"Drive to Nowhere: The Myth of the Afrika Korps, 1941-43" Topic

"There is no more evocative phrase to emerge from World War II than Afrika Korps. The name conjures up a unique theater of war, a hauntingly beautiful empty quarter where armies could roam free, liberated from towns and hills, choke points and blocking positions, and especially those pesky civilians. It calls forth a war of near-absolute mobility, where tanks could operate very much like ships at sea, "sailing" where they wished, setting out on bold voyages hundreds of miles into the deep desert, then looping around the enemy flank and emerging like pirates of old to deal devastating blows to an unsuspecting foe. Finally, it implies a bold hero, in this case Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, a noble commander who fought the good fight, who hated Hitler and everything he stood for, and who couldn't have been farther away from our stereotyped image of the Nazi fanatic. Everything about him attracts us--the manly poses, the out-of-central-casting good looks, even the goggles perched just so. Placing Rommel and his elite Afrika Korps to the fore allows us to view the desert war as a clean fight against a morally worthy opponent. It was war, yes, but almost uniquely in World War II, it was a "war without hate."

It's an attractive image all around, and it is unfortunate that practically all of it is false. The desert was hardly a haven of beauty or romance. It was a pain, and fighting in it was a nightmare for both sides. Far from letting the respective tank fleets roam free, the desert chained them irresistibly to their supply lines, and a single failed supply convoy or a lost column of trucks could stop an entire offensive dead in its tracks. Contrary to the alleged mobility of desert warfare, both sides would spend far more time in static defensive positions, often quite elaborate, then they would launching tank charges…"
Main page
link

Armand

I found this myth busting articles wery interesting, thanks mate.

Very interesting article, thanks for sharing it.

It is a great article, well researched, but I remain unconvinced. What Rommel did achieve, with such limited resources, was simple incredible. For years he held the line in North Africa and actually went way beyond that very task, which was all he was initially asked to do.

We all know that he only turned against Hitler as he saw the way the war was going. We have no way of knowing how he would have behaved if involved in Barbarossa. Patton is a legend for doing just what Rommel did, attack attack attack and forget logistics. Patton had the advantage of course of commanding when high quality supplies (OK I admit parlous at times in NW Europe) did get through to some degree.

Sounds about right deadhead …

Glad you enjoyed it boys…

Armand

Its a great read and important corrective on many aspects of the mythology of the desert war, which most certainly wasn't a 'War without Hate'.

All the best

Andreas

This seems to be the Rommel myth v. Halder debate all over again.

To me it comes down to two issues. First do you believe Rommel was better prepared and equipped to defend Italian Libya in set battles near El Agheila, or do you believe he was better prepared and equipped to defend Italian Libya in mobile actions at or near the Egyptian border? Second do you see opening up Benghazi as an Axis supply port and denying the RAF air bases between Benghazi and Derna that could be used to protect Malta convoys and attack Axis supply lines as goals worth achieving?

Good questions….

Armand

No. It's not. It engages with the myth far more broadly.

All the best

Andreas