Mostly agree about Stalin, except with our ability to predict what he would have done at any juncture. Had the Allies decided not to invade, Hitler would have been able to focus the bulk of his forces against the advancing Russians, possibly would have had time and space to rebuild the Luftwaffe. Given Russia's long history of staying in Russia, not adventuring to the west, Stalin might have decided that conquest was too costly, or the German forces might have actually stopped them. Thankfully we'll never know.

The Churchill claim strikes me as major butt covering, given how difficult and bloody the Italy campaign turned out to be. I think there was plenty of that going on (butt covering), both during and after the war. Gen Mark Clark quoted Churchill directly about Italy and soft bellies, but then many said that the General blew a golden opportunity to cut off the German 10th Army in Italy, and instead made a vanity thrust for Rome, allowing the 10th to escape and reform in the Apennines to bulwark the Gothic line.

These decisions were critical to my dad, who entered combat with the 88th div., under Gen Clark in the breakout from Anzio, and was proud of the fact his platoon was one of the first into Rome. Later that year he led his guys in the assault on the Gothic and was finally taken out leading a fire/advance assault on the machine gun position that had his battalion pinned down on the ridge that led to Mt. Battaglia. Now at 99 those experiences are some of the few he can remember.

Anyway, I definitely appreciate the contrarian approach, done a bit myself;)