I know some of the battles fought in North Africa, and I believe that the Italians were the original Axis power to fight there before Germany sent troops, but why were the world powers fighting over NA itself?
As I understand things from a timeline, the Brits invaded Libya from Egypt after Italy declared war on Britain and France, and Italy then invaded Egypt from Libya.
But I am not exactly sure why there was fighting in North Africa at all.
were the oil reserves in Libya, for example, being fought over?
did Italy just try to make a land grab since the war in Europe was occupying a lot of men, money, and materials from the powers, and they figured they could take what they wanted in Africa easily?
was this viewed strategically as a possible entry point into Europe to take on the Nazis (and Italy)?
This is one area of WWII i am very fuzzy on. If there is a factual answer, perhaps this would be better placed in GQ. However, I thought there might be competing theories on this topic, so I figured I’d start it here because it would probably end up here.
There were grand strategic concerns. If the Axis could block the Suez Canal, they could make the Allies war efforts more costly and difficult. Menacing Egypt could, by extension, threaten the entire near east, and a breakout into Mesopotamia, blocking rail access to India.
That much was unlikely, but it was the sort of thing that strategists like to keep sealed off if possible.
Also, after the Italian adventures and the British expulsion of them from Ethiopia, there were troops in the region, and thus the two sides found it easy to engage in spiraling reinforcement. Where there are troops, there will be fighting.
Also, of course, General Vogel was leading a detachment to bring The True Cross to Adolph Hitler, while Henry Jones Sr. was shadowing his every move, and troops were sent to back them up.
N Africa began as Italian adventurism against British interests in Egypt.
Then it became a rescue mission by the Germans. Who then realised that losing N Africa was akin to having the entire South of Europe open for invasion. While victory would see them Britain perhaps fatally from her empire, and at the very least open up mid eastern oil fields. For this reason Guderian proposed sending additional troops to Africa in early 1942, which were not forthcoming until after defeat was ensured.
Libyan oil was not discovered until the 50’s. Ironic.
North Africa and the Middle East had been divided between Britain, France, and Italy in the colonial era. So when Italy joined in on the German side in World War II, the border between Italian Libya and British Egypt* became a front line. The British eventually gained the upper hand so the Germans intervened to assist their Italian ally.
Basically it became a significant theater of the war because after France fell, it was the only place where British land forces were still fighting the Axis.
*Egypt’s status was unusual. It was recognized as an independent nation but it was also an unofficial British protectorate. This led to the unusual situation where the British and the Axis were fighting in Egypt for control of the country while Egypt itself remained neutral in the war.
Absolutely. North Africa in Axis hands meant the Med. was 100% theirs since it served both as an air base and a naval base.
No Med. control, no landings in Sicily, Italy, Provence or Greece. Meaning Overlord gets even more foolhardy than it already was. Not that the Italians were ever a magnificent fighting force of course, but knocking it out of the fight meant a non-negligible amount of German troops had to be allocated to the defence of its southern regions & the Alps (Gustav line, Gothic line etc…) rather than concentrate up north.
Indeed, it was considered a southern route into Europe. Churchill dubbed the plan going for the “soft underbelly” of Europe. Of course, it didn’t turn out to be so soft, but it was a strategic consideration.
If he had his way, we would have launched the big invasions via the southern route. It took the insistence of the American side to get the go ahead for Overlord.
IIRC, a lot of Africa was in play during WWII as the Allies (including the Free French) attempted to bring French colonies from the Vichy side to the Free French side. Some of this was a matter of negotiation, but there were military campaigns as well. Not as much as in North Africa, but it’s an interesting tidbit. I’m not well versed on the matter, and someone else will have to chime in (unless the OP would consider that a hijack).
Both, but not so much because of the oil. Iraq was semi-independent after having been under British rule following WWI when there was a coup d’état with pro-Axis leanings. The British invaded and restored the monarchy in a brief campaign. A small number of German planes supported the Iraqi revolt, having flown to the country via Vichy French Syria, which further soured the already bad relations between the British and the Vichy government, an Anglo-Free French invasion of Vichy French Syria followed the next month.
Mostly in a theoretical sense. If the Germans planned on setting up this kind of flank attack, the best way would have been through Turkey not North Africa. And the Germans didn’t put any serious effort into forming an alliance with Turkey or making plans for an invasion.
The bottom line was Hitler was obsessed with Europe. He basically just didn’t care about the rest of the world. He was annoyed at Italy for drawing him into North Africa and devoted minimal resources there.
Plus there’s the fact that north Africa was where Britain could fight the Axis. The bomber war was doing what it could, but until an invasion of Europe looked less suicidal north Africa was the only theater available for British ground strength.
1 - assumptions that Britain was soon to surrender. Mussolini was desperate to get some credit, however slight, for defeat Britain and France, and wanted to snaffle up as many crumbs of victory as he could before Germany took it all. Hence his invasions of southern France, Greece, and Egypt.
2 - control of the Mediterranean. Mussolini wanted the Med to be an Italian lake. The Regia Marina was a fairly formidable force, but obviously the British Royal Navy was its main rival after France was knocked out of the war. There were half-arsed plans to attack Malta which were never realized, despite the British more or less giving Malta up as not capable of defending early in the war.
3 - control of Suez. This was a prestigious prize as the Canal was a major source of revenue and a major military asset
Objectives for Britain:
1 - defence of Egypt. See Suez, above.
2 - control of the Med. Britain has always valued its sea power as a means of blockading the enemy and being able to deploy troops anywhere. The entry of Italy into the war made the Med too dangerous for much Allied shipping so troop ships and supplies had to take the more ‘scenic’ route around the Cape of Good Hope.
3 - protect the Suez Canal. It might be less useful while the Med is a warzone, but it would be invaluable once the Med is cleared. Also, losing the Canal would be a major, humiliating defeat for Britain and jeopardize the security of the Middle Eastern oil fields, and its loss would enable the Germans and Italians to link up with Japan and imperil India.
4 - national morale - even though Britain itself was safe from invasion after a spell, the British Army was in such a sorry state in terms of equipment that it was unable to meet the German Army in the field on equal terms for years. The British people wanted destruction dealt on Germany which is why the British put great store on a potent bomber fleet, but there was frustration that the Army wasn’t doing anything. So until the Army was capable of fighting the Germans as equals, and until the Allies returned to Europe, fighting Italy in North Africa had to do.
Objectives for Germany:
In part mixed up with Italy’s objectives, but they also wanted to keep Italy in the war once it was shown how bloody awful the Italian army was. Italy was a useful buffer to protect southern Europe from British invasion.
