A pointless war for the Germans?

Discussion in 'North Africa & the Med' started by angie999, Apr 10, 2004.

  1. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    In my opinion, German forces were only introduced into North Arfica to prop up their ally, Italy, and keep them in the war on the German side. They had no wider strategic purpose and by attacking in the way he did, Rommel was exceeding his orders.

    This must have been one of the most pointless campaigns in WWII and when, finally, the reinforced Axis forces in Tunisia were defeated after Torch, it was a strategic defeat which deprived them of vital reinforcements after the losses from Zitadelle later in 1943.

    I am happy to come back on this and I will let you know that apart from his abilities as a tactician I do not rate Rommel highly.

    But what do you think?
     
  2. salientpoints

    salientpoints Senior Member

    Wasn't it also important to control this area to prevent the allies building up major offensive forces for any significant assault into Southern Europe earlier in the war? It also is related to the Axis forces trying to take the Suez Canal, as the time for reinforcements/supplies to reach Britain from the Far East & vice versa would have been much greater.

    Ryan
     
  3. Thomas McCall

    Thomas McCall Senior Member

    If the Axis had taken Egypt and the Suez canal then the supply of troops and supplies to India and Burma would have taken much longer.
    If the Germans had carried on pushing forward they could have taken the oil fields of the Middle East and possibly then would have attacked Soviet Russia through the Caucasus, securing the oil fields there.
     
  4. Gerry Chester

    Gerry Chester WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    [
     
  5. john w.

    john w. Junior Member

    As with all theatres of WW2 the context is often complex and quite often far reaching actions are used to have a reaction within another theatre...

    John
     
  6. Wise1

    Wise1 There We Are Then

    I agree with Gerry, of course rommel was sent in to support the Italians but his style was that of attack, he was not one for succeeding his orders, although the high command held him in high regard so he more or less had a free hand anyway.
     
  7. Gerry Chester

    Gerry Chester WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Originally posted by Gerry Chester@Apr 10 2004, 04:27 PM

    Not only was Rommel a great tactician he insisted that his forces observe the rules of war - perhaps North Africa is the last venue where the practice of chivalry was the norm. Having had the opportunity of meeting with several chaps who had fought against Rommel in the desert (particularly from 7th Armoured) all spoke highly of him.


    A postscript:

    In my library is perhaps one of the most extraordinary books on the war in North Africa, is "The Battle of Alamein - Turning Point, World War II" published in 2002 and co-authored by John Bierman and Colin Smith. To quote the Sunday Times of London: "It relies not on the memoirs of commanders, but on the testimony of the long-suffering squaddies who learnt to adapt tp the most unforgiving of battlegrounds and defeat the most potent legend the Wehrmacht produced."

    On reading it, I was most impressed with a footnote, relative to "The Rommel Papers" edited by Liddell-Hart, stating that two years later in 1954, the work was published in Germany under the title "Krieg ohne Hass." This title has so impressed the publishers of Bierman and Smith's work, that they have retitled a 2004 reprint with the English translation " War Without Hate." No three words could better describe the feelings of those who fought in North Africa!A postscript:

    In my library is perhaps one of the most extraordinary books on the war in North Africa, is "The Battle of Alamein - Turning Point, World War II" published in 2002 and co-authored by John Bierman and Colin Smith. To quote the Sunday Times of London: "It relies not on the memoirs of commanders, but on the testimony of the long-suffering squaddies who learnt to adapt tp the most unforgiving of battlegrounds and defeat the most potent legend the Wehrmacht produced."

    On reading it, I was most impressed with a footnote, relative to "The Rommel Papers" edited by Liddell-Hart, stating that two years later in 1954, the work was published in Germany under the title "Krieg ohne Hass." This title has so impressed the publishers of Bierman and Smith's work, that they have retitled a 2004 reprint with the English translation " War Without Hate." No three words could better describe the feelings of those who fought in North Africa!
     
  8. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    I don't think the British campaign was pointless, but I think the German one was.

    Rommel did go against his instructions in 1941, which were that he should not attempt an advance of more than 300km. When he did, the German command was astounded.

    He had no real strategy, and hardly ever plannned on more than a day to day basis.

    There was no german plan for a giant pincer movement on the Caucasus oil fields. If the Germans had got there via Russia, they would not have needed Rommel's forces.

    As far as the Suez Canal was concerned, in spite of the British panic on "Ash Wednesday", Panzerarmee Afrika was never strong enough and they were decisively stopped at 1st el Alamein.

    Rommel always ignored logistics, but he could not have kept going without captured British trucks and POL. He had slightly better, but fewer, tanks and poor opponents in Cunningham and Ritchie.

    He was quite a good divisional commander in France in 1940, but from that point onwards in my opinion he was over promoted and overrated.

    Rommel was not well regarded by most of the general staff. The rommel myth suited both Hitler and Churchill for their own purposes, but it is just that, a myth.
     
  9. salientpoints

    salientpoints Senior Member

    Is this topic about the act of war and its point for the Germans (or Nazi party) or really about Rommel?
     
  10. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    Not to mention that the campaign was carried out with a very severe strategic problem which would at last, mean defeat for the Axis: Malta.


    Rommel was a supperb tactician, but is one of the most overrated generals in History... :rolleyes: I'm not too fond of him, actually.

    This is also very true. But Italy and Germany simply didn't have the power to actually do that.

    Yes, and from there, to India to link up with the Japanese... yeah... with a couple of Panzer divisions, an exposed flank at the Volga and 4.000 kiloemtres supply lines... :rolleyes:

    Mediocre strategic conception. Failure to co-ordinate large formations. Unsubordinate and agressive with superiors. Tyranic and unrealistic with his subordinates. Not to mention his tactical inflexibility and being a stubbron, egotistical prima donna...

    He was independent because he had no respect for the chain of command nor his superiors, which is very different.

    Of course the British campaign was not pointless. It was the only ground theatre where they could fight the Germans. And they were fighting because the Mediterranean was the main link with all their eastern empire. And of course, it was the theatre to fight their other enemy: Italy.

    Exactly! No matter how many incredible tactical battles he won. Strategically he won almost anything! Indeed he wasted matériel, men and over-extended his supply lines, demanding more resorces from the already over-extended German industry.

    First, a breakthrough in Russia in 1942 is completely out of question. And even if possible, there were no forces to push not even near the Turkish border...

    Completely right.

    The problem were not the British commanders, but the British strategical situation. How curious! When Rommel advanced and won his fantastical tactical victories were precisely when Malta was under heaviest siege, when British supply and communication lines were over-extended and when British forces were taken away to fight in Greece in 1941 and in the far east in 1942... :rolleyes:

    Isn't the desert war considered Rommel's war?
     
  11. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Had the OKW and Comando Supremo looked less at North Africa as a sideshow and more as a serious theater of war, and applied more logistics and support to it, they probably would have driven Britain out of Egypt and into Palestine and Jordan.

    That would have had a massive impact on Britain's oil supplies and support in the Middle East. The war had a point for the Germans and Italians. Despite their plans for the grand incisors (north from the Caucasus and south from Egypt), they never realized its importance, so they never grasped it firmly.

    The closest the Axis came to doing so was when Mussolini flew to Derna with a white charger, that fretted in its stall while Il Duce awaited leading the victory parade in Cairo, riding it. After a few weeks, the ulcerous Duce flew back to Rome and Claretta Petacci.
     
  12. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Although this discussion is about the desert and not Rommel as such, I do think that Rommel's role and abilities were a crucial factor, so the attached article from the (US) Military Review might be of interest.

    General link to the Military Review site:

    http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/milrev/

    You have to search a bit, but there are some fascinating articles.
     

Share This Page