How Rommel became the Desert Fox | Operation Sonnenblume
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2022
- In February 1941, Erwin Rommel arrived in Libya to save an Italian army in disarray. But instead of following orders to defend his position, Rommel attacked. Leading from the front, he pushed the understrength British and Commonwealth forces back to the Egyptian border. He had them on the run, but to advance any further Rommel needed more supplies and that meant capturing the port of Tobruk. The fate of the entire campaign rested on the town. But despite multiple attacks, the British and Commonwealth garrison held firm and Rommel’s offensive was over. His surprise victory earned him the nickname The Desert Fox.
In this episode of IWM Stories, John Delaney explores Rommel's first campaign in the desert. How did he pull off such a stunning reversal? How did the British stop him at Tobruk? And is Rommel’s reputation deserved?
A short history of the desert war: www.iwm.org.uk/history/a-shor...
History of the 8th Army: www.iwm.org.uk/history/a-brie...
How the British won the desert war: www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-th...
The tanks and guns of the Desert War: www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-ta...
Licence the clips used in this film: film.iwmcollections.org.uk/c/...
For information about licensing HD clips please email filmcommercial@iwm.org.uk
There was no way that Rommel was going to dislodge the 9th Australian division. Tobruk was their only supply point with access to cold beer.
as a atheist i thank god for beer
@@SunnieSnell lol
Lmao
Also the Newzealanders smashed the Germans and Italians hugely.
💀
Rommel was very successful in WW1, then wrote a book between the wars, then lead critical part of the invasion of France. Rommel was building up an impressive reputation long before the African campaign. It didn't just materialize out of nowhere suddenly in Africa.
Rommel did have his reputation hyped up, but it was built upon the back of Actual accomplishments and demonstration of leadership ability.
Yeah not like Montgomery
The Germans had broken the Americans code and an American observer for The American President was telegraphing British troop movements to the President and By extension Rommel, that’s why he could put manoeuvre British commanders , when he fought the Australians and New Zealanders in Tobruk they were taking direct command from an Australian officer, so he did not have to radio commands, and Rommel got his arse handed to him, I’ll let you decide given this information wether his reputation is warranted
I agree. I think he was a victim of the Peter Principle. He was a great fighting general at the divisional level (Does that mean a good colonel?), but not a good commander of generals, from what I gather. His sub-commanders tended not to like him and sabotage his plans.
For all that he flew around in that spotter plane, there were some major battles fought in North Africa where he was grounded by weather, and both sides were playing a kind of stupid game of blind man's bluff.
The role of signals intelligence in Rommel's successes can't be over emphasised. Once the British tightened up the security of their radio traffic, both tactical and strategic, the Afrika Korp lost its' perceived invincibilty, leading to its' eventual defeat.
@@buttyboy100 you mean like how Russia was broadcasting in the open in Ukraine?
"Loose lips sink ships" wasn't created without reason.
Rommel ultimately lost, no matter what he did, due to logistics. He wasn't getting enough of what they needed, and the Germans Never secured the Med (Malta and Gibraltar in particular). They never achieved air nor naval supremacy. And Germany never had a strong logistics train on land, and even worse over water. It was just a matter of time. Between Vichy France (the fact the Allies couldn't use that land), Germany, and Italy, they should have been able to secure the Med, making holding North Africa much easier (though even then I doubt if they could have held it for long anyways).
Just to point out, after the first siege of Tobruk where Rommel was pushed back by the allies, he reformed and attacked again, taking Tobruk in 4 days and seeing the second largest surrender of British Army forces since Singapore. Seems a very important fact to miss though the initial hold out against the axis forces was brilliant, what eventually would stop Rommel would not be superior tactics from the British.
Hitler launched the invasion of Russia which meant Rommel was out of luck for any chance of reinforcement, meanwhile the Allies who held at El Alamein were being stocked up and supplied with massive amounts of new armour and weapons. Rommel was only pushed out of Africa by massive numerical superiority and even still, as he fought a fighting retreat he was destroying 2 tanks for every 1 he lost. That wasn't enough and his force was pushed back and eventually destroyed with the American entry into the war.
I don't think his reputation can be questioned, he wasn't defeated by his British counter part's genius or his own arrogance, it was simply being too outnumbered for his tactics to defy the odds. In all regards he was one of the absolute best Generals of the war and certainly earned his nickname as The Desert Fox
The video is biased for sure.
I'd love to see this channel and these commentators opinions on operation market garden.
No doubt the failure was simply bad luck again, American's didn't play along and so on and so forth.
Check your facts first. Trying to rewrite history when the facts are very clearly stupid. Your claim the of mass surrender was the axis forces they lost again.
@@stephenconnolly3018 Not exactly sure what point you're trying to make? I never claimed the axis didn't lose? They couldn't win, the Allies held important strongholds around the Med like Malta and Hitler’s genocide motivated invasion of Russia drained what was already a very unsustainable supply chain. Doesn't matter how good the general was, the Germans could never have held North Africa. I'm just pointing out that the video ends as if Tobruk held strong and was never taken and seems to imply this shows Rommel was not as good as he was made out to be, when in fact, Tobruk would fall within days to Rommel himself. Everything stated is factual
The second siege of Tobruk was a very different situation to the first.
1) The Australians were relieved by fresh forces in Tobruk
2) The British vastly outnumbered the Germans and thought they were on the offensive.
3) due to number 2 above, the defenses of Tobruk were run down and unprepared for an attack.
4) Rommel was handed a secret weapon to exploit - General dull, by the book Neil Ritchie, and Rommel exploited that weakness to its full potential.
Thanks for your clear analysis and the much needed clarification. I was really at some point confused at the deliberate misinformation narrative peddled by the documentary.
Rommel was a beast. You can't take anything away from him just by saying the Allies weren't prepared. That wasn't Rommel's fault. He fought the army in front of him. You can't blame him for exploiting the situation. You can't say his victories weren't great because his opponents made mistakes. Rommel's forces weren't that well supplied either. He just dealt with the situation better.
Yip!
@c0rn p0p He also benefitted from intercepting Bonners Fellers. Fellers's deciphered radiograms provided the Axis with detailed, extensive, and timely information about troop movements and equipment. Information from his messages alerted the Axis to British convoy operations in the Battle of the Mediterranean, including efforts to resupply the garrison of Malta.
In January 1942 information about numbers and the condition of British forces was provided in January 1942 information about numbers and the condition of British forces was provided to Rommel who could thus plan his operations with reliable knowledge of what the opposing forces were. The Germans referred to Fellers as die gute Quelle ("the good source"). Rommel referred to him as "the little fellow".
Rommel lost two times in Africa and once at Normandy which were major situations.
Not his fault at all. Hitler didn´t accepted Rommel´s plan to leave the Panzers near the French coast to repel the Allieds.@@toms9864
There is absolutely no question that Rommel was one the best generals of WW2 and nothing in this video disproves that. They also fail to mention that Operation Barbarossa became the German High Command's main focus in June of 1941. Rommel never received the men or supplies he needed. By contrast the British were receiving men and material from throughout their empire in addition to the vast quantities of supplies from America. Montgomery didn't dare attack Rommel until he had accumulated an overwhelming amount of men and material. No telling what would have happened had Rommel been properly supplied.
Rommel was one of the better practicioners of Guderian tactics.
The myth immediately falls apart if you look at his flaws, read what Erich Kuby wrote about him, he calls him an unscrupulous, cynical, ambitious and opportunist, he wasn't a saint either as people think, why was he promoted to general after a life as a colonel? Hitler hated the Prussian military caste and needed a general who was not Prussian, and who better than someone like Rommel, with a stagnant career, who had been able to fool him while he commanded his bodyguard? His flaws were 1) the lack of strategic vision, he did not understand anything about logistics, and 2) he was a reckless who took rash decisions, and we noticed it in El-Alamein:
instead of dedicating himself to the attack on Malta he set out to conquer Egypt with scarce means, weapons in shabby conditions, and a weak supply chain... The Italians and Germans had to fight like chained dogs due to Rommel's desire of adventure... The Folgore, instead of being parachuted on Malta, was sent to die in the desert...
If we honestly analyze the North African campaign we see that the much boasted AfrikaKorps in reality often had their asses saved by the Italians:
For example during Operation Crusader a lesser known Italian general, Gastone Gambara, after having received the reconaissance and intelligence reports decided on his own to put the Ariete in defensive position, and THIS is what stopped the British 2 days later, while Rommel asked himself "why don't the Italians attack?"...
And also Rommel argued with his superior, Ettore Bastico, he was strong and resolute, he knew the importance of logistics and the limitations. He wasn't afraid of publicly contradicting Rommel, and he was often correct (see Malta, Tobruk, El-Alamein...), while Rommel always did as he wanted, didn't listen to anyone, and in the end accused others of his defeat! Kesselring for example agreed with Bastico, since Rommel couldn't find anybody who agreed with him he went to talk to Hitler in person, an action that would have costed sanctions to any other general for having abandoned the front.
There were also many occasions in which Rommel communicated with the command without encrypting messages, which were intercepted by the British and basically revealed everything to the allies...
So Rommel was a great tactician, but he was blinded by his desire of adventure and underestimation of the enemy, his lack of strategic and logistical vision, and the lack of respect for his superiors eventually caused his demise. He was surpassed by less brilliant generals, then he was accused of having conspired against Hitler and at the end, humiliated, he eventually committed suicide...
@@MARK-gp9hb Well, we will just have to agree to disagree.
"There is absolutely no question that Rommel was one the best generals of WW2 "
Technically he was one of the worstes germal generals. His "private" battle in Africa wasted a lot of resources without any strategic benefit.
The german high command was aware of this but as the "great leader" Hitler also was bad in strategic thinking they could not stop the crazy Rommel in Africa.
My grandfather was in North Africa, we have his memoirs and its impossible to get across in a YT comment how hard everyone was fighting against Rommel and how panicked his advance made the British forces.
Great video
I am from Tobruk. My great grandmother was alive during the wars yet she didn’t even know there was a war on. She thought they were all Italians
K. No
I'd love to read his memoirs! Everyone who fought in North Africa were the real McCoys in my opinion, both German and Allies. Both sides fought so hard with so little, and there are so many stories of those guys doing the most outrageous acts of valor that makes the North African campaign my favorite to learn about.
My father was there too.
Yea Rommel had high praise for the Australians who fought him there and the Maouri's.. Big and weren't scared of hand to hand combat when charged his defences.
Surprised the Japanese also as they fought hand to hand a lot in the jungles when ran out of Ammo.. even took to strangling one another.
German war was nothing compared to them.
Rommel is a great general. If he had the resources, equipment and men like the allies. I would put money on him to win. He did well with what he had.
Better tanks, radio and artillery for sure!
Same can be said of the Italians, who actually did pretty well, all things considered. The units in North Africa with Rommel were much better equipped (though still not sufficiently) than the original Graziani army that got wiped out by the fully mechanised Brits under the brilliant O'Connor
The myth immediately falls apart if you look at his flaws, read what Erich Kuby wrote about him, he calls him an unscrupulous, cynical, ambitious and opportunist, he wasn't a saint either as people think, why was he promoted to general after a life as a colonel? Hitler hated the Prussian military caste and needed a general who was not Prussian, and who better than someone like Rommel, with a stagnant career, who had been able to fool him while he commanded his bodyguard? His flaws were 1) the lack of strategic vision, he did not understand anything about logistics, and 2) he was a reckless who took rash decisions, and we noticed it in El-Alamein:
instead of dedicating himself to the attack on Malta he set out to conquer Egypt with scarce means, weapons in shabby conditions, and a weak supply chain... The Italians and Germans had to fight like chained dogs due to Rommel's desire of adventure... The Folgore, instead of being parachuted on Malta, was sent to die in the desert...
If we honestly analyze the North African campaign we see that the much boasted AfrikaKorps in reality often had their asses saved by the Italians:
For example during Operation Crusader a lesser known Italian general, Gastone Gambara, after having received the reconaissance and intelligence reports decided on his own to put the Ariete in defensive position, and THIS is what stopped the British 2 days later, while Rommel asked himself "why don't the Italians attack?"...
And also Rommel argued with his superior, Ettore Bastico, he was strong and resolute, he knew the importance of logistics and the limitations. He wasn't afraid of publicly contradicting Rommel, and he was often correct (see Malta, Tobruk, El-Alamein...), while Rommel always did as he wanted, didn't listen to anyone, and in the end accused others of his defeat! Kesselring for example agreed with Bastico, since Rommel couldn't find anybody who agreed with him he went to talk to Hitler in person, an action that would have costed sanctions to any other general for having abandoned the front.
There were also many occasions in which Rommel communicated with the command without encrypting messages, which were intercepted by the British and basically revealed everything to the allies...
So Rommel was a great tactician, but he was blinded by his desire of adventure and underestimation of the enemy, his lack of strategic and logistical vision, and the lack of respect for his superiors eventually caused his demise. He was surpassed by less brilliant generals, then he was accused of having conspired against Hitler and at the end, humiliated, he eventually committed suicide...
@@MARK-gp9hb spot on. Have read similar material to you, I suspect, and I agree with that assessment.
@@MARK-gp9hb I believe part of Rommel's supply problems was the infrastructure of Africa itself. When the British advanced against the Germans, the British ran into supply problems when they advanced for too far as well due to the nature of the area they are fighting in.
Rommel was a seasoned Infantry officer from WWI. His exploits during that era were equally, if not more impressive and they alone could earn him the title of a "fox". He had a knack for feeling the state of mind that his enemies were in, and exploiting it to the full.
The myth immediately falls apart if you look at his flaws, read what Erich Kuby wrote about him, he calls him an unscrupulous, cynical, ambitious and opportunist, he wasn't a saint either as people think, why was he promoted to general after a life as a colonel? Hitler hated the Prussian military caste and needed a general who was not Prussian, and who better than someone like Rommel, with a stagnant career, who had been able to fool him while he commanded his bodyguard? His flaws were 1) the lack of strategic vision, he did not understand anything about logistics, and 2) he was a reckless who took rash decisions, and we noticed it in El-Alamein:
instead of dedicating himself to the attack on Malta he set out to conquer Egypt with scarce means, weapons in shabby conditions, and a weak supply chain... The Italians and Germans had to fight like chained dogs due to Rommel's desire of adventure... The Folgore, instead of being parachuted on Malta, was sent to die in the desert...
If we honestly analyze the North African campaign we see that the much boasted AfrikaKorps in reality often had their asses saved by the Italians:
For example during Operation Crusader a lesser known Italian general, Gastone Gambara, after having received the reconaissance and intelligence reports decided on his own to put the Ariete in defensive position, and THIS is what stopped the British 2 days later, while Rommel asked himself "why don't the Italians attack?"...
And also Rommel argued with his superior, Ettore Bastico, he was strong and resolute, he knew the importance of logistics and the limitations. He wasn't afraid of publicly contradicting Rommel, and he was often correct (see Malta, Tobruk, El-Alamein...), while Rommel always did as he wanted, didn't listen to anyone, and in the end accused others of his defeat! Kesselring for example agreed with Bastico, since Rommel couldn't find anybody who agreed with him he went to talk to Hitler in person, an action that would have costed sanctions to any other general for having abandoned the front.
There were also many occasions in which Rommel communicated with the command without encrypting messages, which were intercepted by the British and basically revealed everything to the allies...
So Rommel was a great tactician, but he was blinded by his desire of adventure and underestimation of the enemy, his lack of strategic and logistical vision, and the lack of respect for his superiors eventually caused his demise. He was surpassed by less brilliant generals, then he was accused of having conspired against Hitler and at the end, humiliated, he eventually committed suicide...
@@MARK-gp9hb Interesting viewpoint. I haven't studied as much as you to agree or disagree with you. If what you say is true, and judging by the way he fought there is a great probability that it is, Rommel was like other increibly skilled tacticians who were driven by ambition, desire for adventure or glory but failing on other aspects of warfare, in the end didn't leave a print on History as large as the myth they left behind. Examples I can think of are Alexander the Great and Hannibal, especially the latter. Napoleon also shares such traits but he was a different beast altogether. That said, he took tremendous risks on the logistical aspect of warfare and paid for it in the 1812 campaign against Russia.
@@MotoGreciaMarios yes i don't think its right to compare Rommel with people like Napoleon and Alexander or Hannibal who were in different positions and with different resources, that's why i compare him to his fellow generals
I think you're missing the bigger point- Rommel DID capture Tobruk and carried the fight against the British into Egypt and very nearly reached Cairo.
The myth immediately falls apart if you look at his flaws, read what Erich Kuby wrote about him, he calls him an unscrupulous, cynical, ambitious and opportunist, he wasn't a saint either as people think, why was he promoted to general after a life as a colonel? Hitler hated the Prussian military caste and needed a general who was not Prussian, and who better than someone like Rommel, with a stagnant career, who had been able to fool him while he commanded his bodyguard? His flaws were 1) the lack of strategic vision, he did not understand anything about logistics, and 2) he was a reckless who took rash decisions, and we noticed it in El-Alamein:
instead of dedicating himself to the attack on Malta he set out to conquer Egypt with scarce means, weapons in shabby conditions, and a weak supply chain... The Italians and Germans had to fight like chained dogs due to Rommel's desire of adventure... The Folgore, instead of being parachuted on Malta, was sent to die in the desert...
If we honestly analyze the North African campaign we see that the much boasted AfrikaKorps in reality often had their asses saved by the Italians:
For example during Operation Crusader a lesser known Italian general, Gastone Gambara, after having received the reconaissance and intelligence reports decided on his own to put the Ariete in defensive position, and THIS is what stopped the British 2 days later, while Rommel asked himself "why don't the Italians attack?"...
And also Rommel argued with his superior, Ettore Bastico, he was strong and resolute, he knew the importance of logistics and the limitations. He wasn't afraid of publicly contradicting Rommel, and he was often correct (see Malta, Tobruk, El-Alamein...), while Rommel always did as he wanted, didn't listen to anyone, and in the end accused others of his defeat! Kesselring for example agreed with Bastico, since Rommel couldn't find anybody who agreed with him he went to talk to Hitler in person, an action that would have costed sanctions to any other general for having abandoned the front.
There were also many occasions in which Rommel communicated with the command without encrypting messages, which were intercepted by the British and basically revealed everything to the allies...
So Rommel was a great tactician, but he was blinded by his desire of adventure and underestimation of the enemy, his lack of strategic and logistical vision, and the lack of respect for his superiors eventually caused his demise. He was surpassed by less brilliant generals, then he was accused of having conspired against Hitler and at the end, humiliated, he eventually committed suicide...
and he only managed to do it because the British took away troops to send them to Greece...
wrong. they were at their limit of logistics at El Alamein and under air attacks. it probably led to Axis defeat in North Africa much earlier
In Australia, the Australian forces are known as The Rats of Tobruk. It's one of the proudest moments in Australian military history holding off the desert fox.
You mean the desert rats held off the desert fox.
Two main reasons for his spectacular early success. Firstly he was getting information from the successful cracking of a code, detailed daily reports of British positions and tactics were sent using this code. Secondly the specialist signals intelligence unit mentioned in the video was captured in a surprise ambush. This capture robbed him of this intelligence but also gave the allied forces a lot of intelligence on the activities of this unit. The changing of codes and loss of his SIGINT force took away the main factors which gave him his early successes.
My grandpa was at Tobruk during the first siege. Amongst other things he was responsible for the welfare of East African troops who arrived as reinforcements by ship. He was very fond of them and was deeply upset when one of them fell from a scramble net wearing his full kit and was drowned while the harbour was being dive bombed by the Luftwaffe.
I can heartily recommend a series of three books by Barrie Pitt called The Crucible of War with each book following the desert war under one of the three main Allied Commanders, Wavell, Auchinleck and Montgomery. It's an incredible read and does a great job of breaking down the entire desert war into readable sections without it seeming dry and boring, lol. It does show that Rommel would have easily won if he had got the supplies he kept asking for but which his Italian overseers and even Hitler, who had bigger problems at the time, refused to send.
or which the Allies were able to intercept due to code breaking.
@@peterkerr4019 Oh definitely. The Allies sinking what few supplies they did send him only made his job harder. I suppose it shows just how good a general he was that he could do so much with so little.
One of the biggest mistakes German high command ever made was sending a commander like Romme to North Africa and telling him to defend without telling him about Barbarossa
And also, the German forces could’t take Malta and Rommel had to rely on an extensive supply chain
they did not refused the problem was that the high command for the african campaign was in rome, and from rome all informations were delivered to the uk, thats why they had low supplies.
you mentioned 3 english books, i want to add the book "Wüstenfüchse" by Paul Carrell its a german book about that campaign, with informations from thousands combatants english and german soldiers...
RIP to my Grandfather, he was in the British tank core of North Africa and survived. Also saw his best friend get his head blown off right next to him. One/Some of the iron men 🇬🇧
I read about Rommel when he was a young officer. He was commissioned into the infantry in 1911. When WWI broke out he fought the first battles in France, as he gained more experience in combat in the trenches. His commanders noted his aggressiveness by leading a leader's recon with his key NCOs before any attack to locate the enemy and locate them then return to brief his platoon to plan his tactics and execute. His commanders recommended him to be in the elite Gebergsjager the mountain infantry. He was transferred to Austria with his mountain unit to help the Austro-Hungarians fight the Italians and Romanians. He was a first class officer and leader by doing leader's recon before any offensive. His soldiers and NCOs loved him because they would go into combat successfully under his leadership because he located the enemy and observed them and timed his attacks meticulously. The man took risks and was crazy from his soldiers and his commanders, but he was well loved by his men. After the war during the 20s and 30s he was still in the mountain infantry which was any European army's elite light infantry. That's why he is so daring and bold as a commander. He used his experience from WWI as being aggressive when commanding the 7th Panzer Division during the invasion of France. He understood his equipment, weapons and his soldiers under his command. Given a direction of attack he exercised his initiative and crushed the French in front of him. His enemies made him a legend.
Gebirgsjäger
@@minimax9452 👍 Spell check.
Rommel was the "Desert Fox". Throughout the western desert campaign he was outnumbered, outgunned and outsupplied by the allies, but still ran rings around them. Yes the Aussies held him off at Tobruk in 1941, but the following year he took the city and inflicted a series of disasters on the British Commonwealth forces. In fact my dad was captured at the time of the "Gazala battles" and spent the rest of the war as a POW. Surrounded at the "Cauldron" without hope, Rommel managed to slip out under the noses of the British to fight another day. Why was Rommel so successful? Because he was a technician with the mind of an engineer for solving problems. He like many others in the German army understood the principles of combined arms warfare, how to command, control and co-ordinate all the different teeth arms to achieve victory where and when it mattered. He was also adept at collecting signals intelligence from his enemies, and in husbanding his extremely limited resources. All these principles already implemented by the Germans were gradually learnt by the allies during and after the war and formed the basis of how modern armies operated in the following era. The problem the British had in those days was that their officer corps was made up of decadent hooray Henries with degrees in history and classics who did not understand the engineer's battlefield of the mid-20th century. They do now, they learnt the hard way.
German has really the best war tacticians in ww2
This probably isn't going to go down well, but I'm going to try and give an alternative perspective on some of these claims here. Starting with the 'outnumbered, outgunned and outsupplied' thing, throughout the war, in terms of large advances, it was almost always the side with more men/supplies who were victorious with a bias towards attacking forces. So, outnumbered? Not really until the Americans arrived and it was nearly over. Outgunned? In some areas but not others. Outsupplied? Over the course of the war, maybe, but certainly not when he was performing big offensive pushes, not even the best general can create food, ammo and fuel from nothing. By 'slip away', I presume you mean flee to Europe after being defeated, let's not dress that up.
The idea that the Germans and only the Germans knew combined arms warfare is completely false, British military minds were writing of it in 1916 and yet both sides made mistakes in its application, sending tanks in with insufficient support or not coordinating properly.
The idea that Rommel had greater intelligence gathering, the British had Enigma cracked and one of the best information networks of the time, it just wasn't as focused in North Africe, instead dealing with the Atlantic, but they were still able to launch several surprise attacks and keep things secret from the Germans.
Husbanded limited resources, he had hundreds of thousands of men and tens of thousands of vehicles at his disposal with a shorter supply oversea than the allies, though the allies has some better land routes. He was not that poorly done by.
Also the idea that British officers were bad/useless is not only fairly insulting to the men who served, but also largely unfounded given the general professionalism of the British army and the efficacy of its individual units even when let down by errors in grand strategy.
None of this is to say Rommel was incompetent, he wasn't, but please don't just believe Nazi propaganda when it says he was an unparalleled genius with no equal when he was outwitted/beaten multiple times by multiple different commanders among the allies.
Look up campaign maps of North Africa through the years and see the lines shift rather than focusing on the big history talking points.
Look at operational strengths for armies that take part in certain actions, it paints a much different view than sensationalised documentaries.
And above all, don't trust propaganda. Think about the motivations behind any source from the time and why they might want to lie to you.
@@HekateArgentumLuna Sorry., my comment was based on a detailed study of the facts, yours is just subjective bias and opinion. Go and talk to a historian who is an expert on the western desert campaign, or even go and research the detail yourself. My comment about slipping away referred to his escape from the Cauldron in early June 1942. My father served under the British at this time in the western desert as part of British Commonwealth forces, and also passed on his personal observations of the campaign and its leadership at the time of the Gazala battles to me.
@@HekateArgentumLuna I'm reading James Holland's books on WWII. He looks at Rommel not being infallible and the ebb and flow of the North Africa campaigns. He would often not follow orders and stretch supply lines to breaking point. My dad was in Cairo/Egypt around the time of these campaigns. He couldn't sleep without a nightlight for years after the war.
@@bhangrafan4480 If you have sources that comprehensively disprove everything I said, I am more than willing to read them. I have read multiple sources and watched several different video essays, my comments were an attempt to balance views, not to start an argument.
The one point of mine you have countered is about the cauldron escape, and that was a misunderstanding on my part, the rest you write off as 'subjective bias and opinion' without countering it. This is poor form in any debate and I would strongly discourage it, it makes you seem dismissive and not able to back up your points.
Whilst I am sure your father would have been a very interesting source to hear from, I am not sure how their perspective objectively disproves anything I said.
Personal accounts, whilst interesting, are not the be-all end-all, for example, my grandfather served in a supply/support role during WW2 and ended up in Berlin by the end of the war, what was for other soldiers a hellish slog through mortal danger and personal tragedy was to him a slow trip through Europe with several delays where he never even saw a German soldier. Individual experiences vary massively in a conflict this large and should not be taken as definitive.
Please remember, I am not calling Rommel incompetent, I am simply saying his reputation has been overblown by over-dramatic documentaries and Nazi propaganda, as has most of the German military's from this period.
Love your work 👍
My uncle Harold ( 8th army) always spoke highly of Rommel, and of the Axis forces in general. Something about the desert campaign that led to the lack of hatred between combatants' that was usually the norm in other theaters.
To be frank, it was probably the lack of opportunity for war crimes.
My father [8th army] always said the same. He and his men (all Jewish) always respected Rommel.
Absolutely love the content the IWM continues to put out, keep it up team!
👍
IWM content is misleading.
Rommel was God. If in doubt, attack. The first rule of every successful commander. The British tagged along with the Yanks, and the Red Army did the hard lifting. Everyone knows that.
Yes you explained why he earnt his Desert Fox nickname.
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Excellent and Outstanding!!!
The 9th AIF Div were raw troops who had never seen combat. Were used to garrison sites captured by other AIF, till Tobruk. The deciding factor was their CO. A student of war, he knew defence required offensive actions. Italians held Tobruk for three days, AIF for 7 months then Sth Africans for 3 days. Tells u everything. One man made all the difference.
Remember it was the Africa Corp not Army. Rommel never had an army just a corp. Yet he still almost drove a vastly superior British army out of Africa. By the time Monty took over the British held huge advantages in men, tanks, planes, and especially fuel. Also the British had Ultra letting them know where Rommel was going to attack and were ready for him. So considering all of his liabilities Rommel did quite well.
Don't let the revisionists rewrite Rommel's history. He kicked the British all over the desert. He was a brilliant tactician. Deserved every ounce of his name.
"Yet he still almost drove a vastly superior British army out of Africa." -- He really didn't. The only time he came close to Alexandria, his army was completely exhausted and had no chance of defeating the newly reinforced and well supplied 8th Army.
Rommel had been commander of Panzer Group Africa since September 1, 1941. In September 1943 he became commander of Army Group Africa, otherwise he would never have become a field marshal. So technically he commanded both an army and an army group.
@@redtobertshateshandles Rommel lost every major battle he fought, except for one - Gazala - where he had complete Allied plans and deployments handed to him, courtesy of Bonner Fellers.
The apologists for Rommel are quick to make excuses, he was sick, there was a sandstorm, he was outnumbered, etc, etc.
No such courtesy is given to the Allies.
Yet even if we just count the 5 major battles where Rommel had greater or equal forces than the Allies, the genius Rommel still managed to lose 4 out of the 5.
1. Assault on Tobruk
2. Crusader
3. Gazala
4. Alam Halfa
5. Medenine
I thought it was the Australians with General 'Ming the merciless' Morsehead were the first to stop the German blitzkrieg at Tobruk ,but not a word here.Apparently it was the British.( mentioned about 20 times)
British Commonwealth
no no no it was the americans who won the war !!!!!
Yup, disappointing in the extreme that it was the IWM itself that put this out. Opinion drastically reduced for any impartiality.
"The Rats of Tobruk" - We will remember them!
@@kieranororke620 ANZAC. It seems the propaganda is still strong. Just remember it was the British that lost Tobruk after the 9th division withdrew.
7.25 The unit’s nomenclature initially was 3rd Company attached to the 56th Signals Battalion. (It did not become the 621st until April 1942, in a move aimed at deceiving the British.)
Rommel had access to British dispositions via an Italian Agent within the American embassy in Cairo. Once security was improved and the intelligence source was cut off, the fortunes of the Afrika Korps diminished significantly.
Fenner Bonner. An American .
@@johnburns4017 Certainly working for the Italians though. The Italians passed on information to Germany and it was passed to Rommel.
@@noonsight2010
Yep. Bonner was suspected then the leak was plugged. The Americans did nothing to him.
So true
Yeah there was an old saying the Germans stopped being as effective against the British once the Americans stopped passing them secrets
Yes, he was a genius general. He did so much with so few resources. With more resources, he would have taken Egypt and beyond.
When Hitler decided to invade Russia Rommel lost his supply source. His retreat was ingenious.
I have seen in great detail all of the North Africa campaigns, and i can tell you Rommel was not a genius, not by a long shot.
He was a competent general only, who was handed opportunities to win like a genius because of the incompetence of the British commanders.
I have always wondered how well Rommel would have done if he had faced a British commander who was moderately capable of thinking on his feet? I think today he would be a forgotten footnote like his one time commander General Garibaldi.
@@mystikmind2005 then who is the most genious general? Model? Manstein? Guderian?
@@AR-rg2en Thats a good question actually? ... if i had a better memory i could answer you easily... but just off the top of my head i might say Admiral Yi Sun-sin.
The difficulty in finding the most genius general is that it depends on the constancy of success, but more importantly it depends on the quality of the opposing commanders... (and this is the reason i could not rate Rommel very highly)
@@mystikmind2005 judging by your choice you must be Korean. I was referring to the most genious WW2 general specifically if you paid attention the context of my comment. I think it must be Manstein. If I'm not wrong, he devised the plans for the invasion of France, a super power itself. He did his best and dealt heavy damages in the Eastern front against competent generals like Zhukov. Even at loss, he still managed to deal heavy damages in Kursk.
Thank you
Rommel got excellent intelligence from November 1941 to June 1942 by the interception of messages sent by the US Military Liaison, Col Bonner Fellers, to Washington DC every evening. The reports contained detailed movements and battle plans of the British 8th Army. In short Rommel knew what the British were doing before the orders were dispatched to the British troops. The British realized the US codes had been compromised in June 1942 and they were changed. After this Rommel never won another battle, but the damage that had been done was so great details were kept top secret until 1995.
I am pretty sure who Mersa Matruh was after that. Yet Rommel have some intelligence, not so much, while the Allies normally have the upper hand with the Ultra code being desifrated, they only managed to score victories.
That is a TRUE summary of the Myth. Skill is one thing but without the full information of what your opponent is doing you are not a ‘Fox’.
May you give the sources
@@clemmonkaufmann1489 Look up the name Colonel Bonner Fellers, all the information is online
@@omarbradley6807 The information Rommel received was first hand and could be acted on at once. Ultra was more general with strategic information rather than tactical
Like a lot of German/Prussian Generals, Rommel was an amazing battlefield commander and expert at maneuver warfare, but didn’t always see the larger picture. I’m not sure I’d want him in charge of a front, or part of an Army Group that had to coordinate with nearby forces. German General always played down the importance of logistics, partially out of necessity and partially out of culture. In North Africa his could have achieved much more for the overall war effort by trying down Allied armies, rather than try to chase the British out of Egypt. Prior to D-Day, I think his plan for dealing with Allied landings in Norther France was better than von Rundstedt came up with.
The Italians stole, photographed and returned undetected an America cypher from the US embassy in Rome. The cypher was in use by an American officer Bonner Frank Fellers (February 7, 1896 - October 7, 1973) who was a US Army officer attached as an observer to the 8th army in1940. He is notable as the military attaché in Egypt whose extensive transmissions using the compromised cypher to send detailed British tactical information which was intercepted by Axis agents and passed to German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel for over six months, which contributed to disastrous British defeats at Gazala and Tobruk in June 1942. Without that crucial information, Rommel would not have looked so good
Exactly, I wondered why they didn´t mention that. Probably because it would not look so good for the britts...
@@noahwail2444 For the Brits? It was a United States military attache code.
@@noahwail2444 Well not really because it was an American cypher that was compromised.
But the British thought they had a traitor. I believe some sort of patrol captured a German field signals unit and the 'traitor' was found. After that the Germans were blind and soon on the run
@@mrobserver474 Yes, I didn´t put it right. But the Britts suspected there was a leak, and yet kept giving away their innermost secrets to the americans, without checking out if it was there it was. It would have been easy to plant some false information, and see if Romel reakted to it.
@@noahwail2444 The British probably considered it but the diplomatic situation prevented them from addressing it. This was prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbour . The British wanted the US to join them so send false information might have been counterproductive to that aim which of became superfluous on December 7th 1941
Thank God for the Australians!!!
of course
@@SunnieSnell uuuu
@@SunnieSnell uuiuuuiuuuuuuuuiu
What do you call Erwin Rommel's highly-trained kitchen staff?
The Paprika Korps
High quality you tube output
Also a tremendous Museum is the IWM in south London
October 1940 Major Bonner Fellers was appointed Military Attaché at the US Embassy in Egypt…..given full access to British military information…..and reported back to Washington daily using a radio code which the Germans were reading. It was this intelligence upon which Rommel made his decisions. He wasn’t a “fox” , he knew exactly where the British units were located and what they comprised. It was a walkover. Only when this US code was changed , after Enigma decrypts pointed to the source, around the time of the rapid retreat to Alamein, did Rommel become blind.
I’m disappointed that the Imperial War Museum do not cover this.
Dear IWM video team, thank you. That was excellent. Best wishes, John
this is a really good video. it is very well made. the pictures and the overall style and how it is presented is really marvelous. this is the first video i found which metioned that rommels forces where able to catch two british generals.
but i very much disagree with the conculsion that rommel bacame the "desert fox" only because everybody was ok with it.
i believe rommel was a fox on any battlefield, not only in the desert, because he allmost allways used various tricks to win his battles. some examples: the germans used telefone poles to mimic 8.8cm flak batterys. rommel used various techniques to make his army look bigger from a distance. one of rommels famous tactics was to draw enemys tanks in front of his 8.8cm flak bartterys. believe it or not, rommel HIMSELF sat behind the wheel of his own kübelwagen to draw british tanks in front of his guns. (this story was told by a AC Veteran. the interview is available on youtube, but only in german language)
the british press named rommel a desert fox, because he was a smart leader.
The Australian fortress commander at Tobruk, General Leslie Morshead's first order was that there would be no more retreating, no more withdrawal. The men at Tobruk would stand and fight. Morshead insisted on aggressive patrolling which led the garrison to dominate No Man's Land. The Axis forces never knew when a patrol might fall on them.
The book by Chester Wilmot titled Tobruk written while he personally there detailed the defense lead by Gen. Morshead. They held fast until the relief came nearly six months. The Australian 9th division stayed there until the British counter attack reached them. They drove what was left of the German/Italian army all the back to Benghazi. Rommel received more troops and counter attacked, when he got back to Tobruk he took it in four days. The defence was just not the same without Morshead and the 9th.
@@alexromanov5738 These same men, under the same leader, broke the German line at 2nd Alamein - the decisive action that turned the 2nd Battle of El Alamein in favour of the British. This was acknowledged at the time and later both by Churchill and General Alexander.
The 9th Division's break-in at Alamein drew the German armoured reserve north and allowed the forces in the south to renew their assault, resulting in victory. Sadly, many historians today downplay the 9th Australian Divi's achievement at Alamein. Some argue that the N.Z. Divi under Freyberg were the best in the Western Desert but for me it was the 9th under Morshead.
Very right you are. Morshead and Monash, my two most, most respected Aussie generals. Both I studied at OCS.
According to my father [8th army], the Ghurkas who were there with the Aussies were 'fantastic'. They would go out at night to raid the german lines with only their kukri knives - no rifles. But in the morning they'd return carrying german rifles.
Simply YYYEEEEESSSSS....
I thank you for this video!
This whole situation in Tobruk can be summed up by the great general Sun Tzu who wrote 'The Art Of War'. He warned that as victory approaches ”*never* press a desperate foe too hard”. By this he meant that even a weakened and destoyed enemy will be dangerous when he has nowhere left to run and will fight like a cornered animal.
I Hope 2nd video will be out soon
"The Prime Minister in his recent speech paid a generous tribute to the way in which our great Ally America 241 had come to our help when our need was so great after the retreat from Libya this summer. He mentioned that he had visited many of the units which were going to receive the new American munitions. I had an opportunity a few weeks after his visit of seeing some of those units, and I can say that the effect produced on them by getting these new weapons was tremendous."
Hansard Debate on the Address HC 17 November 1942
"As for the American tanks-the admirable Shermans-they came to us in the following way, On that dark day when the news of the fall of Tobruk (June 42) came in, I was with President Roosevelt in his room at the White House. The House knows how bitter a blow this was. But nothing could have exceeded the delicacy and kindness of our American friends and Allies. They had no thought but to help. Their very best tanks-the Shermans-were just coming out of the factories. The first batch had been newly placed in the hands of their divisions who had been waiting for them and looking forward to receiving them. The President took a large number of these tanks back from the troops to whom they had just been given. They were placed on board ship in the early days of July and they sailed direct to Suez under American escort for a considerable part of the voyage. 22 The President also sent us a large number of self-propelled 105 mm. guns, which are most useful weapons for contending with the 88 mm. high velocity guns, of which the Germans have made so much use. One ship in this convoy-this precious convoy-was sunk by a U-boat, but immediately, without being asked, the United States replaced it with another ship carrying an equal number of these weapons. All these tanks and high velocity guns played a recognisable part, indeed an important part, in General Alexander's battle."
Hansard Debate on the address HC Deb 11 November 1942
rommel was great at improvising. he was more dynamic than the majority of the british generals. he also had another great advantage in his troops, most of whom were more experienced and had better equipment and tactics. the british took much longer to begin to equal the germans. the major problem for both sides, but far more for the germans, was logistics, for which malta had a great deal to do with rommel's shortages. when rommel planned any major operations, he showed he was not real good at that. the battle of gazala showed both sides of him. the initial plan was not very good and he ran into trouble quickly, but he made some unexpected moves, especially falling back into a defensive position in british minefields, and chewing up the 8th army with his defensive weapons, particularly his anti-tank guns. he then launched his forces forward into an advance that ended at el alamein.
Thanks for the vid. Always great.
Rommel 's biggest mistake was stretching his supply line too far.
The British gave ground to make him stretch his supply lines to critical levels then started their counteroffensive.
With Americans at his rear and the British stopping and holding the line at El Alamein, Rommel was screwed.
He had very good intel from 2 main sources, as soon as they were broken so was he.
The British had pushed back a much larger Italian army in North Africa themselves.
With major advantage at sea, in the Med, The British always could get in more supply/new men/new materials etc easier than tehg Italians. At elast outside Tripolis harbour...
And the British had much shorter supply lines.
I still haven’t grasped the wisdom behind diverting troops to Greece when they were badly needed in North Africa.
It was more a political decision than a military one. They were trying to show their support for the Greeks. Admirable I suppose, but since the Greeks didn't really have a chance you are right that it was a wasted effort.
@@Historylover-ho6lg It was Dunkirk all over again
@@Lazbotable Sad, but true.
when having access to enemy codes backfires; when the enemy disobeys orders from higher command.
I love the ww2 videos you should do more
Just to clarify who defeated the Germans and Italians at Tobruk. Between April and August 1941 around 14,000 Australian soldiers were besieged in Tobruk by a German-Italian army commanded by General Erwin Rommel. The garrison, commanded by Lieutenant General Leslie Morshead (an Australian) consisted of the 9th Australian Division (20th, 24th, and 26th Brigades), the 18th Brigade of the 7th Australian Division, along with four regiments of British artillery and some Indian troops. So please drop all this "British" stuff.
"Commonwealth"
In August they were reinforced by the Polish Independent Carpathian Brigade and the Czechoslovak 11th Infantry Battalion
lame comment
But its the aussies that dont mention the British and indian troops that were there lol
I would love to see more videos on the North African campaign
I happily retract my comment and stand corrected.
Thank you .
I agree with your correction, between April and August 1941 around 14,000 Australian soldiers were besieged in Tobruk. I doubt any of them thought of themselves as Brits. Do bear in mind, the 9th Australian Division, were supported by British tanks and artillery. At the time they were (Australian) Diggers a nickname given them by the (British) Tommies. IWM take on it, is revisionism, at best; unfortunately the IWM has a very twisted view of the past, Rose-tinted glasses perhaps.
I've just finished reading Tobruk by Peter Fitzsimons (an excellent read) & there were British artillery & anti tank guns in Tobruk. Both the British & Australians respected each other for their actions. Also, Indian troops were present & very effective outside the wire in the dead of night. There were also Polish troops brought in shortly before the Aussies (but not the Pommies) were withdrawn, whose hatred for the Germans was extremely high.
Hey "mate" just under half the garrison were Australian. The RN lost plenty of ships in resupply and so did the RAF incur losses. British gunners played a huge roll in that defence. By the way to give it context Australians saw them selves as Brits in that era. Nothing to do with your Australian republican chip.
I missed any slight against troop origins. I heard Commonwealth a few times. As a Kiwi I'm happy with that. We were and are part of the British Commonwealth. A few days ago I watched as our Queen celebrated her 70th Jubilee. Not the British Queen, but rather, Our.
It's a fifteen minute video. Not everyone is going to get recognised as they might wish.
@@dulls8475 My dad was in the 18th Australian Infantry Brigade (7th Australian Division). Yes. They did respect, to a degree, Rommel. The 18th Brigade was raised by Leslie Moreshead. Subsequently the 9th Division 's GOC. Their respect for Ming was light years ahead of that for Rommel.
Ming out thought and out fought Rommel.
During the First World War, Rommel was a lieutenant. Moreshead a Lieutenant Colonel .
Rommel came close to losing the Seventh Panzer. When the 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf broke at Arras.
Subsequent to North Africa he lost the confidence of his mate Hitler.
Rommel was a self promoting mediocre general.
He died. And that saved his reputation. 🇦🇺🐨🇦🇺
Tobruk was an Allied success. Czech, Poles, Indians and UK troops. Admirably supported by the Scrap Iron Flotilla. And other naval units.
"Ironically, one of the reasons for his towering reputation was due to his opponents. While most enemy generals had only ever received short shrift from British leaders, the British built up a myth around this man as a 'genius'. Churchill even went so far as to name him in the House of Commons."
BBC Rommel in the Desert page
They weren't reading the High Command communications with Enigma that's a German Morse Code encoding machine. They were reading the High Commands communications as the Lorenz wireless teletype traffic was being cracked by Colossus. The picture is of a Colossus machine.
A good general has to be able to move his pieces on a three dimensional chess board. Tobruk was a tough nut to crack. He didn’t have the resources necessary.
He managed to take it with ease when British troops replaced Commonwealth troops.
@@Poliss95 He should never have been able to break Gazala on the first place, neither take Tobruk on the second place, but he was a superior strategists, he was buged into a problem in the first attempt, now he knew how to do it.
What you probably don't know, it was Rommel, whom has taken France and pushed the Alied troops in to Dunkirk. And stopped, giving the British time to evacuate their troops. He could have killed or captured all of them. Rommel, was old school, he had integrity !!!
Rommel with half the resources of the Allies won Germans a famous victory. The man deserves all the respect.
He WASN’T short of resources where and when it mattered.
Besides, gauging your resources is something a good General does. Starting a campaign KNOWING that you were not going to have the wherewithal to finish it, is NOT something that a good Commander does.
He was told. He went ahead anyway.
He WASN’T short of resources where and when it mattered.
Besides, gauging your resources is something a good General does. Starting a campaign KNOWING that you were not going to have the wherewithal to finish it, is NOT something that a good Commander does.
He was told. He went ahead anyway.
@@peterwebb8732 He WASN’T short of resources where and when it mattered.
Besides, blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla
Yea thats your comment.
Not enough credit is given to general morsehead for his brilliant defence of toubruk and showing the limitations of blitzing.
It was true at nearly every stage of the war on every front that the only times the Germans were beaten is when they had a grossly inferior military situation. While contrary to that, almost all of their victories were won against more numerous foes fighting on home soil.
The US Ambassador in Egypt, Malcolm Kirk, was privy to British war plans and was informed about any offensive. He then dutifully informed his superiors in Washington via coded messages.
One night, when Kirk was at a diplomatic party gathering, German agents broke into his safe, photographed all the document - including codebooks - and returned everything back like nothing happened.
When he dutifully sent messages about British plans, the Germans where now able to read them.
This was the real secret of Rommel's success.
This only stopped when the British themselves broke the US code, and convinced the Americans that since they were able to do it, the Germans could also. The US then changed their code and Rommel's advantage disappeared.
This was before the battles of El Alamein.
Rommel saw Mussolini on that horse with that sad looking sword, and thought… he should help that boy out.
True story.
This video is the first to mention the 'extraordinary' radio interception capability of the Germans in N. Africa.
Desert fox sounds like a fictional movie character
Rommel knows the drill... keep moving.
I mean, yes, the British certainly were instrumental in turning him back, but the Aussies are the ones that stopped him taking it. They were only supposed to have to hold it for 8 weeks, but they ended up holding it for 5 months.
Well it was about time the Aussies pulled their weight seeing as their greatest claim to fame by that point was getting their backsides handed to them by Turkish farmers at Gallipoli..
@@aa-up4sf ... Okay. The British committed 7 times as many ground forces as the Aussies in that campaign. The commanders of the various units were almost all British, including Winston Churchill, and the intelligence about the Turkish positions was gathered by British, and French spies. Not to mention the fact that the Turkish forces had better tactics, and knowledge of the terrain, and they were largely a professional army, not farmers. I'm not entirely sure why the hate for the Aussies, unless you're British, and you're upset that another colony decided they didn't want to pay British taxes and get press ganged into wars they live thousands of miles away from.
Some or many of your videos including this one has lower volume... Kindly republish it after fixing
One thing about Rommel's appointment that was perhaps not so brilliant is that his Italians allies probably didn't appreciate working with a guy who was awarded the Pour Le Merit for killing Italians in WWI.
Also, the Italians wanted to take Malta, which was the linchpin of the Allied effort in North Africa, but the Germans wouldn't go along with it because they had suffered such great airborne losses during the battle of Crete.
When did Rommel lose his spy informant? I saw it presented somewhere on the Tubes, about a British turncoat, or something, and until they lost him, he was unstoppable, but after the Allies caught or killed the guy, Rommel was as blind as the rest of the Axis Armies. In war, once intel fails, its difficult to keep up the game...
That last quote is from a 1990 book I wrote about high school football. I was the coach for one game, How I could I know that I couldn't trip the other teams half back as he ripped up the sidelines... I did it three times. The other teams entire O line beat the pants off me a few days later... My son was one of them.
I think you're referring to the US military attache in Egypt - Colonel Bonner Fellers. He sent detailed reports back to the US that also ended up with the Italians and Rommel, as the Italians had a copy of the American code cypher. He was known as 'the good source' by Rommel. But this source of information stopped stopped in June '42, I believe because the American cypher changed.
If you read a post by bill ballbuster a few above yours it explains in more detail.
I also read about the so called British turncoat, it was more the result of a British majors association with an Egyptian female who was suppling info to the Nazi spyring in Cairo. The British major ended up committing suicide in combat by charging into the German lines and was thus KIA
@@stillettoRebel Thanks.
Rommel the dessert fox and commander of the Phantom division
Rommel had an advantage at first in large part because he could rely on the inherent advantages of the German Army over the British. It was organizationally and tactically more advanced, with combined arms and mobility doctrines that surpassed the British early on. In some ways, the British continued to think in terms of WW1 positional warfare.
Gradually, the German advantages faded away, and the British got better. The German logistical situation, always barely minimal to begin with, got worse, and the British logistical situation became stronger and stronger, especially with the backing of the U.S.
I think you mean “inherent” rather than inert
Radios in tanks were key especially in the desert.
@@darbyheavey406 You are absolutely correct! Thanks for the catch!
« The desert fox » this nickname slaps coming straight from a One piece/Fullmetal character
Imagine how good of a read it would've been if some of the Nazi leaders were given a chance to write an autobiography about the war from their perspective.
If Rommel was an allied commander than God knows how much more popular would the Desery fox be.....Just imagine the amount of supplies and man power if he got like the allies
We heard about a number of British Generals in this video but no mention of Australian General Morshead who effectively fought three draws in 1941/42 against Rommel at Tobruk and the first and second battles of el Alamein.
Montgomery declined to make him a corps commander at el Alamein but the Australians would have had the last laugh as MacArthur was likely to have made him commander of the Commonwealth Corps for the invasion of Japan if it had gone ahead.
British officers treated Anzacs as inferior soldiers in both WW' 1&2 because of their less spit and polish attitude but Americans and even Rommel gave them top marks
Apart from everything else the full german field uniform in the desert for the first few months really says something about the man
The control by the British misses the vital to Hitler fact that they would be in striking distance of the oil rich Middle East and well within range of the Caucasus - at the time the USSR had a non-aggression pact with Germany. Thus victory for Britain threatened Hitler's oil and fuel, and therefore his war machine. Also occupation of Tunisia put them right across from Sicily and able to invade Italy and therefore threaten Germany's southern border. Rommel was sent in essence to keep Germany in the war.
Hats off to the 9th Australian. Been unexperienced and still manage to hold back one of the most notorious generals of the 1st and 2nd world war. There may have been some overconfidence on Rommel's part but still.
Rommel reputedly said that to conquer Hell he would have Australian 9th to take it the Kiwis to hold it
To hear modern historians talk, the Russians did everything and the rest of the Allies did nothing.
The truth is that if Rommel and his Axis army of over 1/2 million men and their tens of thousands of tanks, guns, aircraft weren't preoccupied with the British, Americans, Aussies, etc. in North Africa, they would have been sent to reinforce the German military at Stalingrad.
And that would have been a deciding factor in that battle!
this the perfect example of "history is written by the victors"
It was actually the Australians at Tobruk mate.
Rommel was a supreme opportunist. He operated like a Napoleonic hussar. Always looking for and taking advantage of enemy weaknesses. He was resourceful and sneaky like a magician.
He was not perfect though. His grasp of logistical realities seemed lacking. And his over aggressiveness sometimes got the better of him. But overall a top 5 German commander.
I still like Rommel, he defines a Soldier dedicated to winning a war, unfortunately, he was on the other side. Still. a great leader and a Great General !!!! You Always have to Honor your Leaders, but don't forget about honorable adversaries !!!
this is why I love content from IWM, which always gives us rare footage that might be not available on other media, so we can get an in-depth perspective about the discussed topic. keep up the good work!
Real Life Headcanon: The Desert Fox is just Rommel’s fursona
Yes he was the only desert Fox. He was the best General in the African theater.
Thank you for sharing a very good video, present to always support you, my brother. Hope you are healthy and happy always
I think the South African troops in Tobrook also helpled a bit. But don't bother mentioning that.
They cleverly cut off his supply which doomed his chances.
Desert Fox vs Desert Rats........ an epic battle.
Who stopped him? The 9th Australian Division.
Supplies
NO-the australian 6th and the nz 2nd division and the british division were sent to greece to save the greek merchant fleet(1000 ships) for the allies-churchill needed to replace the british losses till the us joined the war
Didnt tubrok still fall?
It was a dry desert, and no fox were given.
Rommel was competent which was unusual in the Wehrmacht. He did not have overwhelming surprise or numbers to bury his opponents like so many other German generals much better known.
But german officers were better trained and had better tactics than the allies...
The Wehrmacht had more efficient and effectivr units. But by 1943 they were outnumbered and in 1944 they could not do anything to stop the allies and the soviets due to lack of supplies and men
Rommel took Tobruk in 1942 thus earning his Field Marshal Baton. Given massive Russian defeats even bigger than in 1941 Nazi 3rd Reich Germany now had the manpower and technical resources necessary to mount a defense of their *MASSIVE* 3rd Reich as well with on paper anyway Tunisia seemingly be an impregnable Fortress Region. Rommel had access now to a near unlimited amount of land mines now too as well plus upgrades and new "wonder weapons" that seemed to make a Russian defeat in the Germany's East a near certainty.
We will never forget the rats of Tobruk! Because apparently this documentary has!
Still licking the wounds of how they were beaten.
It would be Australians it wouldn't be afraid of the desert fox
Also fun fact during the grease campaign apparently the Germans try to attack through thermopolye. It unsurprisingly ended in disaster
The geography of Thermopylae has changed a lot since the ancient battle. When the Spartans fought there, the narrowest point was only 100m across. In the 2000 or so years from the battle in 480 BC, deposition of sediment from the Spercheios river pushed the coastline around 2km further out, so it was no longer the narrow chokepoint it used to be.
As an Australian I am very proud of what the Rats achieved! 🐀
They did not do it by themselves. They made up just under half the garrison.
@@dulls8475 no statement was made at all about the contribution of other brave defenders there, nor an attempt to diminish their contribution. I am proud of them all, but as an Australian it's a very important part of our war history, probably in the top three or four campaigns after Gallipoli.
@@seandavie3672 Nice reply.