What about the absence of Africa's contributions to culture, heritage, society, technology, and innovation? What if the last 1,000 years of it never occurred? Would it have an impact on the world in its absence?
The same might be said of Latin America. Hardly at the center of global affairs except as a platform for outside powers. Not saying Africa was crucial to history. However, it is a counterfactual. You cannot know how history might have looked had it not been there or, alternatively, had it been more powerful.Bare minimum, it served as a spur to European expansion and that was crucial to Western history. Had Africa been powerful enough to resist that expansion, the history of the world would have been massively different.So, you really cannot draw any conclusions. Save that if things had been different, they would have been different.
When did italy invade Egypt?
@Omar5881 Italy entered the war on June 10, 1940 and launched a not particularly - because somewhat thrown together at the last minute - well organized invasion of southern France. France subsequently fell to Germany and Italy 10 days later.After that, the focus of the war shifted to the skies over Britain as Germany launched an air campaign preparatory to what it hoped would be an amphibious and airborne invasion of Britain proper. To counter this, Britain pulled back forces from around its empire - which at that time included Egypt.Mussolini - with Italy still officially at war with Britain - saw an opportunity to secure his position in the Mediterranean, capture the Suez Canal in the process, and thereby also cut Britain off from its shortest access route to the raw materials - including oil - that London got from the empire. Thus, Italy could expand its empire, trap the Royal Navy and cut off the UK from its empire, thereby also aiding its German ally. That was the plan. The initial invasion - with Italy having a numerical advantage and the element of surprise - initially threw the British back and got 60 miles into Egyptian territory. However, Italian logistics were poor and the Italian commander - Marshall Grazziani - was too cautious. CONT.
He stopped his attack. This gave the British time to reorganize and launch a mobile counterattack. Caught by surprise, this threw the Italians all the way back to El Agheila in Libya - which was then an Italian colony. There things remained until Germany bailed Italy out be deploying Rommel and a corps of armored troops - the Afrika Korps - to Libya.Suffice to say, I will spare you the rest of the story - unless you want to know. The point being that Italy was hoping to expand Italy's empire, take the Suez Canal and help Germany to knock the UK out of the war.Now aren't you glad you asked?
Why the hell didn't I take that in history class I'm egyptian after all never knew Italy tried taking Egypt I knew germany was , but Italy never actually "invaded " egypt they just tried , didn't they?
@Omar5881 No, Italy invaded but only got - as I mentioned - 60 miles before it stopped at Sidi Barrani. Then, as I noted, the British counterattacked.The Germans bailed the Italians out and, with Italy, re-invaded Egypt. At their deepest point, the joint German-Italian force reached El Alamein. Note that even with the Afrika Korps under Rommel, in numerical terms the largest part of the Axis forces in Egypt was the Italians. They tend to get less "press" because the German forces were more mobile and became the spearhead of the Axis invasion forces. However, in terms of sheer numbers, the Italians were, by far, the larger force deployed by the Axis Powers in Egypt. The Italians, however, were plagued by poor logistics - which actually hurt the German forces too - light tanks and an infantry dominated force that was slow, ponderous and less maneuverable.Rommel basically used them to fill in holes in the German lines and was infamous for abandoning all but the Italian armored units when he was forced to retreat. This particularly after El Alamein, which was the high water mark of the Italian war effort and after which Italy remained on the defensive - with one brief exception - until she surrendered on September 6, 1943.
P. S. My apologies, I slightly misunderstood your question. Yes, Italy INVADED Egypt. It just never succeeded in CONQUERING Egypt.However, that was equally true after Germany intervened with the Afrika Korps. Neither Italy on its own, nor with Germany, was Egypt conquered. Though they came mighty close.
So they just reached Al Alamin at that time it was basically just desert we even still got mines from the world war
@Omar5881 Well, the main point was that it was about 60 miles from the Suez Canal, the Germans had, at about the same time, reached Stalingrad and the Allies were badly overstretched. If Axis logistics had been better - and Axis control of the Mediterranean supply routes been more secure - it is likely that Cairo, and thence the Suez Canal, would have fallen.The problem was that Germany - engaged in the USSR - had little left in terms of equipment and manpower to spare for North Africa. At the same time, the Italian economy had about reached its limit. Production was at maximum and manpower shortages were developing. (This not taking account of the fact that the quality of the Italian army and air force was not the highest. The Navy was somewhat better.)The problem in North Africa - and why the battle swung back and forth from 1940 to El Alamein in late 1942, was because as each side got further from its logistical support bases - for the British the canal, for the Axis powers Tripoli (and to a lesser degree until it was captured, Tobruk) - it lost momentum, would stall out and then be thrown back.The stalemate being broken by a combination of the pressure on the Axis as they had to split between the Eastern and North African fronts. Then after November, 1942, their fate was sealed by the Anglo-American landings in French North Africa - Morocco and Algeria. At that point, then, the Axis forces were caught in a giant pincer and they were essentially finished.CONT.
As to the mines, they were laid by Germany and Italy on the El Alamein line to bog down counterattacking British forces and compensate for the Axis power's increasing numerical weakness. The idea was to bog the British down in the minefields to give the Afrika Korps time to pinpoint the attack, concentrate and counterattack.It failed because poor Axis logistics slowed their mobility and gave the British time to punch through. Funny aside, the British attack through the minefields was code-named Operation Lightfoot.
P. S. Just as an aside, the British forces were actually a combination of British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, Indian and a smattering of other Empire and Commonwealth forces, plus Free France. It was the 8th Army and they were often referred to as "the Desert Rats."That name coming into vogue after the Australian forces at Tobruk during the battle for that town got the nickname as "the Rats of Tobruk."
That's very informative thanks
@Omar5881 Not at all. Hope it helped and that I did not overdo. Sometimes I do prattle on.
Thanks for MHO
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
In what way?
In what way? For starters there would have been no dark era of slavery and everything that came with it and happened afterwards.
Well anything slavery really produced was wiped out after the Civil War, BUT think of the many advancements Africans have given the US and the world
@updog45Would you be able to kindly share what many of the advancements that Black Africans gave to the world and the US were? And would've they only have been possible by them?
There is absolutely no way to ever know if one person hadn't invented something would someone else, or not. That is pure semantics. But you can Google inventions of Africans or African Americans and you'll see a whole lot of things.
I don't want to say that slavery was good for America because it wasn't, but without slavery, the south would have never been able to produce as much agriculture as they would have before. And are we forgetting about Africa or just saying it never existed?
Exactly the point I'm trying to make. Great minds think alike.
"Americans would've picked their own cotton, which would've made them even greater."Very unlikely due to the lack of population and disinterest. Slave labor wasn't just about picking cotton. Rice, sugar, tobacco, molasses, indigo and other crops were being cultivated in the New World and all of these crops needed a vast amount of manpower in order to keep up with demand. White Americans weren't going to do it for various reasons. One reason is that some of those jobs were extremely dangerous. Growing and picking tobacco, for example, was a very toxic task that shortened lifespans. So it's not like people were lining up for these jobs. The second reason is that fair skin and prolong exposure to tropical level sunlight is a bad combination. Then you had the problems of malaria which was common in the more tropical regions of the New World, which was one disease Europeans were terrified of. Also, picking cotton is not a walk in the park. Growing cotton is by far the most difficult and most grueling crop to care for. Everything from clearing the land, plowing, planting, weeding, seed separation, and transportation are tasks that most people wouldn't dare sign up for, especially when there are alternatives.