Why do you feel Churchill was so invested in the "soft underbelly" strategy? How would this strategy have impacted the war?

Stalin and Roosevelt pushed for a cross-Channel attack, while Churchill wanted to concentrate troops in Italy, attacking the "soft underbelly," as he put it. Why do you think Churchill was so invested in this strategy? If Churchill had gotten his way, how do you think it would have impacted the war?

Churchill wasn't convinced that the invasion to the north would work. He saw some progress in the underbelly strategy so wanted to stay with it. I think he thought too many men and resources would be sacrificed in the attempt.

England is a couple of strides across the English Channel from occupied France. It has already gone through many Blitzkriegs. He saw what happened in China when Dolittle was aided by them. He was terrified that Germany would take even greater action against Britain if they dared to field and invading force on Normandy. By coming up through Italy the German forces would have to concentrate there and not so much on the French coast and the Channel. Also the American and Russian armies would be able to sustain a three pronged invasive front.
The war would have lasted longer, Russia would have had to sustain battlefronts on their own--they were getting supplies but not actual soldiers and they were severely impacted in a way the others were not.

In reading other historical accounts of Churchill's involvement with the war, there had been some disastrous results from battles that he felt responsible for and he was a bit afraid of making some of those costly mistakes again. He did not want to join a battle that could not be won without losing an inordinate number of lives.

I think Churchill wanted to keep the fighting as far away from Great Britain as possible, for as long as possible. If German troops were tied up in Russia, Italy and Africa, so much the better.

The above responses may have hit on Churchill's thought processes, but he was war tested and ready, even more than FDR. He was wary of what could be accomplished in a total world war, and was concerned about Britain's survival.

I agree with others who’ve noted Churchill’s hesitancy was likely due to previous defeats, especially Dunkirk. I also agree that he was concerned for the losses Britain would sustain if the Allied assault was unsuccessful; especially with the losses they had already taken in the Battle of Britain.
Ironically, Churchill’s stalling allowed the Allies to gather more troops and equipment, as well as a more strategic plan of attack.

I think Churchill believed he could have victory using the soft underbelly approach and it would keep the war out of Britain if the Nazis were occupied to the east and the south. By them being in France they were already knocking on his door.

He saw the soft underbelly strategy as being the most effective in keeping Germany away from Great Britain. As the daughter of a soldier who fought in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy I did agree with Churchill that it was extremely important to the Allies' efforts and felt that the book somewhat discounted the fighting in the Mediterranean. But I also agreed with Stalin and Roosevelt that the invasion of France was absolutely necessary to divert troops from the East, i.e. Russia, and to break Germany.