Hi, all. Since we’ve got so many WWII threads running right now, I figured I’d contribute to the History Channel-ization of the board by asking -
How effective was the Italian military in WWII? I know that they were traditionally viewed as something of a joke, the “soft underbelly” of Europe and all that. But what’s the Straight Dope?
(I’m putting this in GD because I suspect that there is no single, factual answer. Mods, please move to GQ - with my apologies - if I’m mistaken).
The army was not effectively led, fairly unmotivated, not as well trained as the British (or Germans or Americans). The Italian navy was considered a threat but was never used effectively AFAIK.
They weren’t particularly effective. Even though they managed to take over Albania, when they attacked France, they were unable to break the Alpine line. Even though they outnumbered the British troops in Egypt, the Italians in Libya, after an initial thrust into Egypt, stayed on the defensive.
In East Africa, a combination of Italian strategic and tactical blunders led to their assault on British East Africa failing, the sinking of the Red Sea navy, and the British conquest of Ethiopia.
Their attack of Greece failed utterly, the Greeks forcing them back into Albania, and only a last minute German invasion of Greece saved Albania from falling to Greece.
When, in 1940, the British counterattacked in Libya, they managed to capture most of the Italian army, and probably could have taken Libya, if they didn’t halt the offensive to support Greece.
The defense of Sicily was managed by the Germans, and the Italians surrendered after Sicily was taken. So, generally, the Italians weren’t very effecive in WWII.
It’s also been pointed out by historian John Keegan (and possibly others, I’m not claiming this is an original thought of Keegan’s) that Italians had strong emotional ties to the United States. Waves of Italian immigration meant that many people had family on both sides; Italians took great pride in Christopher Columbus having been credited with discovering the New World; and many Italians admired America.
Although the Italian armies performed below par overall, the particularly strong unwillingness to fight (and readiness to surrender) that Americans encountered and remember may have been motivated at least in part by the widespread conviciton among Italians that they never signed up to fight America and that they did not wish to do so.
Sailboat
Italy was just not prepared for the kind of warfare that characterized WWII. This meant that they not only didn’t have the industrial capacity to manufacture motorized vehicles of all kinds but prior to the war they were the MOST un-motorized nation in western theater. In 1939 Itally had a population of 39 million people and only 300,000 motor vehicles. Mussolini knew this and went for a quantity over quality force that was generally lackluster in performance. There were some exceptions, the Italian navy was respected but bottled up by the British at Gibraltar and Malta. The Italian air force had one of the best medium bombers in the axis forces with the SM-79.
One factor was that the war came too late as far as Italy was concerned. Mussolini took power in 1922 and began building up Italy’s military. By 1929, Italy had one of the best armed forces in the world. But World War II didn’t start until 1939. By that time, Italy’s weapons were ten years old. They were still good, but Germany, Japan, France, England, the Soviet Union, and the United States had all built up their military forces more recently and their weapons were more modern.
Another factor is that the Italian people were never really sold on the idea of war. The Germans and the Japanese had been convinced they were superior races that had been betrayed and humiliated by foreign powers and were surrounded by threatening powers. But the Italians had historically had good relations with the western powers and didn’t have any outstanding grievances in their foreign relations. The Italians basically thought it would be nice to be a bigger power but didn’t feel a sense of urgency about it.
Other than the Romans I can’t recall the Italians ever having a good reputation as soldiers. I don’t think the Italians were taken all that seriously during Napoleon’s day either and, if I recall, Italy was the only colonial power to be defeated by native forces in Africa.
Marc
Some of the Italian mercenary bands in the Rennaisance were respected, but generally no, the Italian states weren’t known for being martial.
It’s odd. Pre-War, the Fascists (sp?) used aviation as a symbol/propaganda tool, & Mussolini was the only head of state in the War that was a trained pilot.
But all their aircraft were ridiculously under-armed. Fighters & light bombers/attack aircraft with just two machine guns, for example. And not even .50s, like the US. Pitiful small bomb loads, mostly.
And they had a damn good 4 engined bomber. But never developed a strategic bombing doctrine. They just used it for Naval patrol duties.
And the small Italian detachments used in the Battle Of Britain were excretable. Ill-trained layabouts, who were rarely proficient in navigation. Trained pigs could have flown better. :rolleyes:
Baffling.
That’s because there was not a united Italy again untill the mid 19th century. There’s a reason Machiavelli came from… you know, Italy. 
The Venetian navy was much feared in the med at it’s height. The Papal States also had some strong times as well as lean. Italy’s not a big place taken altogether so when you fracture it up as it was after the fall of the western empire, it’s military standing is going to take a hit. Would be colonialist Italy also took on what was arguably the most powerful and politically cohesive part of Africa in Ethiopia. They still shouldn’t have lost, but it’s not the same as the bolt action vs. spear kind of fight the Brits and French had earlier.
Although performance of the Italian military, particularly its land forces, was poor overall, this could be best attributed to poor training, particularly where its infantry was concerned.
Where the Italian army fell down was the quality of its equipment, particularly its undergunned and under armoured tanks. They were even worse than the tanks used by the British.
However, in the North African campaign the allies had a high respect for Italian artillery and the German trained parachute division, the Folgore, which fought alongside the German paratroop Brigade under Ramke at Alam Halfa and Alamein.
Most of them were left behind and ended up as POWs following Rommel’s retreat from Alamein.
How well an army fights does not depend on its nationality but how well it has been trained, how well it is motivated, how well it is equipped and how well it is supplied. The fifth component is how well it is led. Whoever leads must ensure the first four factors are met. As I mentioned previously, Italian land forces, particularly the infantry forces, fell short on at least three of the four necessities.
Re the Italian navy? There is no point in sending out naval vessals to be sunk for no good purpose. They were frozen in place from a strategic point of view.
There wasn’t a united Germany until the 19th century but they seem to have been respected militarily.
Marc
No, not really; not any more so than anyone else. Until Germany was united, the French had a much, much greater reputation for military prowess, as did the Spanish. There’s a reason most military terms are of French or Spanish origin. The military excellence of, say, the Prussians wouldn’t have been any more respected at the time than, say, Sweden, who had their strong times too.
The stereotype of Germans as militaristic and excellent soldiers is a very recent one.
I realize that the point of the discussion is not to compare Germans and Italians, and I have no desire to hijack this thread, but as a student of the 1920s-1950 period, I am constantly amazed at the implication that the willingness of the average German soldier to fight like a demon for the 3rd Reich makes him somehow more admirable than the Italian soldier.
The German soldier (I wish historical revisionists would stop calling them “Nazi soldiers”. WWII was not fought against Nazania) got his ass frozen and shot off in Russia, baked and blown off in North Africa, and bombed to Bratwurst in his own cities. Boys of 10 and 12 were crying and pissing their pants in their last stand to defend the Furher when the Russians pulled into Berlin. And all for fucking WHAT?
Because of the German’s ox-like loyalty to an ideology that made as much sense as Alice in Wonderland. Because he had been told that Germns were a master race. By whom? By a propganada minister who was a near-midget with a club foot, a body like a little girl and a face like a monkey:dubious:
Heinrich Himmler believed that the Aryan Race, unlike other humans, had not evolved from lower life forms, but had come down from a place of Fire and Ice in the Nordic Heavens. He even fouded an institute dedicated to researching these ideas.
Put a uniform on Fritz and bark orders on him, and he will fire at line after line of civilians until the mass grave is full of writhing bodies, without his saukraut-addled brain stopping to wonder if this is morally admissible. This is the military spirit we are supposed to admire?
As Willam Schirer points out in *“The Rise and Fall of he Third Reich”, * German soldiers returning from the Russian front terrified German civilians by telling them that if the approaching Russians did a fraction of what they had done in Russia, Germany would be no more.
The Italians put up with Mussolini, partly becausae they had no choice. But when the time came to leave behind widows and orphans in Milan and Rome to help Il Duce meet his crackpot dream of a new Roman Empire, they were more than willing to give him their own version of the one-arm salute by refusing to fight and die for his lunacy.
To me, it is obvious who acted in a “superior” manner here.
What historical revisionist? Most people refer to them as German soldiers and I think you’re the first one in this thread who brought up Nazi soldiers.
I’m trying to figure out the point of your rant here. So the Germans weren’t effective soldiers?
Marc
My point about people who say Nazi soldiers was an aside. I did not say anyone here had used that term. If you have never heard the term “Nazi soldiers” used in place of “German soldiers” on a documentary or elsewhere, you need to get out more.
No, the Germans WERE effective soldiers. VERY, VERY, effective soldiers of the kind that people like Hitler and Georing loved.
I’m saying the Italians were ineffective at being soldiers but much more effective at being “Mensch”. And maybe that is what the human race needs.
When I was a kid, and read a lot about WWII, probably since both my grandparents took part, and Italians was the laughing stock of the war.
But now that I’m adult, I admire the italian soldier, becuase however skillful or murderous he might be, he didn’t buy the obvious clown Mussolini’s plans for a new roman empire, unlike most men and women, in other countries, at the same time.
The Italian soldier would probably kick your ass, but he’s too smart to die or kill for a fascist regime. Hail the Italian soldier!, surviving the war, getting back to the family alive, not forgetting to hang the man on his way home.
When I was a teenager, we had German exchange students staying with us for a couple of summers. One of them came back to the States several times and in fact is still in e-mail contact with our family some 30 years later.
He said that he found the Italians to be the most likable people in Europe. He was very fond of them and spoke of them highly.
He’s a Lutheran minister now. I am in agreement that the Italians as a whole being unenthusiastic about wars of conquest does NOT make them inferior human beings…probably quite the reverse. 
Sailboat
I’d have to say the Italian armed forces had negative effectiveness. Mussolini’s “little wars” did nothing but suck valuable German resources away from “the real war”. If Mussolini had stayed a Pro-Axis neutral (like Spain) it might have been better over all for the Axis cause.
If anything, it was Germany that dragged Italy down into defeat. There were more Italian troops fighting on Germany’s side in Russia then there were German troops fighting on Italy’s side in Africa. Germany didn’t lose because the Italians invaded Greece and North Africa. Germany lost because the Germans invaded the Soviet Union.