• Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Wasn’t oil the reason for the North Africa campaign? What if Barbarossa resources went to North Africa instead?

    • Hemingways_Shotgun
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Hitler very much didn’t want a third front in the war. If Barbarossa had shifted to North Africa, it would mean fewer troops to deal with the soviets when they inevitably invaded (which Hitler was sure they would do). As it was, North Africa was (at first) an inconvenience to them. Mussolini had invaded North Africa to get his “empire”, and when they started taking heavy losses there, it became clear that the Allies could take advantage of it to come up into Europe through Italy and the Mediterranean (which is ultimately what they did). Germany had to deploy Rommel and the Africa Corp. to help the Italians or face fighting a war on three fronts.

      In short, Italy was supposed to be Hitler’s protection against invasion from the south. But Mussolini was an idiot.

      Edited to add: You must remember that at this point in time, North African oil reserves were for the most part undeveloped. As far as Hitler was concerned, it was just a bunch of sand.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Defense requires 4x less troops than offense. Stalin would attack but it would have been years away. The attack wouldn’t be to hold Libya but to push through Egypt into Persia which had British Oil.