English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

4 answers

Churchill wanted to attack this way at one time, describing it as 'the soft underbelly of Europe' However, he was either overruled by the Americans, or persuaded to change his mind, sensibly, if you think about it. The logistics of taking an invasion Army across the Bay of Biscay - still patrolled by u-boats - and across the Mediterranean to a landing on the rocky Balkan coastline would have been horrendous - and probably doomed to failure. It would have meant fighting through the Balkan mountains, and through mountainous Austria and Bavaria. The war could have gone on for another 5 years, Germany could have got the A-Bomb, bombers capable of crossing the Atlantic. Doesn't bear thinking about. No, it was far easier - once the problems of landing in France had been overcome - to fight across the flat North European plain with the British Isles just 20 odd miles away across the channel.

2007-10-31 01:01:37 · answer #1 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 0 0

The Allies didn't have Russian support until later. So they started in North Africa, worked their way trhough Italy and then attacked Germany. By then the Russians had joined our side (Thank God Hitler was stupid enough to attack Russia!) and the Russians pushed in the East and Great Britain came in via Normandy.

2007-10-31 00:19:29 · answer #2 · answered by redunicorn 7 · 0 0

It was very difficult terrain for a large army which depended on tanks to break down defences and the germans were in good defensive positions.
The war in Italy demonstrated how easy it was to defend mountainous country.

2007-10-31 06:42:01 · answer #3 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0 0

That wasn't the name they pulled out of the hat.

2007-10-31 00:16:49 · answer #4 · answered by bbcranks 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers