Why is the North African Campaign of WWII completely ignored? It seems nobody talks about it at all.
I don't even understand the strategic significance of Northern Africa. Why did anyone want to occupy a gigantic, barely traversable desert with absolutely no infrastructure? Is it just
Because it was a bunch of fucking sand and that's it.
What are you going to tell me, that Rabat or Cairo were the dramatic settings for the fights that would determine global civilization for decades to come?
The goal was Egypt and the Suez canal. Capturing that greatly curtails British communication with India, isolates their forces in the Middle East, opens up a route to invade the Levant, Iraq and Persia (one of the biggest producers of oil at the time, outside of Murrica) and ultimately greatly reduces Allied capabilities to operate in the Med. It also places pressure on Turkey to choose a side.
Oil wasn't discovered in N.Africa until the late 50s
It's enormously overdiscussed. All this Rommel wanking is North Africa basically.
Although, to be honest, I do think people like this are >>580233 overstating it. North Africa led to Italy, and the mere allied presence in Italy forced about 50 divisions off the main front in Eastern Europe for a far lesser Allied presence in the same theater.
It's mostly to be able to project airpower into the central Mediterranean. The Germans had certain pie in the sky ideas about taking Suez, but even the idea of keeping the British and later Americans out of Tripoli and Tunis had a lot of merit. Precisely because the place is desert with no infrastructure, it's hard to put large armies in the theater and actually do anything with them. That means you can defend the region with a far less commitment of force than you can closer to your heartlands, in Italy.
The amount of oil existent in the middle east at the time was tiny. Venezuela was drilling more in 1941 than Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia combined.
It was a very decisive factor in the war and while it wasn't as large as the other theaters it had a huge impact in how the war happened the way it did. The axis winning it would give them naval dominance in the Mediterranean and make Italy a more useful ally on other fronts while also blocking off allied shopping from Asia into Europe and vice versa. The allies winning, as they did historically, gave them naval and air superiority across almost all of Europe and opened the ground for the first offensives into Europe itself, first into Sicily and then creating a whole new front across Italy, which diverted valuable Italian and German troops from other fronts and ultimately lead to the fall to the only major German ally on European soil
Yes, battles like them did, as this theater basically decided who would own the Suez Canal, something that could possibly decide the outcome of the war as axis control over it would cripple shipping routes from Europe and Asia, leaving the fronts there much more isolated for the allies and more liked for the axis than they ever were. While it might have decided the outcome of the whole war it was an important theatre in its own right
There was no realistic way the Germans were getting all the way to Suez. They had enough trouble projecting force all the way to Tobruk, let alone virtually double that distance.
From the German perspective, the importance of the North African campaign was strategically defensive, not offensive: You can hold off the Anglo-Allies with 2-8 divisions, instead of 50 or so that you'll need once they start Husky. That's a big difference if you think you can make some kind of meaningful attack on the Russian front, which is where you're really hoping to win the war.
It's considered part of the western front.
>tfw the western front was the last glorious war.
I wouldn't say it's ignored, just overshadowed.
The Fifteenth air force (Mediterranean) had a song about being overlooked in comparison to the Eighth (England)
>It’s still the same old story,
>The Eighth gets all the glory,
>While we go out to die.
>The fundamental things apply,
>As flak goes by.
While they had a lot of long term consequences, they had little to no impact on the overall outcome of the war, and only happened because Churchill wanted to give the Russians and the Nazis more time to pound on each other.
If he had ignored this theater, and instead dedicated his forces to an advanced, as early as he had promised Stalin he was going to, the war would have ended two years earlier.
Husky and Avalanche prompted the dissolution of Mussolini's regime and the re-dedication of about 50 extra Heer divisions and Luftwaffe assets to both Italy and garrison duty that had been vacated by Italian troops in places like Greece and Yugoslavia.
Meanwhile, Sledgehammer or Roundup carry enormous risks when the German air presence in North Europe isn't broken, and the terrain is much more suited to the sort of counterattack that you saw in Kasserine. If that happens in Normandy or Brittany, you're rolled into the water, and it's real bad.
Never heard Guadalcanal mentioned as a turning point before but I guess it makes sense. First succesful land based operation against the japanese, I guess.
The turning point in the Pacific was Pearl Harbor when the Japanese missed sinking the carriers.
Every action that the Japanese planned prior to the outbreak of the war as a success. Every action they planned or were involved with after their initial surprise successes were failures.
>The turning point in the Pacific was Pearl Harbor when the Japanese missed sinking the carriers.
Even if Pearl Harbor sank the two carriers, that still leaves the U.S. with 5, and when those Essex class vessels come out, it doesn't matter.
Japan had no way of winning a total war against the U.S. no matter what she did; her only hope is to do some kind of Vietnamesque or American Revolutionesque war of attrition, and hoping to sign a peace with honor. Pearl Harbor itself, the outrage the sneak attack generated in the American public, made this impossible.
The only chance the Japanese had would have been to call FDR's bluff, invade the NEI, proclaim loudly that they're liberating those poor Indonesians from colonial oppression, and hope to spin the propaganda war well enough that the American public tires of the fighting after a few years.
What is this from? I cant even find it reverse image searching.
Also, I don't think North Africa is ignored. It was what first interested me when I began reading about WWII, I always assumed it was one of the most popular and read about parts of the war.
It was not very successful for the United States. Though we pushed the Germans out, the United States had many casualties. Since it was the first location of deployment of the US, many of our troops were in-experienced.
For the sake of history, Indiana Jones did absolutely nothing, Nazis would be molt and killed by the light anyway.
A small part of the north African campaign with 1/3 of the ground forces, all the navy and most of the airforce coming from the uk. It was planned to be marketed as a us invasion as churchill thought it would be more palatable to the french.
Because it was strategic in the sense that whoever controlled it controlled half the Mediterranean. Which the allies would want to do to invade Italy, and which Germany would want to do to stop or limit Italian expansion in the case of the them winning the war.