Talk:Battle of Monte Cassino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Monte Cassino article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Polish article

There is interesting article (in Polish) here:

[1]

There are two less known points: that in first attack Anders changed orders of his superiors and ordered frontal attack, and second: in 1983 in Germany there was TV show in which authors claimed that POlish soldiers after reaching the Monte Cassino peak murdered three wounded German paratroopers. Robert Frettloehr, one of those "murdered" paratroopers, after hearing about that immedietely contacted Polish combatant organisation to refute tha lie... Szopen 13:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As to the frontal attack: have you been there? There is no way of a frontal attack carried out there, it's mountain landscape and whichever you go it's all around. Just read Wańkowicz. The guy, although not very strict when it comes to report all facts that are not interesting to an average reader, shows the local circumstances a lot better than PP Wieczorkiewicz... Halibutt 22:23, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, the articles on bbc's website by Romuald E. Lipinski may be helpful: [2] Regards, Christophoros76

[edit] Casualties

Are you sure it's 54 thousand fallen soldiers?? Sounds too much, it's only one hill... Littleendian 17:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It is often said that war is hell, but, truth be told, Hell reported zero casualties during the last fiscal year. -- Itai 19:49, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
50.000 and something is the number of all casualties in the battle. Approximately 8.340 were actual KIA if that's what you refer to. Polish II Corps lost approx. 4000 men, among them 924 KIA and 345 MIA. However, the number of casualties given varies. At times the numbers given (for both sides of the front and the civilians, apparently) reach 25.000 (see: BBC article). Halibutt 22:23, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Allied sustained over 120,000 casualties. ([3]). And was not only a hill there were several mountains heavily defended by the germans. All the battles(4 total) lasted several weeks. Montecassino is considered one of the most costly battles in materieel and men for the allies on the Italian campaing. best wishes, Miguel

[edit] Brazil and Monte Cassino

It is told in Brazil that our army had a participation in this battle... anyone has more information? LeandroGFCDutra 22:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've heard of many nations taking part in the battle:

But I've never heard nor read of any Brasilians fighting there. AFAIK the Brazilian Expeditionary Force was stationed nearby, but did not take part in the battle itself. Halibutt 22:23, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we participated on Monte Cassino. Here: [4]
For clarity: The Brazilian Expeditionary Force did not leave Brazil until July 1944, so Brazilians could not have been at Cassino. See Brazilian Expeditionary Force (FEB). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 18th, 1944

Space Cadet, I'm sorry to admit, but CVA is right here, the German paras mostly abandoned the ruins the night before the lanciers reached them. Of course, not all the German soldiers recieved the order and many of them were either wounded or not willing to leave, but the monastery was abandoned. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:32, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Don't I feel like f.....g a..hole. Sorry CVA. Space Cadet 03:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusians at Monte Cassino

2 Halibutt, who reverted my addition of the word "Belarusians":

1) http://www.svaboda.org/articlesprograms/diaspora/2004/5/0F3B6FB4-16EB-4FB0-976C-8F298B800A11.html - big interview with several Belarusian survivors of the Battle of Monte Cassino. One of them has become a history professor in the US, who has a dozen published works (Zaprudnik). According to his estimates, 10%-20% of battle participants were Belarusans and Ukrainians. The other guy giving the interview (Kastus Akula) emigrated to the US, and he is a known Belarusian poet. (Here is a bit more extended version of this interview - http://www.svaboda.org/programs/zamiezza/2004/05/20040525124009.asp )

2) http://www.svaboda.org/news/articles/2004/05/20040518182853.asp - another interview with a Belarusian survivor of the Battle. He claims that according to his research there were more than 2000 people from the Belarusan parts of the then "Western Belarus" (under Polish control), and of them more than 1000 people identified themselves as Belarusans (the others apparently being ethnic Polish from Belarus). And this guy who's been to Monte Cassino afterwards said he counted more than 200 graves there with ethnic Belarusans.

3) http://www.svaboda.org/news/articles/2004/05/20040520122717.asp - interview with a movie director Uladzimir Bokun who made a documentary about Belarusians in Monte Cassino called "Forgotten Heroes". This movie director: I made a thorough research, and I've found 259 graves of Belarusans there. And I made up my mind to make a documentary about them.

4) http://www.svaboda.org/news/articles/2004/05/20040512120729.asp - memoirs of a journalist from Belarus service of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty who was a participant of the Battle.

5) http://www.svaboda.org/news/articles/2004/05/20040511170910.asp - the president of the Belarusan government-in-exile, Mikola Abramczyk, greets several hundred Belarusan participants during his lecture in London, UK, in 1947.

and finally

6) http://txt.knihi.com/memuary/salaui.html - a well-known novel-memoir written by a Belarusan officer who fought in Monte Cassino. Its full title: "Death and nightingales. The memoirs of the Belarusan officer from Monte Cassino".

Regards rydel 12:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd personally remove most of the nations listed there and simply put Allies. Under that article I'd then include the roles of various nations. Oberiko 12:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Alright, it's out of hand there. I'm reducing it to just Allies. My recommendation is to write a separate article Belarusians at the Battle of Monte Cassino and put that under the See also heading. Oberiko 15:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was not saying that there were no Belarussians at Monte Cassino. In fact there might've been a lot of them, even on both sides of the front. However, there were no Belarussian units fighting there. In the Polish army alone there were Poles, Jews, Belarussians, Ukrainians, Maltans, Cypriots, Tatars, Cassubians, Silesians, even Germans. However, if we list nationalities rather than countries then we should also list all nationalities in the American army. American Italians listed separately from WASPs and from Irish. Also, the French units were composed of Frenchmen, Moroccan, Algerian and Tunisian troops, not to mention the Syrians.
I'd remove all the ethnicities and list countries only. However, it's up to you, I don't want to play with anyone's sense of national pride or conscience. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:39, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
This is all nonsense - when I created the taxobox, I listed exactly 5 groups - Americans, British, New Zealanders, Poles, Indians. Why those 5, you ask? Because those were the flags under which they were fighting. So we don't list Italians because there were Italian Americans fighting there -- they fought under the American flag, so the taxobox says American. Ditto for the Belarussians fighting under the polish flag. →Raul654 08:44, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, were the Free French forces under one of those five nations? Oberiko 10:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
AFAIR the Free French fought as a part of the 8th Army. The very term Free French is a tad ambiguous since those troops were mostly composed of Northern African nations rather than ethnic French. So, how about my proposal to list all the countries that fought there and create a nations involved (or similar) chapter, which would list all the nationalities fighting. Apparently there is need to include the ethnic nations here, so why won't we? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I don't really think so. If we did it here, we'd have to do it for every major battle that we have on the Wikipedia. Best to leave it to which flags each group was fighting under. I think a good compromise though would be to create an order of battle page for Monte Cassino. In that page, we could list all the groups that fought and under which banners. You could then create pages for the listed groups. Oberiko 12:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The OOB page could be created, but only after making the Battle of Monte Cassino a disambiguation page linking to all separate battles. Also, the problem with Belarusans and other minorities is that they didn't form any units of their own. I added some piece of information to the Polish II Corps that list all the nationalities that fought in its ranks, hope that clears the confusion a bit. Also, I disambiguated the list of nations and turned it into a list of states that took part in the battles. Hope that helps. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:49, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Too many nations listed

Far too many nations are listed for the Allies. I'm changing it to "United States, United Kingdom, and allied forces". My basis for this is that they contributed the bulk of the forces and that the other forces were, almost entirely, contained with either American or British Armies. Oberiko 18:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Polish forces took heaviest fighting during the battle. Although it is disputable if it was necessery for so many Anders's soldiers to die the fact is that they did died, and because of that, it would be unfair to exclude Poland from the list of combatants.
My first question is why is there far too many nations listed? Isn’t this encyclopedia, and isn’t our task to give information – and you say that there is too many information! I say that this article is far too short for such an important event.
My second question is if the list is too long, why do you think that only US and UK deserve to be mentioned. Why not only US, or only Poland. If the list is too long (which I disagree), only fair solution would be to say that combatants were Allied forces and Germany.
Because of reasons mentioned above, I am returning the list of combatants to its previous state. -- Obradović Goran (talk 19:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. When I compared two versions, i noticed that your version is taking 3 lines in the table, as well as the "longer" list. Because of that, there is no need to cut the list shorter. QED. -- Obradović Goran (talk 19:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The previous description of "Moroccan troops in french fatigues" was wrong in two sences. First, the CEF wore a mix of mainly Americain uniforms; the French Army was hard-pressed to even find a few French-looking kepis and helmets for its officers. Secondly, the Armée de l'Afrique had been integrated into the Corps expéditionnaire française, along with Free French Forces that had been able to get through Spain to North Africa as well as French nationals recruited in Africa. Not to remove credit from the large and brave contingent of North African soldiers that fought through Italy and into Northwest europe, many of them finally dying in such places as Colmar on the german border.

[edit] Australians???

Australia is listed amongst the comnbatants, anyone know which Australian units took part in this battle? (not including Aussie volunteers serving with other Allied units) --203.52.130.136 01:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There were no Australian units serving at Monte Cassino. Nor indeed did any Australian units serve in Italy at all. (Excepting those Australians attached to the RAF.) The closest the 2nd AIF came to Italy was the 6th Div in Crete and Greece. --Affentitten 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moroccan troops

The previous description of "Moroccan troops in French fatigues" was wrong in two sences. First, the CEF (consisting of over 4 divisions in italy) wore a mix of mainly Americain uniforms; the French Army was hard-pressed to even find a few French-looking kepis and helmets for its officers. Secondly, the Armée de l'Afrique had been integrated into the Corps expéditionnaire française, along with Free French Forces that had been able to get through Spain to North Africa as well as French nationals recruited in Africa. Not to remove credit from the large and brave contingent of North African soldiers that fought through Italy and into Northwest Europe, many of them finally dying in such places as Colmar on the Rhine.

[edit] Indians in Monte Cassino

I think it is unfair to just name the United States and United Kingdom and allies, sure they did bring much of the backing at the battle of Monte Cassino, but you cannot give emphasis on 2 countries that fought at one of the toughest battles of World War II. Even if the United Kingdom for example had brought in a lot of troops, do you consider all that were under British colonialism under Britain? My grandfather being an Indian soldier under the British would take great offense, as thousands of his Indian comrades died at Monte Cassino. I think indicating all the forces involved brings out the true character of the battle.

-nabil

100 percent correct. The Indians played a major part at Cassino. I really think that some Indian authors should redress the obvious POV of some of these articles. India played a major part in the North Africa battles and also in the Pacific against Japan. Wallie 12:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If any of you has the references to cite, go ahead and edit the article accordingly. --Ezeu 12:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think that given the great importance of this event, this article has to be one of the worst in Wikipedia. I think that every nation is missing out here. Hey, the Germans did a pretty good job defending the place. Here was probably some of the worst fighting conditions of the war. - OK... I know someone will say New Guinea was worse... But is was arguably the key to the whole war in Italy. Remember that the old guys who fought this one are dying out fast. If it stays like this, in a couple of generations, no American high school kid will have heard of "Cassino". Wallie 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, virtually no one in the US knows of this battle unless they have a history hobby. Most US high school students couldn't tell you who the US fought in WW2. Sad but true. DMorpheus 16:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
While the Indians lost many troops at Cassino and were major participants, the New Zealanders lost many men considering the country's small population, the Poles actually planted their flag on top of the Monastery first, we must always remember that it was the Americans who took the brunt of the fighting and suffered by far the greatest number of casualties. I hope we can all put this article into perspective. Wallie 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War crimes - Moroccans

I think it would be fair to mention one of the most serious war crimes committed by Allied forces. Moroccan and other N African troops and marauders were promised free pillage after the battle, and the promise was kept. Thousands have been killed in the rural area, and thousands of women and young girls, even children gang-raped, these victims were later called "marocchinate". RAI has a documentary on this here. Miskatonic University 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which General would have authorized that?? Wallie 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I recall a dramatic and brutal sequence of scenes from a 1960's Sophia Loren movie (the title escapes me) that was shown several years ago on a movie channel. The actress stops a jeep with French and British officers on a mountain road and screams at them that she and her daughter suffered through a gang-rape by “your heroes” (clearly identified as Moroccans wearing their striped tunics). These scenes conclude with one of the officers dismissively pointing his index finger at his temple in a circular motion, indicating that she must be “crazy.”--Gamahler 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It is the film 'Two Women,' based on a novel by Alberto Moravia, and directed by Vittorio De Sica and starring Sophia Loren, who won an Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance. It depicts the rape of Loren's character and her daughter by a group of Moroccan Goumiers.

I haven't seen the RAI documentary but I would appreciate if someone who've seen it could provide some details. In particular, what were the precise sources and were the rapes counted ? In 2002 and french historian, Jean-Christophe Notin, published a book about the french involvements in the Italy campaign. It's very well sourced, Notin having had access to many archives including private one. Concering the atrocities committed by Moroccan troops, the book claims that while it did happen it has never been encouraged by officers and was on a much smaller scale that what is usually believed. Many factors played, like the German propaganda trying to make Moroccan look like savages. Besides, the colonial troops featured several Bordel Militaire de Campagne (BMC, Campaign Military Brothel) which would have made the rape a bit pointless.

The book is unavailable in english. I'll have to reread it to dig out the precise numbers and sources.

[edit] All Japanese American 442nd Regimental Combat Team

On February 18th, the 34th "Red Bull" Division launched its final attack on Cassino. The 100th Battalion was under-strength, one platoon moved into line with 40 men and they came back with 5. The 100th regained the ground halfway up to the stone Abbey, but the 100th was ordered back when their flank support collapsed. The 100th were ordered back to Alife for replacements and reissue of equipment. The 34th Division with the 100th almost took Cassino in one day, but before they could they ran out of men and material. Army records later noted that five fresh divisions finally were required to take Cassino along with aerial bombardments. The 34th almost did it in one day.

  • "[...] Soldiers of the 442nd fought in eight major campaigns in Italy, France and Germany, including the battles at Monte Cassino, Anzio and Biffontaine. They earned more than 18,000 individual decorations, including one Medal of Honor, 53 Distinguished Service Crosses, 588 awards of the Silver Star, 5,200 awards of the Bronze Star Medal and 9,486 Purple Hearts, and seven Presidential Unit Citations, the nation's top award for combat units. President Clinton approved the upgrade of 19 DSCs to the Medal of Honor on May 12".

Takima 14:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A lot of work to do

This article need to be about five times it's current size. The Polish effort seems well covered. But now we have to cover everyone else, including the Indians, Ghurkas, Americans, Scots, English, South Africans, French, Canadians, New Zealanders, French Moroccans, and, last not least, the defense team, the German Paras. (someone else mentioned the full list). Wallie 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The major participants in order are:

  • United States - control of phases 1 and 2, participated in phases 1 2 and 4, lost the most men
  • United Kingdom - major command role and participated in phases 1 2 and 4.
  • Poland - major participant in Phase 4, and took the abbey itself
  • New Zealand - control of Phase 3
  • India - major particpant in Phases 3 and 4
  • Free French - major particpant in Phase 4
  • Morocco - major participant in Phase 4

Wallie 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


I've added my stuff. The Allies divide the Cassino campaign into four battles, whereas German historians see three separate battles. However, the final result remains the same. Thanks for the opportunity.--Gamahler 00:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Well done. Wallie 21:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germans in the Abbey?

The German wikipedia states that Albert Kesselring forbade his troops to occupy the abbey if that did happen is another dubiously (as there were no reported death Germans after the bombing) story but this should be mentioned (my English is not so good). It is also mentioned that the descision not to occupy the abbey was told the Allies. Moreover Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) Julius Schlegel decided to move the famous libary to Rome, to the Castel Sant'Angelo. It also states that around 800 civilians were in the abbey of whom 250 were killed. If someone changes this article accordingly he should also change the "Italy and the Balkans" passage of the Second World War article.

So please comment on this. --62.47.28.128 10:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)mat69


I hope the following is not too long-winded.
Most, if not all, German senior commanders realized by mid-1943 that once the Allied steamroller was in motion, everything in front of it would be flattened. This was even clear to field grade officers such as Julius Schlegel. The Holy See was no less convinced of that; Monsignor Tardini of the Vatican Foreign Office stated that Allied commanders in Italy were “possessed of a mania for destruction.” It was in this atmosphere that the museum and gallery of Naples and the great archive and library of Monte Cassino (with most of the monks as passengers) were moved in late 1943 into the custody of Castel Sant’Angelo, a massive Vatican-owned castle. For the German Army the rescues were huge undertakings. Vehicles, fuel, materials needed to be located and skilled carpenters had to be identified in the ranks to build the nearly 500 crates of various sizes. Italian laborers were employed and paid with food from Army supplies. All this while fighting and losing a war in a hostile environment. The German Army Information Office (i.e. Propaganda Office) in Rome encouraged filming and photographs of the Monte Cassino library event “in case the abbey was destroyed, the pictures could be used to show the barbarity of the Anglo-Americans.” There are many photographs in a variety of books, the best in my judgment are reproduced in David Hapgood’s Monte Cassino (see Bibliography-English).
General Frido von Senger, commander of 14th Panzer Korps, established a 300 meter neutral zone around the abbey; however, maneuver and the “fluidity” of combat soon negated this zone and small unit operations took place up against abbey walls. German personnel did enter the Abbey on rare occasions under non-combat conditions. General Frido von Senger, a south German aristocrat and devout Roman Catholic, attended Christmas Mass 1943 in the abbey. The monks also asked for German Army doctors to visit and treat not only the monks but also Italian refugees as the abbey was frequently hit by stray artillery rounds, even by bombs that were aimed at targets miles away. However, after the USAAF carpet bombing of 15 February 1944, no restrictions or orders applied for German troops and the ruins of the abbey were “occupied.”--Gamahler 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Changed the WWII section Italy and the Balkans.--Gamahler 05:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


So in general it is correct to say that German troops did not occupy the abbey before the bombing, so I guess the WWII section should be altered again:
"and crack German paratroopers poured back into the ruins to defend it."
That sounds like they occupied it before, if I do not misinterpret "poured back".
I think it is probably best to state that a controversy exists. The Germans claim they never occupied the Abbey prior to the Allied bombing. Hapgood for example makes a pretty compelling case that the German claim is true. On the other hand, some Allied observers claimed to have seen German troops in the Abbey. Whatever any of us thinks, it is important to the article to state both sets of claims. It is also important to understand that the Allies *believed* the Germans were using the Abbey as a observation point and thus felt compelled to destroy it. If you have ever seen the terrain, it is hard to avoid that conclusion. DMorpheus 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


True, a controversy existed at the time, but time and distance solve many controversies. The afore mentioned David Hapgood writes that the Germans made no military use of the monastery itself, “. . . that is the testimony of the monks and the civilians who were there before and during the bombing.” On those occasions when Wehrmacht surgeons and their orderlies treated the sick and wounded, their presence within the walls was requested and seen as a blessing. A controversy also existed within the Allied chain of command where the “military necessity” of bombing the abbey was by no means a consistent mind-set. Perhaps a controversy extends to this day in some quarters. In the United States, a multitude of true believers is forever convinced that each and every American action in armed conflict is just and right and sanctioned by God.--Gamahler 22:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no specific opinion on the controversy at hand, as I have not studied the controversy of the Abbey at Monte Cassino. However, I'd just like to make one brief observation. When reporting on historical events, as we are now, it is vitally important to be fair to the participants by presenting their actions without the tainting paradigm of hindsight. If the Allied commanders during the battle really believed that the Abbey was being used as a Wehrmacht position, then bombing the Abbey was the 'right' decision, even though we may have learned later that they were mistaken. The point is, they made their decision based on the information available to them at the time, and it would be unfair to judge them harshly based on new information that they didn't have. So while it's absolutely correct to include the new information and the controversy that exists, we need to be cautious in our judgement of their decisions. — Impi 00:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


I do not think that we have to give dispensation to military or political leaders who made decisions that historical review will label mistakes or worse. Do we have to be “fair” to decisions made by Hitler, Stalin, Mao or even Churchill, FDR or Truman? I think not - we are free to debate and judge with all the hindsight we can gather. Had Field Marshal Albert Kesselring decided to defend Rome, rather than evacuate, it would not have been “military necessity” to flatten Rome and the Vatican, even tough Gen. Harold Alexander’s dictum then existed: where there is a single German - we will bomb. Let’s call a spade, a spade. I am not of the opinion that the bombing of Monte Cassino was a war crime, but it was “a colossal blunder . . . a piece of gross stupidity,” as stated at the time by Cardinal Maglione.
There are currently two books in print with the title Churchill’s Folly, one by Christopher Catherwood, the other by Anthony Rogers (each dealing with a different subject). Should the title be Churchill’s Folly - but good thinking at the time, in order to be “fair”?--Gamahler 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears you are mixing moral decisions with tactical (amoral) ones. Hitler, Mao etc do not belong in this debate.
It is not up to us to 'give dispensation' or not, it is up to us to report what the sources tell us. To do otherwise is original research. The sources disagree, and thus a controversy exists. The passage of time has made it less, not more likely that we will ever know for sure.
The real 'colossal blunder' in this campaign was in not following General Juin's advice at the beginning and ouflanking Cassino. Eventually his idea was what won the battle. The blunder was not the fact that the monestery was destroyed, it was the general ineptitude of the Allied attacks. The badly-timed destruction of the abbey was a part of that.
I am no fan of Alexander, but he was right that any site occupied by the Germans or likely to be occupied by Germans was fair game for as much Allied firepower as could possibly be brought to bear on it. I don't know why the abbey would be an exception. It had phenomenal observation of the valley and the hill masses surrounding it. DMorpheus 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
All good points. Thanks.--Gamahler 15:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

better grammar? well, but I think that some interesting informations are missing now. what about rather correcting such errors instead of deleting facts? (213.70.74.164 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

The salient facts are in dispute, as discussed above. The old papragraph also tended to push a POV. Best to simply state the dispute than try to do original research as to whether there were Germans in the abbey. I don't see how we will ever know. DMorpheus 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the evacuation of the treasures and the command of General Kesselring not to include the monastery into the lines of defense are facts. What is unclear is whether German troups obeyed this command as some Allies alleged to have spoted German troups in the Abey. Furthermore, casualties of the air raid have been only civilians, i.e. not one single dead German was found. Hence, I feel free to reimplement these facts into the article. As for the grammar, your respond has proved that this was not the real reason to remove my paragraph. Anyway, I am not a native speaker, so feel free to correct my poor English in the future. (213.70.74.164 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

ps: in case you speak German, please refer to http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/wk2/kriegsverlauf/montecassino/index.html; the article is issued by the German Historical Museum (what is defintively a serious source with an exellent international reputation) and concerns the battle of MC (213.70.74.164 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Force involvement

We're having a discussion on Military history regarding listing combatants. What's agreed apon will almost certainly be eventually applied to this article, so I suggest that those who are interested should weigh in their opinions. Oberiko 19:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

I've re-written a lot of the military aspects giving a lot more detail. I think it makes it more comprehensible and puts Cassino in the context of the Anzio landings and the theater as a whole. I hope all of you who have been involved with this article don't mind. Stephen Kirrage 18:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks great so far. This has been a weak article for a long time. DMorpheus 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work. --Gamahler 01:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Involvement of Maoris

I just removed this from the bottom of the article:

It is documented in some books that the NZ Maori, after achieving the objective in the train Station at Casino, did not want to give up the position. But it was because of the lack of backup by Tanks, bridging across the swamps that had been created, that they were ordered to retreat. The NZ Maori were not responsible for the failure of backup.

I think it should be in there somewhere but it needs a citation and needs to be in the body of the article not after the references.--Moonlight Mile 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Actually the point is fairly meaningless and does a disservice to the NZ Corps reputation. Both the front line divisions of the NZ Corps, 2 NZ and 4 Indian (and indeed the reserve division, 78 British Division) had superb reputations amongst the Allied armies based on their exploits in Africa. It goes without saying that the Maori units in 2 NZ Div were tough fighters. However, their position at the station not only became untenable because of the lack of armoured support but also became of no tactical use because the other half of the pincer attack in the hills behind Cassino had failed and been called off. In the circumstances they would hardly have wanted to hold the position and fight to the death pointlessly. The efforts of the NZ Division engineers to create a road for the armour came within a whisker of success before daylight and efforts continued even after first light when the enemy artillery had a clear sight of them. It is somewhat invidious therefore in my view to make defensive and apologetic comments about the Maori effort and pointing a finger elsewhere. It also comes close to contravening NPOV. The fact is the engineers just did not have enough time to complete the job. The attack was a Divisional effort with everyone making heroic efforts. The German defence was equally determined and they delayed the engineers just enough so their efforts proved to be 'one bridge too far'. Stephen Kirrage 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Royal Troops fought in Monte Cassino

Also Italian Royal troops fought in Monte Cassino, beginning from December 8, 1943 (after the Royal declaration of war on Germany on Oct. 13, 1943). They were under General Umberto Utili. Near Monte Cassino (Monte Lungo) there is a Cemetery for the 975 Italian Fallen.

I added the Italian flag to the combattants.--Moonlight Mile 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank you Moonlight. Only a remark and a question: the Italian flag had still the royal coat-of-arms. The question: since troops of the RSI fought in Anzio, it is possible to add the flag to the RSI there? Even if this isn`t "politically correct"?

This one?--Moonlight Mile 09:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet, this was the flag of the RSI. The flag of the cobelligerant Kingdom of Italy had still the old coat-of-arms like before the surrender. Can you change the flag you added by the flag with coat-of-arms and add the flag of the RSI under the German flag ("Combatants / Anzio")?

[edit] Australians ???

I see that this has been categorized an an Australian project. Did Australia play a part? I don't believe so... Can someone clarify? Wallie 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There were definitely no Australian units there. Once the Pacific war broke out, all Australian units were removed from the African theater and sent to the Pacific. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anders in the commanders' section of the Warbox

I see that Anders has been added to the Warbox. At present we have only Army commanders on the Allied side. If we put in Corps commanders then the commanders of U.S. II, British X and XIII, French Expeditionary, Polish, New Zealand and Canadian I Corps should be added, which is a bit much! I think Anders should come out. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was Anders to finally take the monastery while all the previous commanders failed. I believe he deserves a tad more than other corps commanding officers. //Halibutt 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Capturing the monastery wasn't the main objective of the Cassino battles, although it got headlines, breaking into the Liri valley was. Also bear in mind that Polish troops only entered the monastery after the Germans had withdrawn. This is not to denigrate the bravery or fighting prowess of the Polish corps. Anyone, Allied or German, who fought in the mountains behind the Rapido deserves our awe and respect: it was hell. It is invidious in my opinion therefore to say the Polish efforts were greater than the earlier unsuccessful efforts of US II Corps , NZ Corps (4th Indian Div) in the mountains or the later successful efforts of XIII corps in the Liri valley and the French expeditionary corps in the flanking advance in the Aurunci mountains. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So in the absence of further oblection, I'm taking Anders out of the box (he's still in the text, obviously)Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a persistent attempt to include Anders in the infobox. I will continue to remove him as per the argument above (subject to not falling foul of 3R!) unless someone engages in a discussion here to justify his inclusion. Unfortunately recent edits have been by anonymous IPs so I can't take the discussion to them. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 22:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goumiers

Just wanted to clarify my changes to the edit by Caranorn on the Goumiers. Although they were of a different character to normal divisions, the Goumiers were part of the army and had a fairly conventional command structure: Groups (=brigade ish), Tabor (=batallion ish), goum (=company ish). It's all laid out at FEC in Italy. I've added some references to clarify Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I had forgotten that the 1st GTM had been transferred to Italy as well (after the other two). On the other hand I had never known of the CGM and General Guillaume (I was able to confirm via one of the links in the source you gave. On the other hand I think all four GTM should be mentioned in the first sentence (2 GTM took part in operations on Corsica and Elba). I was tempted to move the reference to [5] as that provides more information, but considering how we are the english language wikipedia I expect FEC in Italy (a personal website that mostly uses internet sources (which are mostly excellent)) will do. I removed the book reference as I'm not sure that one covers all 4 GTM, if it does put it back in (or where the 3 specific GTM within the CGM are mentioned). One more note, I'd see the French Group (in this context as the term is also applied to corps or even army sized forces) closer to a regiment (or demi-brigade) then a brigade, but it's not mentioned in the article anyhow, so not important. Oh and lastly, the CGM still doesn't form a division as it seems to lack logistics and support forces, which is why I don't call it such. I hope you agree with my edit.--Caranorn 22:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Since 2 GTM was not at Cassino, I don't think it should be mentioned in this article, although a more comprehensive article on Goumiers should cover this (but I'm not volunteering!). I think your farac link is very interesting and will include it in the bibliography section. Otherwise I'm very happy with your edit but (there's always a but!!) I am keen to restore the part showing the troop number equivalence of the CGM to a division. In the context of a large two army assault this is more helpful to the reader than the batallion equivalence of a Tabor. I've therefore included the number of fighting men (quoted from Blaxland) and the equivalence to a division. It is not the intention to suggest the CGM was a division because, as you pointed out, it doesn't have the support units, artillery etc. However, in terms of numbers of fighting infantry it is roughly the size of a division, and that's the point I'm trying to make. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me.--Caranorn 13:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fly-overs

Keyes quote: “They’ve been looking so long they’re seeing things.” Hapgood & Richardson, Monte Cassino. 1984. New York: Congdon & Weed, Inc., p. 169. This same source describes the Eaker/Devers flight (based on a taped interview with Gen. Eaker) in a L-5 Courier plane rather than a Piper Cub at a much higher altitude. “The small plane flew over the Monte Cassino promontory at an altitude, Eaker recalled, of 1,200 to 1,500 feet. [...] The generals’ flight was escorted by three fighter-bombers flying 1,000 feet above them.” Ibid, p. 185.--Gamahler 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fly-overs redux

The Eaker/Devers fly-over as previously written was footnoted to author Fred Majdalany citing a USAAF source. The new edit reflects Eaker’s description of the flight he piloted, as stated in an interview with him and taped by Monte Cassino co-author David W. Richardson on May 5, 1977 in preparation for the Hapgood & Richardson book; i.e., to use the colloquial, the information is “from the horse’s mouth.”--Gamahler 00:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)






<html> <body>

<embed src="C:\Documents and Settings\Nicholas\dwhelper\Peanut Butter Jelly Time.wma" controles="playbutton"

</body> </html>