tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post6534317099517528526..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: Erwin Rommel's First Offensive In North AfricaFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-9179149486295148172016-12-08T06:58:29.760-08:002016-12-08T06:58:29.760-08:00Hello Everybody,
My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live...Hello Everybody,<br />My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.<br /><br />BORROWERS APPLICATION DETAILS<br /><br /><br />1. Name Of Applicant in Full:……..<br />2. Telephone Numbers:……….<br />3. Address and Location:…….<br />4. Amount in request………..<br />5. Repayment Period:………..<br />6. Purpose Of Loan………….<br />7. country…………………<br />8. phone…………………..<br />9. occupation………………<br />10.age/sex…………………<br />11.Monthly Income…………..<br />12.Email……………..<br /><br />Regards.<br />Managements<br />Email Kindly Contact: urgentloan22@gmail.comDr Purva Piushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05883980841903455890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-57359406155470649972013-05-12T10:27:53.185-07:002013-05-12T10:27:53.185-07:00Howdy this is somewhat of off topic but I was want...Howdy this is somewhat of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG <br />editors or if you have to manually code with HTML.<br />I'm starting a blog soon but have no coding expertise so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be enormously appreciated!<br /><a href="http://hodla.com/CWQFreda" rel="nofollow">consolidation loans</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-59819069423743389762011-05-01T04:33:05.263-07:002011-05-01T04:33:05.263-07:00Don Fransico's comment reminds me of Aleksandr...Don Fransico's comment reminds me of Aleksandr Svechin's comment that one of the big German mistakes in the First World War was failing to realize who their determined enemies were. Czarist Russia could have been dealt in terms of negotiation, whereas the British were single minded in their intention of destroying Germany as a commercial rival. Underestimating the British happened again in 1941, but could have gone the other way.<br /><br />Mike's comment indicates how limited British understanding of what German intentions were, in that Rommel was something of a wildcard, even with "Ultra". Still access to information is not the same as being able to act on it. By postponing Barbarossa and going for the "knockout blow" against Britain, Germany has overwhelming power which it potentially can bring to bear.<br /><br />Another question comes to mind, what exactly would it have taken in 1941 for Turkey to join the Axis? The Germans could have requested permission to move troops from Greece though Turkey to reinforce Vichy in Syria and make it a tough for the Brits, not to mention support of the coup in Iraq. <br /><br />As it was they took a month to defeat the French in Syria with the French putting up a fight. Most the captured French refusing to join De Gaulle and requesting instead to be repatriated to France.<br /><br />All in all I find this a fascinating counterfactual scenario. 1941 seems to have been the pivot year of WWII.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-32152481601211299592011-04-30T09:50:31.894-07:002011-04-30T09:50:31.894-07:00Seydlitz -
I went back and checked the memoirs of...Seydlitz -<br /><br />I went back and checked the memoirs of Ismay (Winnie's dogbody during the War). He claims that there was concern in Feb 41 in London at the reports that considerable enemy reinforcements, including German armoured units, were arriving in Tripoli. But that: <i>"Wavell was reassuring. On 2 March he (Wavell) reported in a telegram that owing to 'shipping risks, difficulty of communications, and the approach of hot weather,' no large-scale attack was likely to develop against him before the end of the summer."</i><br /><br />Imagine their shock when, on the last day of March, Rommel fell upon Agheila! Was Rommel's intention just a limited advance which he then exploited to the utmost after finding the Brits poorly organized and limited in armor? Or was it his intention all along to push on to Suez? I think the former. But am not so sure. Towards the end of March 41 there were German inspired uprisings in Iraq. 10K Iraqi troops and several generals staged a coup inspired by Rashid Ali. If successful this would have cut off a major supply of oil to Wavell's forces and cut him off from reinforcements from India.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-24520049338789473032011-04-29T00:32:36.941-07:002011-04-29T00:32:36.941-07:00Another major factor to consider that didn't c...Another major factor to consider that didn't come to me until turning in last night - Ultra. The counterfactual can only work if the British did not crack enigma. Though it was of value to them in their land campaigns (and the Battle of Britain for that matter), it was absolutely critical in their conduct of naval operations, allowing them to fight when & where they wanted, this allowed them to defeat the u-boat wolf packs. Another, very large 'If' there.<br /><br />In all honesty though if the German leadership wanted Britain to come to peaceful terms there would be far simpler ways to go about it, ignore them. Germany can't really pose a credible threat the Britain because of the RN control of the seas & logistics, but equally the British can't threaten the Germans (beyond threatening the Italians in North Africa). I'm not even convinced there would be great in value if the Germans upping the tempo of the u-boat campaign given the UK's advantage in ultra - like playing chess against an opponent who may have less pieces but can see several moves ahead of you. <br /><br />First, don't declare war on the US, the UK on its own cannot invade Europe. <br /><br />Second, consider just leaving the UK alone. If it poses no credible threat to Germany's domination of Europe then why bother?<br /><br />The UK is a democracy led by a particularly anti-nazi leader, so long as the country actually is under attack from Germany (Battle of Britain, proposed Sealion invasion, u-boat campaign, bombing) it makes it all the easier for Churchill to keep the country mobilised for total war. Whereas if the threat isn't so acute, well, the public can easily tire of war, can be fickle. A genuine offer of peace by the Germans and promise to leave well alone might seem tempting after 2-3 years of doom and gloom. Churchill's appointment as leader was far from inevitable, it was more likely that Lord Halifax would be PM, and he likely would have considered terms with Hitler.Don Francisconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-23126575171939392482011-04-28T14:58:29.322-07:002011-04-28T14:58:29.322-07:00In regards to Axis logistics . . . it was able to ...In regards to Axis logistics . . . it was able to get them to Stalingrad and the Caucasus in the summer of 1942 . . . In regards to this scenario, do not the Brits actually have the tougher job since Alexandria - which is their main port - isn't going to be of much use in terms of resupply . . . ?seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-74699361815596155492011-04-28T14:51:18.141-07:002011-04-28T14:51:18.141-07:00it sounds all a bit of a cliché, but I think this ...it sounds all a bit of a cliché, but I think this scenario all comes down to logistics, or rather the capacity of specific port facilities . . .<br /><br />There is also Syria . . .<br /><br />http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765709-1,00.htmlseydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-41346910465568718562011-04-28T13:40:05.636-07:002011-04-28T13:40:05.636-07:00Gentlemen-
The counterfactual regards taking Brit...Gentlemen-<br /><br />The counterfactual regards taking Britain out of the war in 1941 prior to going into Russia, having Hitler give up permanently on attacking the USSR is not part of the scenario.<br /><br />Cunningham was a competent naval commander, but as it was with even limited Luftwaffe commitment, he had but three cruisers and a handful of destroyers still in action by December 1941. Certain units of the Italian Navy did operate effectively. Increase the Luftwaffe commitment by three times and place it under an aggressive commander like Wolfram von Richthofen.<br /><br />As it was Rommel was almost able to repulse the British offensive in November. With added strength (four Panzer divisions instead of two along with the the two light divisons and the Italians) Rommel would have done even better. Using Benghazi as the supply port hub would have decreased distances considerably and with Crete in German hands would have allowed Luftwaffe and Italian navy escorts.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-92103383783185736412011-04-28T13:06:42.749-07:002011-04-28T13:06:42.749-07:00And assuming that;
1) Hitler give up his eastward...And assuming that;<br /><br />1) Hitler give up his eastward expansion dreams (and therein lies the most improbable counterfactual - I can't see a possibility of that happening. The guy hated Reds too much)<br /><br />2) He appoints a competent guy with the authority to run the ENTIRE Med campaign (instead of small pieces of it - which, again, is hard to believe; the Nazi's besetting sin was the entropic nature of their system), who<br /><br />3) makes the Axis logistical system work, which never happened IRL, <br /><br />4) the Brits have someone less competent than Cunningham in charge, and most critically<br /><br />5) the Japanese either don't attack Pearl Harbor OR Hitler doesn't declare war on the U.S.<br /><br />All that happens, I'd give the Axis a 50-50 chance of at least closing Suez.<br /><br />But we're getting kinda out in wolkenkuckucksheim, nicht wahr?FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-71115364049193493822011-04-28T12:51:50.242-07:002011-04-28T12:51:50.242-07:00seydlitz: I stand corrected on two points.
First,...seydlitz: I stand corrected on two points.<br /><br />First, my reading of the secondary sources was wrong; the actual arrest and deportation/incarceration of Jews was done by the Italians.<br /><br />Second, the 20% extermination statement should read "20% of the Jews <i>of Benghazi"</i> were murdered in the forced labor camp. <br /><br />Anyway, there's a pdf account here: http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206407.pdf and another article from Ha'aretz here: http://www.zchor.org/libya/libya.htm<br /><br />So whilst Rommel and his guys didn't take an active part in extermination campaigns, it looks like they acted like most other German Heer organizations; minded their own business whilst the civil powers, "special units", and secret police did the dirty work. Certainly it does NOT appear that Rommel took a stand to keep the extermination/detention/forced labor organizations out of his AO.<br /><br />Like Bobby Lee, then; upright guy personally, perhaps, but not the parfit gentile knight.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-18584386380600181752011-04-28T03:15:51.627-07:002011-04-28T03:15:51.627-07:00Hi Seydlitz,
I'll pick up your counterfactual...Hi Seydlitz,<br /><br />I'll pick up your counterfactual scenario and run with for a bit, might need some help forward with it it though as it's been a while since I studied the war of the Med. <br /><br />It's feasable that the Axis could have pushed the British to terms in the way you describe, concentrating on reducing British presence in the Med by combining the Luftwaffe & Regia Marina. The Italian navy, to my memory was of reasonable size/modernity/competence but lacked a fleet air arm. If I remember correctly it was also short of oil & fuel for much of the war. The Luftwaffe would also have to commit itself to the theatre, bear in mind the British didn't completely end the threat of the Regia Marina until Italy itself surrendered in 1943. <br /><br />It would also have to rely to a certain extent on the British prosecuting the battle of the Med with less competence than they did - Admiral Cunningham was one of their most effective commanders of the war, and took the initiative against the Axis forces very early on. Sending in the RN without air support to the battle of Crete was the only significant error he made - it's arguable Cunningham was perfectly aware of the risks, considering it a duty to help.<br /><br />Port facilities at Tripoli would also have to be increased considerably in size to effectively supply the Afrika Corps & Italian land forces.Don Francisconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-10089762932610899562011-04-27T16:42:03.852-07:002011-04-27T16:42:03.852-07:00mike-
As to the R75, compare the photo on this th...mike-<br /><br />As to the R75, compare the photo on this thread with this one . . .<br /><br />http://www.history-of-germany.com/index.php?scid=sinsheimPanzerArmor&page=39&<br /><br />As to atrocities during the North African campaign, I did come across the Kiwi incident with an Afrika Korps field hospital, but the New Zealanders dispute it, so is it "documented"? I've given the Kiwis the benefit of the doubt. <br /><br />FDChief- <br /><br />Your claim of "20% of Tunisian Jews dying" in German-run labor camps is the first time I've come across anything like this claim. I think that would come to about 20,000 based on the Jewish population at the time . . . Do you have a source?<br /><br />--<br /><br />I notice that no one disputes my counterfactual scenario . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-83937259486806512702011-04-26T21:24:33.315-07:002011-04-26T21:24:33.315-07:00Libya also Chief. Although the pogroms after the ...Libya also Chief. Although the pogroms after the Germans and Italians were kicked out were much worse. Some say that Gaddafi is Jewish on his mother's mother's side. I wonder if that is true or Israeli agitprop?? He was born in 42, while the battle of Bir Hakeim was going on in his country. Sucker must be getting tired like me. I was also born that year, wonder whether he dreams of retirement and raising date palms?mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-9696659742600460942011-04-26T19:35:31.288-07:002011-04-26T19:35:31.288-07:00And let's not forget that the Jews of Tunisia ...And let's not forget that the Jews of Tunisia were dealt with in general accordance with the Fuhrerbefehl regarding "subhuman peoples". Some 20% of them died in labor camps; they were onlt spared the full meal deal because the German logistical chain was so fucked that they didn't have the hulls to spare to bring the death camp wherewithal there or ship the Jews back to the camps in EuropeFDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-41013513157747434372011-04-26T19:24:47.750-07:002011-04-26T19:24:47.750-07:00Seydlitz - You said in the initial post that: &qu...Seydlitz - You said in the initial post that: <i>"This campaign in North Africa while warfare, was unique to World War II in that there were few if any documented atrocities committed by either side."</i> <br /><br />Rommel himself complained to a captured New Zealander, Brigadier Clifton aka the 'flying Kiwi', of the 'gangster methods' of the the New Zealand troops who had bayoneted German wounded Germans during a night battle near Matruh. Rommel also harangued Clifton regarding an incident in which a wounded German officer was thrown into a burning truck. And also bent his ear about an Axis hospital ship leaving Tobruk that had been bombed by an RAF flying fortress. And Clifton's interrogator, a major claimed that Maori's had collected German ears during the Battle of Crete.<br /><br />Later in Tunisia there were rumors that surrendering American troops were bayoneted by German . There were also widespread rumors that Panzers at Kasserine deliberately turned from their route in order to grind wounded GIs under their tracks. The Americans themselves were no saints, shooting Arabs just for the hell of it after Kasserine and gang-raping native women.<br /><br />Rommel and his CofS General Westphal deserve credit for not following Hitler's infamous order to kill all captured Commandos even if they had surrendered. They never issued that order to subordinate commanders and according to Westphal Rommel and he burned it within ten minutes of receipt.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-12056178141570328002011-04-26T18:24:28.135-07:002011-04-26T18:24:28.135-07:00Chief - I do agree with Field Marshall Alexander ...Chief - I do agree with Field Marshall Alexander though that Rommel sometimes tended to over-exploit his initial successes and end up the worse for it. Alexander claimed that Rommel did that both in his advance to El Alamein and later he did the same after Kasserine when he went for the brass ring at Thala. He did some gambling.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-47854626010194471312011-04-26T17:31:18.399-07:002011-04-26T17:31:18.399-07:00Chief - van Creveld had the ist part right. But I...Chief - van Creveld had the ist part right. But I do not give him a vote for his last sentence. Rommel probably knew that he was toast staying in place, so took his best chance with his unauthorized offensive. <br /><br />Seydlitz/Ranger - Your eyes are better than mine. Where is the R75? I can see the Beamer insignia bright and clear though. Perhaps that was enhanced with photoshop.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-25014129117410025022011-04-26T17:13:08.109-07:002011-04-26T17:13:08.109-07:00FDChief-
We are talking counterfactuals now after...FDChief-<br /><br />We are talking counterfactuals now afterall. Barbarossa planned for 1942. But first, knock Britain out in 1941. Deploying the Luftwaffe to knock out the Royal Navy in the Med is hardly an impossible task. With the Italian Navy (and Vichy French Navy) intact and the Royal Navy effectively swept from the Med? Would Churchill have survived politically the loss of Suez in 1941? After a whole string of defeats? With Russia still Germany's defacto ally?<br /><br />Monty doesn't even come into the cards until it's too late . . . This scenario puts much less pressure on the German economy than the invasion of Russia in 1941 does and even with that we have Germany historically hanging on for four years . . .<br /><br />This is North Africa, it either has to happen quickly or not at all . . . ?seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-16464127327247593842011-04-26T16:35:42.762-07:002011-04-26T16:35:42.762-07:00"...a relatively small force in Libya (two Pa...<i>"...a relatively small force in Libya (two Panzer Korps as I mentioned) could have had a big difference in the strategic situation, a real achievement of strategic effect in relation to the forces committed. That Rommel was unable to achieve this strategic effect was no fault of his own, but rather the political leadership of the Reich."</i><br /><br />Well...<br /><br />Assuming that 1) Rommel does, in fact, get the troops and supplies he needs, and 2) the British don't reinforce Egypt, and 3) everything goes right for the DAK...then the Germans take and hold Suez and the British have a difficult 1942.<br /><br />But.<br /><br />North Africa was always a sideshow, especially after June of '41. Rommel was <i>never</i> going to get his two panzerkorps, not with OKW needing to feed the beast in the East. <br /><br />So with the Allied preponderance in material, Rommel was never going to get the 3:1 he needed to blow through the Alamein defenses. Give Monty credit - the man could fight a set-piece battle (only thing he COULD do, IMO).<br /><br />So Rommel ends up sitting there in the desert sucking up air and maritime assets better used elsewhere. Again, the Allies have troops and supplies to waste; Rommel isn't doing any good diverting stuff to 8th Army. He's wasting more goods from his end (relative to Germany's economic strength) than he's making the Allies burn through to fight him.<br /><br />I mean, the guy WAS a decent enough tactician (tho it helped that he succeeded against the French in 1940, who were a shambles, and the British, who were better but not much. He had a gift for improvisation and a hunter's nose for the prey's weaknesses. But I think van Creveld pegs him pretty accurately: <i>"Given that the Wehrmacht was only partly motorized and unsupported by a really strong motor industry; that the political situation necessitated the carrying of much useless Italian ballast; that the capacity of the Libyan ports was so small, the distances to be mastered so vast; it seems clear that, for all of Rommel's tactical brilliance, the problem of supplying an Axis force for an advance into the Middle East was insoluble. Rommel's repeated defiance of his orders and attempts to advance beyond a reasonable distance from his bases, however, was mistaken and should never have been tolerated."</i>FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-82291437726344407682011-04-26T16:30:15.361-07:002011-04-26T16:30:15.361-07:00mike-
The ladies in the newsreel are Italian. Th...mike-<br /><br />The ladies in the newsreel are Italian. The Libyans would not have come out into the street, would have remained indoors. Makes you wonder what they had experienced under the Brits . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-10997934927266669372011-04-26T15:24:26.959-07:002011-04-26T15:24:26.959-07:00jim-
21st Panzer's insignia was a "D&quo...jim-<br /><br />21st Panzer's insignia was a "D" with a horizontal bar through it same as on the sidecar imo. The R75 seems to belong to the Artillery Regiment of that unit.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-18382153963834398962011-04-26T14:09:53.975-07:002011-04-26T14:09:53.975-07:00Seydlitz,
Sorry, i just assumed that Chief wrote t...Seydlitz,<br />Sorry, i just assumed that Chief wrote this piece.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-19438442144170771922011-04-26T08:37:18.508-07:002011-04-26T08:37:18.508-07:00Chief,
My cmt is chicken shit but here goes- the p...Chief,<br />My cmt is chicken shit but here goes- the pic you attribute to the 21st AD is not bearing the correct unit id on the vehicle. Or so i believe.<br />I can't say what div the vehicle belongs to b/c i do not have reference books, but i feel comfortable in saying what unit it ain't. See wikipedia for the unit symbol.<br />This small observation does not in any way denigrate what your discussions cover.<br />BTW i think this was a posed photo.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-10630710031192696692011-04-26T03:35:25.722-07:002011-04-26T03:35:25.722-07:00Gentlemen-
Barbarossa is a separate topic and giv...Gentlemen-<br /><br />Barbarossa is a separate topic and given that next month is the 70th anniversary of the war in the East . . . Chief's already done a great post on the subject on his blog and I hope to do something in regards to the Battle of Kiev, but the subject at hand is North Africa . . . once we get off into the steppes there's probably no coming back.<br /><br />My point is that Rommel was successful due to particular traits that he had along with a very functional if limited instrument of the Afrika Korps, this in addition to mistakes made on the British side. Also force being a relationship, a relatively small force in Libya (two Panzer Korps as I mentioned) could have had a big difference in the strategic situation, a real achievement of strategic effect in relation to the forces committed. That Rommel was unable to achieve this strategic effect was no fault of his own, but rather the political leadership of the Reich.<br /><br />Churchill and the world were lucky that Hitler was even a bigger dreamer than he was . . .<br /><br />I think ya'll will find this interesting . . . <br /><br />http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/strategy-winston-churchill-and-the-power-of-positive-thinking/#more-4864seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-77711814616032571782011-04-25T23:23:26.431-07:002011-04-25T23:23:26.431-07:00Chief -
Although I do agree with your statement ...Chief - <br /><br />Although I do agree with your statement about the Axis "...unpreparedness - lack of a single objective, underestimation of the size of their task, poor logistical and operational planning" during Barbarossa.mikenoreply@blogger.com