buffnut453
Captain
I just finished reading Robert Lyman's excellent book "First Victory":
I had read Tony Dudgeon's "Hidden Victory" about the defence of RAF Habbaniyah against Iraqi forces in May 1941 (and for those who haven't read that little gem, I strongly recommend it!) but, for the first time, Lyman's book put that important victory in the wider context of the Middle East campaign of 1941. To be honest, I got shivers down my spine as some of the place-names mentioned in the book are eerily reminiscent of more recent conflicts - Basrah, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Damascus, Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, Homs etc etc.
For the uninitiated, essentially Britain secured Iraq, Syria and Iran in the space of 4 months using unfeasibly inadequate forces and, by so doing, secured access to Britain's primary sources of oil in Iraq and Iran. Lyman posits that without this series of victories in the Middle East, the course of WWII would have been very different, indeed Britain may have been unable to continue global operations without the oil to power the weapons of war. Securing the Middle East also ensure the British forces in North Africa could not be flanked, and hence
Anyone else out there have an interest in this topic and, if so, care to discuss? Key areas I'd like to engage on are:
1. Is Lyman's perspective (and that of Dudgeon, too, for that matter) correct? Did Britain's success in WWII hang by a thread in the summer of 1941, a thread that was only prevented from severing by the training aircraft of 4 FTS at RAF Habbaniyah and a scratch team of understrength and ill-equipped army units that gambled and won in battles across the Middle East?
2. Was Britain's invasion of Iran justified?
3. Why on earth did Hitler fail to realise the vital importance of the Middle East to Britain and what could/should he have done differently?
I know each of these could be discussed in their own threads but since this is a rather esoteric subject, and separating them is rather hard to do without crossing from one topic to the others, I thought I'd lump them all together...we can add others if the discussion meanders around (but never off!...yeah, right!) the topic.
Cheers,
B-N
I had read Tony Dudgeon's "Hidden Victory" about the defence of RAF Habbaniyah against Iraqi forces in May 1941 (and for those who haven't read that little gem, I strongly recommend it!) but, for the first time, Lyman's book put that important victory in the wider context of the Middle East campaign of 1941. To be honest, I got shivers down my spine as some of the place-names mentioned in the book are eerily reminiscent of more recent conflicts - Basrah, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Damascus, Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, Homs etc etc.
For the uninitiated, essentially Britain secured Iraq, Syria and Iran in the space of 4 months using unfeasibly inadequate forces and, by so doing, secured access to Britain's primary sources of oil in Iraq and Iran. Lyman posits that without this series of victories in the Middle East, the course of WWII would have been very different, indeed Britain may have been unable to continue global operations without the oil to power the weapons of war. Securing the Middle East also ensure the British forces in North Africa could not be flanked, and hence
Anyone else out there have an interest in this topic and, if so, care to discuss? Key areas I'd like to engage on are:
1. Is Lyman's perspective (and that of Dudgeon, too, for that matter) correct? Did Britain's success in WWII hang by a thread in the summer of 1941, a thread that was only prevented from severing by the training aircraft of 4 FTS at RAF Habbaniyah and a scratch team of understrength and ill-equipped army units that gambled and won in battles across the Middle East?
2. Was Britain's invasion of Iran justified?
3. Why on earth did Hitler fail to realise the vital importance of the Middle East to Britain and what could/should he have done differently?
I know each of these could be discussed in their own threads but since this is a rather esoteric subject, and separating them is rather hard to do without crossing from one topic to the others, I thought I'd lump them all together...we can add others if the discussion meanders around (but never off!...yeah, right!) the topic.
Cheers,
B-N
Last edited: