Talk:Battle of Monte Cassino

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)

Mount Calvary

Edit of 31 March. First thing: Point 593 was just one of many offensive objectives of II Corps. On 11/12 May it was attacked directly by one battalion. Altogether 3-4 battalions from 3rd Carpathian Rifle Division took part in fighting in this area during first assault(Point 593 and Massa Albaneta farm - 3rd Div objectives). Writing that 800 Germans stopped two divisions is ridiculous. Second - The Polish Corps lost 281 officers and 3,503 other ranks during whole Monte Cassino campaign, from end of April to end of May !! Not in assaults on a German Regiment. Pre battle losses and losses from Piedimonte are included. 3rd Division alone lost fewer than 1,500 troops during the first and second assault (11/12 and 16/17 May).

My knowledge comes from Melchior Wankowicz book Bitwa o Monte Cassino. Book contains information about the losses and directions of Polish attacks down to the level of a single company.

(ps Please leave in peace my writing skills in English. I really tried to write well :))

Reinstated the Mount Calvary revision of 31 March, which was reverted by anon IP and restored by Shadowjams and once again reverted by IP. The 31 March revision is sourced from authors Matthew Parker and Charles Whiting, some of it verbatim within quotation marks. "Just eight hundred Germans had succeeded in driving off attacks by two divisions" is a citation from Parker, but opined as "ridiculous" by the IP; Whiting writes:

As [the Poles] came within sight of the German positions the artillery bombardment stopped. Now it was the turn of the paras, armed for the most part with automatic weapons. They mowed the Poles down mercilessly and the Slavs reeled back. Thus it went on all day and the night that followed until, in despair, Anders called off the attack. In the last three days his two divisions, plus the armored brigade, had lost 281 officers and 3,503 other ranks and it was with bitter pride ..... [etc.]

These given casualties (understood as dead/wounded/missing) are verifiable in the referenced English literature. The reverting anon IP is encouraged to create an account and contribute with his material according to Wiki convention on sourcing, rather than shout "ridiculous" from the sideline.

Gamahler (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Reason for bombing

In the Illustrated encyclopedia of the second world war, it mentioned a different reason for the bombing of Monte Casino. It mentions a conversation overheard by allied radio listeners. "Vor sint den apt, Das apt ist in der Kino." (Please excuse spelling and grammar) This was interprited to mean, "where is the Artillary oberservation point (abreviated to APT in German), It is in the church (meaning Monte Casion). Unfortunately as you German speakers will know Apt also means abbot.

Unfortunately I no longer have access to the Encyclopedia and so cannot reference this. If anyone else knows can they verify this, in the mean time, I will continue see if a friend can look it up CompteVincero (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This episode – after the bombing – is dealt with in Hapgood & Richardson’s Monte Cassino and only provided "momentarily" some confusion. A poor translation of an intercepted German radio message sent in 'clear' and using the word "Abt" (a common military abbreviation for Abteilung [detachment] and translated initially as "h.q.," but it also means "abbot") was cleared up with a correct translation by David Hunt, then an aide to Alexander, after Hunt asked for the full original message. The text is covered in H&R on pages 206–207.–Gamahler (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Władysław Anders

Who think, that he was just an add??? On polish page about Monte Casino is write: "commander-in-chief of polish army in battle of Monte Casino". So, if I want to add him to this article, I will do that. And I will also add Alphonse Juin. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.157.66 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No. This has been fully discussed (see Talk:Battle of Monte Cassino/Archive 1#Anders in the commanders' section of the Warbox and Talk:Battle_of_Monte_Cassino/Archive_1#Alphonse_Juin_as_major_commander). It is understandable that Anders receives a more prominent listing in the Polish language article. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You' re right, that's understandable, but on Britian pages is more than "more" prominent about England. You think, that evrythink did England, but other conturies helped England. No! No helped! England, like other conturies won WWII.

So please, belive me, Anders was important commander on Battle of Monte Cassino. All hill of Monte Cassino is in graves of POLISH soliders. See Britian page about Anders "Anders was the commander of the 2nd Polish Corps in Italy 1943–1946, capturing Monte Cassino in the Battle of Monte Cassino." "After failed 3rd strike of Aliants army, gen. O. Leese, Commander of 8st British army pleased to gen. of 2nd corp of Polish army, to captured the hill (...) 17th May 2sd corp captured chain of hills, and Nazi army run away" Popularna encyklopedia Powszechna (popular encyclopedy). Thank You.