Europe’s Soft Underbelly.

[RabidGibbon]

WW2 Strategy discussion time peeps. Were the allies right to invade Sicily and Italy in ‘43? Would the men and material employed in that campaign have been better used in bringing forward the date of
D-Day in northern France? The costly battles at Anzio and Monte Cassino were all products of this southern line of attack, but in the long run do people think that the attack on Italy helped the USSR immediately and the Allies attack on D-Day later on, or was it a squandering of resources that could have been used later to greater effect?

[Lord Winter]

The idea was to open a second front away from the Germans Atlantic wall. Compared to the other the defenses established in the Atlantic the south was a better starting point that could be used to tye down German troops for the future D-day invasion. Now that takes us to the three possible areas, Greece, Italy and France. Out of these Greece would have been even worse, with it's mountainous terrain and the distance between France and N. Africa would cause all sorts of logistical problems, so that leaves Italy. In the long run the Axis couldn't handle the casualties of a war in Italy and that helped the advance in Russia and the D-day invasions.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Attacking Sicily and the Italian mainland also knocked Italy out of the war. Besides keeping vital supplies & troops from the Eastern Front, it may have helped keep Russia in the war. Valuable experience was also gained by conducting these smaller scale amphibious landings and para-drops that aided the planning and logistics for the Normandy invasion to come. After the disaster at Dieppe, there wasn't much confidence in amphious assaults and/or para-drops.

[Marquis of Roland]

Perhaps 1 or 2 divisions more at Normandy at the time of D-Day may have been sufficient to cause enough damage to the allied infantry for D-Day to fail.

The Italian front tied down a lot more than 2 German divisions. It wasted a lot of material that otherwise would've been destined for the Eastern front (but probably wouldn't have made that much of a difference) or to the Atlantic Wall (might have made a huge difference).

[Ring_Master\]

Perhaps 1 or 2 divisions more at Normandy at the time of D-Day may have been sufficient to cause enough damage to the allied infantry for D-Day to fail.

The Italian front tied down a lot more than 2 German divisions. It wasted a lot of material that otherwise would've been destined for the Eastern front (but probably wouldn't have made that much of a difference) or to the Atlantic Wall (might have made a huge difference).

I agree completely, an instant being when there were a number of panzer divisions tied down in Italy which Hitler had wished to use for Operation Zitadel on the Kursk salient although many experts would agree it wouldn't have brought any critical advantage in the actual offensive. Otherwise, the answer is quite clear..

[Franconicus]

The assault of Sicily was mandatory to secure the routes through the Med.

Afterwards, there were two options, southern Europe or Western Europe. Both had their pros and cons. Personally I prefer the Italy/ Balkans scenarion.

The mistake was, that the Allies did not come to an agreement and therefore did both. As a result, the Allies at Italy had not enough resources to break the tough German resistance.

[Veho Nex]

This is a totaly pointless comment but gunna say it any ways D-day is another name for invasion day not exactly sure what it means but it was called operation husky or the invasion of normandy. There were several "D-Days" in the pacific and about 4 in the atlantic.