Partisan
Active member
I'm not sure what you mean Del Boy. Would you mind elaborating a little?
On the subject at hand in isolation the North African campaign was very important for all involved. However, taken into context against the greater scheme of things it was a minor theatre of war. It pales in comparison against the Eastern Front, where more people fought and died than all the other theatres of war put together. Not only was the Eastern Front the deadliest theatre in WW2, it was the deadliest conflict in human history. 30 million people died on the Eastern Front, it resulted in the utter ruin of one superpower and saw the emergence of another.
There is no comparision.
So do we qualify significance by people killed? Or do we look at the strategic value?
To my mind whilst many died on the Russian front, the North African campaign was of strategic value to both sides, regardless of the number of people killed. The importance to the Axis forces diminshed as the Red Army rolled in from the East, but I still maintain that their strategic goals were valid and thus it was equally valid for the Allies to thwart them - see earlier posts for my rambling opinion.