asking whether going into Italy in 1943 was the right move.
That's not what's up for debate. What is up for debate is how far north the Western Allies should've advanced into Italy.
In my humble opinion, the Western Allies should've just stopped at the Gustav Line. There quite simply just wasn't a need for Operation: Shingle, the extremely wasteful Battles of Monte Cassino or the liberation of Rome (an immensely invaluable cultural/historical/moral target, to be sure, but absolutely worthless in the context of military, economic, geostrategic or even political value).
They already had the Foggia airfields through which the United States 15th Air Force could support the Combined Bomber Offensive against Festung Europa not to mention that with absolute control over southern Italy, Sicily and the entire northern African coastline, the Western Allies already had total dominance over the Mediterranean Sea.
The near-total surrender of the Regio Esercito, the Regia Marina and the Regia Aeronautica also fully guaranteed and further reinforced said Western Allied mastery of the Mediterranean Sea, as well.
A penny for your thoughts?
@razgriz9146
Great post. You make some excellent points.
About shipping ... can you do a show about how shipping constraints affected the famine in India after the war ended?
Howdy there folks! Always great to see James Holland in the lineup, this time on Anzio. Clear crisp descriptions, deep depth of understanding and useful maps. Entertaining and informative info from two of the best. Thanks Woody.
When the Allies tried amphibious assault to outflank enemy defensive lines, probably second time the Allied did this in ETO/Med/Africa, Torch probably counts as landing behind the enemy front lines at Libya and Tunisia at Monty's army axis of advance.
In regard to General Freyberg. He was a WW1 Victoria Cross recipient. And also received 3 Distinguished Service Orders. Inclusive of WW1 and 2. He spent over 10 years in the British and New Zealand Forces, fighting the Germans and the AXIS powers. So, not just an Office Military Administrator. Or a stranger to battle front realities! Of course like all Military Leaders, he had successes and failures. However on balance, he was a good soldier. Who served the Allied cause and NZ well. He was British born, but grew up in NZ. Anyway, it has to be remembered, all the Commonwealth Dominions Military Leaders, Canada Australia New Zealand, South Africa etc....Were in a different position to other British Officers. Even those of higher rank. In that while they were part of the Commonwealth and Allied Forces. They were also Commanders of National Military Units, with responsibilities to their respective governments! In that regard, no different to US Forces. As to the "mutinies" in NZ. Some long service soldiers on leave, felt others who hadn't yet served overseas, should be selected for overseas duty before sending veterans back to the war. But of greater significance was the fact...This was at a time when Japan was engaged in its Asia / Pacific onslaught. So the Pacific war was moving directly south to Australia and New Zealand! Indeed Australia withdrew its Forces out of North Africa and Europe to meet the Japanese threat! And many in New Zealand, including service men, thought the country should do the same! Also, at the time NZ was raising another Army Division plus Air and Naval Units to serve in the Pacific. The upshot was. In order to relieve the pressure on shipping, and not wanting to remove any more experienced Forces from Europe. Winston Churchill asked the NZ Govt to keep the NZ troops where they were. And in lieu of this. As part of their Pacific build up. US Forces, would be sent to NZ. Cheers.
Minor correction 4x DSOs, a very unique achievement particularly for one who's "not very sharp." Funny how Rommel, Churchill & Monty all wrote of him, highly rating him, but what would that trio know? Monty did him no favours by continually saying he'd ride to Clarke's rescue in Italy with Freyberg & 2NZDIV. As Freyberg did in April\May '45, advancing 2NZDIV 150miles ahead of the army to get to Trieste taking the German\Chetnik surrender, who avoided the Yogoslav 4th Army (who arrived & surrounded 2NZDIV HQ with tanks!), This shifted Trieste away from Stalins reach, to then become Italian & use it's port to sustain\supply Austria as Europe is rebuilt. The Blunt Knife cuts the Iron Curtain.
@@prof_kaos9341 Yes a 4th DSO at the tail end of the Italian Campaign. So thanks for that.
What is not addressed is the quality of troops on both sides. It strikes me that the Americans and British were prime military age manpower, while the New Zealanders were volunteers, the Indians were volunteers and mostly regular units, the Poles were highly motivated, as indeed were the French. But were the Germans such good manpower after four years of attrition? With a few exceptions, is it not an A Team versus B Team situation?
An interesting UA-camr in regard to the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign goes by the nome de Tube Lord Hardthraser. Very amusing and some interesting insights. His views on the Norden bombsight (‘it was fucking useless’ and basically a con scam) are of particular note.
Great show guys! 👍✌️
Quite the scholar, if you sift through his reply's to comments on his
The B17 was Crap
he makes a statement something to the effect;
"Americans flew daylight because they were afraid to fly at night.",
conveniently forgetting the Link Trainer for IFR training was invented in the USA.
He’s great fun and makes some good points.
lucas stuffed up-8 miles what a joke -he should have advanced 32 and cut the road and rail links to the south-the armoured division started to arrive on day 3-the main base was still within german artillery range
Just imagine if we had let those German units escape back to Germany, even though some did.
snd intro
?
I don't buy it... they succeeded despite Clark, not because of him!!
Again, your perogative
Great historian.... no a fan of incompetent Clark
I have to say, I'm no fan of Clark, but James's book gave me a lot to think about. I do feel he was fighting with an arm tied behind his back
This is Hogwarts the Allies had air superiority by late 1943 if not mid 43 it's amazing how much stuff people believe and then repeat. It was absolutely no reason for the Allies to March up the boot. The Soviet Union essentially pushed Germany back in 1943 to defensive lines that they were no longer nor ever going to be able to defend James come on man you're just defending Churchill with his 2nd version of the Gallipoli campaign which was much deadlier and stupid.
Another armchair expert who knows more than professional historians
@WW2TV armchair historian? Lol. Oh no. I just educate myself and don't believe some guy on TV or the web. Just cause I don't have a fancy title or a position in a university or on tv,media, doesn't mean my educated views and beliefs, makes my opinion an " arm chair" historian as yoi replied. It amazes me bow Western society speaks about those without these positions or titles. Lol 😆 🤣
So which primary sources have you studied may I ask? James has spent several years trawling archives across the world to draw the conclusions he has
@WW2TV plants, is a big one, tik history, my own reading of all sources I can. I don't follow one person but several, and I don't believe Everything that is brought upon my viewing abd or reading. I have beliefs that the US through FDR knew exactly what he was doing and speed the US in to going the war so he could destroy the British empire and French empires, as well as establishing a US empire across the globe. I don't need a title or position to educate myself. It's called life
If you think FDR wanted to "destroy" the British Empire you need to do some more reading
😂😂😂 what a joke is a general threw away hundreds of thousands of American lives just so he could have some glory then powdered when he didn't get it instead of caring about all the lives he was responsible for 😂😂😂
Hundreds of thousands of American lives?
The more I listen to Holland, the less I think of his opinions. I am stopping at the 32min mark
Your perogative
Each to their own, you're wrong, but each to their own.
@@tedcopple101 Most don't consider Clark a good general but James Holland does, so we are to agree with Holland? Holland is clearly a Clark fan boy who seems to use shipping as excuse for any of Clark's failings. I am not buying it.
@@Peorhum And how many weeks did you spend in the archives reading Clark's correspondence and those of people around him? Because that's how James has formulated his opinion
@@Peorhum Clark met all of his objectives in the face of appalling weather, an experienced and determined enemy who had the benefit of time and terrain and he was under resourced, what with the upcoming overlord swallowing up the lions share of supplies. What else could he have done? Ok he may not of been everyone's cup of tea but was Montgomery? Patton? Harris? Judge people on results. Montgomery was always seen as a failure in Normandy but by day 100 he was exactly where he said he was going to be, having achieved everything he said he was going to do. It's a results business, personalities are tertiary at best.