Lunch Box Lecture: "Operation Torch" by Rick Jacobs

Hear Navy Captain Rick Jacobs give a detailed account of the American-British invasion of French North Africa during the North Africa Campaign of the Second World War.

[@terrysmith9362]

Brooke was hugely more influential in European strategy than Marshall

[@TheRbrooks502]

Excellent dissertation. I would have mentioned a couple of points regarding the North African campaign. Clark's submarine ride to North Africa with gold in an attempt to get the Vichy to side with the US. The screwy Fireworks show at the landing of Oran announcing our arrival. Fredendall's command post miles away from the front underground. Patton's arrival to remove Fredendall and the sleeping soldier at HQ. As you speak about the confluence of both political and ideological secularism in the area I would have mentioned how some Vichy forces were allowing landing fields to both Allies and Germans depending on who was in charge of the area. This would have also been a prime time to explain the term "Soft underbelly" as Churchill prescribed but it is safe to assume that people in the room would already know this. I am currently working on a biography of a tanker with the 1st Armored division who fought these battles. Oran, Medjez el Bab, Kasserine, Bizerte, as well as two battles of Monte Cassino, Anzio, and crossing all German defensive lines in Italy. Leaving after his arrival at Lake Como. Very little is said about the 1st AD reaching Como. I hope you speak of that as I go to watch your next talk on Italy. With regards to lessons learned, we should have noted that in North Africa with the Arabs, the Vichy and ideological riffs within the French contingents, we could have been more accurate in places like Afghanistan, and Iraq. By that I mean, we could have at least been more prepared for factions and how we dealt with them and perhaps saved more lives and treasure. Great stuff. Job well done.

[@californiadreamin8423]

A better presentation than his subsequent Kasserine . The first question at the end, asks what lessons were learnt ? He expresses his view that more was learnt in Tunisia. Surely the lesson was that the difficulties experienced were more significant than anticipated, and that an invasion of France in 42/43 would have failed. Just look at Omaha on the 6th June 44, or his later lecture on Kasserine/Tunisia. Terry Allen comes across as having courage and integrity. Again, Generals bury their mistakes.

[@martyrobinson149]

+Brian Griffiths Winston Churchill was correct about the Italy been the soft underbelly of Europe. Italy was the perfect target for 1943. Mussolinis regime collapsed in Italy just 15 day's after Allied forces invaded Sicily. Italy an Axis member was knocked out the war forciy Germany to spread it's Military even thinner to occupy Northern Italy. Allied forces invaded Southern Italy without much hindrance. The Italian campaign diverted more German resources from the Eastern Front and eventually D Day (Western Front) The American plan to invade Southern France in 1942 could have been a Dunkirk in reverse.

[@admiralsmelling1666]

Terry Allen was extremely courageous and a terrific combat leader.

[@davidbocquelet-dbodesign]

The Jean Bart was never completed during WW2. She returned to France was mothballed for a time before spending more years being rebuilt into a new AA design. Only Richelieu fought with the allies; on the far east.

[@daveboon5992]

The French fleet Had to be Sunk !!!!

[@javamann1000]

Churchill said that he had many crosses to bear during WW2 but the heaviest was the, "Cross of Loraine"!

[@toypupanbai3544]

Did he really say,'54 million tanks'? 'The Big Red One', a great film suggested minimal French resistance.

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

Are you REALLY taking the side of a Hollywood movie over an Historian? Granted, I'm not sure how I feel about this particular example of an historian but even as piss-poor amateur historian likely can impart more history more accurately than a Hollywood movie. The French were no so passive.

[@m_cc6649]

Medium tanks

[@jefesalsero]

U.S. forces rocked the casbah.💥

[@tobijug]

The word is Tunisia, as in Tunis, NOT too knees ia

[@toypupanbai3544]

Opposition to the Allies by the French, is something I find incomprehensible! Would any other country behave in that fashion?

[@boss180888]

+Toy Pupanbai you mean the soldiers resistance or the commanders?

[@martyrobinson149]

De Gaulle asked French forces in West Africa to join Free France. They refused and opened fire on their own countrymen. France people fought in Hitler's Military. French workers aided the Nazis war machine. The French rounded up Jews and other minorities. France collaborated with Germany! France had to be forced to changed sides like Italy!

[@amiralvb]

Toy Pupanbai : why ? The largest part of french soldiers in North-Africa had their families in metropolitan France and since june/july 40, french cities and villages were bombed by royal air force. French Navy was attacked by bristish navy during july 40'. The British were supposed to be our allies against Germans. When the American forces arrived in front of beaches, side by side with British forces, the French soldiers wondered if it was as a friend or as an enemy.

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

You have to understand the divisive nature of French politics of the time. It is not totally off-base to assert that WW2 for the French was a civil war of Global proportions.You also must understand the toll that Allied bombers (though granted this becomes more significant later in the war) took on the French people and infrastructure.

[@Cyallaire]

@@amiralvb Churchill had two French ships sunk, drowning thousands of French Marines, not allowing time for them to be taken from the ship beforehand. Churchill was aiming to impress FDR with this. The French Navy commanders said they would scuttle their ships before they would allow them to be taken by the Germans, but that didn't assuage Churchill. He was interested in obtaining help from FDR to have the resources to police the British Empire against uprisings.

[@obsidianjay8877]

how the hell do these people get these jobs? he read the whole story. a good historian speaks from his mind and knowledge

[@sammybaugues1260]

Cadence in speech should be noted but otherwise a good speech .

[@Crouchy232323]

That music. I hate movies.

[@toussaintbonaparte5533]

The French did Not scuttle their fleet. The ruthless Brits sank the fleet to prevent the Germans from commandeering it.

[@TermiteUSA]

Wishful wishing and nonsense

[@anchorbait6662]

Why the hell was France attacking the US and Brittish boats? I thought we were on the same damn side???

[@treyriver5676]

Anchor Bait the French we're beholden to the French government which ultimately was beholden to an agreement with the German government.

[@Guitcad1]

After the French surrendered to the Germans the Germans allowed them to set up a puppet government that declared neutrality. Google "Vichy France."

[@Cyallaire]

Churchill had two French ships sunk, drowning thousands of French Marines, not allowing time for them to be taken from the ship beforehand. Churchill was aiming to impress FDR with this. The French Navy commanders said they would scuttle their ships before they would allow them to be taken by the Germans, but that didn't assuage Churchill. He was interested in obtaining help from FDR to have the resources to police the British Empire against uprisings.

[@terrysmith9362]

@@Cyallaire utter rubbish. Churchill was looking to survive against Germany .No other reason

[@Cyallaire]

@@terrysmith9362 Wrong! Churchill already had assurances from the French admirals that they would scuttle those ships before they would let the Germans get them. Churchill could readily have arranged for the evacuation of the French sailors if he doubted the admirals word, but instead he arranged for thousands of French enlistees to be drowned to prove he was tough and ruthless to FDR as a sales pitch for the lend lease program to obtain US ships needed for the continued control of the British Empire. FDR wanted the fall of the British Empire nonetheless, so that the US Empire could seize the scepter.

[@MrRugbylane]

Some seriously grumpy commentators here. Its a lunctime lecture.. No time for jokes, asides, witticisms etc. Just pack in the facts please, thank you.

[@charlieindigo]

A lecturer presents his (usually) researched story, using prepared notes as and when necessary to keep on track; a newsreader reads a prepared story. This so-called captain wouldn't even make a good newsreader, as he stumbles through his pages; he doesn't make a good lecturer as he stumbles through his memory banks and has to resort back to his pages. He needs to go back to his day job and forget lecturing as he's no historian either. Any fool can read a document; this fool can't even do that. Had I been at the lecture I would have left after ten minutes! But then I would have missed his Q&A session which also showed him to be less knowledgeable than he pretends. And yes, he even stumbled through that. We also know that Operation Torch almost became a disaster due to bad American planning, strategy, leadership, inexperience, and execution. They were there to support the British, but it was the British who really saved the situation for all the same reasons the Ami's failed.

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

You are an incredible ponce, aren't you? Go do your own lectures, you arrogant fool. I'm not fond of this presenter, personally, but your post makes you look absolutely repugnant, and an adherent to the same miserable generalized dichotomy that plagues your lot who dwell the comment sections of videos such as these. I assume this is the 'we' to whom you refer, because it certainly seems to me that you're only really whining based off your own aggrandized perception of events, as if it is unquestionable fact (the biggest sin that one interested in history can commit). Basically, it is tough talk for someone who sits behind a keyboard to criticize others. I can't wait to watch you try your hand at a similar lecture in an environment such as this, though I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for you to give it a go. Something tells me you're mostly just full of shit, or full of yourself, but then again what would be the difference between the two, anyway?

[@charlieindigo]

Hahahaha, you have to be a Yank, because it's normally only uneducated Yanks who resort to foul and incomprehensible language, probably because it makes them feel superior. As it happens, I've been lecturing for over thirty years (including to American Servicemen), and the funny thing is, I've almost always been invited back; this is likely due to the fact that I know my subject, research well, and present it professionally. I might suggest that you restrain yourself from words like aggrandised, dichotomy, repugnant, until you feel suitably adult to understand them - just a suggestion. It seems to me that for someone who evidently has no proper knowledge of the history in question, it's you rather then me taking the opportunity to voice criticisms - at least I know what I'm talking about. You don't. Might I further suggest you take a quieting pill, lie down in a darkened room and try to use the opportunity to learn something.

[@donathandorko]

Ahhhh WW2. The good war. The "good war". Sorry but no matter what Hanks and Speilerg wish to to tell you, this was a draw. A tie. Yes, we toppled actual fascism and actual national-socialism, and yes it is understandable and even necessary, but the Soviets needed to be kicked back into West Russia were they belonged. Instead the Allies, perhaps a little tired of too much bloodshed, just like in 1918, once again settled for a compromise. Just like so many wars before and since. WW2 was the only chance for real world peace. We bottled it.

[@daveboon5992]

French 🤮🤮🤮🤮