2006-06-27 04:13:18 · 6 answers · asked by randle_sebas 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
It apparently was necessary. I don't know how you justify something like that, but it was a key point of defense for the invasion of Italy. The Germans and Italians had used it as a fortress, and the Allied troops couldn't get by to complete the invasion without getting past it. After thousands of Allied troops were killed, they finally decided that the only way to get past there was to bomb it. There was no other way. They told stories of bodies piled upon bodies of men who had tried to attack the fortified German/Italian troops and were mowed down trying.
The only alternative would have been to allow the Nazis to continue to control Italy. Would that have been better?
2006-06-27 04:17:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The bombing of Monte Cassino was a tragedy, but a necessary one. The Nazis had the high ground there; there is no way that the Allies could have just left them up there to rain havoc down upon Allied troops.
2006-06-27 11:28:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. There were no significant German forces in the Monte Cassino Abbey and the Allies were mistaken in bombing and destroying it. See the book "Monte Cassino" by Matthew Parker, Ny, 2004, Doubleday for details.
2006-06-27 14:35:17 · answer #3 · answered by oleboys 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read Rick Atkinson's account of The Bombing in the second part of his Liberation Trilogy. It was an atrocity and cannot be justified by the cover up.
The Abbott is quoted as saying there were no soldiers in the abbey.
2014-06-24 15:34:19 · answer #4 · answered by wartytoad 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-06-27 11:16:31 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not really, the rubble made it doubly harder to root out the defenders.....
2006-06-27 14:19:11 · answer #6 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋