The not so soft underbelly!

The invasion of Sicily in July 1943 was predicted to be an easy route into Occupied Europe. In fact, while the initial assault went smoothly, the subsequent Italian campaign was tough, bloody and relentless

- By Phil Craig

TWAS the best of campaigns, it was the worst of campaigns. It was a triumph and, at times, it was an utter disaster. The long, brutal slog through Italy by thousands of British, American, Canadian, Polish, New Zealand and Indian forces divided opinion from the start - amongst the men fighting and those who sent them to fight - and it divides historians still.

And it all started as a sop to Stalin. From the start of his 'Big Three' alliance with Churchill and Roosevelt, the Soviet dictator pressed relentlessly for an invasion of Western Europe, forever worrying that his new partners secretly wanted to win the war with minimal effort on their own part and a tide of Russian blood on his.

In the grim summer of 1942 - long before the great turning points of Stalingrad and Alamein - Churchill flew to Moscow to break some very bad news to Stalin in person: there would be no cross-Channel invasion for at least a year and probably longer.

The British and Americans were simply not strong enough. Amid a rancorously bad atmosphere, the two leaders traded opinions. "War," Stalin said, "was war" and involved some risk. Churchill, adopting a tone that had certainly been used to him before, said to Stalin that risk was one thing, folly quite another.

Officials taking notes reported that the Russian looked both glum and restless and, at this point, diplomacy gave way to insult.

Stalin said the British were unprepared to face the true challenges of war, advising his opposite number that Britain "should not be so afraid of the Germans".