"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."…"

link

Armand

Can anyone say "straw man"?

He could get his facts right about the basics, for a starter. The Germans didn't need an 88mm to stop an M3 Medium (nor "another technological marvel"- implying the M3 was the first?- M4 Sherman). The 50mm ATG did quite a good job of brewing them up, from any direction.

More "Let's publish a controversial article on the net and see how many clicks we can get." twaddle.

Dal Gavan +1

Even the introduction is utter drivel with barely an accurate fact in it. I suspect the source material was 'Noddy's book of desert warfare'.

The Introduction is deliberately drivel surely, introducing us to the common perception of Rommel and his Afrika Korps.

The opening line of the next paragraph, however, is "It's an attractive image all around, and it is unfortunate that practically all of it is false."

The author goes on to point out that Rommel was an enthusiastic follower of Hitler (while he was winning), that the desert was a ghastly place to fight and that supply lines determined outcomes as much as tactical skills.

The author is a PhD historian and the article is published by the National WWII Museum of New Orleans. This is not the usual blogger's YouTube nonsense. I do think it is more of an historical account of the fight up until Alamein, and not as analytical as originally suggested, but it struck me as reasonable overall.