Article

2007-05-25 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Seafarious 2007-05-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ] Top

#1 Interesting that they acknowledge the Arabs' alliance with the Nazis, not just for military reasons, but shared values and goals. Doesn't seem politically correct to mention that.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2007-05-25 00:37|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-05-25 00:37|| Front Page Top

#2 Revisionist history, Deutschland style.

Rommel was a truly brilliant General and perhaps the most gifted tank commander who ever buttoned up, despite the fact that he was fighting for an evil cause, and a truly evil leader. Not that it excuses him, but Rommel absolutely despised Hitler....all American intelligence accounts of the period agree with this. Sorry but I don't trust Germans to get their own history right.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-05-25 00:45|| 2007-05-25 00:45|| Front Page Top

#3 As a student of the war iin the east, when you think of all the field commanders the German Army used on the eastern front: von Manstein, von Kliest, Guderian, von Bock, Hoepner, Hausser, von Kluge and so on, one name stands out rather glaringly for its absence and that is General Irwin Rommel. Why, if Rommel was this great field commander, he never was assigned a field command in the east is a mystery to me.

The German generals listed and more stand heads and shoulders above Rommel in sheer abiliity.

Also, the Afrika Korps was 80 percent Italian troops, so if Rommel was knee deep in the Nazi's plan to exterminate Jews in Palestine, the Italians were eyeball deep in them.

The relationship of German generals to Hitler could be summed up in one word: Chief of the General Staff. Top field commanders were required to go through the chief of general staff if they wanted Hitler to intervene for them or if they wanted to appeal an order. It was rare that Hitler met with German generals one on one and after Hitler assumed the role of chilef of general staff, relationships with field commanders changed for the worse. It is very unlikely Hitler had a personal relationship with Rommel.

The article looks like a smear job, but then Rommels absence from the Eastern Front really blemished the man's rep as a field commander in my eyes.

Posted by badanov 2007-05-25 01:04|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-05-25 01:04|| Front Page Top

#4 He definitely did have an in with the Nazi Party in the late 1930's, as he was a sort of military celebrity from WWI. He does not seem to have been to shy about being a political soldier, at least early on.

Rommel was very junior for Corps or Army command in spite of his age, as he jumped straight to Divisional command from battalion - a political plum after possibly having been held back because of these political appointments.

He was a newly-minted divisional commander (7 Panzer) in May 1940. He got a Corps level command just six months after the French campaign, and an Army six months after that, but he was effectively commanding an Army even before his formal appointment.

I.e., months before the beginning of the Russian campaign he was already effectively an Army commander - and in actuality a Theater commander. He was on the same formal command level as Guderian, Kleist, Manstein and co. by August 1941 and he was trusted to run a much more independent operation than these others, being a sort of proconsul. Why should he have been moved to the Eastern Front ? He already had a much higher profile and more difficult job.

Everything considered, and considering the very intense opposition he faced with minimal resources, he compares very well I think with the best of the Eastern commanders.

Post-1943 there was a shortage of Army Group commands (the Africa command having been wiped out, and a lot of the Eastern Front commands were skeletons as well), and Rommel wasn't in such good odor anymore - besides being obviously burnt-out.

Posted by buwaya 2007-05-25 02:17|| 2007-05-25 02:17|| Front Page Top

#5 mcgeekseek

May german generals started to despise Hitler... after the first defeats. Most of the conjurees in the 20 July assassination attempt were totally unrepentant about the agressions and (probably) abput the holocaust. In fact they even pretended to keep part of Germany(s ill gottens gains in the West. Their coup was uniquely for getting a separate peace with the Allies and concentrate on the Russians.

Kaufenberg himself one of the few who really opposed Hitler for moral reasons had campaigned for Hitler against Hindenburg in the 1933 elections.

For Rommel I don't know in what group he belonged (people who had opened theuir eyes about Nazism or people who mereley wanted Hitler gone) but in 1940 his unit was involved in war crimes against Sengalese soldiers of teh French Army and in 1942 the Afrika Korps threatened the Bir Hakeim defenders to execute the Free French they had capturted but the order was cancelled after the Free French informed the Germans they would execute their (more numerous) German prisoners.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-05-25 02:29|| 2007-05-25 02:29|| Front Page Top

#6 Also, the Afrika Korps was 80 percent Italian troops ...

So, in 1942, Rommel captured Tobruk (and its garrison of 30,000+ Aussies and Brits) with an army composed of 80% Italians? Sounds like a battlefield genius to me :)

Posted by mrp 2007-05-25 04:25|| 2007-05-25 04:25|| Front Page Top

#7 The australian defence of Tobruk was in 1941. In 1942 Tobruk's garrison was South African not Australian and the Afrikaaner element was not too hot on the war due to 1) Many elemnts of the National Party (who was to create the apartheid) having some affinities with Nasis even if AFAIK they disn't share the geniocidiacl part of their ideology 2) Memorioes about British war crimes during the Boer War.

South African troops in WWII never came close to the superb performance they used to provide or to Australian or New Zelander performance.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-05-25 05:26|| 2007-05-25 05:26|| Front Page Top

#8
So, in 1942, Rommel captured Tobruk (and its garrison of 30,000+ Aussies and Brits) with an army composed of 80% Italians? Sounds like a battlefield genius to me :)

I knew a fella, an Italian, on a wargaming maillist some time back who argued somewhat futilely that the Afrika Korps was vaunted because of what Italian Army did in combat, not in spite of it.

His argument was that starting in 1940 the Italians grew from a colonial force whose main task was to chase civilians around to a seasoned fighting force capable of engaging and defeating the best militaries in the world.

Thanks for the history lesson, buwaya. It only somewhat degrades my argument that out of all the general officers in the Red Army only Rommel never received an east front appointment.

The Germans always sent their best to the east, always, and inasmuch as Rommel may have been young and capable of handling army group appointments, he may well have been over his head in the east.

Also on the eastern front, the German Army had its share of field commanders who rose just as fast as Rommel, not as intellectual as Rommel to be sure, but just as capable who fought their troops with distinction and to the high standards in the German that existed at the start of the war, despite constant shortages of men and materiel.

General Walter Model was one of those commanders and I am certain there are other I haven't even considered.

Posted by badanov 2007-05-25 06:55|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-05-25 06:55|| Front Page Top

#9 Interesting history.

But in the Battle of the Main Stream Media --

Rommel wins, hands down.

What's the origin of the expression, "Hands Down", I wonder?

Posted by Bobby 2007-05-25 07:08|| 2007-05-25 07:08|| Front Page Top

#10 The hands-down origin of the word, however, is from horse racing. A hands-down victory is one that is so assured that a jockey can drop his hands and relax his grip on the reins as he approaches the line.

The phrase is first found in the late nineteenth century. The two earliest examples are literal references to horse races, which makes pretty clear the notion that this is the origin.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-05-25 07:59|| 2007-05-25 07:59|| Front Page Top

#11
I knew a fella, an Italian, on a wargaming maillist some time back who argued somewhat futilely that the Afrika Korps was vaunted because of what Italian Army did in combat, not in spite of it.

It was the staunch reesitance of the "armored" Ariete (who charged Sherman tanks with their undearmored, undergunned, underpowered tanks)and from the paras of the Folgore who saved the Afrikorps at el Alamein.

Problem of the Italian soldiers (aside of the disastrous effect on his morale of Italy's traecherous backstabbing of France and poor commanders) was that his country was Italy and thus his equipment was inferior to everyone's (the little industrialized countried like Greece bought weapons to the great powers so Greek soldiers were better equipped than the Italians). To give an idea of Italian army's poor equment second line units still had guns without recoil absorbers meaning that every time they fired they had to be brought in position again and they couldn't adjust fire (I am referring to the capability of post 1890 guns to base on outcome of previous shot for aiming: "100m long, 50m short, on target, fire for effect"). Soldiers must have faith on their weapons and on their ability to avoid being killed by killing the enemy first. Otherise they lose heart.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-05-25 10:30|| 2007-05-25 10:30|| Front Page Top

#12 For present purposes all you need to recall is that Patton called Rommel a "magnificent bastard".
Rather high praise from one warrior to another.

Posted by Mark Z">Mark Z 2007-05-25 11:34|| 2007-05-25 11:34|| Front Page Top

#13 As far as Rommel being in bed with the Nazis:

If you look at the example of Guderian, Guderian often attended Nazi Party rallies. There is considerable evidence that Hitler's sponsorship of blitzkreig stemmed from the political alliance between Hitler and Guderian.

In contrast, Rommel is not known to have attended Nazi party functions. Also, the North African campaign was noted as one of the "cleanest" campaigns of WWII.

As far as the Italians and the Holocaust: The Italians and the Spaniards were among the least co-operative of Hitler's allies when it came to the New Order. Italian Fascists were very active in helping Jews hide and escape.

This argues against Rommel planning to export the Holocaust to the Middle East. Simply Stated, Rommel had a surplus of Italians (saboteurs) and a shortage of SS (enforcers). Any attempt to imtroduce the Holocaust to the Middle East was DOA.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2007-05-25 12:52|| 2007-05-25 12:52|| Front Page Top

#14 Churchill to Parliament, 1.27.42: "We have a very daring and skilful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general."

Posted by Grunter 2007-05-25 13:50|| 2007-05-25 13:50|| Front Page Top

#15 Some quick research to verify an old memory: Rommel was involved with the von Stauffenberg plot to kill Hitler and mount a coup. He differed with them on tactics- wanted to try Hitler, rather than make a martyr of him.
He was nobodys poodle. A look at the makers of this doco would be revealing.

Posted by Grunter 2007-05-25 14:00|| 2007-05-25 14:00|| Front Page Top

#16 Quite a lot there far beyond Rommel's role. Also, wonde rif anyone's bothered to seke the views of Rommel's son - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Rommel

Posted by Grinesh Hatfield7716 2007-05-25 14:52|| 2007-05-25 14:52|| Front Page Top

#17 You may well distrust the Germans to get their history right. But I hardly trust the British any better. The British Army's bungling in North Africa could be justified by a "brilliant adversary" and Rommel was manufactured for the purpose.

My grandfather fought in North Africa, btw. I am blaming the leadership - and Churchill, for that matter - and not the men or the technology. British tanks often out-classed their German and Italian equivalents. But for some reason the British could never work out their anti-air could be applied in an anti-tank role despite watching the Germans do precisely this to them over and over again.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-05-25 15:28|| 2007-05-25 15:28|| Front Page Top

#18 ...My understanding is that Rommel was and is rightfully revered as a brilliant general and tactician, who - along with George Patton and others - created the foundations of modern armored warfare. But politically, Rommel was as bad as most of the others - as long as they thought they were winning, they backed Hitler. And although Rommel was involved in the plot against Hitler, it needs to be kept in mind that Rommel wouldn't have surrendered had he been part of a post-Hitler military. He wanted the western Allies to join Germany in going after the Russians.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-05-25 17:02|| 2007-05-25 17:02|| Front Page Top

#19 I watched Rat Patrol...we clearly kicked his ass with .50's on jeeps ... a couple more, and this would've been shorter war

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-05-25 17:22|| 2007-05-25 17:22|| Front Page Top

#20 I agree with some here that Rommel's legendary reputation was a bit inflated to excuse Allied losses at his hands. He was an audacious commander nonetheless--it was likely because an army as outmanned and under-supplied as his shouldn't have been attacking that caught the Allies flat-footed as much as Rommel's tactics.

But I think his legendary reputation really takes a hit from his association with the Atlantic Wall. To think of all the thousands of man-hours, tons of concrete, and Reichmarks they poured into their "wall", and the best it did was hold up the Americans on Omaha for several hours. By the afternoon of 6.June, the entire wall was useless.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2007-05-25 17:31|| 2007-05-25 17:31|| Front Page Top

#21 Dar - is this what you're getting at:

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man. Anything built by man, can be destroyed by him." - General George S. Patton Jr.

Posted by Grinesh Hatfield7716 2007-05-25 17:54|| 2007-05-25 17:54|| Front Page Top

#22 Re: JFM's observations on Italian equipment

Prof. Anthony Komjathy, an instructor in tactics at the Hungarian Military Academy at the time of WWII, later became a history professor in the US at Loyola University in Chicago and Dominican University (Rosary College). I had the pleasure of taking modern world history from him at Rosary in the 1970s. He desctibed Italian armaments this way:

In the late 1930s an Italian unit was conducting tank maneuvers. Not far away, some Hungarian troops were staging maneuvers of its own. One of the Italian tanks got lost and blundered into the Hungarian area. When the Hungarians couldn't get the crews attention, somebody fired a machine gun at it. It blew up.

Posted by mom">mom 2007-05-25 23:06|| 2007-05-25 23:06|| Front Page Top

#23 Re: JFM's observations on Italian equipment

Prof. Anthony Komjathy, an instructor in tactics at the Hungarian Military Academy at the time of WWII, later became a history professor in the US at Loyola University in Chicago and Dominican University (Rosary College). I had the pleasure of taking modern world history from him at Rosary in the 1970s. He desctibed Italian armaments this way:

In the late 1930s an Italian unit was conducting tank maneuvers. Not far away, some Hungarian troops were staging maneuvers of its own. One of the Italian tanks got lost and blundered into the Hungarian area. When the Hungarians couldn't get the crews attention, somebody fired a machine gun at it. It blew up.

Posted by mom">mom 2007-05-25 23:07|| 2007-05-25 23:07|| Front Page Top

23:54 Barbara Skolaut
23:48 Barbara Skolaut
23:33 anymouse
23:30 anymouse
23:15 mojo
23:13 mom
23:07 mom
23:06 mom
23:06 Zenster
22:57 Mac
22:55 DarthVader
22:54 mom
22:54 Zenster
22:50 Zenster
22:46 gorb
22:45 Eric Jablow
22:40 3dc
22:39 Zenster
22:36 Zenster
22:20 Jackal
22:18 Jackal
22:17 Pappy
22:17 Jackal
22:12 Jackal