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
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#31

Post by ljadw » 10 Oct 2017, 21:01

It is very questionable to claim that different generals would produce different solutions, as the solutions were dictated by the situation .Example : in november 1941 von Rundstedt proposed to withdraw and give up Rostow,Hitler refused and Rundstedt left, to be replaced by Reichenau ,who, after looking on the map and reading the reporst came to the same conclusion as Rundstedt .

About Arnim and Rommel,saying that Arnim refused to help Rommel, is to overlook the fact that Kasserine or no Kasserine would make no difference .Kasserine was only something accidental

The supposition that if Kluge had been in Normandy before 6 june, the panzers could have started a counterattack on 6 june is totally wrong :there was no panzer attack on 6 june ,not because Rommel was in Germany, or because the OKW reserves depended on Hitler, but because materially such an attack was out of the question : the tanks were too far away, they were too slow,(we are talking about 1944, 73 years ago,),they were dependent on the infantry, which marched by foot .

To withdraw behind the Seine (which was NOT wwhat Model did) would be a big mistake : the bigger the frontline, the less chances the Germans had to stop the allies : the Seine was not defended,the best strategy was to remain in Normandy .

As usual,the German generals were contradicting themselves :in the east they proposed to retreat to shorten the front, in the west they proposed to retreat,knowing that such a retreat would increase the front .

i also do not see why someone else commanding Luftflotte 2 would make a difference . An other one would do the same as Kesselring .

The German strategy was dictated by the allies and Muller or Müller would not make a difference .

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

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#32

Post by Kingfish » 10 Oct 2017, 21:48

ljadw wrote:The supposition that if Kluge had been in Normandy before 6 june, the panzers could have started a counterattack on 6 june is totally wrong :there was no panzer attack on 6 june ,not because Rommel was in Germany, or because the OKW reserves depended on Hitler, but because materially such an attack was out of the question : the tanks were too far away, they were too slow,(we are talking about 1944, 73 years ago,),they were dependent on the infantry, which marched by foot .
Not true.

21st Panzer was in action on June 6th, and some elements got as far as the shoreline between Sword and Juno before withdrawing due to mistaken belief that 6th air landing brigade was landing behind them (they were headed towards the Orne bridgehead).

Image
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#33

Post by ljadw » 11 Oct 2017, 12:58

21 Panzer could only try to stop the British advance, not to round up the British . And even if they could, it would be in vain ,as the allies landed on a broad front : the distance Carentan-Caen is 75 km : there was no possibility for 21 Pz to go to Carentan/St Mère L'église . That's why the presence of von Kluge or the absence of Rommel on 6 june were irrelevant .The same for Rommel's absence at the start of Alamein .

If 21 Panzer was concentrated at Gold, maybe it could have eliminated Gold, but it would not be at Sword, or Juno, and,if it was at Omaha, it would not be at Utah .

For the Germans to have a chance , they had to know the locations of the 5 landing zones AND they had to have at least ONE operational Panzer division at each of the landing zones .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#34

Post by MarkN » 11 Oct 2017, 14:29

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.
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 .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 .
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 .
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 .
ljadw wrote: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 wrote: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 .
ljadw wrote:It is very questionable to claim that different generals would produce different solutions, as the solutions were dictated by the situation .Example : in november 1941 von Rundstedt proposed to withdraw and give up Rostow,Hitler refused and Rundstedt left, to be replaced by Reichenau ,who, after looking on the map and reading the reporst came to the same conclusion as Rundstedt .
i also do not see why someone else commanding Luftflotte 2 would make a difference . An other one would do the same as Kesselring .
The German strategy was dictated by the allies and Muller or Müller would not make a difference .
What you are saying, over and over again, is that as soon as war starts, the outcome is predetermined. It doesn't matter who commands the military forces on either side, nor what decisions they make, the outcome cannot be changed. An military idiot leading the side that is preordained to win will be victorious.

Utterly bonkers!

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#35

Post by ljadw » 11 Oct 2017, 14:38

Except for a miracle, Germany had lost on september 1 1939 .And even if the Third Reich had won, it would not survive its victory : Germany was to weak to dominate Europe . The Third Reich would not last til january 31 1953 .

There was no military idiot leading one of the sides.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#36

Post by MarkN » 11 Oct 2017, 15:15

ljadw wrote:Except for a miracle, Germany had lost on september 1 1939 .And even if the Third Reich had won, it would not survive its victory : Germany was to weak to dominate Europe . The Third Reich would not last til january 31 1953 .

There was no military idiot leading one of the sides.
I believe the Germans 'lost' WW2 on 3 September 1939 when Britain declared war on the Reich. All subsequent decisions only affected the timeframe of that final outcome.

However, you are also arguing that the outcome of conflict in various theatres was also pre-determined. That is utterly bonkers. The German success in France 1940 could have been completely different if better Allied generalship had prepared differently and launched a successful counterattack separating von Kluge's 4th Army from its leg powered support. Rommel only achieved what he did in North Africa through abysmal British generalship - better British commanders would have made a huge difference. Similarly, had a better general than Rommel been chosen - Rommel was an average tactician who took risks and seems to have ignored strategy completely - the Germans could have been in Cairo by Christmas 1941. Different leadership on either side could radically alter the outcome - either timeframe or the result itself.

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

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#37

Post by Kingfish » 11 Oct 2017, 15:19

ljadw wrote:21 Panzer could only try to stop the British advance, not to round up the British . And even if they could, it would be in vain ,as the allies landed on a broad front : the distance Carentan-Caen is 75 km : there was no possibility for 21 Pz to go to Carentan/St Mère L'église . That's why the presence of von Kluge or the absence of Rommel on 6 june were irrelevant .The same for Rommel's absence at the start of Alamein .

If 21 Panzer was concentrated at Gold, maybe it could have eliminated Gold, but it would not be at Sword, or Juno, and,if it was at Omaha, it would not be at Utah .

For the Germans to have a chance , they had to know the locations of the 5 landing zones AND they had to have at least ONE operational Panzer division at each of the landing zones .
That is an entirely separate issue. My post was directed at your claim:
there was no panzer attack on 6 june
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#38

Post by ljadw » 11 Oct 2017, 22:12

MarkN wrote:
ljadw wrote:Except for a miracle, Germany had lost on september 1 1939 .And even if the Third Reich had won, it would not survive its victory : Germany was to weak to dominate Europe . The Third Reich would not last til january 31 1953 .

There was no military idiot leading one of the sides.

However, you are also arguing that the outcome of conflict in various theatres was also pre-determined. That is utterly bonkers. The German success in France 1940 could have been completely different if better Allied generalship had prepared differently and launched a successful counterattack separating von Kluge's 4th Army from its leg powered support. Rommel only achieved what he did in North Africa through abysmal British generalship - better British commanders would have made a huge difference. Similarly, had a better general than Rommel been chosen - Rommel was an average tactician who took risks and seems to have ignored strategy completely - the Germans could have been in Cairo by Christmas 1941. Different leadership on either side could radically alter the outcome - either timeframe or the result itself.
That's not correct : German successes in France in 1940 were not caused by bad allied generalship , but by the power ratio =a successful counterattack against von Kluge implied forces which did not exist ;the same for NA :British generalship before the arrival of Montgomery was not abysmal . besides, IMO the strategy of Rommel was not that bad : it was better to fight at Tobruk than before Tripoli .

Unless Britain gave up (because of the collapse of the SU ) ,the fate of the Axis in NA was sealed,all Rommel could do was to delay the defeat .

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

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#39

Post by Gooner1 » 12 Oct 2017, 15:17

MarkN wrote: Rommel only achieved what he did in North Africa through abysmal British generalship -
Superior numbers, quality of equipment and intelligence played there part too.
Similarly, had a better general than Rommel been chosen - Rommel was an average tactician who took risks and seems to have ignored strategy completely - the Germans could have been in Cairo by Christmas 1941.
No German general achieved greater success against the Anglos than Rommel.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#40

Post by MarkN » 13 Oct 2017, 11:58

Gooner1 wrote: No German general achieved greater success against the Anglos than Rommel.
Which rather highlights that poor British generalship was not limited to a single general but rather a trend among many.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#41

Post by ljadw » 13 Oct 2017, 13:05

Gooner1 wrote:
No German general achieved greater success against the Anglos than Rommel.
:roll:

I could cite a lot of German generals who achieved greater successes against Britain than Rommel :

those who expelled the British from Greece;

those (the ID from von Bock ) who ,starting from the German border, expelled in a few weeks the BEF from the continent .

The Rommel myth was mostly fabricated by the Propaganda Abteilung of Dr Goebbels and, after the war, perpetuated by the Anglo-Saxon film makers .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#42

Post by ljadw » 13 Oct 2017, 13:07

MarkN wrote:
Gooner1 wrote: No German general achieved greater success against the Anglos than Rommel.
Which rather highlights that poor British generalship was not limited to a single general but rather a trend among many.
This poor British generalship succeeded to defeat the Italians in NA and EA . :wink:

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

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#43

Post by Gooner1 » 13 Oct 2017, 14:32

ljadw wrote:I could cite a lot of German generals who achieved greater successes against Britain than Rommel :

those who expelled the British from Greece;

those (the ID from von Bock ) who ,starting from the German border, expelled in a few weeks the BEF from the continent .

The Rommel myth was mostly fabricated by the Propaganda Abteilung of Dr Goebbels and, after the war, perpetuated by the Anglo-Saxon film makers .
The BEF never had their front broken and evacuated most of the men. The British were looking to evacuate from Greece almost as soon as the Germans attacked, and did so.

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

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#44

Post by Gooner1 » 13 Oct 2017, 14:34

MarkN wrote:Which rather highlights that poor British generalship was not limited to a single general but rather a trend among many.
?? No, it highlights that there might not a better commander against the Brits in NA than Rommel.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#45

Post by ljadw » 13 Oct 2017, 15:11

Gooner1 wrote:
ljadw wrote:I could cite a lot of German generals who achieved greater successes against Britain than Rommel :

those who expelled the British from Greece;

those (the ID from von Bock ) who ,starting from the German border, expelled in a few weeks the BEF from the continent .

The Rommel myth was mostly fabricated by the Propaganda Abteilung of Dr Goebbels and, after the war, perpetuated by the Anglo-Saxon film makers .
The BEF never had their front broken and evacuated most of the men. The British were looking to evacuate from Greece almost as soon as the Germans attacked, and did so.

In one month of fighting,the BEF lost 68000 men .

Axis and allied forces in NA were much smaller than the German forces for Fall Gelb . And Axis forces in NA were mostly Italian forces .

Post Reply

Return to “What if”