Talk:Battle of Monte Cassino/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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

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

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)

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)

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 Abramchik, 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)

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.

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)

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.


No, the helmet, they were mainly french Adrians until the late 1944. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.182.238 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

The French officier that encouraged che Moroccans troops was gen. Alphonse Juin (seealso: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_Juin and http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_Juin) Bubu, 2008-09-01 11:20 CEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.28.141.78 (talk)

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)

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)

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))


I was surprised not to see here the tale of the German grammar error.
A German communication was intercepted and decoded (at Bletchley Park? - I don't know). In part, this read DER ABT IST IM KLOSTER, This was incorrectly interpreted to mean "the division is in the monastery"; ABT was thought to be the abbreviation for ABTEILUNG (division). Hence the bombing of the ancient building.
However, as any grammarian could have told you, ABTEILUNG is a feminine noun, and would therefore have been preceded by DIE (not DER). The meaning of the communication was simply "the abbot is in the monastery". ABT is German for abbot, and is a masculine noun.
S Caldwell, Bath, UK. 3 Dec 08. 81.156.252.78 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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")?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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>

soldier bear carried ammo for polish troops

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/7208505.stm could this be mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanbhag.rohan (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already there in section 7.3 Wojtek. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of the abbey

I am reasonably convinced that this was caused by the propaganda conveyed by American and other newscasters. An actual clip is supplied. Wallie (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The contemporary clip was for consumption at home and would not have influenced the military. If you read the texts it was clearly the assaulting division commanders, particularly Tuker (4th Indian Div) and his deputy Dimoline who wanted the Abbey bombed and had clear military reasons for it. This is also reflected in the writings of Kippenberger who commanded the NZ Division. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the news media were the ones who initiated the idea that there were spotters in the abbey. Wallie (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, what we think is irrelevant. In Wikipedia it's what the documented sources that can be cited say that matters. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Combatants in the Campaignbox

I am moving this discussion here from my talk page because it has general relevance. An unsigned IP (24.44.30.18) who has been promoting the Polish presence in the combatant listing in the Warbox makes the following point (copied from my talk page):

After 3 failed battles, the Battle of monte Cassino was finally won because of an attack spearheaded by Polish forces. I do not know where you get those numbers, please cite your sources. Even if the Indian forces outnumbered Polish forces you cannot deny Poland played a much more pivotal role in the outcome of the battle. From what I have read in your article, The Indian forces did not even take part in the final battle. It is a known fact that the Polish assault gave the British forces the possibility of entering the Liri Valley. Poland's involvement was much more crucial than India's and France's. The Polish forces also suffered the more casualties than the French and Indian forces (860 dead 2,200 wounded)

In response I would make these points:

1. This article is about the whole period from January to May so the numbers committed in one part of the battle are not relevant. I had previously made the point on 24.44.30.18's talk page that

The Poles had 2 divisions (each of 2 brigades) plus an independent brigade so 5 brigades in all. The French had 5 Divisions, The Canadians 7 brigades and the Indians 6 brigades so the order is correct.

These numbers cover the whole period and I now think the Canadians only had 5 brigades (5th Armoured got its third brigade in July 44)

2. I don't wish to downplay the bravery and commitment of the Poles. The courage and determination they showed in this battle against heavily embedded defenses is legendary but the fact is they failed to remove the Germans from the monastery. It was only after the French in the Aurunci mountains outflanked the German defenses in the Liri valley forcing them to withdraw from the Gustav defenses that the Poles were able to claim the monastery unopposed.
3. 8th Indian Division played a key role in the 4th battle, securing a bridgehead across the Garigliano - which had not proved possible in the previous battles.
4. Casualties are no criteria for judging the "importance" of contribution to the battle. The unsupported assertion on casualties by 24.44.30.18 is wrong anyway. Taking some referenced facts from the article: The 4th Indian Division suffered 3,000 casualties in the 2nd and third battles - the same number as the whole Polish Corps in the 4th battle and so it would be fair to say that Indian casualties over the period of the whole battle would have been considerably more - I don't have 8th Ind's casualties to hand but they performed an opposed assault crossing of a river - something which normally involves considerable casualties. The article also states the French Corps sustained 2,500 casualties in the first battle alone. Again, I don't have the numbers but with the equivalent of 5 divisions committed in the fourth battle, their aggregate would have been considerably more than the Polish total of 3,060.

I am therefore reverting the edit again. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don’t know why the order is so important. French and Poles were both major participants of the battle but Poles took the monastery, eather way is fine with me...--Jacurek (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


The FSSF is credited with alot of success in this part of the campaign yet canada isn't even listed as a combatant. And you say they had 5-7 brigades? According to interviews with vets in Nadler's Perfect Hell they we're the first allied troops to set foot in rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankar69 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a technical point here. The final battle lasted officially until 18 May. After that the fighting becomes part of something else. The Canadian formations didn't come into the line until after the 18th (on the Hitler Line) and so are not listed as a participant, although for context, the fighting on the Hitler line is briefly described (though they do appear quite correctly in the Operation Diadem order of battle because Operation Diadem continued through to the fall of Rome). P.S. Many units claimed that their recce groups of theirs were "first into Rome" but 1. they didn't stay (would have been disobeying direct orders from army commander) and 2. So what?! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Er, just looked at the main article again. In what sense is Canada not "..even listed as a combatant."? It says Canada in the Combatants list pretty clearly to me! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alphonse Juin as major commander

Even though he was only in charge of the French Expeditionary Corps in the US 5th Army, I think he should be listed as a major commander.

Quote from his own Wikipedia article:

"It was Juin who made the plan to break the Gustav line; he took the Belvedere, Monte Majo, attacked the Liri valley, won the battle of the Garigliano, the battle of the East of Rome and played an important part in the battle for Sienna. Juin's ability to analyze where things had gone wrong in some initial thrust and to set things right for the new effort earned him great respect among his contemporaries and among historians of the war such as the American, Rick Atkinson."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_Juin

-Xerviere

Absolutely, it was Juin and his units after all who made the victory possible. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. It wasn't Juin's plan, Operation Diadem was Alexander's plan. But Juin's Corps, with specialist mountain skills (untypical in the rest of 5th & 8th Army), executed their part very well in the Aurunci mountains. Having said that, who is to say that they "made the victory possible" any more than XII Corps in creating a bridgehead across the Rapido (which no-one had succeeded in doing in the previous 3 battles) and sucked in the German Reserves, or US II Corps who advanced up the coast despite predictions that Route 7 to Rome was impossible because of the flooded Pontine marshes, or indeed Polish II Corps who gripped the German paratroopers in the deadly ground overlooked by Monte Cairo. Equal claims can be made by other Corps leaders in the previous Cassino battles. No, it's simpler to keep all the Allied Corps commanders out of the info box and highlight their contributions in the text. AS to quoting Juin's article in Wkipedia.....my heart sinks. The quote above is fairly clueless: Belvedere was Cassino I; Monte Majo was pre- Cassino I; "attacked the Liri" - no, the French never did (their advance through Aurunci threatened the flank of the German forces in the Liri); "battle of the Garigliano", what's that?! The only time the FEC crossed the Garigliano was in the final battle when they used the existing bridgehead created by X Corps during Cassino I. I'm afraid biographical articles are prone to "Peacock content"! Juin was a very capable and successful Corps commander but let's not get carried away! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I recall reading somewhere (I'll have to figure out where obviously;) ) that the flanking attack carried out by the CEF was Juin's plan from much earlier and that the Army Group merely adopted his idea. I apologize for such vagueness but I'll look it up. I guess I have a hard time believing Alexander ever had an original thought, although he did have Harding by this time didn't he? DMorpheus (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory?

With the disproportionate casualties, the long diversion that the battle caused to the front, shouldn't this be considered a Pyrrhic victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.105.183 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • See: The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin:
Pyrrhic victory [(peer-ik)]
A victory that is accompanied by enormous losses and leaves the winners in as desperate shape as if they had lost.

Obviously, this is not the case, because the losses of lives were justified by the clear victory unattainable otherwise. The Allies were never in a desparate shape as a result of it. Wrong comparison. --Poeticbent talk 05:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your personal opinion and interpretation of the events, which unfortunately is completely irrelevant with respect to this article. As multiple reliable sources call this victory a pyrrhic victory we have to go with that. Pantherskin (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that putting Pyrrhic in the infobox is against our MoS. Ps. But a discussion of why some scholars call it that can certainly be added to the aftermath section. PPS. This ref has no GPrint link but was used to support the pyrrhic victory claim: Crwys-Williams, Jennifer (1992). A country at war, 1939-1945: the mood of a nation. Ashanti Publications. p. 358. ISBN 9781874800491.; I don't have time to seek the passage but if somebody else could link or quote it and discuss it here, it would be great. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Care to substantiate your belief that mentioning the outcome in the infobox is against our MOS? Because given that you did not give a valid reason for your removal of sourced information makes it look like the EEML tag team is alive and well. Pantherskin (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have two things to say to you: 1) this and 2) this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I also have two things to say: 1) "the choice of term should reflect what the sources say"; "Battle of Bunker Hill, which is labelled as a Pyrrhic victory"; "there's no perfect solution" etc. 2) EEML coordination continues. Pantherskin (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuns, monks, etc.

There remains a long paragraph under Evacuation of the abbey (referencing "David Hapgood, Monte Cassino, p. ?") that describes the rescue of nuns and bedridden monks from Monte Cassino during a time frame that looms dubious. Hapgood & Richardson’s Monte Cassino depicts no nuns (i.e., female Benedictines) cloistered on Monte Cassino and all monks, including their abbot, were off the mountain after 17 February 1944 (although Fra. Carlomanno Pellagalli returned to the ruins and died there before 3 April 1944). In the original 1984 Congdon & Weed, Inc. edition with a dozen photographs of persons in religious habits, no nuns are discernable. Further, the context of nuns caring for monks in a monastic setting is extremely unlikely and probably would not fit into the strict rule of St. Benedict. According to H&R, p. 10, among the thousand refugees in the abbey before the bombing "... were nuns and orphans" from the three damaged or destroyed convents in Cassino town – the only reference to 'nuns' that I could find. It is clear in H&R, however, that after most of the civilians had fled from the abbey after the bombing, no nuns were identified among the last forty survivors who then made their arduous escape toward the Liri valley.

The described rescue event of nuns could have occurred somewhere at a convent along the Gustav Line on the dates given and by the individuals and military formations named – but in all probability not at the great abbey of Monte Cassino, at least according to my edition of Hapgood & Richardson. Unless a reliable source can be cited, perhaps the paragraph in question should be removed.

--Gamahler (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No reliable source or citations offered for above. Replaced unlikely Monte Cassino issues (time line problems and theologically implausible episodes) with a sourced scenario of the evacuation of nearly all monks and the abbey’s archival holdings. Also added some general 'legacy' citations and 'meaning'.
--Gamahler (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Music

De Zweedse heavy/powermetal band Sabaton bracht in 2008 hun album The Art Of War uit met daarop een nummer over de Slag om Monte Cassino: Union (Slopes Of St. Benedict)

This is listed in Music on the Dutch page for the battle of Monte Cassino. It says The Sweedish heavy/powermetal band Sabaton brought the Album The Art of War out with a number over the battle os Monte Cassino: Union (Slopes of St. Benidict)

I think this is a nice addition to the article as the song is very good and it teaches history in a way that is easy to remember. Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clwijnen (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprovable Opinions

I have deleted the claim that the bombing of the abbey led to a great many additional deaths 'that would have been avoided had it not been bombed'. The claim that the deaths would have been avoided depends on the unprovable assumption that if it had not been bombed the Germans would not subsequently have used it as a defensive position, observation post, etc. The only ground for this assumption is the fact that the Germans had promised the monks that they would stay out. Perhaps the author of the original text has a greater confidence in Nazi German promises than I have.86.176.15.122 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

I'm sure we can find better sources for allied casualties than historylearningsite.co.uk and Atlas of World War II. We have 26 books listed at the bottom of the article yet we are sourcing a website and the WWII Atlas of all things. Wokelly (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The claim that 5th Army had 90,000 casualties --almost 40% of its 250,000 man force-- in 80 days of fighting has to be wrong. According to the wiki on 5th army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_United_States_Army), 5th army had 109,000 total (19,000 KIA) during its entire 600 days in Italy and Sicily. So we are to believe 5th Army lost only 19,000 during the 1.5 year Italian campaign, sans Cassino? No, these numbers are screwed up.--Divbis0 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is what I have:
Cassino I:
X Corps 4000 (Majdalany p. 90)
FEC 2500 (Majdalany p. 91)
US 36 Div 2000 (Majdalany p. 91)
US 34 Div 2200 (Majdalany p. 91)
Cassino II & III:
NZ Div 1600 (Majdalany p. 194)
Indian 4 Div 3000 (Majdalany p. 194)
Cassino IV:
Polish II Corps 3800 (Majdalany p. 254)
FEC ?
US II Corps ?
BR XIII Corps ?
Canadian I Corps ?

A total so far of 19100 with a big gap for the four missing corps in the fourth battle. Anybody fill the gaps? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Molony in "The Mediterranean and the Middle East Vol. VI" (Official British History of WWII) the total Allied casualties for Operation Diadem is given as 43,746 (p. 284). However, Diadem covers the period 11 May to 4 June (rather longer than the stated duration of the battle in the article as it goes up to the capture of Rome) and includes both the Cassino front and the Anzio front. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

in the book review of "The Hardest Fought Battle of World War II" it states that Montie Cassino saw 350,000 casualties but doesn't state which Corps sustained what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conrad4ever (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an improbable number. I think Parker must have confused his sources. General Alexander, the theatre commander, after the war wrote that Allied casualties for the whole of the Italian Campaign (5th Army + Eighth Army Sept 43 to May 45) totalled 312,000 (see the article on the Italian Campaign where the casualty figures for the campaign are discussed and documented quite precisely) although some sources have put the number a little higher at up to 350,000.Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On the website ListAfterList.com it states that there where 60,000 people killed. This might be a bit closer but it dosen't give a refferance to where they got their facts from. heres a link if you want to see http://www.listafterlist.com/tabid/57/listid/11467/Education++History/Top+200+Worst+Military+Events+Ever+by+Deathtoll.aspx its number 72 down. Conrad4ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conrad4ever (talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The 105,000 casualty figure has just been restored and I just can't believe it despite the various references (which I don't have access to) - I believe that the 105,000 figure probably covers a longer period and may also cover illness as well as casualties: 5th Army suffered 5,000 wounded during the December 43 fighting on the Bernhard Line but had 23,000 admissions into hospital (the awful conditions meant that jaundice, fevers and trench foot were prevalent). The Casualty figures above for Cassinos I to III are well referenced (including the Official Histories) and so is the total Operation Diadem figure. Given that this covers a significantly longer period of fighting than just Cassino IV and includes Anzio, it is fair to arrive at a total figure for Cassino IV of 15,000. This fits well with the fact that at any one time 4 Corps were involved at Cassino IV (Polish, French, US II and Br XIII - the Canadian Corps started to come into the line on 16 May, relieving XIII Corps). The Poles suffered 3,800 casualties at Cassino IV and a total figure of 15,000 is consistent with this figure for one of the four Corps involved. I propose to reflect this in the text. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Alot of original research. Besides, wheter you can or can't believe it is irrelevant since a core policy of wikipedia is according to Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.".
I have provided 5 specific book sources supporting 105,000 casualties and could probably find a lot more. --Nirvana77 (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've had another look at this. So far I have only got hold of the Farrington and Ellis sources. Farrington is really a magazine in hard covers and asserts the 105,000 figure citing no sources. Ellis, however, is clearly a serious book with plenty of sources cited. Ellis (p.469) clearly states that the 105,000 figure is for the whole Cassino / Rome campaign (i.e. early Jan to 5 June) and includes the whole period of the Anzio beachhead. The Battle of Monte Cassino article does not include Anzio and only covers the period 17 January to 18 May. Although sadly Ellis does not appear to cite his source for this figure we should take it seriously but it needs to be deconstructed.

Carlo d'Este (cited in the Operation Shingle article) gives total Anzio casualties as 43,000 - leaving 62,000 casualties on the Gustav line and the advance to Rome. Considering Operation Diadem (which includes Cassino IV), for the period 11 May to 5th June Ellis has 44.933 casualties and the official British history has 43,746 to 4th June. Ellis is missing Indian casualties but if you add his figures of British + Canadian casualties you get 4782+ 2358 + 3355=10495. The official British history has a figure of 12165 which includes Canadian, Indian and New Zealand. Since 2 NZ Div was not really involved this implies Indian casualties for the period of 1670 and a corrected Ellis Operation Diadem total of 46600. Of this all the British casualties and at least half the US in Fifth Army would have been in the Anzio bridgehead (because that's where the divisions were), so 3355+10012=about 13,367 leaving the about 33,000 on the Cassino front. It is not possible with the information available to determine how many of the 33,000 casualties occured in the period 11 to 18 May (Cassino IV) and how many 18 May to 4/5 June (Advance to Rome). Cassino IV was only a week compared to nearly 3 weeks thereafter. However, it is not unreasonable to say that half occured in the first period which saw more intense fighting to actually break the Gustav Line, so 16,500 - note how this cheekily aligns with the 15,000 guestimate I made in a previous contribution above!

So, if you take the Cassino I, II & III figures in my entry above and add the deduced Cassino IV figure of 16,500 you get just nearly 32,000. If you take Ellis's 105,000 and deduct 43,000 (Anzio) and also 16,500 (post 18 June Advance to Rome casualties) you get 45,500. These two figures should be the same! The explanation for the difference could be a number of things. The "bottom up approach" for Cassinos I to III count divisional casualties and therefore by implication exclude casualties incurred by other units (Corps and Army artillery and support units). Secondly, the source of the 105,000 figure used in the "top down" analysis is not attributed by Ellis so it is unclear what it covers. If it comes from the records of the 5th and 8th Armies it would have covered all operations in the period (viz 5th Army numbers include both the Garigliano and Anzio fronts) so the 8th Army figures would have included fighting on the Adriatic front. Although there was no offensive on the Adriatic, there would have been casualties as a result of patrolling and probing enemy lines. These two points suggest that the 32,000 figure is too low and the 45,500 figure is too high. In spite of this uncertainty, one thing is clear, 105,000 is not the correct figure.

I'm not going to change the text, however, until it is decided how to treat the numbers above i.e. although 105,000 is demonstrably the incorrect figure, it is not entirely clear what the correct figure is and how this should be handled in the text. I'm not giving up on someone finding an authoritative breakdown of the 105,000 figure so that a clear number for Cassinos I to IV can be arrived at. I'm away on holiday and will not be contributing for the next week.Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now got hold of the David Jordan Atlas of WWII. The reference to 90,000 casualties is clearly in the context of the fighting up to the point that the Allies ground to "an exhausted halt" on the Gustav Defenses. Indeed, the description of the fighting on the Gustav defenses (including Cassino) follows in the section after this figure is mentioned. The 90,000 figure has no relevance to the Battles of Monte Cassino at all! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The current 45,000 figure is still original research (Wikipedia:No original research) since you basically deducted d'Este Anzio figures from the Ellis 105,000 figure. If you can provide a reliable source that actually states 45,000 allied casualties in the Cassino campaign then you might have a case. --Nirvana77 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Monte_Cassino/Archive_1&oldid=1136554117"