World War Two

[HistoryBoy]

In the Autumn of 1945 France was largely liberated. I wonder what happened at the border between France and Northern Italy, which was still held by the Germans.

General Eisenhower's priority was obviously to go straight for the German homeland. There must nevertheless have been Allied Troops (presumably the French?) somewhere between France and Italy.

Were their orders not to attack too hard for fear of provoking a German repsonse which would detract from the main offensive to the north of Switzerland?

I have seen nothing of this in any of the ********.

[Gruntfuttuck]

The war in Europe ended in May 1945 ....I assume you mean Autumn 1944...after D-day .

Here's some info.....

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/italy43_ 45.htm

[HistoryBoy]

No I do mean May 1945. I was around at the time. I heard it on the radio and read it in my newspaper. That was when the war in Europe ended.

But in the Autumn of 1944 there was intense fighting north of Swirzerland as the Allies were pushing eastward toward the German homeland. South of Switzerland there was no news of any fighting. Yet the South of France had been liberated while the North of Italy had not. My question is whether anyone knows of some kind of informal understanding by both sides not to provoke the other as they were both too preocupied by by other fronts.

[heathfield]

Remember that southern France was under the control of the 'Vichy French', supportive of the Germans. There were few German troops and no allied forces in this area - they were all too busy in southern Europe with the Italian campaign.

[HistoryBoy]

No. In the Autumn of 1944 Southern France was no longer governed by the Vichy regime or occupied by the Germans. It had already been liberated.

The Italian campaign was still being fought. Allied progress up the Italian peninsula was painfully slow. My point is that by the autumn of 1944 there was an opportunity to drive the Germans out of Northern Italy by attacking from newly liberated Southern France. Had there been such an attack the Germans in Northern Italy would have sensed a danger of being cut off by a pincer movement from the north and the south.

I think that there was no such attack because the Allies were concentrating on the front from Switzerland to the sea. This, I think, is the likely explanation. I was merely wondering if anyone had documentary evidence of a formal decision NOT to exploit this opportunity.

[heathfield]

Did some looking for this subject, and found 'Operation Dragoon' was the name given to an Allied invasion of southern France. I'd never heard of it! A real revelation.

There's a quite detailed account of it here.

For more, look up 'Operation Dragoon' on Google.

[HistoryBoy]

Thank you heatfield. I had forgotten the coded name of the invasion. Unfortunately all the Google references dwell on the success of the operation and never answer my original question. As there wasn�t an operation against Italy from the South of France there obviously aren�t any references to it.

My question was about an operation that didn�t take place. I would imagine that some historian subsequently posed the same question that I asked, but I still can�t find any references to it. I am still left with my speculation that neither side felt that they could spare the manpower to do any active campaigning.

[heathfield]

It seems to have been a problem of logistics and manpower, as you say. Try a search on 'Operation Anvil' instead. Several links discuss strategic background and the problems raised by the concept, and its being carried out. There's criticism of how it badly affected the Italian campaign.