Participant and Historian’s Perspectives
Historians have various opinions about the events and areas of the Libyan Campaign. These include ideas regarding strategy and strategic importance of ares. Many participants and historians also comment on the impact which the Libyan Campaign had on New Zealanders. Many also believe that aspects of the Libyan Campaign and North African Campaign as a whole; are not well recognised
The events which took place in North Africa are often overshadowed by the events in Europe. This is shown by Sir Geoffrey Cox who described the fighting of Operation Crusader in Libya as ‘the forgotten battle of the Desert War’. Geoffrey Cox believes that the role and its importance to North Africa has been ignored by historians. He believes that it does not receive as much acclaim as “Crete, El Alamein or Cassino.” He argues that the fact “that more New Zealand soldiers were killed or taken prisoner during Crusader than in any other campaign fought by ‘the Div’ during the war.” However as Eliot Elisofon states “The number of dead, wounded and missing in North Africa didn’t come close to the millions lost in Europe and the Pacific”. Elisofon makes the argument that the difference in scale of operations may be the reason for the overlooked Operations of North Africa. Although it is important to note that during the time of the Operation the New Zealand media published article such as: “New Zealand Drive Succeeds” which praised the success of the New Zealand division. The smaller scale of North Africa is often eclipsed by the events in Europe however it was an important arena and should be recognised as such.
Historian Marcia Malory comments on a more tactical aspect of Operation Crusader.
She criticises Cunningham’s method of tank warfare which compared tank warfare to Naval war quoting tanks to be “land ships”. She states that “This inferior style of tactics for tanks led the Allied armoured divisions to be destroyed as he didn’t include the possibilities of concealed tanks or well placed anti tank guns”.
Dr. C. A. Brown provides an African historical perspective on the events believes that role of African civilians and military forces is overlooked. Brown states that they “played a major role in the success of the Allied nations in their victory over the Axis powers.” This is very accurate as their is little content written about the African populations contribution other than that of the South Africans.
During the Libyan Campaign Wavell and Churchill had conflicting opinions on Tobruk. Wavell did not believe that Tobruk was necessary for the campaign. However Churchill saw the symbolic and strategic value of Tobruk. This is shown by his quote “Tobruk was crucial to the protection of Egypt and the Suez Canal - and therefore to the entire Middle East. Were the Middle East to be lost; Spain, Vichy France and Turkey would embrace the Axis powers and a robot new order’ would be created in a world in which Hitler dominated all Europe, Asia, and Africa.” This quote shows the supreme importance of Tobruk with this area impacting the outcome of the War. The conflicting ideas between Wavell and Churchill are shown by the incident in which Wavell mistakenly referred to Tobruk as a “salient” and was promptly corrected by Churchill who stated “We feel it vital that Tobruk should be regarded as a sally port and not, please, as an ‘excrescence’.” Historians appear to unanimously agree with Churchill that Tobruk was vital to the War and of symbolic purpose. Jonathan Dimbleby states that “To Invest Tobruk with such pivotal significance was to transform a modest port of limited utility into a political symbol of global moment - an emblematic albatross which would weigh heavily indeed in the months ahead.” General George C. Marshall also recognised the importance of Tobruk with regard to a greater campaign. He stated that the loss of Tobruk “threatened a complete collapse in the Middle East, the loss of the Suez Canal and the vital oil supply in the vicinity of Abadan.” Another historian Patrick Clancey believes “possession of the besieged port effectively thwarted any further offensive drives by Rommel, who needed its facilities to resupply his mechanized forces.” Tobruks importance was even seen well before World War Two “A nation that possesses Tobruk will dominate the eastern Mediterranean Sea.” (Schweinfurth, Georg, 1883). This was supported by Major General Bernard Freyberg VC who acknowledged on a that the most important action of his troops was more important than the advance towards Tobruk on 23 November 1941 in the early stages of the campaign.
Tom Carver reveals an interesting perspective regarding the Allied prisoners of war following the Libyan Campaign. He states that following the Italian surrender in September 1943 Allied prisoners were told to remain in camps. The Ministry of Defense told the Allied troops to remain in their camps after Italy surrendered. Many of these men would have been taken prisoner during the Libyan Campaign. Carver describes that “As a result, the German army was able to walk into dozens of camps and round up the PoWs. According to War Office records, more than 50,000 Allied soldiers were transported from Italian camps by cattle train to far worse conditions in Germany and Poland during the summer of 1943.” Thousands of these men would have died due to a mistake by the Ministry of Defense which was preventable.
Another Perspective which is not as widely discussed is the psychological impact the Libyan Campaign had on soldiers and those at home. The Libyan Campaign had an impact on the mental states of soldiers as did any other campaign during the war. The presence of mines in particular left bloody scenes and dismembered limbs which would have had a major impact on the psyches of soldiers. Many suffered from symptoms such as: hypervigilance, paranoia, depression, and loss of memory. Historian Margaret Lindorff believes that most veterans “hope that war experiences could be forgotten, it is clear that for many veterans the memories linger.” This shows the impact that combat during World War Two including the Libyan campaign had on New Zealanders as they were unable to forget the horrific scenes and many were not open to discuss. This idea is affirmed by a participant; a New Zealand soldier stated that “I could never speak about my experience to anybody and do not like to think about it. It was so depressing”. It is evident from both historians and participants that the
Libyan Campaign had a significant impact on the mental states of soldiers.
There was also a great strain placed on those waiting at home. Sheila Smith states “I did [worry] especially when the Italian campaign got going and there'd be lists and lists and lists in the paper each day, when it came, of 'killed in action', and 'wounded', and 'missing presumed killed' and that sort of thing. You know, you felt very anxious.” This quote clearly shows the worry and anxiety waiting families and communities experienced for the men overseas. This quote from Sheila Smith provides a considerably different look into the impacts on the homefront during wartime. Katherine Phillips agrees with this idea stating that “During the war, you just kept thinking that life cannot begin until this is ... years of waiting and worrying for their loved ones overseas to come home safely. ... the person you love so, and you have no control over it at all,”. Both Smith and Phillips were present during the war and provide perspective from experience. Jyoti Prakash provides a historic perspective describing “These prolonged and frequent separations not only impact a soldier's life significantly but also affect their wives and children, who are manning the homefront in a varied manner. “ It is clear that the separation of families and waiting of men to return home put great mental strain on communities and individuals.
It is clear that there are many aspects to the Libyan Campaign which have produced various perspectives from both participants and historians.
Historians have various opinions about the events and areas of the Libyan Campaign. These include ideas regarding strategy and strategic importance of ares. Many participants and historians also comment on the impact which the Libyan Campaign had on New Zealanders. Many also believe that aspects of the Libyan Campaign and North African Campaign as a whole; are not well recognised
The events which took place in North Africa are often overshadowed by the events in Europe. This is shown by Sir Geoffrey Cox who described the fighting of Operation Crusader in Libya as ‘the forgotten battle of the Desert War’. Geoffrey Cox believes that the role and its importance to North Africa has been ignored by historians. He believes that it does not receive as much acclaim as “Crete, El Alamein or Cassino.” He argues that the fact “that more New Zealand soldiers were killed or taken prisoner during Crusader than in any other campaign fought by ‘the Div’ during the war.” However as Eliot Elisofon states “The number of dead, wounded and missing in North Africa didn’t come close to the millions lost in Europe and the Pacific”. Elisofon makes the argument that the difference in scale of operations may be the reason for the overlooked Operations of North Africa. Although it is important to note that during the time of the Operation the New Zealand media published article such as: “New Zealand Drive Succeeds” which praised the success of the New Zealand division. The smaller scale of North Africa is often eclipsed by the events in Europe however it was an important arena and should be recognised as such.
Historian Marcia Malory comments on a more tactical aspect of Operation Crusader.
She criticises Cunningham’s method of tank warfare which compared tank warfare to Naval war quoting tanks to be “land ships”. She states that “This inferior style of tactics for tanks led the Allied armoured divisions to be destroyed as he didn’t include the possibilities of concealed tanks or well placed anti tank guns”.
Dr. C. A. Brown provides an African historical perspective on the events believes that role of African civilians and military forces is overlooked. Brown states that they “played a major role in the success of the Allied nations in their victory over the Axis powers.” This is very accurate as their is little content written about the African populations contribution other than that of the South Africans.
During the Libyan Campaign Wavell and Churchill had conflicting opinions on Tobruk. Wavell did not believe that Tobruk was necessary for the campaign. However Churchill saw the symbolic and strategic value of Tobruk. This is shown by his quote “Tobruk was crucial to the protection of Egypt and the Suez Canal - and therefore to the entire Middle East. Were the Middle East to be lost; Spain, Vichy France and Turkey would embrace the Axis powers and a robot new order’ would be created in a world in which Hitler dominated all Europe, Asia, and Africa.” This quote shows the supreme importance of Tobruk with this area impacting the outcome of the War. The conflicting ideas between Wavell and Churchill are shown by the incident in which Wavell mistakenly referred to Tobruk as a “salient” and was promptly corrected by Churchill who stated “We feel it vital that Tobruk should be regarded as a sally port and not, please, as an ‘excrescence’.” Historians appear to unanimously agree with Churchill that Tobruk was vital to the War and of symbolic purpose. Jonathan Dimbleby states that “To Invest Tobruk with such pivotal significance was to transform a modest port of limited utility into a political symbol of global moment - an emblematic albatross which would weigh heavily indeed in the months ahead.” General George C. Marshall also recognised the importance of Tobruk with regard to a greater campaign. He stated that the loss of Tobruk “threatened a complete collapse in the Middle East, the loss of the Suez Canal and the vital oil supply in the vicinity of Abadan.” Another historian Patrick Clancey believes “possession of the besieged port effectively thwarted any further offensive drives by Rommel, who needed its facilities to resupply his mechanized forces.” Tobruks importance was even seen well before World War Two “A nation that possesses Tobruk will dominate the eastern Mediterranean Sea.” (Schweinfurth, Georg, 1883). This was supported by Major General Bernard Freyberg VC who acknowledged on a that the most important action of his troops was more important than the advance towards Tobruk on 23 November 1941 in the early stages of the campaign.
Tom Carver reveals an interesting perspective regarding the Allied prisoners of war following the Libyan Campaign. He states that following the Italian surrender in September 1943 Allied prisoners were told to remain in camps. The Ministry of Defense told the Allied troops to remain in their camps after Italy surrendered. Many of these men would have been taken prisoner during the Libyan Campaign. Carver describes that “As a result, the German army was able to walk into dozens of camps and round up the PoWs. According to War Office records, more than 50,000 Allied soldiers were transported from Italian camps by cattle train to far worse conditions in Germany and Poland during the summer of 1943.” Thousands of these men would have died due to a mistake by the Ministry of Defense which was preventable.
Another Perspective which is not as widely discussed is the psychological impact the Libyan Campaign had on soldiers and those at home. The Libyan Campaign had an impact on the mental states of soldiers as did any other campaign during the war. The presence of mines in particular left bloody scenes and dismembered limbs which would have had a major impact on the psyches of soldiers. Many suffered from symptoms such as: hypervigilance, paranoia, depression, and loss of memory. Historian Margaret Lindorff believes that most veterans “hope that war experiences could be forgotten, it is clear that for many veterans the memories linger.” This shows the impact that combat during World War Two including the Libyan campaign had on New Zealanders as they were unable to forget the horrific scenes and many were not open to discuss. This idea is affirmed by a participant; a New Zealand soldier stated that “I could never speak about my experience to anybody and do not like to think about it. It was so depressing”. It is evident from both historians and participants that the
Libyan Campaign had a significant impact on the mental states of soldiers.
There was also a great strain placed on those waiting at home. Sheila Smith states “I did [worry] especially when the Italian campaign got going and there'd be lists and lists and lists in the paper each day, when it came, of 'killed in action', and 'wounded', and 'missing presumed killed' and that sort of thing. You know, you felt very anxious.” This quote clearly shows the worry and anxiety waiting families and communities experienced for the men overseas. This quote from Sheila Smith provides a considerably different look into the impacts on the homefront during wartime. Katherine Phillips agrees with this idea stating that “During the war, you just kept thinking that life cannot begin until this is ... years of waiting and worrying for their loved ones overseas to come home safely. ... the person you love so, and you have no control over it at all,”. Both Smith and Phillips were present during the war and provide perspective from experience. Jyoti Prakash provides a historic perspective describing “These prolonged and frequent separations not only impact a soldier's life significantly but also affect their wives and children, who are manning the homefront in a varied manner. “ It is clear that the separation of families and waiting of men to return home put great mental strain on communities and individuals.
It is clear that there are many aspects to the Libyan Campaign which have produced various perspectives from both participants and historians.