Rommel's choices and reputation

A. Logistics. As pointed out, Axis capabilities were shitty and further they advanced further they went from their depots. Fuel tankers burn fuel to bring fuel to forward troops.

B. No clear strategic objectives. What was objective anyway? Seize Suez canal? Seize Egypt? Some grand pincer movement in coordination with Germans pushing into Caucassuss?

After Rommel took Tobruk Churchill was faced with a no confidence vote in parliament, but survived. Rommel's goal was quite clear... get the UK out of the war before with American help they achieve the required men and supplies to drive the Axis out of Africa.

If Rommel took Egypt and the Suez canal his hope I am sure was there would be another no confidence vote against Churchill and he would be removed in favor of a new leader in the UK willing to negotiate peace with Germany for getting their colonial holdings back. If that didn't happen he would try to take the fight to the UK in Iraq to get an armistice. If he managed to achieve peace with England he knew the U.S. would then turn its attention to fighting Japan.

Then he planned (as shown in the book The Rommel Papers based on his letters to his wife to go after the Russian oil fields in the Caucasuses from the South unhindered by the UK. He believed (and called in his papers) the Caucasuses the Soviet Union's achilles heel and if taken away their fuel for their heavy armor and planes would dry up.

Rommel wasn't the greatest tactical commander in history, but if you read his papers you can see he saw the strategic reality of the situation in stark terms.

Lets say Rommel didn't over run his supply lines as he has been attacked for. It was only a matter of time before the UK and newly arriving U.S. supplies and forces overwhelmed the Germans and Italians regardless of where they were in Africa and then they would go on to Italy.

As for the reason Rommel was so well liked by the British Army (and by extension their citizenry) as well as his own Army during the war and after the war it was because unlike most generals on both sides who would stay far far away from the lines he wouldn't and was always there going out meeting with the fighting men, both German and on occasion English as well and not just in POW camps.

In the summer of 1941, two groups of German and British soldiers met deep in the Libyan desert. Instead of shooting at each other, the enemies chatted and exchanged cigarettes before going their separate ways. What made the encounter all the more remarkable was that Erwin Rommel, the German commander in North Africa, was among them.

Mr Schneider, now 86, said: "The common soldiers did not act out of hate. When we met the English soldiers in the desert that time, we were far, far from anywhere. There was no reason to shoot. We swapped cigarettes and I talked with the English officers. But there were also times when we were shocked by the enemy. "Rommel enjoyed touring the front lines. We would go deep into the desert to explore. One time we came across 14 German soldiers who seemed asleep. When we got closer we saw each had his throat cut. Nearby we found a kukri – the knife of the British Gurkha soldiers. I still have that knife."

The extent to which the ferocity of a war fought by young men has been replaced by comradeship among former enemies was underlined this weekend when Mr Schneider met five former Desert Rats, including an ambulance driver who accidentally drove into a German tank position while it was being inspected by Rommel and was promptly sent back to his lines by the field marshal with Mr Schneider at his side.

"We are now friends, very good friends," he said. "I was once a German soldier and they were English soldiers but now we find it difficult to understand why we had to fight against each other. Rommel was always first a soldier. We did not forget that we were fighting fellow human beings." Mr Schneider said: "I was one of Rommel's drivers. I was chosen because I knew English and could operate their equipment.

Mr Schneider said: "When the propaganda photographs were taken of our unit, they would drape Swastika flags over the vehicles. When the cameramen went away, Rommel would order the Swastikas to be taken away. He didn't like Nazi insignia and took it off. He said, 'I am a German soldier'."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/rudolf-schneider-i-was-rommels-driver-1706924.html
 
Last edited:
I do harp on about railroads, but I don't know if Libyan ports capacity could be seriously enlarged and even if they could there is the lack of rear area transport capacity. I do know that the Italians built some railroads, but didn't join them and lacked transport capacity within Libya itself. So wella, AH writes itself.
 
I do harp on about railroads, but I don't know if Libyan ports capacity could be seriously enlarged and even if they could there is the lack of rear area transport capacity. I do know that the Italians built some railroads, but didn't join them and lacked transport capacity within Libya itself. So wella, AH writes itself.
That is a very good question and one not raised in a book on logistics which covered Rommel's time in North Africa. One problem in attempting to do so is that everything from cement to cranes would have to be shipped in and thus displace supplies for the troops on the front line.
 
Infrastructure developments like improved ports and rail lines would pretty much have had to be put in before the war. Which leads to the question of why would the Italians build them there? Libya itself had nothing much to offer besides prestige, and Egypt itself didn't have a whole lot more. The Suez is important, but a long way from Libya. Does that provide enough reason to build a railroad that will pretty much only be useful in wartime? How about to expand port facilities that are already handling peacetime trade just fine?

Remember, too, that in the case of the railroad just laying track isn't enough. Unless you also pre-position engines and rolling stock you'll have to ship them in once the war starts. Pre-positioned equipment needs to be maintained and upgraded: more money and manpower.
 
I do harp on about railroads, but I don't know if Libyan ports capacity could be seriously enlarged and even if they could there is the lack of rear area transport capacity. I do know that the Italians built some railroads, but didn't join them and lacked transport capacity within Libya itself. So wella, AH writes itself.
Reading this thread suggests only Tobruk was really viable as a port (outside Alex & providing I haven't forgotten:rolleyes:), & the Axis building a railway was really a non-starter.:(
 
Rommel would have been far better as Germany's Chancellor then as an Army Group Commander.

Rommel's problem as an Army Group Commander was that his correct vision of what needed to be done in the war often conflicted with his job as a general which is to do his duty and follow orders.

No Rommel was far from tactically the best general in history, but strategically he saw the reality of the situation better then any of the German leadership or the other high ranking German generals.

The fact is he knew the only way he might not lose in North Africa and that Germany might have a chance in fighting against Russia (a war he warned Hitler strongly against starting) was if he took Egypt causing another no confidence vote against Churchill and him to be replaced by a government willing to make peace for the return of their Imperial holdings.

That way Germany wouldn't have to worry about fighting two fronts and could build mega factories in Western Europe without worry about Allied bombing which would give Germany a shot at fighting the Red Army to a standstill. As part of this the Heer would have to institute its own regime change at the top because Adolf's military judgement was gone.
 
The fact is he knew the only way he might not lose in North Africa and that Germany might have a chance in fighting against Russia (a war he warned Hitler strongly against starting) was if he took Egypt causing another no confidence vote against Churchill and him to be replaced by a government willing to make peace for the return of their Imperial holdings.

Does that thinking show up in any of his writings?
 
Top