• I was doing reaserch on him, I find him so fasinating. He was a military Genious and was one of the few Generals who led an army that did not commit atrocities. He lost the battle in Africa after supplies ran low and the allies had him outnumbered 3/1. And after that he was in France during Normandy, and joined a plot to remove Hitler from office. He was then injured in an air raid and he plot was discovered and he was forced to drink pioson. He iis an interesting guy, i wounder if anyone else knows other things about him.


  • He was laso in the invasion of France and Poland and he was known as the “Desert Fox”.


  • actually he was never involved in the plot to kill Hitler. Hitler just thought he was, and forced him into suicide.


  • As an expert on World War 2 told me and I quote, “He may have been a collaborator, but you can judge that for yourself once you have read 30 or 40 books on the subject.”


  • I’ve only read 4 on Rommel. He may have had some knowledge on the plot, but was by far no conspirator. His sense of duty alone prevented that. He favored Hitler’s arrest and trial. Hitler had to accuse him as a conspirator. Rommel (before his injuries) was ready to surrender the whole Western Front to the Allies. That’s treason enough. Rommel knew the war had to end ASAP to end all the suffering. It cost him his life trying…


  • Really? I read that he was was joined in a plaot" to remove him from office", i guess thats the arrest and trial.

    Also, when i said african “battle” i meant campange. Obviously There was no “Battle of Africa” and there was not just ONE battle.


  • That was all propaganda. The Conspirator’s wanted Rommel as President after Hitler. Rommel was perhaps the only man in Germany that could - Rommel was ranked 2nd (after Hitler) in popularity with the German people. Hitler was also well aware of this. He feared his men and the German people would side with Rommel. The plot was a good a timely excuse to rid himself of Rommel. Rommel was labeled a defeatist by most German brass in Western Europe at this time. His words and actions helped fuel this : when asked on the status of the war, he openly put down Hitler in front of the Gestapo!

    After the war Rommel was still regarded by Allied propaganda as “A Nazi General”. Feelings were high to bring the Nazi’s to justice. During the trials, Rommel’s true conduct began to surface. Later, the truth of his death surfaced and he was labeled by newer post war propaganda to save the German pride as the “Hero of the German Resistance against Hitler”. Years later, historians and Veterans (mainly British Generals) found out more of the truth about Rommel. Rommel’s wife and son helped fill in the blanks. A true patriot, hero, gentlemen, soldier, leader. All this couldn’t save him; he was murdered by the Nazi’s as well…


  • Actually, I one of those who believed that Rommel, the “Desert Fox,” preformed more brilliantly in Normandy than in the North Africa Campaign, given the overwhelming superiority of the Allies after D-Day. He may have been known for his suburb offense, but his tenacity as a defender deserves much credit.


  • The trouble with Rommel’s command in Western Europe was that he didn’t have absolute authority. He knew the battle would be won or lost on the beaches and wanted the Panzers up close to the landings to counter-attack. However, the other commanders won the arguement to keep the Panzers back away from the landing points to avoid Allied Naval and Air bombardment. The opposite turned true - the Panzers were too far away to be effective AND took heavy loses to Allied Air! Rommel’s defensive preparations took the heavy Allied casualties. Another 6 months preparation and/or more of a unified command under his direction, and D-day may have been much worse and possibly the Allies being thrown back into the sea…


  • Well the main theory was that German generals wanted to force a decisive encounter with the Allies away from the beachheads and deeper into France. This way their panzers wouldn’t be left exposed to Allied naval fire, which had proved the turning point during the Italy landings. I can see strengths in both cases, though I think Hitler made a big mistake by adopting a “half-and-half” situation.


  • Agreed. Hitler was the biggest obstacle to winning any battle anyway.

    Rommel saw the material and personel advantage the Allies had in Africa. He knew it would be much, much worse in France. When the beaches were lost, so was France. Allied Air Forces made all daytime and most night movement impossible. The German High Command grossly under-estimated the Allies drive and abilities once the beaches were secure. French ports were heavily fortified. The Allies just BUILT their own, few German commanders saw that one one coming! I don’t think even Rommel saw that one, but his instinct to keep the beaches was enough for him to know losing them was a bad thing. USA/UK industrial power funneling right from English shores across the Channel into France frightened any knowledgeable German strategist…


  • Agreed. But what I will say is that airpower was a crucial advantage to either given scenario. There have been many “what-if” situations written that if D-Day had occurred June 5th or 4th (when weather conditions were horrible), then the Allies would stand a good chance of losing even without the 6 months of extra preparation time Rommel had asked for. The key factor there was air and naval coverage, without those, the Allies on the beachheads would be at a severe disadvantage (not to mention the stomach churning waves). Similarly at the actually D-Day invasion (June 6th), a key factor in Allied success was air coverage. Strafing runs inland from the beaches by Allied aircraft were of great importance of keeping supplies and reinforcements at bay. I many cases, the Germans were forced to surrender simply because they ran out of ammunition without resupply from ammunition caches or convoys.


  • Just a note: Shouldn’t be Field Marshall Rommel and not General Rommel?


  • Well in Europe his title would be “Field Marshall,” but in America, it is also correct to refer to him as a General.


  • Personally, I think Normandy was lost for the Germans long before June 6th 1944. When the Germans lost the Battle of Britain, and their air force reduced to almost nothing, the smart ones saw the inevitable. If Berlin was not constantly bombed the way it was, Germany would of been able to keep up production and maintain the war for years.


  • On a side note: in The Longest DAy, the movie about D-Day, Hitler was actually asleep during most of the invation, so the Panzers could not be realeased to anyone!


  • It could also be said that the turning point of the war was Germany’s failure in Operation Barbarossa due to Hitler’s constant change of mind in strategy and tactics.


  • I agree with Emu, the turning point in the Axis (German) tide was in Operation Barbarossa, not the Battle of Britain. After BoB, the Germans still maintained a very strong airforce, the most powerful at the time. Even if the Germany Luftwaffe did not suffer such losses in BoB, I predict they still would’ve lost Operation Barbarossa.


  • Agreed. The invasion of Russia opened the 2nd front. Bad for Germany throughout history. 200 divisions strong. Divisions better needed in Africa (as much as all occupied African Axis ports could take in) and prepairing for Sealion. Britain had to fall first before any Russian campaign could be attempted. Stalin claimed he would have attacked Eastern Europe a year after Barbarossa. Germany could have held them at their borders easily with say 100 divisions of fresh awaiting troops. The rest of the 100 could have taken Africa and invaded the British Isles. I’ll agree that the German Navy and Air Force may not have been ready for this until late in 1941 or early 1942. We all know Hitler was impatient, he wanted sweeping, quick victories as in the beginning. This was over and so was their chances for victory. Rommel knew it was over after El Alamein…


  • Operation Barbarossa could have very well succeded if it had been planned right. If Hitler had not constantly switched targets. First Leningrad, then Moscow, then the Caucasus, then Stalingrad, he could have defeated the Soviets. DOn’t forget that by Spring 1942 the situation for the Allies was looking very grim. The Japanese had swpet through Malaya, the Philippines, the Carolines, New Guinea, the Solomons, the Gilbert Islands, Hong Kong, Wake Island, the Dutch East Indies and Borneo Celebes. The USSR was on the verge of collapse since about 40% of it was already under German control and the ill equipped Soviets appeared to be about to fall. In Africa, Rommel was on the attack.

    About Oepration Sea Lion, it would have been extremely hard to conduct such an operation. Remember that the Royal Navy was far superior to the Kriegsmarine throughout the war and that the best German alternative to transports which would have been torn apart by the RAF, Royal Navy and RCAF were paratroopers. But even that would have taken a huge toll on the German military. You have ot take into account the British anti aircraft fire would destroy some of the planes before they would be able to paradrop their troops and that paratroopers would be pararopping into unkwon enemy territory and could be easily ambushed. Also, it is important to remember that Spitfires coudl out maneuvre almsot every German fighter and bomber such as the Stuka Dive Bomber so the Germans would have had considerable trouble getting enough air support to defeat the British. America and Britain had already planned a Germany first strategy so I’m sure the Americans would have declard war if Operation Sea Lion had begun just in order not to be fighting alone against a triumphant Germany which would have caused more problems for the Germans.


  • There was no way the Germans could Sealion after the Battle of Britain (at least not when Hitler ordered the switch from attacking fighter bases to cities). I think that the Germans would’ve been much more successful against British transport convoys and the airbases. Even then, an invasion of Britain still would’ve been difficult given the British Navy and lack of transports and destroyers (much of it lost in the campaign to take Norway) that Germans had. The Germans would’ve been much better off (and what Rommel had called for) with an armored thrust through Northeast Africa to take Cairo and the Suez Canal - cutting off the British lifeline to India and giving access to the oil rich Middle East.


  • @EmuGod:

    Operation Barbarossa could have very well succeded if it had been planned right. If Hitler had not constantly switched targets. First Leningrad, then Moscow, then the Caucasus, then Stalingrad, he could have defeated the Soviets.

    I think the major point for failure was the late beginning of the campaign due to the the help the italians needed in the balkans.
    The “switching” of targets was not bad, though Leningrad should have been stormed and not only been besieged.
    The switch to the south (Caucasus AND Stalingrad, look at the map! Stalingrad is kind of a gate to the oil-rich south there) was only logical after a fast victory through a demoraliying blitzkrieg became impossible.


  • I think the major point for failure was the late beginning of the campaign due to the the help the italians needed in the balkans.

    Not to mention the fact Hitler disbanded between 40-60 fresh divisions because the war in Russia had been going on so “well.”


  • @F_alk:

    @EmuGod:

    Operation Barbarossa could have very well succeded if it had been planned right. If Hitler had not constantly switched targets. First Leningrad, then Moscow, then the Caucasus, then Stalingrad, he could have defeated the Soviets.

    I think the major point for failure was the late beginning of the campaign due to the the help the italians needed in the balkans.
    The “switching” of targets was not bad, though Leningrad should have been stormed and not only been besieged.
    The switch to the south (Caucasus AND Stalingrad, look at the map! Stalingrad is kind of a gate to the oil-rich south there) was only logical after a fast victory through a demoraliying blitzkrieg became impossible.

    Stalingrad is near the Caucasus region, but I don’t believe it is part of it. Hitler didn’t need to attack Leningrad nor the Caucasus. His generals were right when they predicted that the Soviets would do everything to protect Moscow, as they were doing. They had given up large quantities of supplies as they retreated to the capital.


  • @EmuGod:

    Stalingrad is near the Caucasus region, but I don’t believe it is part of it. Hitler didn’t need to attack Leningrad nor the Caucasus. His generals were right when they predicted that the Soviets would do everything to protect Moscow, as they were doing. They had given up large quantities of supplies as they retreated to the capital.

    Well, i didn’t say Stalingrad’s part of the Caucasus, i said it’s kind of a gate to the south. It was a major railway city, connecting the oil fields in the south to the rest of the USSR.
    So, besides the name (which was valuable for propaganda) it was the oil that they were for, and oil was and is extremely important.
    For Leningrad: It is the second largest city, and taking it would have had (a) a major psychological effect, especially that early in the war (Leningrad was the about the first city not to fall into german hands directly, they showed that you can “hold out”).
    (b) it would have secured the connection to the finnish allies and german troops there, without the “thorn” in the back.

    I think going for moscow was not that smart, because the soviets would do everything to defend it, and even taking it doesn’t bring the russians down…. Napoleon did capture moscow, and still lost the war.

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 4
  • 11
  • 6
  • 2
  • 15
  • 2
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

55
Online

15.1k
Users

35.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts