Why did the North Africa Campaign Matter in WW2?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2023
- As Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps rolled into Egypt in 1942, the only thing standing between them and Cairo and the Suez Canal was British 8th Army. In this video we look at what was at stake for both sides, and why the North Africa Campaign made a crucial impact on the outcome of the Second World War.
Bibliography
Badoglio, Pietro. L’Italia Nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale: Memorie E Documenti. Verona, Italy: A. Mondadori, 1946.
Braddock, David Wilson, Norman Henry Gibbs, and Nick Carter. Britain’s Desert War in Egypt and Libya, 1940-1942: The End of the Beginning. Yorkshire, UK: Pen & Sword Military, 2019.
Greene, Jack, and Alessandro Massignani. The Naval War in the Mediterranean 1940-1943. London, UK: Frontline Books, 2011.
Holland, James. The Allies Strike Back, 1941-1943: The War in the West, Volume Two. New York City, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2017.
Latimer, Jon. Operation Compass 1940: Wavell’s Whirlwind Offensive. London, UK: Osprey, 2000.
Mitcham, Samuel W. Rommel’s Desert War: The Life and Death of the Afrika Korps. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2007.
O'Brien, P. P. (2022). How the War was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied victory in World War II. Cambridge University Press.
Porch, Douglas. Hitler’s Mediterranean Gamble: The North African and the Mediterranean campaigns in World War II. London, UK: Phoenix, 2005.
Walker, Ian W. Iron Hulls, Iron hearts: Mussolini’s Elite Armoured Divisions in North Africa. Ramsbury, UK: Crowood, 2006.
No better way to pause important work than to watch this.
what important work?
@@watch-Dominion-2018he's a train driver 🚆 😅
@@watch-Dominion-2018 nuclear reactor safety overwatch
True
100%!!! Well said!
I met Omar Bradley in 1981 at Fort Bliss, TX. He gave frequent talks. He said that for the US Army it was a testing ground to see if our equipment, organization, tactics, and general way of doing things could match up against the Germans. He said he would have hated to launch the Normandy invasion without the lessons learned in North Africa. He also said that he hopefully was the last US general to command an infantry division when the enemy had air superiority. He stopped in mid sentence and said, "Don't do this,"
That's incredible - you basically met living history.
Someone should have told the Ukrainians this. Before their counteroffensive became an utter failure.
@@gaulicwarlordor even better, someone should have told the US State Department and National Security officials this before they pressured Ukraine into launching its offensive.
@@gaulicwarlordsomeone should have told you not to stop intellectually developing at the age of 7
@@gaulicwarlordFunny with your username taken into account lol.
I don't remember how many programmes I've seen about WW2 campaigns but the fact that my late father fought all the way across North Africa into Italy at Cassino and later in Yugoslavia and Greece and survived the whole lot never ceases to astound me.
Your paps was a menace! salute to your father and sorry to hear he’s gone man
My great grandfather followed a similar path through africa to italy. Used to run ammo through the battlefield on a motorbike while under heavy fire
The shortage of petroleum was a massive factor in the defeat of axis forces.
And there's a dose of irony here : in Lybia, italians were sitting on huge reserves of high-quality, easy-to drill oil.
these would only be discovered starting in 1959.
I thought it was because the drilling technology was available as yet. As with the Soviet oil fields, it useless without being to get it out of the ground, sent to be refined to a usable product.
Oops "not available"...
@@jamesharms748 i don't think so. Lybian oil fields are not particularly deep or hard to drill.
@@Raminagrobisfr
Perhaps at the time Benito
didn’ see the need.
He was content to fuel his
Ethiopian war with 🇺🇸 oil(bought of curse)
@@jamesharms748 Refineries can always be rebuilt if not captured intact.
Operation compass has to be one of the most brutal one sided beat downs in military history. 130k Italian casualties for just 2k British casualties.
5k Italians killed, 10k wounded, and 130k captured.
Protection of the Suez Canal and preventing the Germans from having an end run to Iran and, subsequently, the Caucasus. A loss in North Africa could have significantly lowered the strategic importance of Stalingrad.
The Germans and Italians would have to overcome many logistical shortcomings if they wanted to capture and hold the Suez Canal and the Middle Eastern oilfields. Taking the canal and oilfields was one thing; putting them to good use would have been another problem.
I'd imagine bringing back the oil to germany would be even more difficult, with Royal Navy presence in the Mediterranean.
@@christopherwang4392 Why allow them to get that far?
@@X.Y.Z.07 The Royal Navy's Mediterranean presence would have been greatly diminished by the loss of the MENA territories. They would have to rely on Gibraltar, Malta, and Cyprus and nothing else. Supplying those islands would also be much more difficult now that every single bit of supplies had to come through the Gibraltar route.
@@bruh-ni1fy without North Africa and Suez Cyprus could not have been supplied.
North Africa was the only place where Britain could confront the axis on land. It needed combat experience which could only be gained there.
The two successful thrusts by Rommel both coincided with significant British troop withdrawal's. The first in the spring of 1941, following the arrival of the Africa corps, saw British troops siphoned off to bolster the defence of Greece. The second of Rommell's thrusts was early in 1942 when more divisions, including Australians, we're sent to the far east following Japan 'sentry into the war.
It's an interesting campaign to follow, and there all sorts of ramifications involved with it. The Italians in Ethiopia, the Vichy French in Syria. Malta, the naval confrontations. The emergence of LRDG and SAS..a lot of fascinating stuff.
Fascinating - yes.
But strategically, it was just an economy-of-force project for both sides.
Great Britain was also looking to maintain their colonial power spot.
@@feedyourmind6713 Absolutely - this is key to understanding a lot of British and US strategic decionmaking in WW2.
@@executivedirector7467 Why thank you.
Rommel also had access to British reports due to a leak through the US embassy...
My grandfather - who, along with my grandmother raised me from the age of three. He joined the 1st East Surrey Regiment in January 1931, was wounded at Dunkirk but managed to get off of the beaches, landed in North Africa as part of the 1st Army, fought all the way through Africa and was wounded finally for the last time on 13th August 1943 in Randazzo, Sicily. This would was caused by a German ‘S’ mine booby trap and put paid to his military career and his cross country running. I know this is a long drawn out comment, but my pride in him still lives strong. Lest we forget.
My uncle was a regular in C coy, 2nd East Surreys. He was based in Shanghai before war broke out.
He died fighting the Japanese at Jitra, a few hundred miles north of Singapore.
Germany's hold on France was too strong at the time. The Germans were far more capable in France in 1942/43 than 1944, so advancing through North Africa was a better way to keep Germany involved in a limited war, expending her resources and keeping America involved.
Absolutely, and it was within our power to actually wage war upon our mortal enemy. In this respect, Guadalcanal was the US's Egypt.
Bingo, keep them overstretched. Though, we were as well.
Every tank, artillery shell, and gallon of oil that went to the Mediterranean and Sahara couldn’t go to the East.
They should have skipped Africa and invaded Sardinia. But Roosevelt wanted to take over the French empire while the Germans and Soviets killed each other.
th-cam.com/video/RRnrlVYtZTA/w-d-xo.html
The germans at the height of their involvement in North africa only had 9 divisions there. The North Africa front was purely strategic: protect the suez and had almost no tactical value.
The rise and fall of empires is one aspect of WWII that isn't given enough attention in popular histories. The belligerents almost universally were attempting to create new empires while the allies were seeing or soon would see theirs beginning to crumble.
It also plays a large role in the war becoming so worldwide. France and the UK trying to maintain control of colonial possessions in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific would drive much of the fighting in those areas while the breadth of the Commonwealth would bolster UK forces.
In the end we saw two new, but very different empires form. The USSR took control over Eastern Europe with a series of puppet regimes while Western Europe and the US would become closer than ever before, continuing the alliance until the present day. Eventually even incorporating Japan as a major US ally.
The Cold War would exploit much of this with waves of decolonization as those old empires finally fell apart in the wake of the war. Resulting in wars to achieve independence as well as civil wars over how those newly independent nations ought to be governed.
Yeah all of the allies lose their empires, except for the US. The US uses WWII to build their empire. Oh Britain wants 50 of our old destroyers? Yeah sure they can have them, but only if they give us all these naval bases/territories. America was empire building all throughout the second world war
Ok🥱🥱🥱
Great book that came out about this recently called "Blood and Ruins: The Great Imperial War, 1931-1945"
@whoops academics Buy it for me then I'll give a shit🥱🥱
@@Ihavpickle really smart, succinct reply… well done!
It still amazes me that my grandfather was part of this 8th Army and lived through all this. Always love learning more about this campaign. Thank you sir!
My grandfather was 39th FA BN, 3d ID from 1939 until 1945. He also made it through. Still had shrapnel on his spine and heart when he died in 2001.
Every time I watch a video of North Africa and the following campaigns I hope to catch a glimpse of him.
@@9HighFlyer9 I'm exactly the same, I'm always looking for him. I know he's there somewhere as I'm sure yours is too :) I don't have a lot of details on his deployment but I know he went through Africa onto Italy/Anzio/Monte Casino with the Artillery as part of the 8th. He was always proud to be a Desert Rat.
@@9HighFlyer9 my grandfather also fought in the North African campaign and was wounded by a mortar shell fragment. He refused to leave his company and had the medic just patch him up as best he could. The medic must of done a good job because it was only removed when he had a hip operation in he’s 80’s. My family had to explain to the doctor that it happened in the war. The doctor just didn’t seem to understand that it happened in WW2 and wanted to know the medics name so he can report him for leaving the fragments in!
@@MatSpeedle I believe you may have misremembered. The US Eighth army was in combat in the Pacific during WW2. The British 8th Army was in North Africa and the other places mentioned. Maybe I am wrong for assuming you're American? Was he/you British? It would make sense you having referred to "Desert Rats"
So was mine. He actually appears in the TV series The World at War, manning a machine gun nest somewhere in North Africa.
I've never seen much of the Italian footage in this video before and I've been a WWII history junkie since about age 10 (1968) and it has a look to it, just like early 1960s B&W TV. Very Cool.
Looked really cleaned up and smooth
A bit of a shame that theres no comment on Rommels early success being mainly due to Churchill gutting the WDF to support Greece along with the removal of O'Conner from field command. I think it would be pretty interesting if we saw what would have happened if O'Conner/Wavell and the full WDF took on Rommel in his initial attacks instead of the skeleton force which O'Conner was rushed to try and support and captured en route.
Also while mentioned via Churchill wanting more "aggression", a comment on Churchills forcing Wavell out of position, arguably the best logistics commander in the army would have been nice too. Churchills "aggression" demands lead to many blunders in Africa as forces were being used when they simply should not have.
They assumed Rommel would only be able to attack in May/June and not Feburary which is when he did attack
TIKHISTORY touched on this and how at times Churchill was actively going against the war effort.
Yeah, one could argue Churchill taking away O’Conners troops to other fronts could be seen as a way to show the American government Britain is willing to fight everywhere.
However… Churchill dicing up his forces only made them easy pickings
This is Leftist Revisionist Anti-Churchill nonsense.
Churchill was a war criminal and awful little man.
If England hadn’t broken the German codes I don’t think they could beat Rommel. It took an American army, a large British force with much more firepower and knowing what Rommel was going to do to defeat him.
My grandfather was a US Army and WW2 veteran. He was a Tec5 and fought in the North African Campaign; my two great Uncles, and grandfather's brother, also fought in WW2 and were in the US Navy and deployed to Sicily--both fought in the Battle of the Bulge. My grandfather and two great-uncles all returned home safely.
My grandfather fought in north Africa. He wasn't in the western desert with the British Eighth Army but landed during the torch landings. He fought in Tunisia and later Italy and Arnhem.
Probably they returned home safely because by the time you turned up all the hard work had been done. The Americans only got involved to sell military equipment
@@James-kv6kb was that ment for me as well?
@@tigerland4328if it was your name would have been attached to the comment
@@tigerland4328however if you're a Yank it does apply to your country. So much carnage so you people can sell military weapons the Germans only had another go because of World War I which the American started
10:38 - that’s fairly true given Rommel was head of Hitler’s personnel protection unit in September 1939 and was given a Panzer Division in France 1940 as a personal favor from Hitler. Rommel however always commanded large formations like they were small ones, sometimes personally. This achieved great results short-term, but no part of the Army he commanded was able to achieve sustained breakthroughs if the fight lasted more than a few months, Benghazi-Gazala-Egypt is the exception. Probably because the Eastern half of the British Empire forces hadn’t experienced the tactic of using 88mm flak guns in a straight line as anti-tank weapons. Something already used to devastating effect in France.
Officers under Rommel's command - "Where the fuck is Rommel? I can't get in contact with him."
Rommel - "I feel like leading this platoon today."
Read Corelli Barnett’s
« The Desert Generals »
🇬🇧 brass, conservative to the core, never allowed the use of the excellent 94mm AA as a.t.
Great video as usual taking above the military history to the political. No offence, however, I believe you might've used AI program to upscale the footage. It does not look good and I think, with some of it, would rather go with the low res quality.
The faces at 10:55 look definitely more haunted than usual for those who've seen the war.
Ah wonderful, I really appreciate your work and efforts here. 👍
The AI interpolation of the historical footage is honestly a bit nauseating. the attempted upscaling's a bit ugly too.
I kept looking at the blurred features and wondering if it was AI creating from scratch or attempting to sharpen historical footage. Guess it's the latter, it looks rather strange.
What?
It makes everything look like it was wrapped in shrink wrap.
To me the interpolation isn't the issue, it's really the upscaling. Way, way too much artifacting (I think is the right word).
I think it looks awesome. I have seen all this footage before and it looks better then ever.
These videos are amazing. What the history channel should be. Keep up the great work!
Always well researched and well presented. That stabilised footage really brings it home. My grandfather was in the 8th and fought with Monty.
This video was AMAZING and drove home the importance of the N. African theatre to a new level for me. I had always considered it a sideshow of the western front. Suez canal for access to colonial resources for the Allies, and oil fields for the new mechanized warfare of the 40s - no wonder Britain took the front so seriously. Also seems like this same strategic point explains the Suez Canal Crisis of the 60s. I would agree with Rommel here that this might have actually been the most important theatre for the Axis...
Great work, looking forward to your future work and still making my way through your collection!
The front was of critical importance to the Allies, but it was absolutely a sideshow for the Axis that they did not need and could not win.
@celebrim1 Not a "side show" so much as a check. They stood to gain relatively little, but stood to lose much.
Seriously, so often you hear "_____ and we'd be speaking German" usually about the timing of invading Russia or the US involvement. When in reality: a little more oil or a little more food and we'd be speaking German - and Africa could have gotten them more of both
will you and Operations Room do a series on the Korean War?
It's not hard to sit in front of a computer and make a video why don't you do it . Occasionally you have to contribute
@@James-kv6kb no
@@watch-Dominion-2018 OK so you don't have the intelligence to do it yourself judging by your response
@@James-kv6kb your mom gae
Wonderful video footage - thank you!
Excellent summary. Thank you.
4:17 - Allies destroyed the Italian 10th Army - results
5:30 - The hight investiments of Hitler on north Afrika after the Rommel's victories.
8:12 - Rommel's thoughts and objectives
8:56 The United Kingdom's matter about north afrika campaign
9:05 - Winston Churchill's
10:08 - The growth of desert battles' importance and it's massive ramifications.
Great video as usual. The quality seems a bit over processed, some of the footage looks like its been upgraded to 60fps and cleaned up a bit too much.
Always a great day when you drop a vid!
Thank you!
excellent production. just the right amount of detail
My dad went through this, was in the 8th Army with the Royal Artillery, (full time soldier from 1938 to 1946) but would rarely talk about it,
My father also went through this. He was on Rommel's staff. He was captured when German resistance in North Africa collapsed, and spent the remainder of the war in an American POW camp in Kansas. Talked about it a lot.
I've always wondered why I'd heard about North Africa during WW2 movies, books and even in school but I've never looked into it, I'm glad now I finally am, just shows how complicated and complex the war really was
It's a pretty well covered and docu ented theater of the war... although I'm Canadian and the UK and commonwealth forces were much more prevalent in Africa than the USA was, but they were definitely there. Proving grounds for the Sherman Tank. Desert Rats. Australians kicked ass in North Africa. The Italians and Rommel were bumbling idiots. Tons of interesting stuff in the North Africa Theatre
Excellent as usual. Thank you.
Beautiful work
Europeans truly harmed themselves with both world wars: collapse of British, German, French, Russian, Austrian, Italian, Dutch, Belgian, Portuguese and Ottoman empires as a result of 30 year conflict, with 10 years of actual fighting (1914-1918/1939-1945) - 400 years of conquering the world just squandered in a heartbeat.
not squandered they stopped Nazism in the second world war and German expansionism in the first, so no not squandered!
It was good experience for Allies using large armour formations against Nazi Germany.
Luftwaffe also suffered heavily especially transport aircraft in Tunisian campain
In fairness the desert rats were poor in north west Europe compared to other unbloodied armour units , mostly because of the different terrain but also being battle hardened they were more cautious. Admittedly the virgin armour corps would have been useless in the desert
@@pincermovement72 Having just returned from Normandy myself, I was struck by how wide-open and flat the terrain around Caen, and south & west of Caen, is.
Should have been very easy indeed to adopt desert tactics to this sector.
Most of the upper command echelon of the 7th AD was (rightly) relieved of command in Normandy.
@@executivedirector7467 I always assumed that Caen was a narrow front with limited flanking opportunities? at least that's what i've seen on some of the maps. The sector was like 62 miles and very confined.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Not confined at all. Quite wide-open. Plenty of flanking opportunities - Villers-Bocage was a fantastic example of a great opportunity that was nearly taken.
Nothing at all like the terrain west of Bayeux.
Tunis was called the 2nd Stalingrad
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Interesting as always.
Thank you good sir.
It mattered so that decades later war gamers could play The Campaign for North Africa.
wow the video quality is amazing!
This footage is amazing. So much of it I've never seen.
It was done so the Italian campaign was possible. The British also wanted to defend Egypt and the canal at all cost.
I would say the Italians dragged Germany into that fight more than anything. Africa was meant to be Italy's prize and the UK was seen as a beaten force. No idea why Germany thought the Italians were considered a good fighting force. They were so under equipped for the job at hand.
Not just under-equipped, under qualified too. They faced Australian and Indian troops, both significantly better at desert warfare than them. The Italians actually outnumbered the British Colonial troops in many cases but were hopelessly outmatched by the Anzacs, Indians, and Nigerians.
@@dragonstormdipro1013 why are you just mentioning just colonials? It was mainly the British that fought in North Africa. You sound like those typical Polish guys who think that they won the war by themselves.
@@spidos1000 Because usually the contribution of the colonial troops is downplayed under the alias of "Italians were bad". When in reality, Britain won against Italians with the help from capable men across the empire. Against Italians during Operation Compass at start it was Indian and British troops who fought at first. Indians (4th Indian division) were replaced by Aussies after 1 week as Indians were needed in Sidi Akarid and other East African places for their mountain warfare training. Aussies captured Tobruk. Always, be with Indians, or Aussies, Brits were there in both infantry and Armour support.
@@spidos1000 the British colonies are often forgotten in both world wars, even tho they helped a lot we can't just give all the credit to the UK, also numbers isn't everything just look at the rats of toburk, those Aussies weren't gonna let any Italian or German to enter toburk
@@dragonstormdipro1013 OP said it properly. "Under equipped for the job at hand".. the Italians actually had a great deal of well-trained troops & leaders at the beginning. They also had a strong navy. In almost all cases, though.. from light machine guns to tanks to bombers the Italians were severely lacking. It's a wonder they held up as well as they did.
Brilliant is usual. Thanks
Nicely done video
is the war footage in the background AI interpolated?
You mentioned Australia once, and no mention of NZ, South Africa and India.
Great video!
These videos are amazing. Were they digitally remastered?
Despite his tactical victories, Rommel's strategy was terrible.
German staff and generals knew that, logistically speaking, it would have been almost impossible to conquer Egypt given the Axis weak logistic.
The main issues were
- Italian ports in Libya being too small
- the British periodically harrasing convoys from sea and air ("only" 20-25% of the Italian convoys to NA were sunk or stopped, however given the situation any delay could be enough to screw up any Axis plan)
- having to drive hundreds of km to deliver supply and troops to the front, something that is already a strain on logistic on its own but becomes even worse given the enviroment (as far as I know,in the desert to keep X vehicles/weapons combat ready you need to stock from X to 2X of them as replacements) and the poor level of motorization in the Italian and German Army (not only barely 20-30% of the Wermacht was motorized, but, overall speaking, many of their trucks were spoils of war from the conquered countries and this caused issues with spare parts and maintenance)
While the German staff and (most of) the other generals were aware of this issue and that any advance would have just made even harder and costly (e.g. at one point up to 1/3 of the scarce oil arriving in Africa had to be used to fuel the trucks driving it to front) to supply the army, Rommel decided to just ignore his limits and orders and tried to invade Egypt (Malta not being neutralized made it even worse), a decision that eventually led to the 2nd battle of El Alamein and the loss of almost all of its tanks and a seizable part of the Axis forces under his command.
It was true that the British could count on endless supplies from GB and the Usa, but their manpower was very limited (e.g. by late 1944 both them and the Canadians were almost out of manpower) and at the time "they could not afford to lose another Army in Egypt" so playing safe on the defensive, even at the cost of slowly losing terrain while bleeding out the Allies, would have been better than losing almost everything at El Alamein
@@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground geography played a role like in EVERY battle fought in history, but it was far from being the main cause.
Also in the 2nd battle of El Alamein the British were the attackers so the same geography that helped them in August (when they were on the defensive) was now limiting their movements
Rommel put himself in a desparate situation when he added 500 km to his already overextended and weak supply line (Tobruk could be barely used and it was 1000 km from Tripoli) after he failed to invade Egypt.
His logistic and supply situation became even worse when the British sunk in August a convoy with his oil and soon Montgomery became aware of this due to Enigma, thus making him even more willingly to attack and exploit this advantage asap.
The rest of the victory was the result of his plan, his ability to use tanks in a proper and concentrated way and, last but not least, his leadership
It's notable that 2 axis tankers were sunk by shortly before the second battle of el Alamein (IIRC) leaving Rommel very short of fuel. Endless supplies from GB might be somewhat exagerated! But certainly there was relatively good supplies through the Indian Ocean.
You failed to look at the big picture. A strained attack was the only chance for Afrika Korp to have any chance of victory before the overwhelming enemy reinforcement arrived. It was the same philosophy of attacking France. Rommel could not afford to wait
@@tomriley5790 Yeah, it's definitely a huge exaggeration. The citizens of Malta would tell you all about how they didn't have "endless supplies". They would've starved if not for the SS Ohio and the many sacrifices made to bring it to port.
You can make a point without pitiful levels of exaggeration, OP.
I do not agree. Had Hitler committed to taking N. Africa, Rommel would have won, as he had come so close twice. Hitler was wrong in not realizing that the fall of Egypt would doom England was HIS WORST FAILURE.
I wonder what would have happened if Germany had not gone after the Caucasus oil field and instead used the forces sent into Russia on the North Africa campaign? I imagine sea lift and supply would have been a critical problem, so maybe it would have been impossible.
Germany did not have the naval supply capacity to keep Rommel supplied.
Germany had a dire need of oil. Had they went for the Suez and Middle Eastern oil first, they would have run out far sooner. I think the more interesting "what if" is if Paulus didn't overreach trying to take Stalingrad, and instead kept fortifying their lines from the Caucas oil fields back to Germany. The Eastern front would have been completely different.
Or if Japan had focused on Indonesia and westward instead of the Phillipines.
The size of the German and Italian forces in northern Africa were always going to be limited by the inability to logistically support more than a limited army. An early German Army logistic assessment determined that no more than four German divisions could be kept supplied in north Africa, and that was about as large as the German contingent was during the campaign there. Even if Rommel had won at El Alamein, it was an absolutely impossible delusion that he would have been able to conquer the Middle East and drive north through Syria, Iraq, and Iran to attack the Soviet Union from the south and meet up with German forces driving south.
@@johnsanko4136or if Halder followed Hitler's orders and put preference on Army Group South, and not Central as he had done.
One thing I took away from this is that WW2 was at least in part a war for OIL. Interesting.
great explanation
Have you used AI upscaling and frame interpolation on the footage? It looks slightly unreal. I would definitely prefer to see the original unaltered footage, as whatever is going on with this is very distracting.
Hitler did not realize the importance of North Africa.
Not only would an Axis win there have helped control the Med, but Britain's oil supplies would be severely curtailed.
It is possible that Turkey would have joined the Axis if they had won.
There is a possibility that Spain may also have joined the Axis at this time.
Controlling North Africa would have led to a new campaign to liberate East Africa.
Axis forces stationed on the Induan Ocean would have greatly strengthened the Japanese efforts in Asia.
The defeat and capture of many mainly English-speaking South Africans would have strengthened the far-right Nationalist Afrikaans majority, possibly leading to a brief Civil War or a coup, to remove South Africa from English control.
Whether SA would join the Axis is difficult to predict, but at a minimum, Great Britain would have lost its naval bases in South Africa making access to the Indian Ocean more difficult.
Australia and New Zealand would have fallen into the American sphere of influence due to proximity and reliance on American War materials.
A defeat in North Africa would also have cost these two countries most of their fighting forces, leaving them vulnerable to Japanese invasion.
India would be isolated and most likely defeated by the Japanese and internal revolt against British rule.
Madagascar may well have become a Japanese possession to control access to the southern Indian Ocean.
Germany's main opposition would then be America, Canada, and Britain in the Atlantic.
If Turkey joined the Axis, Soviet Russia would have faced a two-front invasion, and it barely survived the initial German invasion.
Palestine was the gateway to India, the connecting link between three continents, if held by the English and the Jews, both shopkeepers, offers the opportunity of making the land of Israel the great imperium of East and West:Bernard Rosenblatt, Social Zionism, pp145,146
Uit :Water flowing eastward van Mrs L.Fry blz.50
@kareldekale4987 Shopkeepers huh... You forget the Palestinian Jews were divided at the time, some fighting for the British, some defending against Arab raids, and those that continued to fight against the British, who they considered occupiers.
Well, those Shopkeepers certainly surprised the world, didn't they!
@@robert-trading-as-Bob69
Just follow the money, even to-day with the coming third world war!
Informative as always, thank you!
Let me start off by saying that I love your video's. Please keep up the great work.
I have to ask though: which post processing have you used to make your footage 4k60p. The artifacts and lack of motion blur really hurts my brain.
I haven't noticed it until this video though. Did you change something?
Edit: Nevermind. I see you've changed it in the "Why Did The Americans Hate Monty?" video.
Regarding the (potential) loss of the Suez Canal:
*What was stated:* 3:23 "...which fed the British war machine."
*What I heard at 1:11am:* "...which fed the British royal tea."
Same thing
No mention of the Persian corridor? A Axis victory in North Africa would have not only led to the capture of the middle eastern oil fields but also cut of one of the major supply routes of lend lease cargo to the Soviet Union.
It's a bit of a drive from Egypt to Iran.
that footage is amazing
Thanks for the video. You might want to lay off the upscaling though, it was pretty rough looking.
wonderful video as usual, but please PLEASE don't make it standard practice to run historical footage through a frame interpolator, or to use previously interpolated footage in your videos, it actively harms the footage
Na, the unedited footage is probably widely available, if the original worse-quality image is what you prefer then might as well go out of your way to actually watch it (in its entirety) and not just these clips.
Good presentation, folks. Not so sure about many of the seemingly AI-enhanced video clips, however (I watched the 4k playback version here on YT.) But nonetheless, the content and messaging are helpful in supporting the Title's question.
The voice of this channel is so nostalgic to me at this point
Great video information-wise, but maybe ditch the weird AI upscaling on the archival footage in the future.
I like how the films were redone and frame rate stabilized. Brings everything to a whole new perspective.
Honestly I think it looks terrible. Everything is so smudgy looking.
I didn’t realize how smooth it looked for an old film until you mentioned it! You’re right, a little touch up like this makes it much more enjoyable to watch
The issue was what happens if Germany and Italy win North Africa - Suez was important in peacetime, less so when the entire Med is basically impossible for shipping. But east of Egypt through you have the oil fields of the caucaus - Germany really needed Oil and would have loved to have gotten its hands on it, similarly doing so would have completely incapacitated Russia which was Hitlers main goal to start with (and obviously he was planning on invading)
The USSR would still be a formidable and larger miltary than Germany without all the mechanization and mobility that caucus oil provided.
At the going down of the Sun and in the morning we will remember them.
Are the historical clips somehow enhanced? They seem a little bit sharp, but not consistanly.
"Why did the North Africa Campaign Matter in WW2?" Oil (WW2 was the 2nd major energy war), Suez canal (trade and communications with the Far East) and Russia's southern flank. Plus a win for GB right when they needed it...a moral boost.
What do you consider the first major energy war? The Sino-Japanese war?
@@jacobdewey2053 As far as death toll WW1. It was about access to Mideast oil via a pipeline running through Turkey and into the Balkans. That's partly why there was so much tension in the region prior to Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassination.
Suez was only a minor factor during wartime - nothing could go through the med anyway - at best it was a way of supporting Cyprus after Crete fell. Obviously very important in peacetime. Had the Germans taken all of persia and into the caucasus then potentially suez may have been useful for them to ship oil back but more likely it would have gone through the black sea.
@@tomriley5790 Suez and Egypt mattered to GB.
Rommel also had his own personal camera crew that would do his propaganda pieces. He meticulously rewatched the footage to make sure that everything was perfekt and that he was shown as the astute hero we remember him today
As did nearly every great general and political leader throughout history. It doesn't always work, but it's nothing new and nothing to condemn IMO. You would probably do the exact same in that position. Very few wouldn't.
Propaganda does a lot for the morale of your own troops.
@@SuperCatacata Except no, no they didn't, that's why its a notable thing with Rommel, even among German generals he had a tendency to film his exploits more then his peers, to the point it rubbed some of them the wrong way.
This is why we have such an abundance of footage of Rommel compared to someone like Archibald Wavell.
@@SuperCatacataNah, Rommel was just an attention wh0re, put plain and simple.
It was extremely common as part of the propaganda machine that the Nazis were so friggin good with. I recently watched a short documentary about the Black Baron tank "ace". I forget his name, but he was Bavarian, joined the nazi party in 1930, was vetted to be an SS officer pretty much immediately, and every battle he took place in his exploits were greatly exaggerated and publicized. Meanwhile, there was another German tank ace who had better numbers, but he was not pure blooded, he did not care to keep his uniform neat and clean and did not keep a clean shave, and he was in the Wehrmacht, not the SS
I watched this to fall asleep, slept for 15 hours. Grear video, would watch again.
What's going on here? Somehow these video clips look like modern 4K clips that have been rendered BnW rather than the standard 2-D BnW low-res reel from 80years ago...how did you do this?? It is amazing!
Hitler had always been obsessed with defeating the Soviets even before the start of the war. It was always his main focus, hence why he viewed a navy as somewhat superfluous which would have been vital in the Mediterranean. He thought he could negotiate an armistice with Churchill after the fall of France and then turn his efforts East. In his mind, everything else was a distraction from his main target, little thought had been given to the importance of Northern Africa, which if had been planned early enough (i.e logistics, capturing of strategic resources) likely would have succeeded. It was an ongoing conversation between Rommel and Hitler for more resources as Rommel, rightly so, believed that capturing the oil fields and Suez Canal would have secured vital resources and all but put the British out of the war. Hitler also courted Islamic leaders and Nazi Germany made significant attempts to promote an alliance with the "Muslim world" against their alleged common enemies - the British Empire, the Soviet Union, America and Jews. Tens of thousands of Muslims had fought in Nazi units during the war.
Heard of P.I. Force in WWII? Palestine - Iraq Force. Aside from the British Army of North Africa these troops protected specifically the Kirkuk - Baniyas pipelines, T2, T3 & T4, running from Iraq to Palestine along with the Kirkuk Oilfields. If the Germans captured Egypt these fell into their hands with catastrophic consequences. My father, in the Intelligence Corps, was based in Rutba as part of this force and was, additionally, tasked with laying out artillery batteries and lines of sight for an anticipated post-WWII invasion of northern Iraq by Russia. Strange to know, when most people are unaware of it, that the plans for a potential WWIII against Stalin were underway even in 1942. I have his photographs. This is not a subject I've ever seen discussed in a history documentary.
Please continue with a video on the formation of the SAS and their involvement in North Africa
AWESOME 🤘🏻🤘🏻🤘🏻
Great video, but the AI upscaled footage kind of misses the mark in a lot of places. I think the original raw footage would be better. Not everything has to be 4k :)
I've noticed that AI upscaled footage has a strange flickering effect that makes it almost unwatchable on my monitor. I had to move the video to a super small window to be able to actually watch it. I'd rather see the original footage instead of the flickery mess.
I thought that something was amiss ! As I was watching I had this eery feeling that the footage seemed too "modern" and real. AI adjustment makes perfect sense thanks
I'm getting nausea from the AI restored footage. Faces are morphing and are unrecognizable and the vehicles look like blow-up toys.
Seriously, it’s awful. I was coming into the comments to talk about this.
yea it looks incredibly off
Churchill took troops from the 8th Army to support Greece. The 2nd battle at El Alamein was finally won due to the efforts of the Australian 9th Division as admitted by Montgomery thereby saving Britains arse. They also held Tobruk far longer than expected.
They did it again in New Guinea at Finschhafen when MacArthur at first refused to transport another brigade from Lae. So they also saved Macarthurs arse and allowed him to get to the Philippines
Bloody oath
Yeah nah
Please quote Montgomery on how you won the war in the desert? Were the Australians supplied by the Royal Australian Navy and the Australian merchant marine? Was their air support all Australian, was all their artillery Australian or all their tanks? I know you won WW1 by yourselves so now it is the dessert war as well...well done.
What is going on with the frame rate of some of the historical videos? I’m ok with updating them with added cells but I’d like to know if they are restored or original.
This really depends on how much you zoom out. If you zoom all the way out it becomes easy access to the Middle East, less shorelines to defend, preserving navy resources. If you zoom all the way in it becomes oil in Libya, and minerals in Algeria.
As a 27 year old born in 96 I've only ever seen wars that either turned out too be started on lies or on a purpose too gain wealth. Thats why i feel it's so important too study ww2 and understand the sacrifices made
How is WW2 any different?
Jesus man. The media has told you over n over the usa is the bad guy. We arent. 9-11 we went into afgahnistan. 03 we went into iraq ... for why again? Well he ... saddamn... was a terrorist plain n simple. Harboring wmd. Paying suicide bombers. WEEKLY SHOOTING MISSILES AT OUR PLANES IN THE NO FLY ZONE.
All of those were the reasons to go do it. Post 9-11 we didnt fuk around with terrorist threats like saddam was. Iraq was just as right as Afghanistan was.
"I've only ever seen wars that either turned out too be started on lies or on a purpose too gain wealth" yeah that's ww2 for you... For both sides.
WW2 is no different! It should have ended in July of 1940. History is written to suit those people in power.
The more I learn the more I wonder: did Mussolini make a single correct military decision?
If there were any please someone point them out to me.
Hmmmm...... Invasion of Albania........?
aiding franco
Probably better for Hitler if he'd never joined forces with Mussolini.
Found out recently from German stenographic records (typed up records of meetings) . north africa was only place Germany had to source cobalt. And without adding it to the steel they were made from, it's high performance aircraft engines couldn't run for more than a few hours without self destructing
My great uncle fought in the North African campaign and took his guitar and harmonica everywhere he fought he was 19 when he joined the military he said that when he got there and the boat landed that he could smell the bodies in the heat and that as he got closer to the base he saw what was making it they were useing bulldozers to push hundreds of bodies into pits he said the people looked more like one giant living thing than individuals and he said he sat there and broke down then one of his commanding officers came to talk to him he asked him what was wrong and he said he was worried about his wife and kid back home then his commander laughed and said there gonna be fine you see that pit out there that’s what you have to worry about and then left he passed away this year at around 98 I believe and was an awesome man who never let what he saw and did get in his rip to the best Magician and musician my uncle Nelson lowe
A well-done video. But I noticed the 'baffling' comment about why Germany invaded Crete. Crete was important because any allied airbases there allowed bomber strikes against Ploesti, threatening Hitler's ability to power his war machine. Also, one other comment I'd like to make, about Raeder and his Plan Orient. It's my contention that without a strong navy, a mechanized force in the Mediterranean and the Middle East was impractical. I think Hitler saw this and Raeder did not, which is why Hitler didn't pursue it. In a nutshell, Mechanized warfare (trucks and tanks, etc) requires a strong road and rail network to be effective. There were few such places on earth at the time, other than parts of Western Russia, Europe, and the US. The German reliance on Breakthrough and Exploitation tactics didn't work well in any theater where support infrastructure was lacking - Rommel went back and forth on his long supply line because of this limitation. The German War Machine in WW2 was incapable of operating as effectively anywhere else other than Europe. Of course there are many other reasons contributing to why Hitler lost (thankfully!), but this aspect of mobile warfare and supply limits is one that is seldom mentioned, and is very important to why the war happened the way it did.
I disagree only about what you say about Raeder/Hitler see... Raeder knew a whole lot more about strategy than Hitler. Having a non-Nazi-reasonable leader insted of Hitler in Berlin, then the German Navy and Airforce would recieve top priority in 1940, placing all available forces in the Mediteranian, crushing the British there with ease by 1941, maybe even by late 1940. The Royal Navy would not dare to enter the Mediteranian like they didn't dare to enter the Baltic Sea because of total german air dominance there. We should not forget that historically during the war the Nazi-government put top priority to the Army at all times because Hitler was obsessed with going to the East - a non-Nazi-leader would not do that. Luckily insane people in power end up in self-destruction.
@@andrejguesswho9837 Reasonable arguments...however, some thoughts to consider: how would Germany get naval units into the Med? Gibraltar was held by the RN. It would have needed to be done before the war started, basing German ships in Italian ports (and Hitler wasn't even thinking about Africa or the Middle East at the time). Note that the Italian navy was a good size force, just not well-led. It might have done better had the leaders been any good, but Hitler didn't know that in 39-40. The Kriegsmarine was much smaller than the Italian navy, and then it was decimated by the attack vs. Norway in 40, losing cruisers and destroyers it couldn't afford to lose. It had little left except U-Boats and Bismarck and Tirpitz getting finished. Not enough to fight the British. The real problem with Raeder's Plan Orient is supply. Britain can supply via Suez into Middle East if necessary. Raeder's strategy for Germany focuses on the Middle East, not Libya, and therefore has to go through Yugoslavia and Greece (but not before 1941, when they were conquered), then across E. Med to Syria (a Vichy-owned colony) past Cyprus (which was British held, which means air interdiction of German supply convoys), then a truck supply line going south through Transjordan, Palestine, and finally reaching the backdoor to Sinai and Egypt (all with limited road capacity and limited air fields in the 40's)...in addition, the Germans had to supply Rommel at the same time via Italy first, then convoy to Libya after that, which was guarded by British air and subs in Malta. Nearly half of Rommel's supplies during 40-41 were sunk by Britain, and Rommel had serious problems with fuel and lack of replacement tanks; adding another front or three or more divisions to Rommel would have strained Italian and German supply capacity far too much (and aircraft need large amounts of fuel to maintain air superiority, as well as replacements from damage - desert weather was hard on equipment). I've always liked Plan Orient as an idea, but I don't think it's practical given the conditions (heat and dust) or the road network in the region. All in all, I do think your points well-taken - given a lot of pre-war preparation a Southern Strategy might have worked for Germany, but without that I can't see it doing well.
@@brianjones3540 You describe the historic situation in the Mediterranian accurately. Imagine Mussolini would not jump into the war as he did in June 1940 - the British were even better prepared for them in Egypt than the Italians were. Imagine Italy would coordinate with the Germans a combined logistical and strategical advance toward the Middle East, befriend the French, using the whole Luftwaffe against Malta and Egypt - then the Royal Navy could not stay in the Mediterranian and the British would have lost Egypt, Palestine and Iraq.
But no, Hitler went with 90 % of Army and Luftwaffe against Russia and so any sufficient plan in Africa was doomed from the Start.
I wouldn't consider Crete a 'baffling' target - its strategic position provides both air and naval cover to friendly and threats to enemy shipping in the area.
I don't believe Germany's involvement in the Balkans or North Africa had any impact on the Eastern Front. Indeed, what could have happened had they not gotten involved there would likely have been far more disasterous.
Germany's involvement in the Balkans delayed the attack on the USSR until June 22. Summer instead of Springtime. The Germans were stopped outside Moscow by Generals "Mud" and "Winter". Had the campaign started in the Spring (as originally planned), Moscow would likely have fallen to the Germans.
@PRWphoto that is a common misconception not supported by facts. The weather in April from Kiev to Leningrad still has snow on the ground, which melts and causes mud throughout May.
At best the Wehrmacht could have had an additional 3 weeks of time in October before the autumn mud kicked in to capture Moscow, which does not seem especially likely.
Moreover we can only speculate about the outcome of the initial invasion in these circumstances. Would the same great encirclements have taken place? It could be argued no. Equally, would the Allied aid to the USSR not also have started sooner in these circumstances? Said aid played a critical role in the defense of Moscow.
I'd suggest you read a little more into the topic. There are likely plenty of videos exploring this particular 'what if'.
@@PRWphoto That's a long-debunked myth
This is well put together, but I also feel that the AI upscaling of footage is a bit too obvious in places.
Operation Compass next, please!
Had the Australian 6th Division not been sent to Greece the desert war might have been over in 1941. It was a tragically stupid decision.
The 4th Indian division was also sent away as well, those two units were hardened veterans.
Yes.
But by a bizarre twist of events,
if Benito had been driven out of
NA entirely, ‘dolf would have written off the whole trans-Med
Front & concentrate on the Eastern front with an attack from the south of russia through the oil fields of Iraq
where at the time broke out an uprising against the British, calling to ‘dolf for help.
The Student paratroop division
sent to Baghdad via Syria-Lebanon would have secured
Hitler the whole Levant.
Thank you Intel, much appreciated. Would it not be a stranger thing to be a young Italian man at this time? Yes and well acknowledged popular disapproval of Imperium Novum as may be, the staggering death they endured surely hints at some degree of suicidal despair.
Will you be covering the battle of monte Cassino?
Thanks
was the AI remastering really necessary
It's amazing how Germany wasted their airborne forces in Crete instead of working together with the Italian navy and airforce in taking Malta with added backup from the Italian paratroopers in 1941 while Malta was still weak. I think it could still have been possible. What the whole war showed was how weak and distrustful the Axis powers were with each other. They never really had a chance of winning right from the beginning with no unified plan.
th-cam.com/users/shortsBmc9NFfhx74?feature=share4
It's almost as if they never intended to start a world war or something and were trying to figure it out as they went?
Those B&W films have some good quality images🧐
The content is good, but the frame interpolation is really distracting.
Man AI upscale is terrible. I hope this is not becoming a trend for the channel.
4:24 - how did the Allies do that ?
A 5 day raid turning into a complete collapse. Italy had gone bonkers, they went well beyond their logistics line with way too many men and the British were able to destroy them piece by piece. It also helped the British had an extremely good command and logistics leader in Wavell at the time and a good field commander in O'Conner.
Theres a pretty in depth video on youtube about operation Compass, well worth a watch by TIK.
@watch-Dominion-2018 The British out-maneuvered the Italians.
The British divisions were motorised so they could surround the Italian infantry, who quickly surrendered.
@@brafianblackfyre9220 Whats left out of the video is those British divisions were also outnumbered by around 5 to 1.
@@mitchverr9330 didn't answer my question
The AI upscaled video is so funny - makes it look like some alternate reality
Good video but you didn't mention why in the latter parts of the battle for north africa the germans needed to hold tunisia as long as possible.
Illusion oblige
The quality of the historic footage is amazing
I'm pretty sure it's AI interpolated to improve the quality. It's good, but it has a weird, uncanny feel to it.
It's touched up with AI.
@@jhonbus I'm glad I'm not the only one that found it slightly horrifying.
@@jhonbus that makes sense i rewatched it and looking closer people and shapes look a lil different, very cool tho