Blashy Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I just love coming across tidbits that remind me how much an idiot Hitler was and I hope someone is rubbing it in his face somewhere in the great beyond. For the life of me I'll never understand why they did not assissinate this man as soon as he started his taking command of military tactics, but I'm forever gratefull at the idiots for not doing so. Anyways, here it is. Rommel recognised that the Allies would possess air superiority, and would be able to harass his movements from the air. He therefore proposed that the armoured formations be deployed close to the invasion beaches. In his words, it was better to have one Panzer division facing the invaders on the first day, than three Panzer divisions three days later when the allies would already have established a firm beachhead. Von Geyr argued for the standard doctrine that the Panzer formations should be concentrated in a central position around Paris and Rouen, and deployed en masse against the main Allied beachhead when this had been identified. The argument went all the way up to Hitler, who characteristically imposed an unworkable compromise solution. Three Panzer divisions were given to Rommel, too few to cover all the threatened sectors, and three to von Geyr, not enough for a decisive intervention. (Four others were dispersed in Southern France and the Netherlands, under the tactical control of neither commander). Also, Hitler reserved to himself the authority to move most of these divisions, or commit them to action. On June 6, many Panzer division commanders were unable to move, as Hitler had not given the necessary authorisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 @TBlashy --- Yep, we know AH was an idiot militarily. On the otherhand, he's in the Top 10 all-time of "Anti-Christ" type dudes for given speeches & taking over via politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Yes, but ISTR that Rommel thought the invasion would be Calais. So he would have been way out of position anyway? Actually, most Normandy wargames have "The Rommel option" as a variant. Doesn't seem to make much difference, as not enough to destroy all the bridgeheads, and then get ground down in attrition "as normal", just with the frontlines nearer the coast for a bit longer. The bocage works both ways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 AGREED! Mr. Rommel was so overated! He was delivery shoes to his wife, had the troops at Calais for the "Patton Bluff" move. Mr. Rommel was overated in N.Africa too. Seriously, what was Fritz doing in Africa? They didn't have a chance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: AGREED! Mr. Rommel was so overated! He was delivery shoes to his wife, had the troops at Calais for the "Patton Bluff" move. Mr. Rommel was overated in N.Africa too. Seriously, what was Fritz doing in Africa? They didn't have a chance! I think you are abit Harsh on Rommel, its all very well comming to these conclusions with our hindsight, but north Africa was a very close run thing for the allies for awhile there, especially after operation crusader which was the turning point for Rommel, up until then he outmonuvered and a superior allied army.Winston Churchill himself even comment on what a great leader and General the man was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_TAR Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Nothing wrong with Rommel, if the supplies and support where there he would have been in Cairo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Yes!... Canuck_TAR ,...your quote... Nothing wrong with Rommel, if the supplies and support where there he would have been in Cairo! Is the truth of the situation!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Originally posted by Blashy: ... For the life of me I'll never understand why they did not assissinate this man as soon as he started his taking command of military tactics, but I'm forever gratefull at the idiots for not doing so. ... They tired, if I remember right thre were at least 4 valid attempts on his life. Call it luck or fate or whatever but if they had killed him right before spring of 41 England just might of made peace and who knows what would of happened then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 But none of them where ever made by the high command itself, that is what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 No but they certinlly knew about them and endorsed some of them, I think we maybe slipting hairs here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Originally posted by Rolend: They tired, if I remember right thre were at least 4 valid attempts on his life. It were at least 42 (source: wikipedia). 1921 - 1932 4 attempts, including on try with poison in the Hotel Kaiserhof, 1930. 1933 10 attempts, including the try of an unknown SA-Man at the Obersalzberg & one of the group around Karl Lutter in Koenigsberg. 1934 4 attempts, including the one of Beppo Roemer, Berlin, and Helmuth Myhus, Berlin. 1935 Dr. Paul Josef Stuermer, Berlin. Group Marwitz, Berlin. 1936 Helmut Hirsch, Nuremberg. 1937 Josef Thomas, Berlin. A unknown SS-man at the Berliner Sportpalast. 1938 Otto Strasser with a group of emigrants (several attempts, even in 1937). Friedrich Wilhelm Heinz, Stoßtrupp Reichskanzlei. Alexander Foote, Munich. Maurice Bavaud, Obersalzberg and Munich (several attempts). 1938/39 Noel Mason-Macfarlane, Berlin. 1939 Georg Elser, Muncih. Erich Kordt, Berlin. 1940 Erwin von Witzleben, Paris. 1941/43 Nikolaus von Halem, Beppo Roemer, Berlin (several attempts). 1943 Hubert Lanz, Hans Speidel, Hyazinth Graf von Strach-Witz, Walki (Russia). Friedrich Koenig und Freiherr von Boeselager, Smolensk. Henning von Tresckow, Fabian von Schlabrendorff, Rudolph Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff. Unknown Pole, Wolfsschanze. Rudolph Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff, Berlin. Axel Freiherr von dem Bussche-Streithorst, Wolfsschanze. 1944 Ewald von Kleist, Wolfsschanze. Eberhard von Breitenbuch, Obersalzberg. Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenherg, Wolfsschanze und Berlin (several attempts). 1945 Albert Speer, Berlin. source: this german webside / Will Berthold [ June 09, 2006, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 "If Rommel would have had food & supplies"....yeah, a good commander would think about that before going into a desert! If, if, if.... Think before you going to the desert! You don't see the USA going to any deserts weak, do you? See Desert Storm! See Desert Storm II! We headcrack. You lose & worship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 If Patton had the gas, he'd have been in Berlin. What an idiot, invading France with no gas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Lars LOL that was a nice come back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_TAR Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: "If Rommel would have had food & supplies"....yeah, a good commander would think about that before going into a desert! If, if, if.... Think before you going to the desert! You don't see the USA going to any deserts weak, do you? See Desert Storm! See Desert Storm II! We headcrack. You lose & worship! Well first off.............he's not the overall command was he?? If Uncle Adolf didn't support him and saw it as a diversion, what could he have done? Ahhh yes........lets bring it up..........why did the U.S. have supplies.........oh thats right.........they where supported from the top. Shake your head JJR....what ya hear..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Think before you going to the desert! You don't see the USA going to any deserts weak, do you? See Desert Storm! See Desert Storm II! We headcrack. You lose & worship! Think about bringing enough manpower so you can counteract poorly armed opponents and not be stuck in 2 countries 3 years later and still not having secured both of them. History is their to learn from mistakes, unfortunatly, that only happens once every million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Very interesting Xwormwood, I will read up on it, I wonder how many of those attempts made it very far, I know of the one in the bunker where the bomb went off but the blast was shunted by the table leg. Talk about fate, that one had the backing of the high command, in fact they were all set to take over the government because they didn't want one of Hitlers cronies to take over. EDIT ADDED: Hey that site is in German, I lived there for 4 years but never did learn to speak the lingo I will do some research of my own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 It was not backed by the high command, just some high ranking officiers but they were outside of the inner circle. At least that is what I read about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 All this crap about Hitler as the sole reason germans lost the war is getting tired and is not only completly false but also stupid. In the west we have all too long brought forward this but thank god there is a shift in historic research. Glantz is one that revised this view a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Oh I agree Kuniworth the Germans were doomed the day they invaded Poland. However you can't deny that had Hitler been removed early on, say pre invasion of Russia that things would not of turned out a lot differant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Nah. Doomed the day they invaded Russia and blew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Anybody out there read "Fox on the Rhine"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Originally posted by Rolend: Oh I agree Kuniworth the Germans were doomed the day they invaded Poland. However you can't deny that had Hitler been removed early on, say pre invasion of Russia that things would not of turned out a lot differant. Its no point discussing what would have been if Hitler had done this or that. As I said those stereotypes are the result of how the history is written here, we try to blame individuals errors for things happening one way or another. Frankly I find it completly pointless to discuss from this point of view. Of course serious mistakes are always done(undoubtedly in ww2 more on the russian and allied side than the germans) but a war is a flow - you do something and then your opponent react to that. There is no way you can say that Hitler would have won the war if he had done this or that, because the opponent will adjust to the actions. Therefore this kind of debates impossible can lead to conclusions that this or that would have led to victory for Hitler etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 If there's no point discussing it then why bother withthe game? We're curious animals - we always think we could have done better, and we want to show how. Certainly we can't change anything, but that's not why we discuss it - we discuss it as an intellectual exercise, or to make ourselves feel superior, or out of curiosity. there's certainly a point to discussing it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 Indeed. I never said the Germans could win, I said they could have been in a position to sue for peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts