Hope you all had a good Christmas! Due to time constraints, I wasn’t able to put the Patreon/SubscribeStar list in the video, so I apologize for that. Subtitles aren’t available yet, but I will put them in as soon as I can. Due to Christmas, the next Stalingrad video will not be out next week. I’m aiming to get it done for the week after (10th of January). I’m sorry for the delay.
Merry x-mas holidays and a happy new year TIK! Born in Switzerland, I am a 1/2 French 1/2 German speaker and have passed a good part of my life living amongst the French (might even have a passport somewhere in a box). I just wanted to give you some "insider advice" when it comes to talk about France, the Free French and their Relation to Vichy: It is very important to know that there is a very strong "filter" applied when you look at this through the lens of history written for and by English speaking nations. Unfortunately, this filter is "visible" in this very interesting video. I got aware of this phenomena the first time I saw a French made documentary about the liberation of Paris. At school in Switzerland, we have very much the US/British version of WWII when it comes to history. So, watching this French documentary, I was astonished to the point that I went checking if it was really about the same event! I don't say that the French have it all right and the Brits all wrong - as usual the truth is somewhere in between. Hearing a British Historian talking about the Free French makes me often think of this Churchill quote " History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." So, I think, the hole context of Charles de Gaulle, the Free French is a very interesting one and I would love to see more of it coming from you since you are not running after the usual suspects but want to get it the way it happened. However, if you want to cover it with the quality we are used to see from TIKhistory, I strongly suggest that you have a good look at French sources (there is a lot, but not so much translated) or ideally look for a cooperation with a French youtuber. Keep the good work going!
I find it interesting that the British wanted small wins in a French colony to convince the Americans to join the fight, given that less than 200 years earlier the Americans wanted small victories in British colonies to convince the French to join the fight.
If you want a forgotten war, I reckon at least some people have heard of the Syria campaign, the Madagascar campaign on the other hand is completely forgotten. And the Vichy French there lasted for longer then France did against the Germans in 1940. Also Wavell, as a commander, must have been one of the most underrated and unnecessarily maligned commanders, considering he had 4 fronts to fight with never enough troops to properly fight one of them, plus Churchill breathing down his neck, who was probably worse then Mad Man Hitler when it came to meddling into military matters. Luckily for Wavell Iraq and Iran were relatively short campaigns that didn't sap his limited resources as much as Libya, Greece, East Africa and Syria did.
I once worked with a South African guy whose uncle fought in that campaign in the Pretoria Highlanders. As a Scot, I was curious if this was a unit made up of ex-pat Scots living in South Africa but - no! They were all Afrikaner troops who liked the idea of wearing the kilt as they thought it looked smart!
@@faeembrugh 🤣🤣🤣 Smart thinking on their behalf. Gotta look sharp after all. Also, your culture now belongs to the world now. Don't some Indian army units and the Jordanian army use bagpipes too?
@@faeembrugh Plenty of Afrikaaners with Scottish heritage, they are not all of Dutch decent. There's Dutch, German, Swiss, Scott and allot of French to.
Tik's videos often talk about different military unit sizes and I can never keep them straight. He inspired me to create a mnemonic to remember them; here it is: Some Poor Chap Baked Red Bricks During Christmas Afternoon Squad Platoon Company Battalion Regiment Brigade Division Corps Army A rule of thumb is that 3 of each smaller unit makes up the larger, so 3 squads to a platoon, etc. I hope this helps someone.
Unless you are talking about the British Army, specifically the cavalry, in which case it's: Section, Troop, Squadron, Regiment, Brigade. Or the Artillery which is Section, Troop, Battery, Regiment, Regiment, Brigade (that's not a typo, there's two different Regiments). Or the British Infantry that goes: Section, Platoon, Company, Battalion, (sidebar about how the Regiment is an admin formation that can be bigger than a division), brigade. :)
@@zxbzxbzxb1 neither were American ones, the US was trying to extract itself from the Phillipines for decades but then suddenly sends much more assets to defend it and then before try to sit on the sidelines and sell weapons to everyone thinking we'll stay out of the war lol. Ahhh politicians lol!!
My grandfather, a Syrian-Circassian, was born in Damascus during the invasion, really nice to see a video showing a part of my extended family’s history. Great work as always Tik.
4:15 Minor Mistake: Rashid Ali al-Gaylani was not the president but the prime minister of Iraq. Iraq was still a kingdom at this time. Great video still!
Excellently explained, it's a small but fascinating topic. I learnt about it from Colin Smith's "England's Last War Against France: Fighting Vichy 1940-42", and it's as you say, the need to secure resources, a general distrust of the French (the British distrusting the French? I am shocked, SHOCKED!), and to secure strategic depth if the Western Desert campaign was at risk. It might indeed seem fanciful now, the idea of a German invasion of Cyprus and then Lebanon/Syria, but at the time the Allies couldn't take that chance. Norway and France had already shown that conventional assumptions were the mother of all failures. Wavell was of course justified in his view too, and without realising it I have been quoting him to my line managers for about six months! Fun fact, it was during this invasion where future Israeli defence minister Moshe Dayan was wounded, leading to him wearing his trademark eye patch.
There is also the point of Turkey. No one knew if the turks wouldn´t side with the germans again as they still had very warm relations and turkey at least secured the german southern Flank during the invasion of the Soviet Union, helping to supply germans and their allied crimean tatars over the black sea in areas the germans had trouble to cover logistical. With the Turks help Cyprus/Lebanon/Syria would be within the Axis reach.
Richard James book "Australia's war with France" provides the Australian perspective. Churchill portrayed it as a walkover to gain Australian support. Vichy ensured large numbers of British and Australian casualties in revenge for Mers-el-Kabir, there was little media coverage and the 7th division called themselves the "silent seventh". British General Wilson treated them like undisciplined colonials and de Gaulle treated them with disdain even though they had just captured Beirut to enable his grand entry to the city. The 7th division had little time for the French after this having suffered 1400 casualties and de Gaulle's treatment. There was also Australian infighting with Blamey sidelining his rival Lavarack from the Greece campaign to this campaign with its lack of publicity. The Australians remained in Northern Syria after this as Blamey formed up his Australian Corps with the addition of the 6th and later 9th divisions.That was the reason why there was little Australian contribution to Operation Crusader. Ostensibly the reason was to defend from a German attack from the north through Turkey but also had a lot to do with the poor relationship between Blamey and British commanders.
Merry Christmas, Lewis, and thanks for another year of thoughtful and thrilling content. You have a hugely influential impact on your audience, I’m sure. 👏👏👏
Actually I do want a video about Vichy France now that I watched this video I heard it's a terrible mess of politics that is really difficult to accurately define
Superb quality . Thank you for explaining these “ back-waters “ in the conflict and I agree that the bottom line of strategic decisions are economic reasons. Well done .
In May 1941, my Dad, who was in the RAMC, was posted to Alexandria to be the medical orderly on a troop train heading to Palestine with troops due to take part in this action. When he arrived at Alexandria, the Transport Officer was also waiting for medical personnel to take ship to Crete. This officer mistakenly believed that my Dad was destined for Crete, so Dad went to Crete instead. You don't argue with a senior officer! Dad was posted missing for several weeks due to this mix-up as he never arrived in Palestine where he was expected. He remained on board the ship in Suda Bay, subjected to daily bombings by Luftwaffe, but made it back safely to Egypt about a month later, when he presented himself back at the unit he had initially been detached from for his journey to Palestine.
Your Dad's story is illustrative. The military can be a machine, it's easiest to follow the prescribed routine, Army knows best, confine your creativity to the role you must perform in your team. Equally, decisions are made on the available information, your father seemed to fail to offer more accurate information due to a fear of offending superiors, that's dysfunctional in a chain of command, why was your Dad fearful of fulfilling his role, someone up the chain is not doing their job. The superior should be offered all available information, such as "Sir, the orders I was given, by so and so, are to accompany a troop train heading to Palestine". Then it's up to the superior in the chain of command to make a call. It's up to the superior officer to foster an environment where information can flow freely.
@@snuscaboose1942 You pose an interesting question. My Dad was known to be someone who always stood up for his rights and principles. He's no longer around to ask about this but he did record his memoirs, which I have just listened to again to refresh my memory. I cannot believe that he was sent to Alexandria without movement orders, specifying where he was to go and all other necessary details. But apparently, the Transport Officer didn't care about any of this. He insisted that Dad was a "volunteer" for Crete and threatened to charge him with disobeying a direct order to sign the "volunteer" form if he continued to argue. I cannot imagine that such a charge would have stood up, but Dad didn't want to take the risk. To make this whole situation worse, Dad's CO had given him what was supposed to be a cushy job, just taking the train to Jerusalem and having a couple of days R&R there before coming back to Egypt, not accompanying the troops to Syria.
@@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music That is such a crass, insensitive statement. He never went ashore. He was on a ship in Suda Bay, being attacked by the Luftwaffe every day and having to care for the wounded soldiers being brought on board from the island. I've been to Crete myself and, yes, the island is beautiful and the people are so friendly. but I don't think my Dad had the chance to appreciate this.
@@TheImperatorKnight oooo I'm watching you... Sign 1: Sneer at 17:52 suggesting that the topic of economics that you've already covered is more important (and requires more attention/viewership) than the limited military perspective that this video provides. sign 2 : You going out of your way to say that you poured your heart and soul into it. sign 3: You recommended it as the next video to watch, worried that it'l be forgotten behind the weekly routine of fresh videos. sign 4: In your "How BIG was the Red Army in WW2?" video a commenter "george press" said "Man waited all week for a 9 minute video, lol. Love your channel keep up the good work" and you said "I know, but last week was an hour-long video and hardly anyone watched it :(" Greenwich time is around 3am where I'm from but I'd still get up then for another video in that series, I didn't realise how much more interesting banks are compared to tanks.
Excellent historical content on a important and over looked subject. I always wondered what De Gaul was doing in Syria and now I know. Thank you for a concise explanation.
18000 Australian troops?! Did they ever think to themselves "WTF are we doing here, in this part of the world?" Fascinating that the majority of the troops were Australians.
It's the small fronts and wee conflicts that things seem to revolve around the most. Manpower and resources were being sapped out of Britain to deal with an Arab Problem. Will definitely need to re-go through this. But this reminds me a tad about Burma and how that side Front played some big bits in the Far East. And how Finland, kinda, dictated a fair bit of the USSR's resources alongside with dealing with the Germans. And the Japanese as well. It's the details in the side conflicts that seem to have the most significant impact on things yet to come.
Good video TIK...Roald Dhal was involved in this campaign as a fighter pilot! Also when I visited Lebanon in tbe mid 90s I saw stele (carvings in rock faces) that commemorated Britains invasion in 1941.This was next to one carved out by Alexander the Great!!!!
Sort of interesting is that Syria ended up with a very large amount of German weapons after the war including tanks and the iconic Sturmgewehr 44. The tanks at least were used in the battles against Israel.
De Gaulle already had territory representing 'France Libre' in Chad, Equatorial Africa, Cameroons, and New Caledonia (and French India and Polynesia). He had small numbers of military forces in Britain, Somaliland-East Africa, Libya and Chad. Syria would ADD to 'France Libre'' - not be its first capital -(which was Brazzaville). Cheers!.
@@BoqPrecision yep but first it became the French Territory of the Afars and Issas, the two ethnic groups there, who later fought a civil war. Djibouti today hosts 8 foreign military bases (including both America and Communist China) but has not felt the payoff and is sadly one of the poorest countries in the world.
The Interesting thing about the Australian 7th Division is that there was a media blackout about this campaign. They didn't want people knowing that they had attacked the French. That is how the 7th Division got the name "the Silent Seventh". They were instructed not to talk about this part of the Mediterranean Campaign. This blooding of the Division in Syria assisted them when they were sent to New Guinea to block the Japanese on their drive down the Kokoda Track.
It couldn't have been much of a media blackout because the campaign is reported in The Times newspapers of June & July 1941, and the fighting against Vichy French forces is specifically mentioned. British, Australian & Free French forces are referred to (but not the names of their units).
Good episode TIK. My uncle took part in this campaign. You are right about the maps. He told me his company commander used a map he got out of the bible.
1:12 this map is incorrect as it presents Northern Dobrudja as a part of Romania when at this point due to the Treaty of Craiova, it would have been a part of Bulgaria
To me the map seems to be a 1936? Map because all border changes after that seem to be have less detail. and memel is also given to the soviets when it should have been in german hands.
de Gaulle, did not have a military in 1941, really bugs me people talk about France as if there were a real resistance against the Germanys after 1940. Judging from all I have learned, a majority of France collaborated with Germany. The relevance of the "French Resistance", has been grossly over aggregated to clear the collective conscious of France.
France did not even have military in 1939. French resistance are mostly leftist. I doubt you learn anything. Vichy France are not even collaborating with Germany properly since all they did just doing infighting and more happy killing other French citizen and it went so bad that many of them flee the country and join SS when France liberated by allies.
Yes de gaulle did have a military in 1941, that’s how they were able to occupy several French colonies including Syria. The Free French were a force going around the world turning colonies from Petain to De Gaulle, basically recapturing the empire first, while the motherland was occupied. De Gaulle and Free France had basically nothing to do with the mainland France until it was recaptured by the Americans
Excellent video as usual. One small thing I want to say is that the colour of Iraq is very similar to that of the UK, so some colour blind people might have trouble telling it apart. I hope that helps in future videos :D
STICK TO BANKS! (or, stick it to the banks, but seriously it was a hard & costly fight in Syria in '41 for both sides, I have read it was a difficult, distasteful fight against friends in Australian records.)
1 extra reason for the British invasion of the Levant; the oil pipelines from Kirkuk. 1 section ran via Transjordan to Haifa (fully under British control), the 2nd section ran via French Syria to Tripoli, Lebanon. The extra oil flowing from that pipeline helped the British later on in the North Africa campaign.
Pity you didn't have a chance to make more than a passing reference to the siege of Royal Air Force Station Habbaniya, which is what kicked off the invasion of Iraq in 1940.
May I ask how you create the maps for these videos? I really am interested in how you, and other history channels for that matter, always have maps for your videos, which are accurate to the situation, or even show change happen (looking at videos that show certain territory gain day by day or similar). I don't know if you have some tricks up your sleeve to make it easier, since I know you have a lot to do and can't imagine you would spent a boat load of effort into a single map for a single video
Your chanel y very good. Please more videos with subtitles
2 года назад
Thank you Tik! This campaign was therefore about politics and economics more than military reasons. De Gaulle needed a base and legitimacy and Britain needed to show North America some victories but most importantly they needed to secure the oil from the region which was required to fight in North Africa. But I just do not understand why Germany was not more focused on getting this oil. As you have pointed out in other videos the oil factor was the factor and it seems to me that this region had oil easier to take than that in Southern Russia. Of course, we are all good generals after the war but I just do not understand why Germany did not focus on getting Gibraltar, Malta, Suez Channel, and the oil in the region subject of this 1941 campaign before invading the USSR. Of course, all this is speculation but I just wonder why...thank you again, and Cheers from Peru!
my father witnessed these events as a young man he said that australian and senegalese troops were stationed in beirut, and the locals did not like it the lebanese patriots were hoping that Rommel would break out from africa and liberate them . some even named their newborns "rommel". lol i know 3 old men with the unlikely name always found that hilarious!
Getting Britain to pull substantial troop numbers out of the Libyan front at the cost of a few aircraft sent to the Levant seems like a smart way to potentially fatally weaken the 8th Army. Even if Germany didn’t see a landing in Syria as being viable, it would have been worrying possibility for Churchill as this would have put the Gulf oil fields in jeopardy. As an aside my father was part of the 1945 re-conquest of Syria. In his words “We were sent to re-acquire Syria for the French” Interesting what the troops were told was the objective of the operation.
The campaign in Syria, Iraq, and Iran was one of the important turning points of WWII. It gave an important morale and personnel boost to the Free French forces and was a way stating clearly that France would be fighting back against the Axis from then on. It cleared up the Arab/Muslim threat to the British in the Middle East. It led to the establishment of a year-round transportation network for Lend-Lease deliveries to the Soviet Union.
Technically speaking Free France. Vichy France was at war with the Allies. Vichy France was just as much french as Free France. Actually it was more french than Free France since it fought against the english. What is more french than that? Like it or not but France was in a de facto civil war its just that the ones on the Allied side won and the losers were declared illegitimate. But they kind of weren't.
Hi my friend, i have a request for you..why don't you do a work as the stalingrad battle, about all the IIWW? you will need 2 or 3 years, but it will be a fabolous thing-.. the series should be 1) Heeresgruppe Nord nach Leningrad 2) Heeresgruppe Mitte nech Moskwa 3) Heeresgruppe Sud nach Kiyv 4) Winter Sowietische counteroffensiv (1941-'42 near Moskwa) 5) Ladoga See Sowietische conuteroffensive (to open the supply weg to Leningrad) 6) Battle for Stalingrad (that alredy exist) 7) Battle of Kursk 8) Grosse Sowietische offensive in 1943-'44 9) Destruction of the Heeresgruppe Mitte (Offensive nach Orsha and Minsk) 10) The Kurland Poket (alredy exist) 11) The Last offensives 1944-'45 12) Battle for Berlin That's about the East Front, but we also have the Italian front, a really wonderfull front to speak about and, the west front with the americans.. ;) i hope you should like to do it.. i think you will have a lot of fun.. bye my friend
As a Syrian I've been waiting for a long time for someone to talk about the shenanigans in 1941 syria as there's no available sources here to read from except the curriculum, which says that Fischer (apparently a German) was in command of Syria at that time and then he was kicked out by De Gaulle who then settled the matter with the Syrians by promising them independence after the war was over, pretty different stories but i doubt it's not politicized education. A very awesome video! Love from Aleppo, Syria
@@lifeisgood1374 i think if the germans liberated us from colonialism and not us who gained independence, Germany would have a great influence in Syria, for example the education system in Syria mandates teaching English and French and there's some words that we use in English and French in everyday life, in this alternate timeline we'd be taught German and English and speak some German and English words in everyday life.
Looking forward to TIK's ''All things Vichy France and Economics explained'' video, if anyone can, TIK can, broadly speaking did Germany make any profit from France .. or Africa .. or Greece .. or anywhere ... was there an economic plan behind the seeming catastrophic military campaigns that 'went to plan'?
@@overdose8329 that is the logic 'we' all assume but unfortunately there is no doubt more to this to the extent Vichy France is a bit of a no go zone or at least a very sensitive minefield, Germany must of put stuff on the table for Vichy French, i really don't understand how a country gets invaded and humiliated and a big chunk decides to carry on fighting for there new boss who took them over out of pure revenge and hate possibly more than economics, though it does seem Germany got France for a cheap price including a free router, filters, huge military equipment and a massive navy .. inititally .. cheaper than my £10 broadband deal or comparable at least ... the worlds 5th ish largest economy ... for virtually nowt plus a few hundred thousand extra fighters for 'the cause' whatever that was
Hey TIK- I’ve been watching your videos and on-and-off subscriber for about two years now (sometimes WW2 is just a little too heavy for my RU-vid timeline). In all seriousness what kind of patreon subscription or donation would it take for you to do a couple videos related to WW2 in the pacific? Love your vids about the war in Europe and keep up the good work
Definitely Lebanon as well. Lebanon never existed as an entity before the French invented it. Closest in time to Lebanon in a somewhat similar capacity were some crusader states and before that city states like Tyre and whatnot.
@@overdose8329 there were autonomous warlords in the area with ambiguous relationships to Damascus. The Damascan Sultan would get angry if anyone said he wasn't in charge of Lebanon, but that means nothing
Leverage over Turkey seems as important a motivation as any of those mentioned. The idea that Churchill viewed Syria as a future colony is improbable. Britain had established no new colonies for several decades. After WWI it had largely administered conquered German colonis as mandates of the League of Nations, not as colonies.
@@overdose8329 no one cared. Also mandates were intended as temporary as both Britain and France never thought these territories would become profitable.
@@commandofact7636 More than mandates in name only. They were passed on to the United Nations without any intervening period as colonies. Nor were they useable during the war in the same way. For example, Tanganyika RNVR warships couldn't be deployed outside their own waters, unlike the Kenya RNVR, which served all round the north-west Indian Ocean.
Just think if Hitler put as much interest & effort into Iraq & Iran oil fields instead of Russia, it could’ve made for a different ending . I met a ex WW2 soldier in 2009 who told me that had just past his HGV test on the outbreak of war & on day one joined up as a lorry driver in the army. He told me his name was Fred & story his was amazing. He told he was at Dunkirk . Fred was supplying the rear & was told there was no more ships or boats picking men up from the beach . He was told they either surrendered or there was a pocket that they could get through & if they got through they was to get to Marseille by any means. Fred said it took him about 5 days to get down there. Once he was there he boarded a tramp steamer . He said he just wanted to get home to his fiancé. He said what stuck him while they waited to leave port was all the coal being bought onto the ship was done by a gang of Muslim woman. Fred said he waited for 2 days before this ship sailed thinking it was going to London. When it was half hour from port the captain said there was a change & that they was going to Cairo instead. Fred told me that while he was in Cairo he got a dear John letter from this girl who he was supposed to marry. He said I didn’t care about anything after that F-*
The awkward period of late 1940 to 42 when the UK and France were de facto at war while at the same time the French colonial Empire was in a de facto civil war. There's a reason why most movies rarely mention this period. Too awkward to explain.
RU-vid has acquired taste in advertising... As soon as TIK pronounces "suddenly cut off" at 4:35, the picture freezes for a while and then there goes ... Renault commercial. No, it's not a genuine French Renault, but at least the name is French.
Without watching the video first, if I recall, there was a lot of German-Arab sympathies during the war. Even Saddam Hussein's uncle, I think it was his uncle was part of the anti British pro German Iraqi movement. A number of Arab countries had revolts during the war, even in India there were some attempts to organize similarly to what the Arabs were doing. Though I think Iraq was the biggest revolt. ie they were hoping to use the war to push out the Colonial Occupations of their nations, even if their nations were not real nations, just lines on a map decreed by Empires. Now proceeds to watch video*
@@matthiwi6901 Honestly, I doubt that, he was more interested in pre-christian religions, old world ones. In fact being too Christian was frownd upon between the top officials in the regime. Reason why was Christianity was a child of Hebrew, and was still a product of the small hat people. Issue is, Islam would be in the same boat, it was also a sprinter religion from the same origin. In short, anything positive Hitler may have said about it was entirely for political reasons. Himmler was even more hostile toward small hat people origin religions as well, yet still swallowed and shook their heads, and said good things about them because they needed manpower and allies.
You westerners have no qualms lambasting Arabs for having German sympathies and yet do not even have the guts to confront the Romanians, Hungarians , Italians and Bulgarians for their sympathies for nazi Germany. TIK goes to explain that Arabs had no love for nazi ideology as they were regarded as inferior races and only operated on “enemy of my enemy is my friend” basis. You would’ve looked a lot smarter if you had not shown your anti-Arab bias and commented before watching the video.
@@commandofact7636 I don't exactly leave them blameless, most of all the Magyars and Romanians. The Italians' case is an interesting one, as TIK explained in a previous video, that had things gone differently they would have fought the germans. The case of the Bulgarians is interesting as well, considering how their alliance to germany and involvement in ww2 amounted to nothing else but self-serving interests which can be summed up as "Gib stuff and maybe I'll help." Boris III was allegedly assassinated by the germans just for being such a hassle to work with.
@@commandofact7636 I didn't blame anyone. Even presented some reasoning why they'd have sympathy being removing colonial occupation. I'd suggest not to jump defensively toward comments that didn't blame anyone for anything.
To say Churchill did all this to cajole/impress the USA is fanciful. This Syria invasion was in June 1941. The situation in May/June was: *♦* There was legitimate concerns at protecting the oil in the Middle East, as the Axis was desperate for oil. *♦* In May 1941 the Italian fleet could not put to sea as they had no oil. *♦* What remained of the German surface fleet was quietly retired to port through lack of oil. *♦* The Germans held all of Greece. *♦* A pro-Axis coup in Iraq was in April 1941. British forces suppressed it, securing the oil in Iraq. *♦* Turkey showed no sign of joining in on the Axis side - they initially assessed Germany would be beaten unable to match the troop numbers from the British Empire. *♦* Were the Axis to invade Turkey as a springboard into the Middle East? To invade Syria they needed a large naval invasion force which they never had. Turkey would be via land, or short water hops. *♦* The British knew of the German build up for the invasion of the USSR in June 1941. The Germans would go for the Soviet oil fields near Iran/Turkey/Iraq. *♦* Operation Crusader was being planned to gain Libya - with troop and armour build ups. *♦* The British had an oil refinery in Iran. *♦* The British had an oil refinery in Haifa, Palestine (Italians bombed it in 1940), in easy bombing range from Syria. *♦* An oil pipeline from the Gulf to the Med at Palestine was being built. That the Axis would make a lunge for the Middle East was a legitimate concern - they were involved in the coup in Iraq. They were already trying to get there via Egypt. Pro Nazi Vichy controlled Syria. Securing the countries south of Turkey/USSR was essential. There was a possibility that Vichy France would collaborate closer with the Axis, allowing the Axis a firm hold in the Middle East in Syria. Vichy was not to be trusted, as they allowed the Japanese into Indochina near to British Malay/Burma, also breaking an agreement in making a separate peace with Germans in France. As the securing of Syria started the Germans invaded the USSR. Only a matter of weeks after the conclusion in Syria the British and Soviets invaded Iran to secure the refinery and oil pipeline into the USSR. This secured oil for British forces in the North Africa/Middle East and the USSR. All this securing the Middle East paid dividends. At the end of 1941 the British controlled all the Middle East and all the coast from Turkey to Libya. The Axis had been driven back 500km in North Africa in Operation Crusader, with the British expecting to rid them from North Africa quite soon controlling all the southern Med coast. The Germans had been stopped and pushed back at the Battle of Moscow. 40% of the tanks used were supplied under British lend lease. The British were planning an invasion of Sicily in 1942. Once North Africa and the Middle East were secure, with British convoys using the Med, the British could concentrate in aiding the Soviets 100%. The British and Soviets were expecting to defeat the Germans. In Dec 1941 the Japanese attacked the British, Dutch and Americans. The Royal Navy moved many ships to the Indian Ocean from the Mediterranean. Ground troops to face the Japanese were moved from the theatre. This was bad timing as the British were expecting to rid the Axis from North Africa and gain control of all the southern Med coast. This seriously weakened British forces against the Axis. The Axis took advantage to counter-attack the weakened British. The British took another year or so to defeat the Axis in North Africa.
A potential German invasion from the USSR in the north into the oil rich Middle East was real by August/Sept 1941. The Germans were not certain to get at the Soviet oil in the Caucasus, as the Soviets would sabotage the wells - which they did. This entailed expanded British troop deployment to keep the Germans/Axis away from the oil fields and an Indian Ocean port, until they were defeated at Stalingrad. Throughout 1942 British Commonwealth troops were fighting, or seriously expecting to be attacked, in: ♦ French North Africa; ♦ Libya; ♦ Egypt; ♦ Cyprus; ♦ Syria: where an airborne assault was expected, with preparations to reinforce Turkey if they were attacked; ♦ Madagascar: fighting the Vichy French to prevent them from inviting the Japanese in as they had done in Indochina; ♦ Iraq; ♦ Iran: the British & Soviets invaded Iran in August 1941. Those spread-out covering troops were more in combined numbers than were facing Japan and Rommel in North Africa.
