Hitler's Single Minded Campaign For Africa | Soft Underbelly | Timeline

Part two of two. David Reynolds explores the reasoning behind the Second World War battles that took place in North Africa and Italy - an area labelled Hitler's `soft underbelly' by Winston Churchill.
In this film we ask why Britain spent so much of the con­flict battling through North Africa and Italy? Historian David Reynolds reassesses Winston Churchill’s conviction that the Mediterranean was the ‘soft underbelly’ of Hitler’s Europe. Travelling to Egypt and Italian battlefields like Cassino, the scene of some of the worst carnage in Western Europe, he shows how in reality the ‘soft underbelly’ became a dark and dangerous obsession for Churchill.
Reynolds reveals a prime minister very different from the jaw-jutting bulldog of Britain's 'finest hour' in 1940 - a leader who was politically vulnerable at home, desperate to shore up a crumbling British empire abroad, losing faith in his army and even ready to deceive his American allies if it might delay fighting head to head against the Germans in northern France.
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service, at a huge discount using the code 'TIMELINE' ---ᐳ bit.ly/3a7ambu
You can find more from us on:
/ timelinewh
/ timelinewh
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. Any queries, please contact [e-mail]

[@Miracleberry1]

My grandad did over a 1000 days of active service and spent nearly 300 days straight under seige in Trobruk. Incredible he survived. He was an incredible man.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

Your grandpa sounds like a badass.

[@Miracleberry1]

@@highjumpstudios2384 yeah he was. Apparently in his younger years he was a very good track and field athelete and swimmer :)

[@Joker-yw9hl]

What a man

[@highjumpstudios2384]

@@Miracleberry1 explains why he survived Tobruk.

[@StimParavane]

Kudos.

[@francisebbecke2727]

I met General Omar Bradley in 1981, the last year of his life, at Fort Bliss, TX. I had a chance to talk to him personally on one occasion. He said the North African campaign was necessary to gain experience and find out what worked and what didn't when fighting the Germans. He said he would have hated to have gone in directly into France without this experience.

[@johnburns4017]

That was poor excuse for arrogantly taking no notice of the experienced British.

[@jean-louislalonde6070]

I must agree with him. The Canadians at Dieppe in 1942 tested the German war machine and they did not like its response.

[@johnburns4017]

@@jean-louislalonde6070 North Africa was not a test for US troops. They were poorly trained and led. What's more it was that they took little notice of the British. Launching into German occupied France with the experience and setup the Americans had, would have been slaughter.

[@alanfike]

@@johnburns4017 Operation Market Garden

[@libertyprime7911]

I hope you're not just telling tales.

[@F-16Viper72]

The “Free France Army” comprised of soldeirs from mostly Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia and other countries played a crucial part in the Italian campaign. My grandfather was taken from his home at the dead of night at 16 and told he was joining the war efforts against the Axis in Europe. He fought in Italy, Germany and France. His stories were absolutely amazing.

[@stevezodiac491]

I still have my father's medals upstairs from his exploits in North Africa, el Alemain and in Italy. He was in the advanced workshops of the REME in the 8th Army, he wasn't a big man but even so, weighed just over 6 stone after surviving on rations of bully beef and biscuits with weavels in them for years out there in the desert. They all suffered big time, even the ones that returned. Evidently he was a changed man from the young man who initially embarked to war on the Queen Mary.

[@sheilapasquini6232]

This was one of the most concise and objective narratives about WW2 that I've seen. No one is lionized and leaders are portrayed weaknesses and all. Enjoyed it very much...thank you.

[@morningstar9233]

Quite agree. Going to look for more of David Reynolds' documentaries.

[@ps8432]

Afraid I disagree. There is absolutely no mention of the oil reserves denied Germany by winning Africa / Arabia. Also it was impossible to have invaded Europe over the Channel much before D-day as there was neither the man power or resources in the UK. Remember the USA only entered the war after they had been physically attacked. Up till then most Americans were happy to see the UK beggering themselves to keep buying fighting materials from the USA.

[@davidrossi5096]

@@ps8432 idk man about your last part, I don’t think it was honestly disdain that the Americans felt I think it was really more a sense of “no more of our sons are gonna die for European drama” and while many allied government officials were aware of the extent of war crimes and the Holocaust by then I don’t think the American public had any idea. I think they saw a pitched war between fascists communists and imperialists and wondered if/why joining any side would benefit the US or the world as a whole. Obviously once Pearl Harbor happens and Japanese and German brutality becomes more common knowledge you see an immediate shift in public opinion in the US.

[@Matt-ur3dm]

@@ps8432 I agree with this. Oil played a massive part. And also the Germans were also intent on engaging the British as they didn't have the sea power to invade Britain themselves. And also he didn't say much about the Italians aggressively empire building in Africa

[@123TauruZ321]

Lionized lol

[@philodonoghue3062]

My father was at Cassino in the 27th Machine Gun Battalion of the New Zealand 🇳🇿 Second Division as part of the Eighth Army. I did realise that battle for Cassino lasted 5 (!) months. The New Zealanders took heavy losses in the rubble, the Indians were thrown as if dispensable, and Dad would relate how the Poles more than other troops hated the Germans more than any other foe, and threw themselves into the fray suicidally

[@SanjayAryal-yb7uh]

Do you have any stories about Gurkha units from the Indian army during that time?

[@huginstarkstrom]

another very important aspect was supply lines - Brits on the continent would have to bring in supplies, while Germans had an easier route. In Africa, the Brit empire had shorter supply lines from Australia, India while the Germans had to pass Malta. This allowed the Brits and Americans to gain experience while the Germans lost veterans and equipment. This bought time for the allies to up their war production effort.

[@ExpatChef71]

Dr. Robert Citino made a comment in an online lecture that stuck with me: "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics."

[@valiantabello]

You're right and I had never actually considered that. Thanks!

[@odessa5631]

@@ExpatChef71 eh everything is important, strategy also. Logistics won't save you if you don't know how to use it

[@nicholasconder4703]

It was also important to clear the Mediterranean because it would free up shipping. Shorter travel distance meant a faster turnaround time for transports, meaning more cargo could be carried on fewer ships. The other option would be to travel around the south tip of Africa, which added a lot of distance for shipping travelling to and from the UK and India and Australia. As you say, this is often overlooked by people who complain about the Mediterranean strategy.

[@ExpatChef71]

@@odessa5631 you can have the best tactics and overall strategy but if you don't have a reliable supply of and reliable distribution network of stuff and people you're screwed.

[@bgeoffa]

My father was in the US 10th Mountain Division, and fought in the Italian campaign. I remember asking him jokingly how was the fighting in the "soft underbelly"? He glowered at me, and let me know in no uncertain terms that there was nothing soft about the battles he and his fellow soldiers fought there. Even now, I wince every time I hear that term.

[@opaaloys]

Italy was a permantent uphill fighting. Ansio and Netuno was not a success and if the allied troops penetrate the Gustavline the axis-power established the Gotenline. In that time Russians move from the River Don the River Pruth. A boot has to be put on top down.

[@AudieHolland]

Italy is mountainous. Imagine the Belgian Ardennes region but it's covering half of the country.

[@bigwoody4704]

Um,no and Italy didn't get below zero

[@michaelprobert4014]

@@opaaloys We're the D day dodgers in sunny Italy ..kzbin.info/www/bejne/iaqTqKWLlqaLhKc

[@sandrabbitlane]

Mark Clark's "tough old gut" was no tougher than fighting the Germans in northern Europe. The hedged fields of Normandy, Caen, the Hertgen forest, the Ardennes, were all just as costly ground to capture, and more difficult to supply.

[@nickdanger3802]

All of those battles happened after Rome was occupied.

[@thevillaaston7811]

sandrabbitlane 'Mark Clark's "tough old gut" was no tougher than fighting the Germans in northern Europe.' Your words. How would you know?

[@thevillaaston7811]

@@pearly872 The Italian campaign, and theallied threat to the Germans in the Balkans tied down fifty German divisions.

[@bleachorange]

You know, this shows a lack of understanding of mountain fighting. Nowhere in the second world war was mountain fighting on the same level as fighting on any other ground (as far as difficulty and casualties) - except for amphibious assaults. attacking mountainous terrain has always been (and will always be) some of the most difficult fighting a ground army can do. those other locations you mentioned were challenging battlefields, but its not close to the same caliber of difficulty.

[@brucenadeau2172]

@@askhams without allies supplies and the western allies bomber offense pulling german airforce fighters west and the need to incease fighters production at the cost of german airforce recon aircraft till 1942 german airforce put 50% aircraft in recon missions after 1942 fighter wore the main missions

[@tommyestridge9301]

A cross channel landing in 1942 would have been a disaster. The US needed the experience that it got in N. Africa to weed out incompetent commanders, and the time to develop and build all of the specialized gear used in the D day landing that made it possible to land and supply the troops for the drive across France.

[@trentk268]

If the US had bitten the bullet and put the Marines in, they would have succeeded. The Army wanted the Marines as far away from Europe as possible.

[@afterthesmash]

@@trentk268 That only gets you to a beachhead. Many more problems follow.

[@Briguy1027]

In many ways you're right. But at the same time there would be many less obstructions on the shores of Normandy, as constructed by Rommel.

[@banditlegal7452]

Lies after lies, usa was waging war against the Japanese in the Pacific where they had to make beach landing in many islands and they were good at it.

[@terrysmith9362]

utter nonsense

[@rb239rtr]

The simplest reason for Torch was that the Allies were not ready for D-DAY in northern Europe until 1944

[@marthag1269]

Totally agree with you on this.

[@eddiemerc1986]

Sorry to dissapoint you but no. If you exclude the soviets from the equation you are just following the path of Hollywood propaganda not history. If the Soviets would have capitulated in '42 not Torch, D Day or Market Garden would have been enough to defeat the Third Reich. The suffering level would have been grotesque in any campaing the west armies ever attempted against the Reich, if it wasn't for the soviets. And even worse politically it would have been the end to any west goverment if cassualties started to stack in numbers like the eastern front.

[@thegeneralist7527]

@@eddiemerc1986 The atomic bomb would beg to differ with you.

[@eddiemerc1986]

@@thegeneralist7527 dont understand your point. I hope you are trying to make one. If you think the Americans were closer to get the bomb first you are the next one to be dissapointed, because the Reich was. Otherwise that letter from Einstein to Roosevelt urging him to build one first was a just a bluff. Or wasn't.?

[@eddiemerc1986]

@@thegeneralist7527 now imagine a Reich without enemies in Europe. All resources committed to build a bomb from 1939 to 1942. What a different song at play right? And here is the spooky part for you pal: in 1945 after the fall of Berlin, the soviet NKVD capture from the Nazis almost 250 kilos of enriched uranium, 3 tonns of uranium oxide plus 20 liters of heavy water. And the final prize? You guessed it, the blueprints of the first german nuclear device named Uranbombetype. To make you think right? Cheers

[@chain-wallet]

never knew quite how much politics was involved in these huge military decisions. its incredible any of it worked out at all.

[@lmadeira9826]

Here's something else that speaks of politics and a lot more kzbin.info/www/bejne/qpTPcpWNq6enbZI

[@stevenleslie8557]

One good reason for invading Italy was the allied occupation forces kept the Communists (i.e. USSR) from filling the vacuum left behind when Germany withdrew.

[@russyeatman5631]

All "military" decisions are "political" decisions: "Some of our people will be killed. How do we accomplish our objectives while inflicting more casualties on the other people than they inflict on us? Is the inevitable loss of life worth achieving the objective? The "decision makers" are very, very, seldom in harms way.

[@Orson2u]

Two extremely important points, in fact. It is incredible.

[@vivians9392]

Politicians should have fought each other in this war...NOT the citizens!

[@michael7324]

My dad was stationed in North Africa. He worked in the same building as Ike. My dad told me a story about how my dad nearly knocked him down a flight of stairs as my father was moving equipment down the stairs as he was walking up. My dad also used to make Ike chocolate fudge after he told my dad that his wife makes real good fudge.

[@michael7324]

@ImNotMad ButUR sorry for the confusion. My father nearly knocked Ike down a flight of stairs.

[@bigwoody4704]

is your dad Monty j/k

[@carrickrichards2457]

Starting at the Axis most vulnerable front, goes with the doctrine of applying your forces against the enemies weakest point. And while the Italian Front was 'a mess' it did knock out Germany's strongest military ally and build the vital skills and equipement fror Normandy.

[@avelus5984]

WW2 has got to be the most interesting human historical event of all time. So many points of views, so many characters, so many battles...

[@tommypatchell3342]

Indeed!.....

[@justinluban5474]

Honestly tho I always thought ww1 was the most interesting maps were redrawn new governments made that was some real crazy stuff I mean think one day your Russian the next day your polish that's what happened to some people

[@altond511]

@@justinluban5474 Have you ever taken a look at old and new maps of Africa?

[@PMMagro]

Is it not that we have so much sound recordings, pictures, film and living survivors own information/stories? I mean why not WW1.

[@russyeatman5631]

@@PMMagro My high school history teacher taught us that WW II was essentially WW I, continued. I think he had a point.

[@patrickduffy2744]

My mother lost her father at El Alamein a 37year old father of 5 he was a gunner who re-enlisted and lost his life she felt abandonment for the rest of her life

[@robertracicot7232]

How sad...

[@dukenukem69]

​@@robertracicot7232how rad dad lad

[@stevebaylot7924]

Thank you for posting these wonderful documentaries. I wish the History Channel still ran stuff like this.

[@thevillaaston7811]

It was a BBC programme.

[@ABCBUGGYNZ]

They do!! The History channel is where I first saw this documentary. But I now mostly watch youtube content for a broader, eclectic smorgasbord of varied opinions.

[@tommypatchell3342]

The History channel shows the same ww2 stuff over and over and over again I must of watched the World at War series and the ww2 in color series at least 50 times and I'm not exaggerating I can narrate ww2 in color verbatim I know all the lines to the narrative to that series the Military History channel has to get new material,I've watched Masters of War like a dozen times already I have over 300 docs on ww2 that The MilHist channel doesn't show,they are sad!.....

[@tommypatchell3342]

@@ABCBUGGYNZ me2 I've watched EVERYTHING the Hist channel and Military History channel has to offer concerning ww2 over and over and over again I can do the ww2 in color series narrative verbatim I've watched that series like 50x already and that is no exaggeration..im done with both of those channels,I have over 300 docs on ww2 I would much rather watch on my KZbin library on my cell....milhist and hist channel is sad... I've watched EVERYTHING they have on ww2 for yrs now..they need new shows badly!!!!

[@hibbarddiane2]

all ancient aliens.....if the aliens taught it might be better1!!!!

[@chrisrose01]

Attacking an enemy where his supply lines are weakest is a sound doctrine

[@caseysand8227]

The war in the Mediterranean did distract the germans and split their forces...so not the worst decision

[@jayfelsberg1931]

Not only were we "newcomers to the war," but the chance of mounting a war-winning invasion of Northern Europe was non-existent. There simply were not the military power,, landing craft and logistics to pull it off. There was no air superiority either. The Normandy landing took place at the right time.

[@jonnybottle]

Quite right. The interdiction measures before D-Day were immense and the first long range Merlin Mustangs that really whittled down the Luftwaffe only reached the 8th Air Force in the UK in December 1943.

[@jessemartinez2276]

The terrain in Italy favorite the Germans. As the German general said after the war. Next time you invade Italy start from the North. France would had been an easier task.

[@ozdorothyfan]

Agreed, 1943 would have been too early. A pre-requisite has to be not just air superiority but air supremacy. By D day in 1944 that air supremacy had been established and the Luftwaffe powerless to even interfere far less intervene. Plus the first wave of troops ashore, the assault wave, were the cream of the crop. Average age around 24 to 25. Averaging slightly bigger than the typical soldier. Previous combat experience in the African and Mediterranean theatres described above and even experience of seaborne landings such as in Sicily. All of the above went a long way to ensuring D day was a success which was far from certain. And it all wasn't available till 1944.

[@edmundscycles1]

@@jonnybottle it wasn't the P-51 but the P-47 and P-38 that decimated the Luftwaffer . By the time the P-51 D was deployed the majority of the wings had been reduced to their former glory .

[@GodKing804]

Yes, the right time is when Americans joined.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

This is an incredibly pessimistic view of the British war plan, I think largely because they're focussing on the land war to the exclusion of the naval war (how Britain traditionally prefers to fight). The Italians had a strong navy, much more powerful than the German navy (and decent air force too), and the location of Italy meant that they could raid allied convoys passing through the med just as holding Norway meant that the Germans could raid arctic convoys. This meant that supply had to travel all around Africa (both to supply Russia and get supplies from the colonies), as well as the Royal Navy had to maintain a significant presence in the med to engage the Italian navy should it come out, forces that could be used better elsewhere if Italy was no longer in the war. Knocking out Italy made sense when you look at the theatre as a whole, not just 1 aspect.

[@roadtrip2943]

The royal navy effort to maintain supply lines in the Mediterranean, reduce the italian naval and air power, cutoff the Afrika corps supplies and the defence of Malta resulted in brutal navy loses only compared by us and Australian navy loses in support of the guadacanal campaign but on a vast scale. This saga of naval effort is much less reported in the US as a critical history of those times.

[@elliskaranikolaou2550]

@Joshua Hanson Italian Naval forces sank 58 British Naval Vessels during WW2. Including: 6 cruisers, 15 destroyers, 37 submarines. They were actually better than what many think. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II .

[@RobBCactive]

The infrastructure to supply armies in France without early capture of ports simply didn't exist in 1943. Knocking out an ally and causing a German occupation, fighting at a distance gained southern airbases and allowed better preparation. In 1944, it proved that the terrain favoured defence, without the build up of air supremacy, supply capabilities and resistance forces, Normandy could have been a disaster.

[@MrCher2]

Right. And we have to remember that time was running against Germany. Germany was running out of fuel and other important materials (and food) thanks to the effective UK blockade of Europe. And the Italian navy was a danger even when Italy was not able to use their naval strength due to lack of fuel thanks to the blockade. Italians didn't even have coal. When allies invaded France, Italy was out of the war and Germany was already softened. And later, the systematic bombardment of German transport infrastructure and other strategic targets destroyed German (war) economy before allies reached German soil. And some of the bomber planes took off from italian airfields. On the other side, Allies were using that time to build their armies, and the infrastructure necessary to supply their armies in France. I'm not convinced that invading France in 1943 would have been a better idea.

[@alanjm1234]

@@MrCher2 you're right. Attempting to invade Frace in 1943 would have been a disaster.

[@prateekkumar9873]

such a brilliant narration by Prof Reynolds. Never saw a more passionate historian. Brilliant work.

[@habitualforeigner]

Agreed, but the attempts at an American accent were unnecessary.

[@greghenderson6782]

Can't agree Prateek. Discussion was 'billed' as the African Campaign and then included the Med. and Sth Europe. Could cop the slide to the Med. but not to Sth Europe. However it did permit discussion of soft underbelly war rhetoric and along in tow came imperialist Britain and perfidious Churchill. No tour de force on Africa or the Med at all. As for southern Europe , an interesting presentation of one historians views, loosely supported by an assortment of facts, relevant or not so much.

[@gravesclayton3604]

This has been a good series, Thank You! Timeline documentaries seem well organized and presented.

[@RafaelSantos-pi8py]

Why was the North African and later the Italian campaign fought instead of opening a 2nd front in France in 1942-43? Because a invasion of Europe before 1944 would have failed. Not only was it vital to keep the Suez canal open to keep Great-Britain supplied but when the Americans joined the war there was already an open front in North Africa. It made sense to win that fight instead of rolling the dice on an europen invasion and risk it all. The U.S. military couldn't fight the germans in 1942 and win. Their troops and officers were green and inexperienced, their equipment inferior and untested and they didn't had naval and air supremacy at that time. As an example, in the first battle the americans fought the germans (battle of Kasserine pass) they lost and lost badly. An invasion in late 1942 or even 1943 could have failed with disastrous consequences.

[@oldgysgt]

I agree an invasion of Northern France in 1942 or 43 would have been a serious error, and only prolonged the war. America was the great arsenal of the Western Allies, but even our vast manufacturing ability could not have produced the enormous amounts of hardware necessary for a successful invasion much before 1944. General Marshall was a smart guy, but he seriously underestimated Germany’s war making ability.

[@Gos1234567]

Yes Churchill was right to defend Egypt,had no choice really.So im not really understanding this presenters claims

[@BlairMaynard]

The documentary didn't dispute the logic of securing North Africa first, or invading Sicily and securing the entire Mediterranean. Going into Italy in September 1943, I think was questioned. Vital air and naval superiority in the Mediterranean had been secured and adequate experience had a been gained by US forces. Italy was ideal defensive terrain, if there was a soft underbelly for German forces, it would have been South France. And don't forget, Churchill wanted to continue attacking southern areas of Greece and Rhodes rather than invading France immediately.

[@dandyjesus]

See Dieppe disaster.

[@BlairMaynard]

@@dandyjesus Dieppe was in September 1942, a year before the invasion of Italy and plenty of time to process lessons learned. Of course, fewer funnies would be built for the invasion, but then again the beach defenses would not be as well developed either, so pluses and minuses.

[@mingshi6138]

Thank you very much for showing how political tricks and personal vanity had contributed a great deal to a historical event. Not the war as such, but the war as continuing politics, as the German strategist Klauswitz loved to put it, becomes clear and convincing for us to understand the complexity of World War II.

[@jason1656]

I love this narrator he has such a passion for history

[@julianpalmer4886]

Rather, he is an absolutely smug thatcherite prat; typical of far too many post Churchill tories, who surely must of lost their pride, if not their private parts in Las Malvinas

[@randymarsh625]

The man in the thumbnail is Sergeant Ian Thomas 34163 of 22nd Battalion 2nd New Zealand Division. The photo was taken at 7.30 pm on the start line of an attack by 6 Brigade near Ruweisat Ridge. "I was sitting on the start line, with my back to the enemy. I was wounded that night" (Ian Thomas)

[@dukenukem69]

That's an ss officer

[@d.theman6945]

Amazing content! Thank you Timeline!

[@debasishdeb7646]

Kudos to Britain and the soliders of Commonwealth nations

[@vincevandergoes2362]

Very interesting and some enlightening facts. Puts a different perspective on some of the outcomes of the war. Thanks.

[@johnharris2353]

I love the quality of this content. Great narrating and great production!

[@feloniousfilms]

You are the best history channel on KZbin, period. Thank you for posting.

[@salus1231]

Mark Clarke's vanity, cost thousands of lives. He got his day in the spotlight, his vanity craved. He went for Rome, which was undefended, when he could have trapped most of the hastily retreating German 10th army, instead most of them escaped north, and the Italian campaign went on for another year. No true commander wastes lives, to feed his own ego. Even American military historian Carlo D'Este called Clark's choice to take the undefended Italian capital of Rome, after Operation Diadem and the breakout from the Anzio beachhead, in early June, rather than focusing on the destruction of the German 10th Army, "as militarily stupid as it was insubordinate". So even the yanks agree!

[@ianbell4816]

So ego plays a part. Didn't Patton get himself in hot water for wanting to make a charge to take Berlin? I think Omar Bradley shut him down.

[@bigwoody4704]

He still made monty look like the amatuer that he was taking Salerno,Naples and Rome as Monty dithered in the toe then got called back before embarrassing himself more

[@salus1231]

@@bigwoody4704 Such nonsense

[@bigwoody4704]

*Churchill and the Montgomery Myth,by R.W. Thompson* Montgomery's very unusual personality in some detail. He suggests that Montgomery did not change much after the First World War. He described how Montgomery's "... essentially tidy mind liked the 'set-piece' attack." p. 90. And how, "...he did not absorb a new idea (after the First World War). At fifty he was the same man he had been at thirty ... dedicated absolutely to his profession, completely assured." p. 92. Thompson writes about how "Montgomery's belief in his (own) infallibility seemed absolute, as solid as rock..." "He appeared to be totally incapable of self-criticism, or even of conceiving that his generalship might be less than perfect... Every set-back was instantly rationalized, and the situation was always as he had foreseen and wanted." p. 227. Thompson is describing what our pop psycho culture would call a "Control Freak." The clinical term for this behavior is is 'Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,' or OCD. *The result was that Montgomery was mentally incapable of taking those risks inherent in the new form of warfare requiring mobile, combined arms operations. Risky battlefield maneuvers was second nature to men like George Patton and Erwin Rommel, but not to Montgomery. The most famous British general went though the entire war using infantry tactics from the First World War and amazingly no one in a position of authority within the British Army ever caught on* *Desert Generals,by Corelli Barnett* Like all true narcissists, Montgomery was incapable of understanding that he might ever be mistaken, let alone wrong, or that there might ever be another point of view. When people disagreed with him, he invariably thought it was because they must be too dim to understand the brilliance of his cerebrations.Montgomery was not only the least essential but a positive impediment to the best conduct of the war, squandering opportunity after opportunity for cooperation and coordination of effort and making his fellow commanders aggrieved and miserable.Montgomery was not only famously insensitive and deliberately insulting to his brothers in arms, but he was capable of outright lies if he thought it would elevate him above potential rivals. *Blood,Sweat and Arrogance,by Gordon Corrigan,page 477* Brooke and the other chiefs of staff should never have allowed Churchill to dictate minor detail,nor to sack Generals and Admirals on a whim(the Air Marshalls got off lightly). *Probably the worst example of picking the wrong man and backing him come what may,was in Brooke's constant support for Montgomery,who should have been dismissed once it became clear that he could not operate in a coalition environment, but whose retention soured Anglo-American relations for years after the War.*

[@5KpGD]

​@@bigwoody4704 awesome sources!

[@mattbrown5949]

David Reynolds rocks! Hope he makes a lot more of these programs

[@catmate8358]

Good film, possibly the best on this channel. Thanks for posting.

[@JayRob31145]

Superb film at every turn. This is history at its very best. Congratulations, Timeline.

[@AQuietNight]

In light of the Cold War that followed, Churchill was not far off on his approach to the war and FDR didn't seem to look into the future all that much. His successor Harry S. Truman had to deal with the problems FDR left behind.

[@guymajor7103]

He strictly did it to preserve whatever he could of the British empire! The fact that they landed at Anzio was a mistake and they should have landed further up the Italian peninsula!

[@mtbdawg4987]

I can save you 45 minutes with a few words. Oil, Suez Canal, and getting experience going against the Germans before the big show in Europe. I think at heart most Brits already knew the days of Empire were over and while Churchill was beloved, he was already seen as a relic of bygone era. A lot of the old British elites probably pressured him with their delusions of maintaining the Empire

[@fod1235]

You’re so cool

[@soxx795]

Well made and informative. Thanks.

[@Wordmama]

Riveting! Highlights a new perspective on the period I've never heard before.

[@supersolid64]

He never once mentioned British motivation to re-open the Med to shipping between India and the UK, which could not be safely done until the Allies secured North Africa and Sicily. The route through around the Horn of Africa decreased British shipping capacity (still the largest in the world at that time) by 30%; a massive tax on their transport system upon which everything depended. A serious oversight in Mr Reynold's research and historical analysis of the campaign. Re-opening the Med to commercial and military shipping in 1943, literally made the invasion of NW Europe possible in 1944 as it opened enough shipping capacity to accelerate the shipment of US men and materiel to England for the cross channel invasion. It's not likely the Allies could have successfully invaded NW Europe in 1943 in any case, due to the shortage of landing craft, large and small. 44 or 45 was really the only possibility, and taking back control of Med sea lanes ensured that it would happen in 1944.

[@johnburns4017]

This Reynolds has not a clue.

[@bigwoody4704]

Burns,monty only won because of massive advantages that even he couldn't faff it up.....but he tried.He had nothing to do with any of them

[@johnburns4017]

@@bigwoody4704 Rambo, a quiz. Name the British general that went through *nine* countries with no reverses? 20 points for the correct answer.

[@bigwoody4704]

Go to bed LOSER - it's 3 in the morning there,Grab your monster Boobs Magazine and hit the rack!!!🤣 since 1940 - British Empire forces "evacuated" from Norway,Netherlands Belgium and France🚑🚑🚑(Dunkirk). 1941 - Greece, Crete,Hong Kong and Libya. 1942 - Singapore,Dieppe and Tobruk.What's that 0-11 or sum such. Real Juggernaut - keep popping off. *Tell your droopy delusions to the rest of Europe* A very small player on the winning team and lucky to be there at that 😜

[@johnburns4017]

@@bigwoody4704 *BZZZZT!* Wrong answer. The name the British general that went through nine countries with no reverses was... 🎈🍾🎊 *General Montgomery* 🎈🍾🎊 Zero points Rambo. Zero. Better luck next time.

[@aaronseet2738]

Hmm I a bit puzzled by this series' implications. I think everybody can agree the defense of North Africa - particularly towards Egypt and Suez Canal - was pretty vital. They managed to repel the Italians but when the Wehrmacht's Afrika Korps got involved, it became real serious business. Since the Allied troops have already been amassed at North Africa once they kick the Axis out, it did make sense to me that having dominance in the Mediterranean sea lanes by way of pushing up Sicily and Italy was a good thing. But then yes, of course, _how far up North_ to conquer can be questionable. Separately, the presentation seems to ignore the protracted and _massive_ European air campaign with the US and UK pounding the German industry day and night to _wear down the war machine and Luftwaffe_ . (To this day I'm still amazed the US 8th Air Force had more airmen killed than all the US Marines campaigns throughout the Pacific.) Those two years saw the development and adoption of so many new technologies and combat vehicles that provided an edge over Germany by the time of 1944 Operation Overlord. The Luftwaffe at that point was on full defensive and couldn't put up a proper fight against the Normandy onslaught.

[@nicholasconder4703]

The capture of Sicily and southern Italy were important, as they further secured the Allied supply lines through the Mediterranean, and provided airfields for attacking the Romanian oil fields and factories in Austria, both of which were more or less out of range of the bombers based in the UK. Then again, given how far the Russians advanced by the spring of 1945, pushing the Allied armies all the way to the Alps prevented northern Italy being occupied by the Russians. In fact in spring 1945 it was a race between the British Armies under Freyberg and Tito's Partisans as to who would retain the port city of Trieste after the war. So there were other reasons apart from the purely military ones for continuing the campaign.

[@badlaamaurukehu]

Tunisia

[@rorynelson2482]

Thanks for the insights into the machinations behind some of the biggest decisions of the war.

[@Redmenace96]

Watched part 1. Have watched several dozen WW2 docs. Can't vouch for the truth of this guys assertions, but he brings an interesting perspective and made me look at the war in another way. Well done, and I liked the attention to dates and the maps. Great example of how to make a war doc. , properly.

[@rohannair9945]

The docuementary does present one view . But I do believe that the invasion of Italy and Sicily did have several benefits. Namely knocking Italy out of the war , tying down German troops that could have been sent to the eastern front, giving valuable experience in amphibious warfare and inter service cooperation. A defeat of allied forces in 1942/43 d day would have been a disaster for free people the world over.

[@oldgysgt]

Rohan Nair; Italy was never much of a treat, but the war in Italy did cost Germany troops and equipment that could have used elsewhere.

[@Gos1234567]

He even says at one point that no way could the allies have crossed the channel in 43,he blames in on the battle in N.Africa (but they had to fight there really) so this doc seems to contradict itself

[@ABCBUGGYNZ]

You're right!!!

[@johnnyhoops3991]

@@oldgysgt Italy would have become a major problem if i was not knocked out of the war, and the Allied invasion of France got stuck. Churchill's thinking was sound in securing Allied domination of the Mediterranean before any attempt on Northern France.

[@oldgysgt]

​ Johnny Hoops ; Italy had poor equipment and its troops had poor morale and were poorly lead. They got kicked around by Greece, Briton and later on by the Germans. Their only success was against the Ethiopians, and the British even kicked them out of there. The Italian military wasn't a real threat to any modern nation in the 1930s or 1940s. Above all, Churchill wanted to protect the British Empire, and without control of the Mediterranean that would have been almost impossible.

[@NickFrankF]

My great grandfather and his brothers fought in North Africa and Italy and then went to Normandy as a reinforcement and fought to Germany

[@alanwitton5039]

Fantastic viewing! Very informative

[@CissyBrazil]

So very very interesting! Thank you for this documentary!

[@allananderson1906]

RIP all soldiers!

[@tommycurry9412]

Amen

[@boris2997]

David Reynolds is amazing in these documentaries

[@daveculver4350]

Excellent series. I will watch them all.

[@andyhallbootdoctornz3991]

I learned so much from this epic production thank you very much

[@ZaGaijinSmash]

This was great. I read a the book "Anzio" a while ago which very much supports what's said here. Churchill over-reached and underachieved in his Italy campaign. Ignoring the advice of sound military minds both British and American in favour of his own ideas. It's easy to say that in hindsight it helped arm the Allies with experience for Overlord like it was some even grander strategy, but that was not Churchill's intention.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Really? What advice did these British & American military minds give? Marshall's enthusiasm for a 1942 landing in France, perhaps?

[@bigwoody4704]

Matched only by Monty/Brooke's enthusiasm for leaving it. There was hardly a "Atlantic Wall" propganda the Brits fell for. Sure there were troops stationed there but only a handful of bunkers. That Goebbles had his publicity barkers take pictures from many different angles of existing structures thus portraying it as a massive complex of many different structures. Rommel was aghast when he arrived in late December '43 a how woefully vacant & ill prepared it actually was.And set out immediately on the gigantic task of actually fortifying it. The Italian debcale was all winston's pipe dream

[@koyotekola6916]

Why wasn't Patton mentioned as a major player in North Africa and Italy, then France and Germany?

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Probably because he wasn't a major player.

[@bigwoody4704]

Try try using the address bar at the top of the page to relieve others of the responsibility for furthering your education Have you considered reading history? I'm sure it's offered at your secondary school there? Denial isn't a river in Egypt,Patton schooled the sordid sod bernard in Sicily, who did even less in Italy if one can imagine

[@koyotekola6916]

@@bigwoody4704 Hmm, I like the way that you give advice. You actually give no information that's worth anything. I know people like you. Know it alls that actually know nothing. My advice to you is to go back to kindergarten and learn a few things, then graduate to the 1st grade.

[@onpahanvaan]

Not sure which I enjoyed more, the nice and analytical war documentary or all the great metaphors and wordplays!

[@mclarenscca]

I have learned so much from this channel about histiry! I am 54 and hated history as a kid! Now I simply can't get enough!!!!!! ❤️❤️❤️

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Nice sidestep of the French opposition for "Torch" landings.

[@tommypatchell3342]

Part of the French govt were ardent supporters of the Nazis esp in the Vichy south during ww2

[@bossofbosporus7624]

Those where not the French mentioned. there was an exile government

[@pigmanobvious]

My uncle was a section chief in a 155 battery. Started in N Africa and all the way up the Italian boot and fellow crewmen fell to counter battery fire he remained unscathed. Came home and drank himself to death at the age of 54.

[@bossofbosporus7624]

Sad to hear. Easy to understand. War wrecks people's psyche.

[@MartinBraonain]

Fascinating - great on the political maneurverings on of the leaders and Churchill's fears.

[@ashbourne8715]

Excellent and very well presented documentary ! 5 ⭐️

[@markskeldon1347]

As a soldier in the 3rd Division USA my cousin took part in four invasions before he was 19 years old.

[@brucewindell5885]

And today the snow flakes need a safe space to cry in. What has the world come to.

[@Youalldjfnf]

@Dingleberry Mcdinglepants do you snow flake

[@markskeldon1347]

The men of that generation were definitely not snowflakes. Leaving their loved ones in order to protect their way of life, living on the front lines much of the time, seeing almost all of their buddies die, suffering extreme hardships but still remaining alert for what is to come.

[@californiadreamin8423]

Not convinced by this presentation. The defence of the Suez Canal and the opening up of the Mediterranean for shipping were incredibly important. I understood that British military strategy was determined by the British Chiefs of Staff, chaired by General Alan Brooke ....his diaries are a must read, and shed light on that strategy and internal battles with some of Churchill's wilder ideas. With the entry of the US , Allied strategy was determined by the JOINT Chiefs of Staff, at sometimes stormy conferences referred to. If a cross channel invasion had taken place in 42 or 43, as desired by Gen Marshall, why did Eisenhower prepare a speech in case D-Day had been a failure ?? This was Churchills fear.

[@kajamix]

Hitler was after the oil of the middle East as also the oil of the Caspian Sea. So Egypt had to be defended at all costs. At the same time Churchill wanted Overlord and he certainly did not want either the nazis to occupy Europe or Stalin to reach France from the east. But he was overcautious about it. In the end if Hitler had listened to Rommel and positioned his forces closer to the beaches rather than around Paris, what could have happened ? We will never know.

[@minnowpd]

The USA was reluctant to have our soldiers serve under foreign command. General Pershing made it a sticking point in WW1. In Italy we were under Alexander from early January '44 ,, soon after was the disaster of the Rapido and Monte Cassino proved us right..

[@alastairbarkley6572]

@@minnowpd At Kasserine, US troops were under American command. To stop the rout, a Brit general had to take charge. Pershing? American troops in the 1918 Spring Offensive were under French High Command.

[@MrAkaacer]

@@kajamix Getting the oil back from the middle-east would've been problematic, especially since Britain held Malta. If Rommel placed his tanks near the beaches there would be more allied casualty, but the Allies would've won anyway. The allies had complete air superiority. If the Germans did stop D-Day, then they would've been nuked a year later.

[@bigwoody4704]

Alastair The GIs never got routed on the scale of a Dunkirk or Singapore - NEVER

[@scottsmith7051]

Extraordinarily well done.

[@Simp_Zone]

Wheres the next part??? This was amazing!

[@Exiledk]

My father was 'blown up', as he put it, at Monte Cassino. He was listed as killed in action but came to in an American hospital in Rome. Finding out that he was dead on paper, he quickly asked the Red Cross to rectify the information and contact my Grandmother to let her know that he was still alive and kicking. He carried shrapnel in his leg for the rest of his life. His war ended on the main station in Rome. He and the dregs of his battalion had been tasked with guarding the railways and transport system.

[@cassivellaunushonestus4927]

No consideration is given to how many resources Germany devoted to the N. African and Italian campaigns that would have otherwise been available to the eastern front.

[@thevettegetsitwett]

Germany deployed 90% of its Military & resources to the East. Trust me they were far less concerned with the small amount of troops in Italy. Not to mention Germany had to protect its Oil in Romania & Food & minerals in the Ukraine. No matter what the other Allies did Germany would focus on the USSR for multiple reasons. Look at how many Russians the Germans killed compared the other allies. Germany seen the USSR as its main enemy and couldn't understand why the world wouldn't just let them wipe them off the map. Its Ironic right after the war ended the Allies & Soviets would square off immediately in the Cold War.

[@p51mustang24]

Just hoping that starts to put things into perspective. The propaganda of ww2 still lingers heavily. The war wasn't good vs evil, it was countries slugging it out over opposing interests on the western front. On the eastern front, it was 2 ideologies at complete and total odds with each other.

[@alastairbarkley6572]

Eastern Front supplies took priority. The main reason Rommel lost. Shortages of everything, most acutely, fuel. Rommel's N Africa supplies were delivered courtesy of the Italian Navy. Since the Italian Navy Enigma had been broken by the Brits, the supply convoys were often intercepted and sunk.

[@wekapeka3493]

Great documentary Uncle John.

[@mehdihassan3515]

Beautiful work.

[@beback_]

It's fascinating how victory over your allies is just as important as that over your enemies.

[@MisterDings]

" and on this historic day, i felt like vomiting" - cuts to fountain with water spouting out of a mans mouth- brilliant.

[@davidtaylor4832]

What an eye-opener, ! This insightful account of the late Mederterainian chapter of WW2.

[@dat2ra]

Excellent visuals and very illuminating back story.

[@candyextreme8406]

This is one worth watching.

[@diacarriabutler254]

Very good presentation, it does concentrate on the decisions taken by the various wartime leaders. One is tempted to say that Churchill's leadership left a lot to be desired, but then so did Stalin's, and France was defeated despite having a larger army than Germany. I think one must conclude that in wars many mistakes are made on all sides.

[@Triqkshot]

France was operating militarily with WW1 style conditions. Lack of weapons, tanks and overall equipment. Stalin can hardly be called a leader and Churchill was waiting for everyone else to do the dirty work for him. All of these reasons above is exactly why America didn’t get involved until Pearl Harbour.

[@stevefreeland9255]

Love anything David Reyonolds does!!

[@arcliteX]

Hate the ads. Love the video.

[@persilbran]

Normandy was originally planned for the 5th of June, which would really have put Clark and Rome in the shadow.

[@davidhussell8581]

This is a very interesting documentary. Many thanks.

[@faithoneil877]

My Papaw was a Medic and Surgical Technician on transport planes in North Africa during WWII. He was In the Army Air Corps. Love these vids

[@apanapandottir205]

The cut at 40:14 is perfection.

[@sandrabbitlane]

If the German troops fighting Clark near Rome at the exact time of D-Day had been deployed near the coast of Normandy or anywhere close, fresh and fully equipped, there would have been a real chance of disaster on the allied landing beaches. The Italian campaign provided the strategic reduction of German forces in the north necessary to redress their temporary numerical superiority at the time of the allied landings.

[@bryanbufton4358]

Your so right,

[@rickhughesprints]

Nicely done.

[@Brett-to5es]

Years ago we had neighbors who became family friends, the father of the other family was involved in WWII through Africa Egypt Tobruk and Italy, he was also at "the battle Monte Casino", as he called it. He was in the ground forces. I used to quiz him about his war time adventures, He mentioned in one of his recountings, that the most fearsome thing was the US carpet bombers who often dropped bombs early wanting to get out of the battle zone asap. This in turn led to the US bombing the Allies on the front lines. He said "When the US bombers came in for a run, both sides ducked for cover". He softly chuckled as he said that last part, as if lost in thought of a memory, but there was a look in his eye of some old terror revisited.

[@christina1wilson]

Thank you for posting. The African campaign had never made much sense to me beyond protecting the Suez Canal. This was a very well done and enlightening show.

[@johnemerson1363]

Actually, if we had not fought the Germans in North Africa and Sicily, we would NOT have had combat veterans to show the green kids at Normandy. Eveyone would have been green.

[@heritage_isimportant7297]

Britain got much of its oil from the Persian Gulf which was shipped via the Suez Canal Hence the reason why Britain had to win the North African Campaign.

[@flodjod]

in 1 word like under bush OIL

[@edmundscycles1]

@@flodjod not really. To weaken the German and Italian armies which were finite you have to spread them as thin as possible . Creating an overstretched logistics, man power while also gathering intelligence on equipment and tactics deployed by your enemy .

[@krisfrederick5001]

Endlessly fascinating for whatever reason

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

thanks for share!!!

[@rrrteee8405]

superb lecturer. I wish I had history professors like this back in my college days!

[@roberthealy2331]

awesome docs. haven't seen these. very well done. great presenter. good footage. in-depth African campaign which is usually bypassed by d day and battle of the bulge or even anzio. very good.

[@DimBeam1]

They gonna appease the yank viewers with all that

[@beninwarrior4579]

@@DimBeam1 what? We fought in north africa too and in the pacific.

[@DimBeam1]

we. c'mon dude its not we. me and you weren't there, lets get that bit right first.

[@ericcarlson3746]

agreed- this guy is a great storyteller

[@TARKIN1100]

@@DimBeam1 Isn't the narative or this that north africa/italy was pointless? I would aruge that they are arguing that the Americans where kind of idiots. This seams rather dismissive of the US In most places. All that being said, this is well made... But it seams to have to much of a agenda.

[@RobbyHouseIV]

It's unfortunate that Roosevelt didn't understand the threat that a post-war Soviet Union would pose to the west. I tend to think the Brits could have successfully launched an independent invasion of Greece without affecting Overlord. However anything north of Greece would have been another story.

[@rpm1796]

His whole cabinet were Commie sympathizers.

[@liberalmatt]

Excellent presenter, with just the right gravitas and pathos.

[@philodonoghue3062]

This guy is one of the most credible and authoritative historian / presenters

[@frenchfree]

I always understood that the Africa campaign was about the race to secure Middle East oil. Why did the Italian campaign not pincer off the top of Italy with a smaller threatening force from the south, rather than fighting their way all the way north through the mountains of the spine. The Gothic line, and Gustav line. Then race to Trieste to cut off the Russian advance.

[@stephenarbon2227]

They did make a landing south of Rome, presumably to cut Italy in half, but that didn't go very well, having the Germans on 3 sides.

[@michaelplanchunas3693]

Read Rick Atkins first book of his WW2 trilogy "The Army at Dawn." Without going into detail, Atkins exposed the shortcomings of American and British commanders, the problems of combined Hqs and chain of command, inefficient logistics, and the real possibility that Roosevelt and Marshall were going to replace Eisenhower. Patton made a mess of logistical loading at the US port as Task Force commander, and nearly got replaced at the request of the navy. The German armor was vastly superior to anything the US had in 1942. Basically, popguns against cannons. It was in North Africa that the US army transformed itself from being a peacetime army to one giant killing machine. A 1942/43 landing in France would have been suicide. Dieppe showed what happens when a coast is heavily defended by experienced troops.

[@Baskerville22]

ATKINSON !

[@bigwoody4704]

The Gis were honing skills in the Pacific and many were moved over

[@leepeel7129]

The final thought was very... soothing

[@vex2763]

Ive always been fascinated with history but anything ww2 takes the cake for me. Ive watched 100s of hours of footage and documentarys and will watch 100s more

[@samthehoarder6393]

My great grandfather was wound at Monte cassino James Hamition Latchford of the Auckland regiment

[@petercastles5978]

"It seemed like Tobruk all over again" This reference is to the 2nd siege of Tobruk, 1942. The first siege of 1941 was a complete success for the Australian and Indian infantry, as they held Mr Rommel out for the majority of the time , of 242 days. The second siege lasted two days, before the Africa Korps rolled the joint.

[@PsilocybinCocktail]

Er I think you'll find that in 1941 the British had a division there, the 70th. Not to mention the Polish Carpathian Brigade and some Czechs, too. And quite a few gunners from the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry.

[@awf6554]

@@PsilocybinCocktail He did refer to infantry specifically, and for the majority of the time. Perfectly accurately.

[@robertsowerby433]

Two very different situations, after the siege was relieved almost all of the mines and defensive positions were lifted are removed to be used elsewhere. As such the troops finding themselves having to mount a hasty defence it was impossible to do more than throw out a thin defensive line in almost completely unfortified positions.

[@petercastles5978]

@@PsilocybinCocktail Yes, they were there, but mostly at the end of the siege. The Poles arrived roughly 5 months after the start, when the Australian 18 th Brigade was relieved. The 70th arrived roughly 7 months after the start, replacing most of the 9th, except the 2/13th Btn, that saw the siege through, to 242 days. At the start of the siege the infantry were mostly Australian, with the 18th Indian Dismounted Cavalry, taking it to Erwin Rommel up front, with British Arty (RHA), machine gunners etc, in support. The 9th were green troops , up against the Africa Korps, and Italians, and in a very short time having no armour, or planes to speak of, yet they still held out. The fact of this amazes me, but Australians are very tough troops, and they must have annoyed Mr Rommel no end!

[@Digmen1]

very good analysis. But the background music drives me crazy

[@JPMD55]

I got to meet Mark Clark at Ft. Monroe Va. Played soccer with his son(s?) Soccer. A true mans sport!

[@johnnyhoops3991]

This presentation is distorted by disconnecting the actual outcome from the real foundations. Suppose that Operation Overlord had been undertaken earlier, in 1942 or 1943, without building sufficient strength and readiness to make the eventual channel crossing secure? Churchill's misgivings would not have been misplaced. History is littered with failures to invade Britain successfully across the English Channel from Europe. Julius Caesar despite several "landings" was ultimately defeated and driven out of Britain in 54 BC, on the third occasion almost placing his entire empire in peril, being attacked by the Gauls on his retreat back into Europe. The English saw off the invasion of the King of Norway in 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. One of greatest naval fleets ever assembled, the Spanish Armada, failed to land a single soldier on British soil in 1588, being met by the English Navy in the Channel, and finished off by adverse tides and weather. A large part of the fleet ended up wrecked on the western coast of Ireland as they made their retreat back to Spain around the north of Scotland and Ireland, and deep out into the Atlantic Ocean, being denied a retreat by turning their ships around within the Channel confines. Churchill, a Briton and historian was well aware of the history of ill-prepared, and failed Channel crossings. The prospect of losing the entire British Army to attack by the Lutwaffe and U-Boat activity in the evacuation from Dunkirk, just two years earlier, was salutary to Churchill's thinking. But worse. Suppose that if Operation Overlord had faltered without beforehand securing Northern Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Suez for the Allies? And Italy not taken out of the war? Churchill's greatest fears would then be surely realised. With the Axis Powers still at large in the Mediterranean, and with Italy intact, if Operation Overlord had faltered then Germany would assuredly have moved to seize the Suez and to cut off Britain from its eastern empire, and Australia and New Zealand. German interests were very different from those of the Western Allies. Which meant that there could be far worse. The Axis Powers would have the power to mount an assault on the Caucasus Oil fields, denied to them by the Soviets to the North of the Caucasus, at the Battle of Stalingrad: by way of an assault upon those very same oil fields from the South, through Turkey or the Middle East. Turkey, an ally of Germany in the First World, was no friend of either the Russians, or of Churchill, and had at all cost, to be kept out of the war. If Turkey saw the prospect of German success by way of Germany gaining control of the Caucasus Oil Fields, and Italy still sharing in Axis Power, then Turkey may well have thrown their lot in with the Germans. Turkey would have had to do zero heavy lifting. Not lift a single finger in actual combat. Just let the Germans in. The Germans may well have been able to secure the oil fields without a single battle except to secure the occupation of the oil fields themselves. What Turkey may do was always critical in Churchill's thinking. Hence his pre-occupation with the security of the Mediterranean, keeping Turkey neutral, and with what was happening in the East. And considerable British energies were being consumed by the war taking place in the East. If British Army forces had not secured control of Iran against forces sympathetic to the Axis in that Eastern country in 1943, then the Tehran Conference of late 1943, between Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill may never have taken place, at least not where and when it did. It was at this conference that the real political foundations were laid for the actual execution of Operation Overlord with each of the Allies, in each others presence together for the first time, able to see the bigger picture from each other's view. The Soviet could be reassured the reasons for the best time for a Channel crossing and the opening of the "Second Front" would be in the Spring of 1944. It was at this conference that the Soviet was able to reassure the US and Britain that the Soviet would assist the foreboding channel crossing by unleashing the full weight of its military power to coincide with the critical cross-channel landing. And this is exactly what the Soviet did once it was confirmed that the channel crossing had really taken place: by unleashing the full might of the Soviet in Operation Bagration on 22 June 1944, the momentum unleashed by the dual assaults, and the meticulous planning by the Soviet to coincide with Operation Overlord, carrying the Soviet forces to raise the Victory Flag on the Reichstag on 9 May 1945. Far from Churchill’s focus on the Mediterranean Campaigns being an expression of weakness. Churchill’s focus was far wider than he is given credit. Churchill saw the war as a battle for the Security of Mankind, not just the British Empire. He saw the world through very British Empire eyes, sometimes blinkering his vision, but giving him a wider vision than the very vast majority of his contemporaries on the planet. He was wise enough and smart enough to realise that Britain and her Empire may not be assured of Victory on their own That would be a disaster, not merely for the British Empire, but for the future of Mankind itself. The conflict was Global. Churchill arrested it exactly where and when he could. Sometimes he was impetuous. But his thinking was always strategic. Why he was so earnest to call in aid the USA and to set aside personal misgivings of the Soviet to secure the Victory. Churchill laid the foundations for Victory in the War. That is exactly what he set out to do. And exactly what he did. And exactly what he accomplished. That is strength. Not weakness.

[@vivians9392]

That, sir, is not so much strength, as it was cunning on the part of Churchill.

[@johnnyhoops3991]

@@vivians9392 Why? Why does an ulterior motive have to be attributed to everything a statesman does? Churchill was cunning. Stalin was cunning. Roosevelt was cunning. Each of them did things which appeared to be ulterior to each of the others. Each of them got partly what they wanted. Each of them lost, or failed to acquire something that they wanted, They each had their own interests. Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt each contributed to the Victory. The architect of the foundations of that Victory was Churchill, who with the strong support of Neville Chamberlain escalated the war against Germany as much as he was able, moved quickly to recognise the Soviet as an Ally as soon as Germany attacked the Soviet, even though Churchill loathed and despised the Soviet leadership and principle, and worked to cultivate the relationship with the USA that meant, despite the very real difference between British interest and American sentiment, the two formed a bond that paved the way for future friendship, and more strategically, secured the Victory. Call that cunning if you will. I call it master statesmanship under enormous duress.

[@johnnyhoops3991]

@@pearly872 Which part do you think I am joking about?

[@peterengel7885]

Churchill is under rated as a strategist. My reference is after Pearl Harbor he warned America not to separate what was left of the American Navy and allow the Japanese to piecemeal it . The Japanese invaded the Aleutian Islands to split the American Navy. Being a Naval strategist was his strength not land war.

[@jaymorris6951]

Well said