Was the Afrika Korps worth it?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 04. 2018
- Was it worth it to send the Afrika Korps at all? In this video we look at the Mediterranean Campaign in World War 2, which is usually overshadowed by the "Desert Warfare" between Rommel and Montgomery.
»» GET OUR BOOK ««
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» RallyPoint - www.rallypoint.com/organizati...
» tumblr - / militaryhistoryvisualized
Military History Vlogs is a support channel to Military History Visualized with a focus personal accounts, answering questions that arose on the main channel and showcasing events like visiting museums, using equipment or military hardware.
» SOURCES «
Ball, Simon: The Mediterranean and North Africa, 1940-1944, in: Cambridge History of the Second World War - Volume I, p. 358-388
Preston, Paul: Spain: betting on a Nazi victory; in: Cambridge History of the Second World War: Volume II: Politics & Ideology, p. 324-349
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Band 3: Der Mittelmeerraum und Südosteuropa 1940-1941 (English Version below)
ENGLISH VERSION: Germany and the Second World War, Volume 3, The Mediterranean, South-east Europe, and North Africa, 1939-1941
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 6 - Der Globale Krieg
ENGLISH VERSION: Germany and the Second World War - Volume 6 - The Global War
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 8
ENGLISH VERSION: Germany and the Second World War - Volume 8 - The Eastern Front 1943-1944: The War in the East and on the Neighbouring Fronts
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#AfrikaKorps #AfricaCorps #WW2
The bottom line is that the North African campaign would've been worth it for the Axis if they'd won. Closing the Suez Canal to Allied shipping, and seizing the oil ports in (British controlled) Palestine and (French controlled) Lebanon - the ports through which oil from Iraq and Iran reached the west - would've meant a major shift in the resource balance of power.
The Allies at least understood this. Of the many fronts on which WW2 was fought, Syria/Iraq/Iran is one of the least well-known, and most deserving of a future video...
The Axis might have won if they had captured more oil supplies early. After 1942 they would have fuel to train pilots and fly. Fuel to maneuver tanks to flank and encircle instead of just going in straight lines. The Italian Navy could have left their harbors. When the German cities were being bombed there were hundreds of Me-262s grounded due to lack of pilots and fuel. Few people consider how limited Axis strategy was by their lack of fuel. They used wood powered steam engine tanks to train their tank crews. That is fairly desperate.
@ Amber Maynard - Though undoubtedly a technological marvel, the Me 262 did not have the capacity to win the war for the Germans, even had it been available in large numbers. Allied fighters could and did shoot it down - and in any case, by the time it was operational the war was already won and lost.
Your point about fuel, however, is spot on. Some years ago, the Daily Telegraph (my newspaper of choice) produced a facsimile of its edition when war was declared. Among other things, it ventured the opinion that "Whoever controls the oil supplies will win the war."
The Axis might have won it if Hilter did not start another front Barbarossa. Had Axis concentrated their effort just for 1 year, double the Africa Korp and triple the supply, naval and aerial protection etc. and finish the job first before invading Soviet.
The Axis had to start the war against the russians.
They didn't know this at the time and undererstimated the soviets by a fair amount, but Stalin was
preparing for a huge war since the 20's.
Their Army was to that time well equipped and terms of pure numbers, but their huge lacks in organisation and the results of the purge led to the Germans gaining huge amounts of territory. This wouldn't be the case if the germans had waited 1 or 2 years.
@@cyrilchui2811 Read Ice Breaker. It explains why the Germans attacked Russia first.
From the Axis standpoint, mid 1940 push to the Suez Canal might have convinced Britain to sue to peace in fall 1940 during the Battle of Britain. The end result of Axis forces pushing through Egypt and ending up close to the Caucasus would position themselves better for invasion of Russia. Being at peace with Britain may have freed up more forces for Barbarossa.
I agree. Even if Britain wouldn't have surrended, it would have been probably greatly weakened and the Axis would have had more troops to invade Russia once finished the fights in North Africa.
Yeah and the Axis wouldn't even need to maintain a force in Egypt. The canal could be destroyed and then the forces withdrawn and redeployed elsewhere.
Maybe they could even have headed west and threatened Gibraltar too.
If they captured the canal, couldn't the British have invaded Morocco and pushed eastward like they did after Operation Torch? I assume they never did it before that because action in Egypt was a priority but if that was cut off invading into Vichy-held Africa wouldn't be too difficult, it would keep them on the north of the continent, and it would force the Germans to redeploy to cover their flank and slow down any further pushes into the Middle East.
CreatorUser They couldn't have defeated the British in North Africa. The ports in Egypt had more capacity than those in Libya and Britain had railways connecting. Britain could afford to maintain and supply larger armies in North Africa than the Germans and Italians. The British cannot be driven from North Africa and given its importance Britain wouldn't allow it to fall.
"if britain had sued for peace it "MAY" have freed up more soldiers for the eastern front." MAY,,.. Its the only reason the eastern front held!, because they stood strong and kept a western front open.!
My message to OKW:
Do. Or do not. There is no try.
This. Of course OKW would need to have a clear definition of what "Do" actually meant. That is the civilian power should have gave that to them translate in military terms.
That definition never came. And the reason was because Hitler and the Nazis never had it or the need to have it in the first place.
Arguably that is however not how wars work. Instead you have two or more nations do all kinds of shenanigans they can come up with and usually do not really have a grand strategy to begin with once the shit hits the fan. They have plans, but whether they work or not they usually don't know in advance nor see unraveling while embroiled in it.
Instead everyone keep fighting with any way they can come up with and are able to until the will to fight collapses.
It's the reason nation wars are that much more vicious than the more autocratic wars of before.
Oh brother. Movie philosophy. I hate that line. It’s really stupid.
@@melgross Makes you think about the mentality behind your attempts at anything, though. If it's half-hearted, I find I need to think about why that is. "I'll try" and "I don't care if I can't do it and I'm insane for still going for it, I'm doing it" produce results that are leagues apart. In my experience, the inner coward can't distinguish between courage and insanity at all.
I like you mention the details of what there were of strategical importance there and you mention habours, airfields and main roads. I like that detail because as an officer in the danish army we had maps called "passability maps" (sorry for bad google translate) showing all details of an area and it ability to support tanks and trucks driving there. Next it was also shown where it was posible to use parashute soldiers. All details also telling the amount of troops there could be in a area and amount of troops just driving through. Using this information it was actual very very easy to have a major strategy and tactic of defense... To this I actual had heard that it is very few places where it actual will be pausible to drive with a truck or tank. So now you have why the desert war went as it did. :-) If you want to see a map like this I can't help you. They are classified as secret of obviously reasons. No reason to help the enemy with that information.
Why do you only have 14K subs? With the level of detail, effort and professionalism you put into your videos you deserve millions! Good luck for the future from me anyway!
This is a secondary channel - I'm a MHV subscriber and I only just found out about this one. Other fans may also be unaware.
JagerLange yeah I thought it was a name change, then a knock off of the original so thank your for clearing my misunderstanding
Hear, hear!
2 years and now it is 114k :D
134k
Worth it for good uniforms.
Yes ask Prince Harry
THE UNIFORMS🤤🤤🤤🥶🥶🥶
Ah yes, baby shit green, tan and sienna, definitely what I think of when I imagine "good uniforms".
Any commonwealth army had better uniforms and it isn't even close.
Based
Hey, at least our Helmets don't look like you are supposed to eat soup out of them
I disagree with what you say around 12:35.
It is true that places like Romania or, to a larger extent, Maikop in the Caucasus were seen at the time as the largest oil reserves close to Europe, or in Europe. Also, they were maybe seen as larger fields than the Middle East discoveries, but even if Saudi Arabia and Qatar were still virgin of oil exploration in the 1940's, the huge reserves of Iraq were already a known fact, and discovered since the 1920's, thanks to the British and the French explorationists; the pipeline even existed already by the 1930's.
(I work in the domain of oil exploration which is why I felt like I should correct you on this)
huge reserves, yeah, but could they exploit it? Most historians agree that even if the Germans would have taken the Caucasus oil fields that the Soviets would have made them mostly unusable. See also what the Allies did in WW1 with the Romanian fields. So, how do you get the equipment there and then get the oil back? The Mediterranean or Turkey.
And if the pipeline was in place, how many oils did the Allies extract from Iraq during WW2? Because if they did not or very little, I guess there was reason why they did not do it and I doubt the situation for Germany would have been better, after the Allies destroyed the pipeline.
But maybe I am wrong, yet, usually the existence of oil and some infrastructure doesn't imply it is effective at all. Would love to hear your answer, since you know more, but I am rather skeptical.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I was not trying to say that they would have used the oil fields efficiently, just that people did know about large reserves of oil in Iraq. The point I was contesting was "nobody knew really there was oil over there, discoveries in the middle east occurred after the war".
Now, this being said, I honestly don't know what to think about the feasability of actually bringing this oil back to Europe, for this would require a total control of the Mediterranean Sea for the tanker ships to safely bring the raw oil back from Iraq and Syria (oil had been discovered in Syria in 1933, and put in production already by the 1940's). The infrastructure was in place, though, because the french "company of oils" had already been using ships for several years to do this job, bringing the oil in Southern France. Of course, the Brits could have damaged the pipeline, that is true, but such can be fixed, even though it would take precious months. As a matter of facts, by the way, if you look at the yearly reports made by the french "company of oil", in 1945, they complain about the Brits having produced the oil of the iraqi fields (both Brits and Frenchies had shares in the field) and then confiscated all of this produced oil during the entire war (because France was "occupied"), denying the French oil company of any money (even though they too had paid for half the price of the wells/pipelines/studies/ships etc.!). It took many years after the war, for the French oil company to finally agree to give up with this problem of stolen share of the production, and to stop asking for some kind of financiary reparation. So to answer your question: yes, Brits extracted and used much oil from Iraq during WWII !
I note moreover that you just said something especially interesting, and that is "if the Germans had taken the Caucasus oil fields". You said "if", but in fact, even if obviously they never took Baku and the largest fields, strictly speaking, they did control the Maikop fields (close to the northeastern shores of the Black Sea) for some (too little) time. The Soviets had destroyed the required machines and by the time the "Technische Brigade Mineralöl" teams (these guys deserve to have a movie about them, in my opinion, but I digress) had repaired the stuff/brought new machines over, it was already time to retreat and only little oil was actually produced there by the Germans (but not "nothing", like most people assume; if one is to be fair!). Regarding this episode, I recommend you read page 293 of the book "Verrat an der Ostfront" by Friedrich Georg (it is available online for free here: archive.org/details/164492688GeorgFriedrichVerratAnDerOstfrontIDerVerloreneSieg1941422012450SScanText )
On another note yet but since I have your attention: thanks a lot for all of your awesome content!
SNOUPS4 the Baku oil fields were still the most strategically important fields in Europe and the Middle East because they supplied at the time about 70% of the Soviet Union's needs. Denying the Soviets this resource could have crippled their counter offensive or, at the very least, stall it until they were able to import from Iran
DelToro Perdedor interesting, I thought the USSR was able to supply all of its own raw materials
Very true, DelToro Perdedor, indeed, it is not as much using the resources as depriving the enemy of their use, sometimes. NYG5, don't worry, the USSR did have other sources for oil, but Baku was certainly a major one. (the 70% quantity, by the way, I'm not sooo sure about, to be honest, but it certainly represented much, that is for sure)
Yes. It was soldiers of Rommel
that built the house I'd be born
into. When they'd been sent to
Europe to decide what to make
of it. My grandfather provided
land, materials, and asked the
US Army to stand guard so not
one German escaped. Of all
the European skills put into my
childhood home I liked a hand-
carved wood ceiling arch best.
Though painted white you
could see carvings of folklore :
Germanic tribesmen defeating
an entire Roman Legion.
Only recently discovered your channel. Absolutely love the detail you go into.
40% of the Lufwaffe bomber deployment..? I never knew that though I knew that it was substantially disproportonate amount.. In that light it makes sense, among other things of course, that Luftwaffe Feldmarschall Kesselring had the overall command of the Mediterranean field of battle during the height of the action. Another good study from you. Thank you for your efforts.
Have been following all your work for quite a while now..kudos for the effort!!very impressive!
I totally loved it, you're so helpful and smart. Danke
A note on the Leichte Afrika Division...from what I've read on TO&E of the 5 Leichte Division, the division was the same as a panzer division, except that it only had 1 motorized infantry regiment rather than the usual 2. In March 1941, their breakdown on organization looked as follows...
Panzer Regiment 5 (2 panzer battalions)
Infantry Regiment 200 (2 motorized infantry battalions)
Armored Reconnaissance 3
Artillery Regiment 75
Anti-tank Battalion 39*
Heavy Anti-tank Battalion 605*
AA Battalion 606*
AA Battalion 33*
*I'm not sure if these battalions were equipped with self propelled vehicles (ie StuGs and SPAA like the SdKfz 7/1 and 7/2) or if they were equipped with static anti-tank and (respectively) anti-aircraft guns.
Pretty sure that 2 panzer battalions per panzer division was more a case blue - except heeresgrupoe süd - not Barbarossa setup. On the move right now, so can't confirm.
To refer to your video on the 1939 panzer division, a panzer regiment always consisted of 2 panzer battalions, although the early panzer divisions had 2 panzer regiments (forming a brigade), this was later reduced circa 1940-41 to a single panzer regiment per division, after the campaign in France. Discussions I've had on the reason for the reduction of tank forces largely point to two factors: an assessment that the panzer divisions had too many tanks (the formation was too cumbersome and needed to either increase the infantry support - ie the motorized infantry who were later reclassified as panzergrenadiers - or to reduce the number of tanks or to decrease the number of tanks) and the need to create more panzer divisions.
Always, pretty sure I didn't say that or it was wrong. Here are the Barbarossa divs. The 6th and quite a few others have 3 battalions. I thought, it would be more niehorster.org/011_germany/41_organ_army/_41_org_army.htm
czcams.com/video/rk-T-iNSdaw/video.html timestamp 1:33
That's still for a 1939 panzer division with 2 panzer regiments rather than 1.
www.achtungpanzer.com/divis.htm#w44
Looks like you're right about the 1941 divisions and it seems that it was reduced to 2 battalions in 1944. I'll keep looking and see if I can find any information on the 5. Leichte Division.
www.niehorster.org/011_germany/__ge_index.htm
www.niehorster.org/011_germany/42_organ/42-10-23/42_div_afrika.html
These don't entirely settle things for us, but here's a little extra information I managed to get regarding the German light divisions.
Last time I was this early Monty was still building up his forces...wait...that took him ages...bad example...
Montgomery ended the war in Africa as a contest.
Churchill relieved Auchinleck for having the slows and replaced him with Monty who eventually won with the same strategy.
@Alexander Challis Yes but all those qualities went out the window at Remagen in his battle against Patton. German field commanders benefited from allied predictability. Monty was a set piece general. Good with overwhelming resources. Like Grant.
Monty is over rated.
@@garyjones5272 Montgomery did not have the same tactics as Auchinleck.
Martin Van Creveld has a great book called Supplying War which has a chapter that goes into detail on the logistical problems Rommel faced E.g. about the tonnes per day in port capacity, truck capacity over the distances as well as other things like increased wear and reduced engine life on the tanks.
It really breaks it down exceptionally well and concludes that the Afrika Corps never stood a realistic chance of making it to Alexandria. Like in Operation Barbarossa the Germans just tried to push further than their supply lines would allow.
Rommel had a tough situation on his hands.
German generals was jellous of his fame, and had different opinions on how the war should be fought.
The Italians also had their disagreements. The supply lines was not working well because of allied attacks on supply ships. The Afrika Korps was also competing with other fronts for reinforcements. The enigma code had been cracked so the allies could read Rommels communication. And he was facing superior enemies.
So with all those troubles its not strange that he had to constantly improvise, and try to use stolen british tanks and trucks and make use of what he had.
I do think he could have been more succesful if Malta had been taken and if he had prepared for a hard fight in Tunisia instead of hoping of a withdrawal of the Afrika Korps to Italy. Eventually he would have to retreat, but he could have pulled up more than a half-hearted fight.
Didn't realize you had this channel too. Subbed.
The Birts also intercepted German supply ships headed to The Africa Corps with aircraft as the knew when & where they would be as the had broken the enigma code. This further hampered them
dude i love your channels.
You do a really good job
i liked this better then the style of your other videos
Good military analysis (from Germany's perspective only). However you didn't fullly address the driving force behind the War in the Mediterranean for both sides - politics.
The war in the Mediterranean was a war between 3 politicians - Mussolini, Churchill, and Hitler. Strategic objectives were set (by both sides) as the execution of political policies and priorities.
Mussolini started the war in the Mediterranean by foolishly declaring war on the Allies in June 1940 - a war which his armed forces were neither equipped nor trained for. Italy invaded Egypt for political reasons, Mussolini thought he had an opportunity to enhance Italy's (and more importantly, his own) prestige by expanding his African empire at Britain's expense.
Although the Italian invasion of Egypt bogged down (in empty desert) in September 1940, for logistical reasons (lack of motorised transport), Mussolini still refused Hitler's offer of assistance, for reasons of Italian prestige. Only the Italian disaster from the amazing British victory in Operation Compass, destroying almost the entire Italian army in Libya (plus the fact that the Italian invasion of Greece from October 1940 was also going poorly) changed Mussolini's mind.
For Churchill, the Mediterranean also offered important political opportunities. A chance for the British Army to recover its lost prestige after the disaster in France, and also to demonstrate British political resolve and military capabilities to the Americans.
Finally, for Hitler, as you stated, saving Italy from a defeat so catastrophic that it might cause the downfall of Mussolini and Italy's withdrawal from the war was politically essential as well as strategically advisable, provided that it could be done on the cheap without noticeably reducing German power on the European continent (which would soon be used in Russia). Unfortunately, Rommel's success in finally liberating Tobruk in June 1942 persuaded the Fuhrer to approve the Afrika Korps' pursuit of the British 8th Army to El Alamein, far beyond the capabilities of the Axis logistical system to effectively support.
You make it sound like the Italians were so incompetent and weak,that they did nothing to help the Afrika Corps.In fact , many of Rommel's victories were attained with Italian troops, and an extraordinary amount of information from Italian intelligence.
@@KB-us3pz : The Italians were not incompetent - but Mussolini himself was. Like Hitler, he frequently ignored good advice from his generals, and sent his army on operations that were strategically and logistically unsound.
Italy was also much weaker than Germany, both industrially and technologically. The most important reason for the catastrophic Italian defeat in Libya in winter 1940-41 was the fact that Italian tanks and anti tank guns were no match for their British counterparts. The Matilda II tank was as fearsome to the Italians in January 1941 as the Tiger was to the British 2 years later. Italian shells bounced off the Matilda II’s armour like golf balls. Faced with such a technical disparity, the Italians had no chance against the British without German help.
@@KB-us3pz : The Italians were not incompetent - but Mussolini himself was. Like Hitler, he frequently ignored good advice from his generals, and sent his army on operations that were strategically and logistically unsound.
Italy was also much weaker than Germany, both industrially and technologically. The most important reason for the catastrophic Italian defeat in Libya in winter 1940-41 was the fact that Italian tanks and anti tank guns were no match for their British counterparts. The Matilda II tank was as fearsome to the Italians in January 1941 as the Tiger was to the British 2 years later. Italian shells bounced off the Matilda II’s armour like golf balls. Faced with such a technical disparity, the Italians had no chance against the British without German help.
Thankyou Sir!
Winston Churchill asks and answers that exact question in the third volume of his history of WWII. Churchill's answer is no.
To Australia it was very important
Without the Afrika korps Italy is next
I can't understand how even a single person could dislike this video.
I mean, they played a very thoughtful and well-elucidated video which carried a specific name, produced by channel with a similarly specific name.
How can anyone dislike that? If they didn't mean to come here: selber schuld!
i'm cleaning my new STG 58 while i'm listening your vlog. interesting as allways, even if this explain how the effort of my country was in the end not worted.. but hey, the truth is the truth. have a good day!
The North Africa campaign was the most interesting theater of warefare in the 2nd World War.
If you don’t mind me asking. What lapel mid are you using? Is it wireless? It sounds great.
No offence but I believe this analysis is short-sighted.
The potential of North Africa for Germany was not to disrupt British naval traffic alone.
If I remember correctly Admiral Raeder tried to explain Hitler, without success, what it meant to dominate North Africa.
Just to illustrate this, when the 'morally questionable' Rommel reached El Alamein, the British fleet left the Eastern Mediterranean, through the Suez Canal to the Red Sea.
If Rommel had succeeded, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran would be at Germany disposal.
The Mediterranean would be a German pond.
Germany would be aswim in oil.
Would that be a game changer?...
Moreover, Germany would be poised before the oil fields of Baku before Barbarossa.
The Soviet Union would be deprived of Oil and of the life line that fed it through Persia.
Aluminium, and countless other vital supplies that arrived through that line would never reach its destiny, and without oil and facing a Germany with endless oil supplies... well, would we be writing in English really?
Before Rommel disembarked in North Africa a German panzer expert was sent there and his assessment was: two armoured division was all that was needed to tackle the British there.
Admiral Raeder tried to convince Hitler to do just that, to no avail.
Hitler wanted no distractions from his main objective, the Soviet Union.
Too bad for him, for this distraction would entail... World domination.
nope, you miss the point, I am talking about what HAPPENEDD, not what Raeder & Co suggested or could have been.
Alright, thank you for your reply.
I grumble a little but I like your expositions.
They are really well made and interesting.
Also, Middle Eastern oil wasn't a reliable prospect in the early 1940s. Everyone talking about oil for the Axis if they won in North Africa was looking at it with hindsight from after the Middle East had its oil-exporting infrastructure built up. Prior to that investment in infrastructure, however, no power would see a drop of oil from simply taking the Middle East.
Thank you for your input Broreale but may I remind you that the London-based Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was formed in 1909... well... there was infrastructure there already.
czcams.com/video/iRoYCPgA1Ck/video.html zachariaszut confused, english or british? You use both terms.
Regarding the point at 12:00 If Germany took Malta directly after the fall of France, then pushed through North Africa to Egypt, closed the Suez, and controlled the Moroccan land opposite Gibraltar, they could turn the Mediterranean into an Axis lake. From there, they could threaten India, which was already under increasing pressure from internal independence movements. By threatening the jewel of the British empire, they could potentially force a peace settlement with Britain.
Tunisian doesn't get the coverage it deserves in the history of WW2. The losses in Tunisia were epic. Not on the scale of Stalingrad - although the Luftwaffe lost as many aircraft - but very bad.
German troops were put in a situation where retreat was basically impossible, unlike Stalingrad where Germany always had some idea an evacuation could happen. Crazy.
Just a point: at the end of the african campaign, shortly after the axis was kicked out of north Africa, italian engineers discovered that there was oil in Libya, just it was very deep down the earth and they didn't have the material to extract it (yet).
2.57 some historians [ especially Italian ] would claim that the British lost 3 battleships in the Med , not just HMS Barham - Valiant and Queen Elizabeth were both sunk in Alexandria harbor by Italian frogmen and were out of action till the very end of the War . In my opinion Malta was the key , it was where the resources for DAK should have been sent . Rommel was a great panzer field general but not the best to fight a defensive , strategic campaign and would have done better service in Russia .Thanks for another informative video
Not to say of the Nelson out of action for eight months, a carrier lost and another heavily damaged and out of action for a year.
it is correct, Rommel was a great tactician and a poor strategist, but hey, he was such a glory man for propaganda which Hitler cherished so much while the good Admiral Raeder who clearly depicted the best planning for the NA campaign was from the navy, and you know how much Hitler despised the navy (and most of the navy high brass despised him just as in the Regia Marina the high brass heartly disliked Mussolini)
What is the cool guitar riff at the end of your videos?
Best hand gestures on CZcams
The sources I've found about the goals of the Axis push towards Egypt differ. One side says it was a campaign fought purely for prestige and to save Italy, the other says that the goal was to capture the Suez Canal and from there on occupy the Middle East northwards to link up with Heeresgruppe B which was driving southward through the Caucasus.
I always like the 'what if' scenario of swapping Rommell & Paulus.
i liked your comentary about "people who plays Hearts of iron 3 " = epic !
I really enjoy your channel and your depth of analysis. I think you are one of the most professional CZcams pundits on World War II. One thing I do find bemusing about European analyses of World War II is how depth of knowledge and appreciation of strategic issues seems to fall off a cliff once the mind shifts east of the Suez Canal. In my opinion the North African campaign was the British Empire's war. Four of the five dominions, Australia, India, New Zealand and South Africa had a direct stake in the outcome of the campaigns but I have never seen an analysis of the contribution these dominions made to the campaign. Every battle order I've ever seen seems to include mostly troops from these dominions. These were troops that were equipped from their home countries. There is little appreciation of the logistical capability of those dominions. My understanding is that Australia and South Africa had the largest and most modern steelworks' in the Empire, In 1940 Australia was able to supply Britain with 60,000 SMLEs while equipping nine of its own infantry divisions. India and Australia had large motor vehicle industries and every photo of North African campaigns shows Empire troops travelling in Australian built trucks. India had the largest volunteer army in the world, many of whom served in North Africa and the Middle East. I've always felt that the dominions would have invested heavily into the defence of the Middle East and would love to see an analysis of the contribution Australia, India, New Zealand and South Africa made to the final outcome in North Africa.
yeah, it would be more interesting to see how much the dominion vs. the US contributed. I know that lend lease was huge and the British got more than the Soviets.
Military History not Visualized that would be interesting. I would love to see analysis of the role of the dominions. I believe it was far from insubstantial. When I was studying history at university I came across a statistic showing that the USA actually owed Australia money at the end of the war. A debt never paid.
Your point about the goals, and that staying focused on just holding the British back being potentially more effective, is very interesting. Given Rommel's history as a very aggressive commander willing to go beyond his orders, do you think he was the wrong man for the job? If so, was there a more suitable general available or did any other factors make him the preferred choice?
4:50 Fidschi-France xD Ich schmeiß mich weg :D
I think the Axis should have concentrated more on Malta, instead of trying to capture Alexandria. Malta was a major treats for Axis convoys and military ships, if captured it could have seerved as another base for the Axis to intercept british convoys.
But capturing Alexandria would have closed the Suez canal to british ships, how were materials passed to the URSS (I am talking of the lend lease program) if they passed there then it would have been a good idea to get Malta first and Alexandria next (from what I know the invasion of Malta was elayed cancelled because Rommel always wanted to make new offensives in North Africa).
Well, there was such a plan and it could actually have succeeded...if they had executed it at the right time. But that would have required the Italians and Germans to actually plan and work together properly...big nono for some reason for both sides.
I totally agree , surrounded by Italy in all sides leaving it there as stopping port for Allies convoys. Did they not see what was the Mediterranean strategy for uk in the last 200 years ?? really stupid
It was called operation C3 but it was planned in 1942, a bit too late in my opinion. The Italians wanted to get Malta to make easier the war in the sea (british destroyers used it as a base, torpedo bombers operated from the island), but, from what I have read, Rommel convinced Hitler to delay and cancel it.
The operation was cancelled after the Battle for Crete, where the Germans won but had heavy losses. In my opinion Malta should have been conquered in 1940 by the Italians.
They could have taken French Maricco and blocked the Street of Gibraltar.
Tell us why you had to rename the channel, her commander.
well, I don't know exactly anymore, but a few days ago I was thinking about my channel and various feedback that I got from patreons and others. And when I was visiting a friend and discussing my channel, I thought, well what I do is basically Military History for Adults, because I know for quite many people it is "too dry", "too much data", "not enough drama", etc. and then I also thought, well that actually would be a good name for the Vlogs Channel, since that is rather vague and was only a placeholder anyway. The friend liked the name and then I asked some of my patreons as well, they liked it too.
Fun fact, it never dawned on me that "for adults" has also a porn "affiliation", but since I am horny all the time, it is also fitting in an unintended way.
Horny as in "History Oriented Researcher 'N' CZcamsr" I presume ;)
the beard made him do it
@MHV Your sense of humor is underrated!
For me new name of your channel is form of mocking some other historical channels - their content is for children ;)
Rommel was initially just sent there as a holding action, but he went on the offensive against orders. Because he was successful at first they just let him do what he could. It wasn't until 1942 when they decided to go into the Middle East as part of plans to get oil that the Afrika Korps had the mission to advance.
Churchill set up the oil situation in his early years, which later became British Petroleum.
Military History For adults???
I have seen certain shameful movie material that could carry that title.
Yes the Afrika korps was worth it. Without them Monty and his men wouldn’t have anyone to shoot at. Could you imagine the buggery that would have happened if it wasn’t for the Afrika korps
I guess we could have taken pot shots at the Italians but that’s just not sporting
TheEtonianGamer Italians made up the vast majority of Men in Africa even with the Afrika Korps. Italy at the time didn't have an automobile industry big enough to mass produce heavy tanks. The Africa Korps provided that. With that Axis troops were only really stopped by a lack of fuel.
Oakwood Pulaski Well, they weren't, were they?
Yochai Wyss Trolin
Italy had tanks but they were useless. Even the Japanese had better tanks than them and designs for far more ambitious projects. Also, the Afrika Corps had no heavy tanks, It was mostly light tanks and some medium. Without being able to take the British naval bases in the Medditeranean, North Africa couldn't be won as we saw they couldn't get vital supplies past the Royal Navy or RAF.
In hindsight, no loss is worth it. Unless it plays a part in a larger win. An example is a diversion.
Good assessment. You gave me a lot to think about because I had never considered the question. I'd like to add that when it is suggested that Germany should have sent more to North Africa, the logistical problem is completely ignored. There was no way the Libyan ports, even with Tobruk in German hands had the capacity to unload the supples required to support a force larger than was deployed. One more thing I would add is that the middle east oil would not have been a factor, however, with the expulsion of the allies from Egypt, the few allied forces in Syria would not have been much of an obstacle to any attempt the Germans would have made of pushing into the Caucuses from the south to secure the Russian oil.
In regards to the idea of what had happened if the Afrika Korps weould have been increased: the limited supply, mainly due to btitish Malta, is usually given as a plausible argument for why this wouldnt have been a good idea. More than those 4-6 motorised Divisions just were impossible to supply efficiently.
Very informative, it's intresting to think about the many decisions the GHC faced and possible outcomes. Does make me wonder what would have happened if they had just left it though. It would free up UK and later US forces, so maybe Italy would be invaded sooner? Good video
One thing that has long struck me is that Germany and especially Rommel seemed to have no logistical plan beyond, "we'll just send supplies."
How you know?
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized It's a general impression I arrived at after reading and viewing documentaries of that theater of action.
Infantry wins battles logistics wins wars
Considering how close Rommel came to defeating the British, if the action had been all out, instead of a holding rear guard, and if therefore the supply lines had been supported... then maybe a different outcome for the war, with Germany and Italy able to hit Stalingrad with a three prong assault (as I understand Rommel wanted to do). Thank you for the important notes on how many bombers Germany deployed to North Africa.
Can you expand on the oil in the middle east? I always thought that was a major factor that would make the North African theater important. I'm pretty sure with sufficient resources, Rommel had a decent chance at getting the oil fields there instead of going through the disaster that is Stalingrad. I also thought the Seuz Canal would be quite a useful area to take hold of for the Axis powers.
Imo for what little forces Germany sent to the region their accomplishments were certainty worth it on many levels.
sub #13,890. I forgot when I was subbed to your 1st channel, but definitely before you had 5000 subs, maybe fewer than 3000.
your the first that got it right. suez was closed , it costed the british millions of tons oil and shipping miles.
most major british war ships that was damaged a sent to american ports to be repaired. and 3 german divisons held down 700.000 allied troops, for 3 years. italians with a outdated army and factorys. held out for 3 years .
this is my view,
So I believe you did a previous video on the Afrika Corps which highlighted the logistical difficulties faced by Rommel. Had additional divisions been committed to Africa, could the Germans have managed to supply them with enough fuel and ammunition, never mind food and water, to be combat effective?
yeah, El Alamein just won by numbers. Well, I am not sure yet, because in 1943, basically they supplied a lot from the air and they also used Tunis as a port. Yet, I need to read this up completely. So, I guess it could have worked, the question is of course at what price.
My understanding of Rommell's goals, they included capture of Suez, the loss of which would have been catastrophic for UK, the capture of Pakedtine and Lebanon, the eventual capture of Syria and Iraq, with link up to Eatern Front Army Group South. The goals both short and long term were very worthwhile. North Africa and the near east should have been secured before Barbarossa had begun.
I'm curious as to if the Axis could have supported / supplied a much bigger force in North Africa than they had. Seems they had enough trouble with that as it was.
There are a couple of other considerations which are not mentioned here. The route through Persia which was used for the transfer of Lend Lease and other supplies to Russia for one. Approximately 12m metric tonnes went through the Persian corridor which became more important as pressure on the Northern route increased. This would have become incredibly difficult to maintain if the Mediterranean was controlled by the axis. Also loss of Egypt would have increased Britain's supply problems exponentially. For example something like 80-90% of the aviation fuel so critical to the RAF in 1940-41 came from the Dutch East Indies at the time. Loss of Egypt would have put a major pin in the ability for the allies to continue the war.
If the British lost Egypt it might have been hard for Churchill to stay in charge. The pro-peace faction might have won and WW2 could have ended very differently.
the ideal plan for the germans would have been that at the time crete was taken,rommel was moving on alexandria,and fall blau would get army group south into the caucasus this would not only cripple the soviet war machine but would also can get the axis into the middle east pressuring the british flank at suez,had italy managed to take malta or at least spain had taken gibraltar then suez would have been the only obstacle for the axis to probably even force the royal navy to quit the mediterranean and hopefully even dissuade the americans from operation torch
I read that Rommel was using the truck allocation for 40 divisions, which is why he also often took over the Italian trucks. This was a heavy drain on Wehrmacht resources and probably was factored into the original decision to go into Africa. Also puts a new perspective ton the criticism at the time That Rommel's offensives were actually playing into the Allied hands. he should perhaps have stayed on the defensive and still blocked the path to Italy and interrupted traffic via the Suez canal. he might have held out for longer, although, once the Sherman became available in numbers and Allied production ramped up. he would still have been doomed.
My take is quite simple: the Med cost the Germans a disproportionate amount of scarce resources at a time when they needed everything they had for the invasion of Russia. They also didn't have enough spare resources available to win in the Med. Fighting in the Med only makes sense if you don't invade Russia, otherwise it is a distraction which waters down the attack on Russia. It allowed the Western Allies to put extra pressure on Germany and help Russia. The Luftwaffe was seriously understrength and close to exhaustion at the time of Barbarossa, because the Battle of Britain and the campaign in the Med had meant that it had no rest time to rebuild its strength for the new challenge. Essentially, they committed enough to the Mediterranean to act as a serious distraction, but not enough to win. Although Germany committed relatively few divisions, these were forces which might have been very useful in Russia because they were quite a large proportion of their most mobile forces which were also more difficult to keep supplied without controlling the sea lanes in the Med.
this would be better as a voice over on maps
I think you are right, this was a political issue and made little military sence..
Italy did do their own iniatives without informing Germany (as did Germany to Italy), making it tricky to handle the situation for the Germans.
Probably it whoudl have been better to to focus on airpower and navla plus politcal preassure (which teh Axis tried on Yugoslavia and Spain).
In all fairness the Uk was very much stronger at sea than the Axis and with only one front they could focus a lot on this, so teh Axis where all the time at a major disadvantage.
Even if malta and/or Gibralatar or even Egypgt was taken te UK could just keep going from Iraq & Sudan...
Can you do a video about Greece vs Italy, and its effects on the Mediterranean?
Souvlaki vs Pizza.
The real effect came from the invasion of Crete. With Axis airports in the island, the sea between Crete and N. Africa became the "corridor of death", and the attempts to resupply Malta from Alexandria had to be stopped until nov 1942.
Can I watch this if I’m just a very mature ww2/1 fanatic 12 year old?
The choice to capture Crete (a wise tactical decision?) was a strategic blunder as it destroyed any chance of capturing Malta and securing the supply line from Italy.
I can imagine being a German paratrooper, jumping out of an aeroplane, landing in Greece. You get up, look around.
"Hans, zis entire place is bankrupt, zere is nothing here"
Im greek and have spend some years in Crete. as far as the locals and the local museums could inform me about it, the germans didnt need the place for its natural resources but more for the strategic position. this also explains why the british spend men and resources to defend the island but didnt help in the defence of the mainland Greece. even at that time, crete's harbors were in a better condition than some (not all) of the harbors in N.Africa.
Also, a few airfields there could be vital in the same sense as the airfields in the pacific for the us marines. the germans stationed more than enough men on the island and built some pretty nice fortified structures (im not sure of the word, definetely bigger than bunkers) that could house artillery and small vehicles, and demolished these places before the british could recapture the place.
The operation could have some educational value for the paratroopers and for further propaganda but the locals are a different breed from the rest of greece. (think of cretans like texans or sicilians. gun ownership, vendettas, duels and a history with pirates and bandits) the village militia, sheperds and hunters had big supplies of firearms from the balkan wars and private ownership and and dealt significant casualties to the german troops (imagine landing with the enemy watching and ready to shoot you)
About the bankrupt comment, i find it somewhat ironic since Crete is one of the wealthiest regions of greece. if you look at the yogurt, feta cheese and olive oil in your country, about a third of it comes from crete.
apo kos It has always been my understanding that the majority of Commonwealth troops were not there so much as a defence force but more because it was the easiest place for them to withdraw to. Previous German use of paratroopers had seen relatively low casualty rates. The battle for Crete changed that and the Germans stopped using them for their intended purpose. It is my opinion that the capture of Malta would have been equally bloody with a similar curtailment of airborne operations as a result. I think for such a high price Malta would be of greater value than Crete was.
John Kilmartin withdraw to from where? and i agree that Malta would have been equally significant should the fight had been there. maybe because Crete is closer to Egypt the Germans chose to attack there?
apo kos It had been my understanding that the majority had been on the Greek mainland and eventually would have been sent back to North Africa.
What's German for Lindybeige?
The failure to capture Malta in 1940/1 was the worst military decision of the OKW. Kesselring said as much after the war. This was the biggest drain supplying the DAK.
“There was a lot of disorganisation between the Italian navy, army and air force and the German forces.
“I suspect this is the main reason why a successful offensive was never carried out on Malta in the beginning of the war,” he said.
Ultimately, General Kesselring described this inability to take Malta as “the leading factor for the loss of the Italian colonies”.
The Africa Corps did a phenominal job of teaching the US Army the valuable lessons so vital to the destruction of axis forces in europe.
I've seen some people claim that if the afrika corps had taken the suez then they could move through the middle east and attack the baku oil fields that way but it's ridiculous to think that the german industry could supply an army in such an inhospitable place. The army would need to be transported by sea (which as you mentioned took a long time) then they'd need to cross a desert, go through the Taurus mountains and hope that the Soviets hadnt assembled a force to stop them in the Caucasus, you know that place with few roads and tall mountains which an armoured or mechanized forces couldn't cross(pluss the red army had mountaineer formations stationed in the defense of baku)
There is another vital resource that Germany was lacking, rubber. Hitler emphasized a more mechanized military. And that meant they needed more rubber for truck tires. Rubber plants tend to grow in tropical areas, like equatorial Africa.
In defence of the Afrika Korps I would say that at very least they gave us the chance to see Mannon planting explosives in the German suplly fuel trucks while being undercover as a photographer for the Reich (Medal of Honor: Underground), the ability to take strategic locations while fighting an unfair AI (Battlefield 1942), the laugh of seeing Price and Mcgregor evading a bunch of Panzers in Tunez (Call of Duty 2) and the beautiful experiece if seeing two Luft-bombers shelling the shit out of the british forces while Patton gave them hell with his handgun (Patton: The Movie).
Pretty much have to agree with you. Another thing was that Malta was never taken, and it probably had a lot more value than Crete, then the supply situation for the Axis would have been much improved. Also, Rommel was not the right General. He made a rash decision, and then blew it by not prioritizing Tobruk. If Tobruk had been taken in the first offensive, then the situation may have been different enough.
Why didn't I know that you had a second channel?
not sure, I made an announcement video for it and pushed the videos regularly on the community tab and also in videos.
The Africa Korps was initially intended as a holding force to prevent the British from controlling the northern shore of the African continent. It should have stayed as such. When it tried to take Egypt and the Suez Canal it became a large drain and diversion of resources from the main German front in Russia. And the majority of the supplies and materials intended for it ended up at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea and which could have been very useful in the Russian front.
In Operation Compass 36,000 British supported by a small number of Matilda II tanks and some bombers attacked 150,000 Italian troops supported by RA fighters and about 600 tanks. For the loss of 1800 English casualties, the Italians lost 140,000 killed, injured, missing or captured and 500 tanks. The Italians also shot down and killed their own Air chief marshall leading Goebbles to write "We didn't expect much from the Italians anyway." The Afrika Korps goal under Rommel was to take Egypt and close Suez. Iraq rebelled against the English with some German support, but stubborn resistance by the British as at Tobruk, and interception of German/Italian supply convoys made logistics in the desert highly problematic. Hitler's blunder was not evacuating his best mechanics and troops while he still could, which was a frequent complaint by Guderian. Just a note that In the Libyan desert soldiers of both sides found water holes fouled with crude oil which they blamed on their adversaries trying to poison them. They didn't realize what they were sitting on.
The emphasis in the East was on seizing the Caucasus to secure the Soviet oil supply for the Reich, with which to be able to prosecute the war with full mobility and airpower. So there should have been a higher priority in North Africa with a view to seizing the Suez Canal, Arabia and Iraq for those oil sources, and to be able to compel Persia to stop supplying the Allies.
I think the issue for the Germans was that if they didn't hold the North African coast then the British could land forces uncontested anywhere along the Mediterranean coast as they did in Greece and sending forces from one side of the continent to the other to counter by land would have taken weeks if not months and even then there was the recognition that Italy was the soft underbelly of Germany.
I think one of the more significant what ifs of the early war was what would have happened if Britain proceeded with the plan to invade Norway to open a route to reinforce Finland in their war against the Soviets, it was ultimately rendered moot by the Germans beating them into Norway and the Finnish beating the Russians but would have heavily altered the shape of the conflict and possibly prevented Anglo-Soviet co-operation.
Maybe the problem is logistics. Suppose the German ( and Italian) army put for instance 3 to 5 more motorized or panzer divisionist, could they have been supplied?
I always wondered about Crude Oil for the Axis and for Great Britain being the reason it was significant to Germany.
I have heard that North Africa was the path way to the soft underbelly to the oil of the Soviet Union. I never could grasp the naval and land assets required to assault the USSR thru the Crimean Peninsula thru Stalingrad and into Moscow. The Balkans & Greece were strategic to Germany so I dunno.
The Napoleon March to Moscow was chosen.
It was worth it for British Commonwealth forces to get valuable experience in armoured warfare and tactical air support which was very useful in Europe later on
Germany made Desert Storm before it was cool.
During the Napoleonic wars the campaigns in Portugal and Spain were referred to, by the French, as an ulcer on the military capability for the empire, was North Africa the same for Germany?
Not really.
The Afrika Korps only consisted of 3 Divisions. One light division, and two panzer divisions with weak tanks that were a bit too outdated to be used on the Russian front.
With other words - it wouldn't make any difference to Germany if that tiny force got totally destroyed. Germany had about 3.500.000 men on the eastern front. And I guess the Afrika Korps had about 45.000 men.
So it didn't any big difference.
Germany lost 3000 men per day during the first 100 days of the war in Russia, to just take and example to compare with. So if you had put the Afrika Korps on the eastern front, then it would just had replaced the losses of 15 days fighting.
World War 2 was decided on other places than North Africa.
The Russian front was of course more important due to the large scales of everything... the number of tanks and men that fought, the large geographical distances, and the size of the losses. Stalingrad and Operation Bagration makes most battles on the western front to look tiny in comparison.
But there were of course some large battles on the western front too, such as D-Day and the battle of the Ardennes.
One of the WW2 mistakes, led Germany to lose the war, that Hitler didn't consider the importance of North Africa (NA) war theater, in my opinion, it would be really worth it, if AfrikaKorps received 10~15% of the supply sent to Eastern front (Russia) during the year 1941, it is correct AfrikaKorps was created to Aid the Italian, but if you refer to the Rommel papers, Rommel was absolutely convinced that reaching the Suez canal initially then the Persian Gulf would put tremendous pressure on the British Empire. On the other side The British ( Especially Churchill) understood the necessity that they couldn't afford to lose NA and indeed NA was one of the keys to win the war.
While the middle east did not produce much oil, Germany got to the point where they were turning wood gas into fuel. What little they could get from a north african victory would have helped tremendously. Victory in NA would also have allowed the italian navy the leave the Mediterranean and threaten shipping elsewhere. This would have improved overall shipping interception. This also would have freed up very significant numbers of aircraft and italian military production for the eastern front. However, as you point out, in real life the Afrika Korps was handled poorly and without set goals, and it acomplished nothing, being a total waste of resources.
The whole campaign seemed to be misemphasized. The impression was distorted further by the back and forth successes in Libya. The resources available could have seized Malta, which would have probably closed the Mediterranean. Then the U-boats deploying from French ports could have worked on the convoys circling the long way around.
Bevin Alexander (military author) believes that a victory in North Africa would have opened the way not just into the Middle East, but also into a direct attack into the Caucasus themselves. What are your thoughts on that?
I agree for the most part, but an additional, perhaps overriding factor in 41-42 was Rommel's usefulness in propaganda when Hitler most needed it, as it became apparent by '42 that the full societal mobilization in Germany would be required.. Churchill even assisted in this effort somewhat unwittingly.
The only grand strategy I can concieve of were the Axis defeats the Americans/Brits/USSR Allies would be conquering the Caucuses, going into the middle east, and seizing the Suez Canal. In cooperation Japan would blockade Vladivostok, operates it's navy in the Indian Ocean, and invades British India. A strategy that Tojo and Hitler never conceived of, let alone considered.
The big problem was Malta, it´s insane that the Germans invaded Crete but didn´t care about Malta. The Africa Korps didn´t get enough supply for their operations. It would have been a good choice to have a second army there to move to Algeria and Morocco. Even when the Germans would have won at El Alamein, it would be impossible for them to run through Sinai, Negev, Palestine, Levante into Caucasia. At El Alamein, Rommel had a little bit more than 500 tanks, half of them were German, the rest Italian. The Heeresgruppe Mitte in Russia had over 900 Tanks and 49 Infantry divisions. The same number of troops in Africa could have beaten the Tommies. But what then?
May I suggest some points?
-The AK attack in N. Africa was about oil and the Suez Canal. There were no airfields or ports worth this huge effort.
-Your title, Was It Worth It... ? If the AK had succeeded, and considering all the possible disruptions of oil, Suez Canal and political implications the answer would have been YES! Yet another incredibly brilliant strategic move.
-How about this one? Was the German armor attack in France in 1940 worth it? Once the column had out distanced its infantry and logistics, it was no longer bold but reckless to continue and depended on luck, to be lucky enough that no one of thousands of Allied officers would take the initiative to cut the iron head off, leaving the war to devolve into some type of WWI horror.
Take a look on YT 0.50
Lesser-known details of the France 1940 Campaign
So the answer to the questions is, if you win, yeah, if you lose, nah.
Is it strange that the channel's name specifically says it's *for Adults* but I'm still a minor but still eager for more of stuff like this?
*Lmfao I need help*
The rats of Tobruk is one of the most venerated ANZACs
Proposal for new topic. Germany did break Allied codes at different time. What did they know and did they act on it?
Forgetting about oil, there were at least 2 major benefits to taking Alexandria.
1. Most Lend Lease went through Iran. In fact, the Lend Lease factories were built in Iran. That is where all the trucks for Russia were built.
2. With the Med becoming an Italian Lake, the Italian surface fleet would be a tough set of surface raiders for British shipping in the Atlantic.
well, 2. implies that one takes Gibraltar as well.
1. Suppress Gibraltar with air in Tangiers.
or
2. Take Gibraltar, staging from Tangiers. If this is done when the subs were running amok, the subs could be brought there to establish a kill zone vs. the British navy.
With the soft underbelly of Europe no longer exposed, zillions of troops would be freed up.
For Germany, I think it was certainly worth it and should have been given a higher priority. If the British had taken control of North Africa it leaves all of southern Europe open to attack and in areas which were of value to Germany whereas, in North Africa, there were no resources or manufacturing centers that were imperiled by the battles. Obviously, how things turned out, it wasn't "worth it" but by that standard, neither was the war as a whole. More interesting, I think, is whether the Italian contribution to the war in Russia was worth it. It can well be argued that it did not make much difference there but if all of those men and material had been sent to North Africa, they perhaps could have made a decisive difference on that front.
sorry my friend,one small point, there was known oil deposits in the Middle-East,certainly in Persia- owned by the British(Anglo-Persian oil company,that Churchill i believe,had helped to nationalise for the British empire. In fact a game changer maybe if Axis had deployed extra resources,linking up with pro-Axis,anti -British,even Vichy French forces groups,captured the persian oil fields.This instead of the almost impossible task of trying to take Baku from the Soviets.With such resources, maybe even a slender chance of attacking the Soviets via the Caucasus.This would have given the Axis some gains in oil, and even easier for distribution for the military machine and factories back home.
it was not in the strategic plan, besides that: how do you get the oil out of there and back to Germany...
Military History Visualized .Yes the logistics of getting oil back to Germany is valid,as the same for any nation,the logistics, which i went onto say that Axis forces would have had control of those resources to supply their forces in the field. .to even strike at the Caucasus.But one factor i think not mentioned, actually denying allies that black gold..
If the germans took Persia the Soviet union would intervene immediately.