How Rommel became the Desert Fox | Operation Sonnenblume 

as a atheist i thank god for beer

@@SunnieSnell lol

Lmao

Also the Newzealanders smashed the Germans and Italians hugely.

💀

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).

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.

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 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.

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

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

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.

You mean the desert rats held off the desert fox.

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

👍

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.

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...

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.

Gebirgsjäger

@@minimax9452 👍 Spell check.

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.

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.

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

of course

@@SunnieSnell uuuu

@@SunnieSnell uuiuuuiuuuuuuuuiu

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

And the British had much shorter supply lines.

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.

"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

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.

Rommel reputedly said that to conquer Hell he would have Australian 9th to take it the Kiwis to hold it

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

Supplies