| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ervin Rommel
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Ervin Rommel

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ervin Rommel
    Posted: 08 Jul 2013 at 01:53

 Below is a quote from "The Second World War" by Antony Beevor

"Hitler liked the fact that Rommel was no aristocrat. He spoke with a marked Swabian accent and was something of an adventurer. His superior in the army and many contemporaries consider him an arrogant publicity seeker. They also distrust the way he exploited the admiration of Hitler and Goebbels to bypass the chain of command.  The isolated camping in Africa ,as Rommel quickly sensed, presented the perfect opportunity to ignore instructions from the OKH. In addition, Rommel did not make himself popular by arguing that, instead of invading Greece, Germany should have diverted those forces to North Africa in order to seize the Middle East and its oil"

 

This only confirm my opinion that Rommel was a very capable divisional commander but he was totally unsuited to command independent area. His constant demand for materiel and reinforcement with total disregard to logistic problems did not mark him as an outstanding commander. 

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2014 at 08:53
Erwin Rommel was one of Nazi Germanys best tacticians during WWII.
 
It wasn't Rommel who didn't understand the logistical problems associated with the North Africa campaign, but Goerings continual boasts that the Luftwaffe could supply the troops.
 
Goerings incompetence and lies came unravelled on the Eastern Front when, despite his lies to Hitler, the Nazi soldiers starved, were not supplied with proper clothing etc., and had no ammunition. Thousands surrendered.


Edited by toyomotor - 14 Apr 2014 at 08:54
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2014 at 13:23
Rommel is often critizised, that he didn't sit and wait what the Allies would do. Well, maybe these men are right, but who can say this with certainty? Rommel didn't get much support and the African theatre had no priority for the nazis. One has to see, that Rommel's force was usually inferior in men and material. That Africa would be lost was obvious. Rommel saw the only chance not to lose in an offensive strategy. This failed in the end, but this doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. 
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 07:51
beorna: Are you serious?
 
"This failed in the end, but this doesn't mean it was the wrong decision."
 
Of course it was the wrong decision, correct decisions are proven correct because they succeed.
 
Hitlers personal intervention in military strategies and tactics amounted in most cases to micro-management. He knew nothing about battle tactics and quite often over-ruled his military commanders.
 
His troop deployments were stretched at times, because Hitlers over-riding aim was world dominance, and he lost sight of what was immediately in front of him.
 
 
 
 
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 08:30
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

beorna: Are you serious?

I am mostly serious.
 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

"This failed in the end, but this doesn't mean it was the wrong decision."
 
Of course it was the wrong decision, correct decisions are proven correct because they succeed.

How can one say that it was the wrong decision, if nobody can say, that a different decision would have been succesful?
 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Hitlers personal intervention in military strategies and tactics amounted in most cases to micro-management. He knew nothing about battle tactics and quite often over-ruled his military commanders.

Hitler never visited a military academy, but there a plenty of bad military leader who did visit an academy, too. The main german mistake was, that they played vabanque. They attacked Poland, allthough Germany was inferior to Poland, France and Britain. Hitler just hoped, that France and Britain would do nothing. And the best example for a vabanque game was the attack on the SU.
 
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 11:06
"How can one say that it was the wrong decision, if nobody can say, that a different decision would have been successful?"
 
 
If one makes a decision, the result of which he loses, it's obviously the wrong decision.
 
The fact that no other decision was made doesn't mitigate in favour of a wrong decision.
 
There are always three options;
 
a. Do this;
b. Do that; and
c. Do nothing.
 
Two of the above are wrong.
 
Or, if you wish to put it another way, only one of the above is the correct decision.


Edited by toyomotor - 15 Apr 2014 at 11:08
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 18:35
Rommel did not decide to go to Africa and he did not decide to get no priority. he made the best out of the situation he was put in.

If you have to cross a railway bridge, because there is a bushfire in your back and after you have entered a train is coming you have three decision, well even four. Go back into the fire - wrong decision. Jump to the right off the bridge, jump to the left off the bridge - wrong, cos the bridge is too high and you can do nothing and wait - wrong decision too, cos the train will smash you.
Sometimes there is no right decision, there is just the choice how you perform.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2014 at 02:55
beorna:
 
The point is, surely, not to be trapped by a bushfire in the first place. Very poor planning!
 
If the bushfire is closing, never leave oneself with only one option. Poor rationalisation!
 
Always plan for more than one avenue of escape.
 
Back to the point, I agree that Rommel probably made the best of a bad situation, but the situation was exacerbated by the incompetence of those above him who clearly didn't consider the logistics.
 
Rommels major failing in life was the failure to assassinate Hitler, (a failure he shared with others) and a lot earlier in the war.
 
And here am I, speaking in favour of one of my countrys war time enemies. Smile
 
There is a saying in English speaking countries about the seven "P's".
 
Proper Preparation and Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
 
It's as true now as it was then.
 
So, put the bushfire out, and check the railway timetable.Smile


Edited by toyomotor - 16 Apr 2014 at 03:00
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2014 at 11:07
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

beorna:
 
The point is, surely, not to be trapped by a bushfire in the first place. Very poor planning!
 
If the bushfire is closing, never leave oneself with only one option. Poor rationalisation!
 
Always plan for more than one avenue of escape.
 
Back to the point, I agree that Rommel probably made the best of a bad situation, but the situation was exacerbated by the incompetence of those above him who clearly didn't consider the logistics.
 
Rommels major failing in life was the failure to assassinate Hitler, (a failure he shared with others) and a lot earlier in the war.
 
And here am I, speaking in favour of one of my countrys war time enemies. Smile
 
There is a saying in English speaking countries about the seven "P's".
 
Proper Preparation and Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
 
It's as true now as it was then.
 
So, put the bushfire out, and check the railway timetable.Smile

:)
I absolutely agree with you, that a lot of mistakes were made, beginning with at least january 1933. Some of these mistakes are typically for autoritarian or totalitarian states. Some mistakes are born out of the german situation in the 20th century. The army was small during the Weimar Republic, dishonered. The most officers were conservatives. When Hitler came into power he build up the Wehrmacht, he gave them back pride and a lot of officers were promoted by the nazis. that doesn't mean, that they became nazis, but you don't bite the hand that feeds you. The top ranking officers were replaced by hitler with obedient people, so that the resistance was small.
So there was no opposition to Hitler's plans and those who did had to shut up or were even replaced. Those who knew it better kept silence, not to risk their career.
Of course there was as well a logistic problem. WWI had already shown it, Germany can have a strong army, but not strong enough to face too many enemies and germany had especially not enough ressources for a modern war.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2014 at 11:39
beorna:
You're quite right in what you say. No argument from me.
 
I've always had a lot of respect for Rommel and  Lieutenant Colonel Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, although there were others, I accept, worthy of the same respect.
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2017 at 22:00
I get a sense in which Erwin Rommel was amazing, he would extend his attack beyond his supply lines, capture British military supplies and keep on going.  Eventually, Montgomery's methodical approach made it so that Rommel couldn't do this at Al Alamein, and Rommel was defeated.

But, it is not really clear to me, what Rommel was doing in Africa, supporting the Italians in Libya I suppose?  Furthermore, the fact that Rommel was successful (and the fact that he was Hitler's darling) meant that Germany had to devote resources to an area that really was not much of an interest to them.  If Rommel was a little less brilliant perhaps the Germans wouldn't have gotten sucked into the campaign there.  And of course, Rommel got out, but suspect the average soldier was stuck there, which was a better place the Eastern Front, but the end of the road, nevertheless.

I am I fair in my assessment?  What parts do I have wrong? 
Back to Top
Dark Warrior View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Dark Warrior

Joined: 07 Oct 2017
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 93
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dark Warrior Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2017 at 16:44
''I get a sense in which Erwin Rommel was amazing, he would extend his attack beyond his supply lines, capture British military supplies and keep on going.  Eventually, Montgomery's methodical approach made it so that Rommel couldn't do this at Al Alamein, and Rommel was defeated.''

Yep commonly referred to as audacity. And yes in a very generic response from me would be correct. But as I note that's a tremendous generalization on my part as the factors were numerous and complex and shifting as the campaign in NA developed. In the overall start of the entire conflict.

And initially it was to stiffen the backs of AH Italian allies. Correct.

Best autobio on him to date: David Fraser's "Knights Cross...etal."

Rommel's original classic "Attacks" is now pdf...just find it on google etc.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2017 at 22:18
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

"How can one say that it was the wrong decision, if nobody can say, that a different decision would have been successful?"


There are always three options;

 

a. Do this;

b. Do that; and

c. Do nothing.

correct decision.


Sorry to contradict you, but nothing could be further from the truth. All 3 may be wrong; all, may be right; or any combination of right or wrong. In fact there may be many multiples of answers and solutions.


Regarding Rommel specifically. He may or may not have been a "great" commander. We will never know. His 2 claims to fame was as a divisional commander in the BAttle of France, and his performance in N Africa as essentially a corps commander. Medium size fish in a big pond or medium size in a fish bowl. How would he have fared in Russia against a higher class opponent.

You praise Rommel as a tactician and absolve him of blame for his lack of concern for strategic concerns as logistics and supply. I'm sure you're aware of the old aphorism "amateurs discuss strategy and tactics, professionals talk about logistics."

And Rommel does bare a large part of the blame for the critical wrong decision not to take out Malta before any other offenses in Africa. He personally lobbied against the plan; insisting that he could reach his goals regardless. He was wrong.

Rommel on a couple of occasions disobeyed Hitler's orders. Unfortunately he didn't disobey them at the most crucial moment. When his attack failed at El Alamein he knew that he could not hold his position once Montgomery used his overwhelming numerical advantage to sweep him aside. Had he instead retreated, what do you think of the possibility that he could have stopped, turned and inflicted stinging setbacks on Montgomery once he had left his fixed defenses and would have had to accept battle in the open field.

Turning to Hitler and his competence in military matters. While he didn't attend a military academy; he did participate in battle, with distinction for almost the entire First World War. He problem was his expertise was in trench warfare, which crippled his ability to comprehend war in the N African desert and the steppes of Russia. In that light his no retreat orders make perfect sense--never leave the advantage of a fixed defense. Because of his serious wounds at the end of the war, he never observed first hand the game change the tank brought to the battlefield or the power of the US and its industrial potential
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2017 at 11:21
Maybe, maybe not. No-one has said that Rommel was the model tactician, but he did hold the British 8th Army at bay for a fair while. 

Tobruk was the start of the end, when the Rats held him off.

El Alamein was a shambles for him too. But Rommel wasn't a committed Nazi-he was a professional soldier with a lot more war fighting intellect than most of Hitler's clique. He was let down by the supply chain-a continual problem for the German forces.

Logistics was mostly the responsibility of Goering, who continually promised and lied to Hitler about supplying the forward eschelons.

On the Eastern Front, thousands of troops died because of inadequate food, clothing and ammunition-Goering!



Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2017 at 10:30
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. No-one has said that Rommel was the model tactician, but he did hold the British 8th Army at bay for a fair while. 


Rommel's successes of course speak for themselves. He did more with less than probably any contemporary could have.


El Alamein was a shambles for him too. But Rommel wasn't a committed Nazi-he was a professional soldier with a lot more war fighting intellect than most of Hitler's clique. He was let down by the supply chain-a continual problem for the German forces.



I've always read that he was a committed Nazi, in that he personally admired and respected Hitler himself. I've never seen anything touching on his opinion of the genocide and of course he's always been praised for his punctilious observance of the rules of war against the Brits.

Logistics was mostly the responsibility of Goering, who continually promised and lied to Hitler about supplying the forward eschelons.

On the Eastern Front, thousands of troops died because of inadequate food, clothing and ammunition-Goering!





Goering had nothing to do with supplying Rommel with the supplies necessary to prosecute the desert war.

Anyone who is not legally blind can look at a map of North Africa and instantly understand that any army advancing toward Egypt will have to be supplied by ship or by motor transport. If Rommel failed to appreciate that or the fact that Malta was a major impediment to that supply line, then he is by definition a poor commander.

Every commander is responsible for maintaining his supply lines. If he doesn't he falls into the trap that Rommel did. No matter how much tactical skill he has, when your logistics fail, so does the power of the punch you are able to throw at the end of that line.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2017 at 11:26
Quote Goering had nothing to do with supplying Rommel with the supplies necessary to prosecute the desert war.

My understanding is that Goering tried to do airlifts to North Africa when the allies continually inderdicted naval resupply by sinking the ships.

The logistics side of the war is one aspect that Hitler, and his cronies, failed in rather dismally.


Edited by toyomotor - 03 Dec 2017 at 23:35
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.