Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#16

Post by MarkN » 07 Oct 2017, 14:34

stg 44 wrote: The Afrika Korps started with two divisions, the 5th Light and 15th Panzer.
ljadw wrote:No : the AK started with one division, the second one arrived only in the summer .
The Deutches Afrikakorps (DAK) was "started" based upon the assumption it would command both German and Italian forces.

Depending upon which date you have as your "start date", then what it had under command at that moment will be different. But the intention for DAK was always to command at least 3 divisions and supporting forces.

However, on the day the DAK first came into existance, it had no divisions under command in North Afrika - neither German nor Italian. It "started" with a small number of independent battalion and lower level units. But the commander (in otherwords his rank and seniority) was based upon what the DAK was to become - not what it had on day 1.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#17

Post by ljadw » 07 Oct 2017, 22:26

Kingfish wrote:
ljadw wrote:It would not affect Africa, as Rommel was only as a football coach ,who could order to do something, but whose success was depending and on his own team and most important ,on an unknown factor : the strength of the opponent.
So if we to magically replace Bill Belichick with Rod Rust the NE Patriots would still perform at the same level?
The success of a football team is not depending on the coach : the coach is not making the goals ; Rommel was not defeating the British;the Axis soldiers defeated the British .It was the same on British side : Got was appointed commander of 8th Army but was killed in an aircraft accident;Got would be not better or worse than Montgomery . Montgomery won, Got also would have won .

It was the same in 1940: the French were defeated not because of Gamelin,Weygand did not better .

Brilliant generals do not win wars : Napoleon lost .

Rommel lost in NA, Manstein also would have lost .


User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#18

Post by Kingfish » 08 Oct 2017, 00:57

ljadw wrote:The success of a football team is not depending on the coach : the coach is not making the goals ; Rommel was not defeating the British;the Axis soldiers defeated the British .
Just so I understand you correctly, all the planning, logistics, coordination with other allies, communications and on-the-spot decision making at a strategic level is done by front line grunts?

Should opposing armies do away with their general staffs and rely on the intuition of conscripts to execute war winning strategies?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#19

Post by ljadw » 08 Oct 2017, 09:07

You don't understand me correctly : Rommel did not all the planning, logistics, cooperation with other allies,etc.....This is done by the general staffs, not by one person . Victory/defeat is a collective work, for which a lot of people are responsible, not one person .

AND most important : it takes two to tango : the role of the opposite side in victory/defeat is always hidden,although it is almost as important .

The winner claims always the merit for victory ,and exaggerates the strength of the opponent (à vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire, as the French are saying: victory without risks brings triumph without glory),while the loser always denies the winner the merit for victory,saying that the defeat was caused by the mistakes of some one of their own side.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#20

Post by Kingfish » 08 Oct 2017, 17:41

ljadw wrote:You don't understand me correctly : Rommel did not all the planning, logistics, cooperation with other allies,etc.....This is done by the general staffs, not by one person . Victory/defeat is a collective work, for which a lot of people are responsible, not one person .
General staffs can only do what general staffs are ordered to do. Same with Brigadier generals, battalions commanders and the lowly front line grunt.

Yes, their roles are important, and credit (or blame) should be given to them for their efforts- but make no mistake, those efforts are a direct result of the decisions made by the guy at the top, and because no two guys are alike the decisions (and results obtained) will likewise not be alike.

Case in point: Monty was adamant about waiting until he had amassed overwhelming strength before launching operation Lightfoot, this despite an impatient Churchill clamoring for action. Had Gott been survived he may well have acquiesced to Churchill's demand and attacked without full preparations in place.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#21

Post by ljadw » 08 Oct 2017, 21:39

Kingfish wrote: Had Gott been survived he may well have acquiesced to Churchill's demand and attacked without full preparations in place.
That is speculation : we never will know .

Truth is that operation Compass was a partial British success and that Montgomery also would have succeeded . This success followed by the failure to expel the Italians from NA and Montgomery also would have failed .
About Fall Gelb:Frieser follows the old tactic of the winners : he exaggerared the German weaknesses and was hiding the allied weaknesses and claimed that the WM was quantitatively and qualitatively inferior to the allies (which is wrong) but still won because of the genius of von Manstein .He gave Manstein the monopoly of the "Manstein Plan "(wrongly called sicle cut) while downplaying the roles of Hitler and Halder in the elaboration of the plan, and he said that the plan caused the German victory (which also was wrong ) .The simple truth is that the Germans also would have won without the Manstein Plan , because they were stronger than the allies .

Military commanders can't bend space and time .

Fall Gelb was not a duel between Manstein and Gamelin .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#22

Post by ljadw » 08 Oct 2017, 22:30

3 examples of German failures, and in all three cases the same tactic was used : blame a mistake from a German commander,to not to admit that one was defeated by the (inferior considered ) opponent :

1) august-september 1914 : failure of the "Schlieffen plan " : the media,politicians, public demanded a scape-goat,who would be put responsible, otherwise one should admit that one was defeated by the opponent : the best scape-goat is a dead one : Hentsch,and especially Moltke who had spoiled the Schlieffen plan of the genius Schlieffen .


2) Dunkirk : there was an ideal scape-goat : Hitler, who was dead, and whom no one would defend : here also there was a brilliant plan and again it was spoiled by an imbecile .

3 ) Barbarossa : first Hitler blamed Brauchitz ,and after the war Halder blamed Hitler;again a brilliant plan was spoiled .

In all cases no one was talking about the opponent : it was accepted that he was inferior to the brilliant Schlieffen, Manstein, Halder ,Hitler .

On the other side it was not better : Market Garden was blamed on Montgomery,otherwise one should accept that the allied soldiers were defeated by the Germans, which was inconceivable .

It was the same for Tobruk, Pearl Harbour, Iraq (Secdef was fired).

And it was the same for Katrina, etc,etc...

And it will always be the same : in his memoirs Napoleon refused to admit that he was defeated by the Russians (Kutuzov), British (Wellington), Prussians (Blücher), no : it was always the fault of French generals . After the war of 1870 Bazaine was the scape-goat .

And it is the same in politics : McCain blamed Palin, Hillary Sanders, if Trump had lost, he would have blamed the GOP establishment . And now May is blamed.

There is always some one to blame, which is good, otherwise one must admit that one is defeated by the enemy .

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#23

Post by Kingfish » 08 Oct 2017, 22:48

ljadw wrote:Truth is that operation Compass was a partial British success and that Montgomery also would have succeeded .
Provided of course that Monty would have order the attack, which is also speculation. His penchant for amassing overwhelming strength and methodical approach to battles would lead one to believe he would have waited for 6th Australian to reinforce the WDF before launching Compass.

Again, different commander different decisions.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#24

Post by Sheldrake » 08 Oct 2017, 23:33

Kingfish wrote:
ljadw wrote:Truth is that operation Compass was a partial British success and that Montgomery also would have succeeded .
Provided of course that Monty would have order the attack, which is also speculation. His penchant for amassing overwhelming strength and methodical approach to battles would lead one to believe he would have waited for 6th Australian to reinforce the WDF before launching Compass.

Again, different commander different decisions.
Montgomery tried out a variant of Op Compass as the setting for one of the first of a series of test exercises for Vth Corps in winter 1940-41. He wanted to see if an infantry division at night could be giving comparable tasks to an armoured formation in the day. The exercise took place on Salisbury Plain, but with fake maps pretending it was the Western Desert with out of bounds areas "impassable quick sand".

NBrotz
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 26 Sep 2017, 10:25
Location: United States

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#25

Post by NBrotz » 09 Oct 2017, 04:11

Alright Ijadw, help me understand your point, because if I'm confused, it is a fair assumption I'm not the only one. Now, from what I've read, it seems that you are arguing that the premise of the thread is flawed. This is because removing the field commander of German forces in North Africa, Erwin Rommel, would have negligible influence on the outcome of the campaign. Nevermind that if Rommel's plane did crash on his way to Tripoli, Rudolf Schmundt, Hitler's adjutant and future OKH Personnel Chief, was going down with him - collectively, this would have impact on many officer placements. Then again, this thread seems based on the idea that Rommel's death is an isolated event.

Putting that aside, how high up the military hierarchy do we need to go before the removal of a single individual makes a substantial difference in victory or defeat? The untimely demise of a head of state during WWII has been done to death, and considering North Africa in early 1941 was a side-show for everyone*, it would be the least of anybody's problems. Although less done to death, the same could be said for removing heads of OKW, OKH, British Imperial General Staff, or even the Italian Comando Supremo. Hence, we'd be looking at C-in-C Middle East Command [Wavell, then Auchinleck], and Governor-General of Italian Libya [Graziani, then Gariboldi] (in theory Rommel's immediate superiors).

Keeping in mind, Rommel and his British counterparts Neame (HQ Cyrenaica), Peirse (XIII Corps), then Cunningham and subsequent successors (Eighth Army), all had a great deal of anatomy. Fighting across an endless seas of sand with small mobile forces, with their superiors thousands of miles to the rear and preoccupied with other issues, you could argue this was one of the few theaters of war in WW2 where the independent initiative of corps and army commanders could lead to strategic breakthroughs. Hence, I would have to argue that replacing Rommel with another General could have drastic consequences on the outcome of the Mediterranean Theater.

Of course, I'm prepared to concede to the point that each side's allocation of resources into the theater, decisions made at the grand strategic level, meant that no amount of tactical or operational genius was going to save Italy from the indignity of being the first major Axis power to fall. It might even be fair to say that, if by some miracle Malta, Alexandria, and the Suez Canal all fell into Axis hands, that it was simply impossible to advance farther east. Moreover, the tide of the war would still inevitably turn. In the most far-fetched scenario, all that might be reasonably achieved is ensuring that Europe's 'soft underbelly' becomes the last bastion of the Third Reich.

If swapping Rommel, his boss, or his opponents, makes no difference, then it must be logical to conclude that Rommel was the best man that was ever going to be hired for the job. Perhaps a German General that had no prospects of attracting Hitler's attention at all might've done better. Maybe the job was doomed from the start and the answer to Ianseymour95's question is "nobody can replace Rommel" and the Afrika Korps would've never existed without him. If anyone disagrees, then I eagerly look forward to reading their comments.

*The Germans, Italian, and British were all tied down in the Balkans for ~roughly~ the first half of the year. Afterward, North Africa became the primary focus for the Italians only, although Italian forces, now long isolated, were still fighting on the Horn of Africa. Meanwhile, the Germans allocated more manpower (albeit less vehicles and firepower) to Armee Norwegen around the Arctic, and the British were focused on securing their position in the Middle-East (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran).

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#26

Post by ljadw » 09 Oct 2017, 09:38

The OP started from the assumption that the removal of Rommel would have an influence on the outcome of the fighting in NA and asked what this influence would be .

The answer is that the influence would be meaningless .And I will give 3 proofs : 3 times, Rommel was removed and nothing changed .

In september 1942 Rommel (exhausted after 18 months in NA ) returned to Germany and was replaced by Stumme ;when Stumme died at the start of Alamein, Rommel returned but could not stop Montgomery .

In March 1943 Rommel was replaced again ,by von Arnim,but nothing changed : the outcome still was Tunisgrad .

In july 1944 Rommel was severely wounded and von Kluge took over, and Kluge could not stop the allies .

It was the same in Italy: when Kesselring was heavily wounded, an other one (von Vietinghoff? ) took over,and nothing changed . In Russia :in december 1941 von Bock left (claiming that he was ill) and was replaced by von Kluge and the situation of AGC did not worse or became not better and when 2 years later Kluge was severely wounded ,Busch took over, and nothing changed .Etc,etc.

It was the same on allied side : when Eisenhower and Montgomery left the Mediterranean for Britain,the influence on the outcome of the fighting in the ME was nihil .8th army without Montgomery remained 8th army .

Why would it be different for Rommel ? Saying that it would be different for Rommel is falling in the trap of the Rommel myth .

A lot of high placed people in the military hierarchy died , were replaced , returned, without influencing the outcome of the fighting .

Britain had 3 CIGS, 2 chiefs of staff of the RAF, 2 First Sea Lords,in Germany it was a coming and going , Tojo was fired ,Yamamoto was killed, the same for his successor .

The fighting in NA was a side show for the Axis and an Axis victory would have no strategic consequences .

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#27

Post by Gooner1 » 09 Oct 2017, 10:19

ljadw wrote: It was the same on allied side : when Eisenhower and Montgomery left the Mediterranean for Britain,the influence on the outcome of the fighting in the ME was nihil .8th army without Montgomery remained 8th army .
Eighth Army seemed a lot less competently run after Montgomery left them in Italy.

And, of course, a lot less competently run before he arrived at Eighth Army.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#28

Post by ljadw » 09 Oct 2017, 11:49

Gooner1 wrote:
ljadw wrote: It was the same on allied side : when Eisenhower and Montgomery left the Mediterranean for Britain,the influence on the outcome of the fighting in the ME was nihil .8th army without Montgomery remained 8th army .
Eighth Army seemed a lot less competently run after Montgomery left them in Italy.

And, of course, a lot less competently run before he arrived at Eighth Army.

Seemed :P

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#29

Post by Gooner1 » 09 Oct 2017, 12:35

ljadw wrote: Seemed :P
A euphemism for 'no doubt about it whatsoever' :wink:

NBrotz
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 26 Sep 2017, 10:25
Location: United States

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#30

Post by NBrotz » 10 Oct 2017, 18:00

*When I said "anatomy" I meant to say "autonomy."

Anyway Ijadw, the problem with arguing that Generals are interchangeable is that the Generals have a key role in developing the situation that they find themselves and their successors in. By the time that Stumme, Von Arnim, and Von Kluge came in, the battlefield had already been picked and their actions were heavily constrained. It's not a fair comparison.

As poor of a position as El Alamein was from a logistical standpoint, it did take a string of impressive tactical victories to get there in the first place; I'm not convinced these could've been easily replicated, and maybe they shouldn't have. In any case, Rommel planned the layout of defenses and defensive strategy for Alamein, which Stumme attempted to carry out before being killed - nevermind that Rommel might've attempted to preempt the British attack by a spoiling attack on their assembly areas (considering Medenine later on, it's probably better that Stumme was in charge). In any case, once Rommel returned, he held on for about a week. In the end, Rommel ordered a retreat and presented his decision fait accompli to Hitler.

Another General might not have reacted in time to counterattack each penetration, exhausting the British offensive. Another might have squandered their limited fuel and ammunition during the battle. Another might've waited for Hitler's permission to withdraw, until it was too late. Another might've failed to organize an effective rearguard action to forestall the British breakthrough. While Kesselring questioned Rommel's decision to withdraw over a thousand miles to the Mareth Line in Tunisia, a less independent / more impressionable commander might've made a stand at Mersa Brega or Buerat (with disastrous results). At the same time, although Montgomery advanced cautiously (with Alexander's approval), he didn't give Rommel an opportunity to envelope his spearheads and wrestle back the initiative.

After that, given the loss of the eastern ports together with the Allied naval and air interdiction of Tunis, Axis defeat there was inevitable. However, Rommel's plan for driving through Kasserine and rolling up American lines, as risky as it was, carried with it the only hope of significantly prolonging the campaign. Keeping in mind, prolonging the Tunisian Campaign would've upset the Sicilian Campaign, which in turn affected Kursk. However, Von Arnim was unwilling to support Rommel's plans while their commands were separate, so Kasserine couldn't be exploited.

By the time Von Arnim was in command of a unified Heeresgruppe Afrika, the Tunisgrad Pocket was already solidified. Of course, one may argue that Von Arnim could've lasted a bit longer if Rommel hadn't run his tanks into prepared British defenses at Medenine, thus becoming too weak to defend the Mareth Line. In that regard, Von Arnim and Rommel both served to inadvertently sabotage each other. Things might've turned out slightly better if Rommel had just been sent home in January 1943.

As for Von Kluge, he was brought in as OB West to replace Von Rundstedt, Rommel's boss. By this point, German forces were completely tied down in a desperate attempt to contain the Allied beachhead, and OKW restricted all freedom of movement. If Von Kluge had been in Normandy from the get-go, maybe the panzers would be available near the beaches for an immediate counterattack on June 6th. On the reverse, Rommel might've instilled more confidence in Von Funck and Von Schwerin to commit to Lüttich around Mortain, maybe at least slowing the development of the Falaise Pocket. Perhaps Rommel, already regarding his life as forfeit, would do the same thing that he did in Africa and what Walter Model ended up doing anyway - withdrawal behind the Seine.

Taking all of that into account, is it better far-fetched to believe that, had:
  • Von Kluge been OB Süd in November 1941 (with Luftflotte 2 in someone's hands other than Kesselring).
  • Stumme commanding the Afrika Korps in February 1941.
  • Von Arnim's 17.PzD instead of the 15.PzD sent there between March-May 1941.
. . . That a different command team might've produced different results?

Post Reply

Return to “What if”