Hey all, When people seem to talk about the great Battles of WW2, the names Normandy, Stalingrad, Guadacanal, Iwo Jima etc are the names that always come up. The story of this battle, and the events leading up to it, have always facisinated me, and I would be intersted as to whether, and how, El Alamein ranks with these battles, and whether the outcome of this battle had a significant contribution to the outcome of the war as a whole? Cheers, Rob
I'm not an expert on this theatre or battle and I'm sure you'll get some good responses. But having read a fair bit over the years, it seems to me that the importance of El Alamein is as much one of National morale as purely military. On paper, it cannot really compare with the crushing material defeats inflicted at Stalingrad, Kursk or in the Falaise Gap, etc. But Churchill summed it up very well indeed with his legendary comment : 'This is not the beginning of the end. But is is, perhaps, the end of the beginning'. I think it may also have been Churchill who commented that before Alamein, 'we ( ie the British ) hardly had a victory. After it, we hardly had a defeat'. To both civilians and many military, Rommel ( and Germany ) seemed unstoppable. The British Army appeared muddled and lacking in fighting skill - El Alamein was to the Army what the Battle of Britain was to the RAF. It was a victory at an important time, and represented a turning point for Britain in WWII.
I think Martin mentioned the right quote, (end of the beginning), in pointing out the importance of el Alamein. Psychology in warfare is critical, with a good example being the US experience in Vietnam. I could not say that the Brits would have lost heart if Alexandria, Cairo and beyond were lost, but I know that it did them a world of good that they weren't. From a military standpoint, the German losses were not staggering, considering other theaters, but the long term ramifications on German strategy and manpower allocations are undeniable. Failing to gain the Eastern entry into the Med and then not successfully defending the Western in Nov 1942, forced the Axis (Germany mainly) to expend huge numbers of men defending the lower tier of Europe in 1943 and beyond. Had they held the Suez and the Pillars of Hercules, defense of North Africa and lower Europe could have been accomplished with far few men, men need desperately in battles on the steppes in 1942 and 43. Oil was a lesser issue, as Mideast oil was mostly in the exploration and development stages of production. I think Clint posted something last year that showed Mideast oil only accounted for about 5% of the world's production at that time, if that much.
After 1940 the British home islands didn't use much Mid-east oil, and as Jeff noted it was largely undiscovered and/or non-producing fields. For the UK, British Isles oil imports in 1939 were as follows: 46.2% - Caribbean - mainly Venezuela, but includes Trinidad and Mexico 30.8% - Middle East - Persia (Iran), & Iraq 19.2% - US (the rest came from Rumania) Then with Italy entering into the war in mid-1940, and the Central Med. a war zone, middle east oil became more expensive since it had to be shipped around the Cape. In consequence by 1942, no middle east oil was sent to the home islands, both Persian and Iraqi oil production/refining was scaled back short term (civil unrest didn't help), and that which was produced was used "in house", i.e. the MTO, plus some sent to India, and Australia especially after the loss of the Far East oil producers; NEI, Burma, Borneo and Malaya to the Japanese. So this is the picture for UK petroleum by 1942: 60.0% - US, 40.0% - Trinidad, Venezuela and Mexico (Rumanian oil purchases stopped in 1940, but they had accounted for only 4.2% of British imports that year) By 1944, 79% of Britain's oil imports would be from the US; 21% from the Caribbean, as those sources could be shipped cheaper. The Suez Canal have been of no import to the UK for supplying the home islands (they had been shipping over 90% of all goods around the Cape since the opening days of the war), since Italy was holding Ethiopia and "air-patrolling" the southern entrance to Suez only warships and supply ships for the troops in Egypt used the canal, the UK didn't receive any substantial percentage of their oil from their holdings in the mid-east after 1940. The British Isles themselves got most of their oil and petro-products for most of the war from the US, still the world's leading oil exporter at the moment. The US supplied (from our own fields) nearly 75% of all the oil and its products used by ALL the western allies for the entire war. Note how very different the petro-world was then!
if jerry won,the way could be open for them to turn north into palestine thus roping off the med,cheers.
Hello 4th wilts, Yes, and with Egypt open, Iran, Iraq and Turkey - who knows with whom they may have sided. Regards Kruska
