Churchill had a perception that southern Italy and the Mediterranean was an effective theater to launch invasions of the continent. So, n WWI and WWII he advocated invasions of Italy, the Balkans, and Greece, which, from my untrained eyes, seem like awful places to plan an invasion with mountainous, easily defensible terrain. Interested in what your untrained (or trained) strategic minds think.

I think the idea is that the states that occupy that territory weren't as economically or militarily powerful as the northern European states. It might be easier to maneuver in north and west Europe, but with significantly more powerful owners, invasion there is probably still unwise.

Yet when you invade a co-belligerent of the minor powers, the major power can and did come to its aid. A relatively insignificant German force was able to hold off the allies in Italy for the duration of the war.

I think it's the same strategic gamble all generals make: if it's your plan, and it works, you ensure your legacy as a genius. If it fails, whatever.

Actually I take that back to some extent. But people get attached to an idea, and you gotta try something.

Churchill above all else wanted to preserve the Empire, which the Med links depended on. The 'soft underbelly' theory was a complete failure, obviously, as Germany decided to defend the Mediterranean and no invasion was launched from these areas.

True, Santa. I'd argue then that even though Germany did come to defend Italy in WWII, the extra front that opened up left it less able to defend the major fronts (west vs USA/Britain and east vs USSR) than it would have otherwise.

I'm inclined to agree with Putin nonetheless that the 'soft underbelly' idea isn't good.

But the Italian campaign also pulled away a lot of US/UK divisions (a surprising number) from the invasion of France, so it worked both ways.

Oh for fuck's sake -- putin's going off about the Italian campaign again.

Santa "invasions of Italy, the Balkans, and Greece, which, from my untrained eyes, seem like awful places to plan an invasion with mountainous, easily defensible terrain"

You'd think he would have learned from WWI, eh.

I didn't start it.

Also, Churchill likely wanted to get a presence east of Germany (via Italy/Slovenia) to stave off the western advance of the Russian army, which ironically was made possible by Allied refusal to open up a western front.

Yes he was rightly concerned about Soviet take over of Europe, although his solution was not really workable. He was also concerned about massive casualties in the event of premature W front. IIRC. Sort of like have and eating one's cake.

Russia would have been better off joining the Tripartite Pact and smashing the Empire to bits, assisting the Germans in invading the UK, and in the meantime expanding Russia's reach in Central and South Asia. They could have linked up with Japan and the nationalists in India. The ingrate British hated Russia anyway and cost Russia millions of lives with their 'strategy'. Meanwhile a German-Russian alliance could have prevented certain problems from getting out of hand in Europe, like Poland, which in the end brought down the USSR.

Damned Poland....bringing down the USSR! Screw this ignorant bastards trying to throw off the unwelcomed conquerors!!!

Puttybaby....for someone who so recently was bitching about the "Russophobes"....your complete and utter failure to see your own own perverse biases is simply amazing...

Russian conquerors: Excellent morale chaps you'd love to have a spot of tea and biscuits with....

British conquerors: Ingrates and bloody bastards, worthy only of a good trip through the targ's colon.

Poland wanted to restore the 1580 boundaries (which stretched from Pomerania to Kiev West to East and from Estonia to Slovakia North to South). They were able conquerors themselves.

I respect and admire the civilizing effects of the British Empire (in most cases). But they have been the arch-enemies of Russia since the 1850s. Just saying it made more sense, from a strategic point of view, to ally with powers with more compatible geopolitical interests.

except, they didn't conquer anything, and, by the way, you assume that Russia would have been allowed to join the pact in the end, and that very likely is a flawed assumption.

Who? Poland? They most certainly did.

As for the USSR being 'allowed' into the pact, I think they could have. Interestingly Germany had tenser relations with Japan in 1939 than they did with the USSR. Germany did nothing during the Nomnohan incident and actually helped repair ties with Italy and th USSR during the Finland war. After Nomnohan relations between the USSR and Japan warmed quickly. But the issue really was between Germany and Japan.

@putin "The ingrate British hated Russia anyway and cost Russia millions of lives with their 'strategy"

You are forgetting a few things such as Barbarossa. You gloss over the fact that the UK and US alliance with the USSR was one of convenience for all involved. Stalin's USSR did not exactly hold human life dear.

No, not forgetting Barbarossa. Barbarossa is the point. Britain deliberately bled Russia white while it pursued its absurd Med strategy, costing Russia many lives as Russia had to wait until 1944 before the UK finally relented on a second front in France.

I don't see how it was convenient for the USSR. All it did was cause headaches. It sure was convenient for the US & UK, yes. The UK didn't exactly hold human life dear, as the Battle of the Somme and Galipoli demonstrate, not to mention the famine in Bengal and the terror bombing of German civilians.

Poland wanted to....blah blah blah...

Bottom line, Russian Conquerors are heros in Putin's eyes.

All other conquerors are evil with ill intent.

The UK and US did not cause Russian deaths. Might have done more to prevent it, maybe, but that wouldn't have been in UK or US interests.

And, again, I must point out the huge toll in human lives--in Russia--had as much to do with Stalin as it did with Hitler.

dirge...in Putin's world view, it is a recurreing theme that any ill the has befallen anyone anywhere at any time is somehow the fault of the US. don't be fooled by his less-than-sincere "I support Obama" nonsense...Putin is currently working on a paper about how US time travelers from 2214 actually caused the fall of the Roman Empire.

"And, again, I must point out the huge toll in human lives--in Russia--had as much to do with Stalin as it did with Hitler."

"but that wouldn't have been in UK or US interests."

More deaths serve Anglo-Saxon interests. But you make a big show of their supposed valuing of human life. I guess we'll have to guess where this supposed value is actually displayed. Like a Christian miracle, it must be hidden from the view of non-believers, I guess. Anglo-Saxon moral superiority works in mysterious ways.

What a joke. 80% of the German battle deaths done by Russian hands. Cities and towns annihilated. Surrendering troops killed on the spot. The eastern front was a bloodbath and the British blame the Russians for it, while they gloat about chasing Rommel in the desert or their Spitfires battling the Germans to a draw in an air battle.

Millions died to prop up the British Empire, and the British and Americans collectively give Russia the finger for it.

*Russian cities and towns annihilated.

One wonders if Russia might not have been able to better defend itself had Stalin not killed...what was it...12 Million?....20 Million? Of his own people...

that's a lot of dead bodies NOT defending the homeland.

Fuck off, Putin, seriously. Your blind admiration for horrible human beings is repugnant.

"Your blind admiration for horrible human beings is repugnant.

...which is why the fact that you despise me probably means I'm OK, since your perverse judgements seem always to be the opposite of what they good humans would believe...