Hello
I posed this question in a different forum but no one seemed to be interested in discussing it.I am sure everyone is aware that as far as stopping the Allies in Italy, Rommel and Kesselring had very different ideas.
Rommel wanted a general withdrawal from most of the country so that a strong defensive line could be established in the north while Kesselring's strategy visualized a defense south of Rome where the narrow peninsula would enable less troops to be involved and the difficult country would inflict severe attritional losses on the enemy. Rommel on the other hand argued that a strong defense in the north would eliminate the risk of amphibious assault.
Hitler preferred Kesselring's idea which did manage to inflict severe losses on the invaders but ultimately failed to stave of defeat for the Germans in Italy.
I am intrigued by the possibility of what could have happened if Rommel's idea had been implemented. The Germans could have cut their losses and established a strong defense further north but how successful would this defense have been as compared with what actually happened from '43 to '45?
Any ideas from fellow forum members?
Who had the better strategy in Italy?
Moderator: sniper1shot
Who had the better strategy in Italy?
Cry 'havoc' and let slip... the dogs of war
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
A withdrawal like that would have had to have been a fighting withdrawal...so you STILL take losses, and end up by default giving away huge amounts of territory to your enemy with as little of a fight as you can get away with. What advantage would there be in that? Kesselring "lost" but by definition you can't win a defensive battle or campaign anyway...He did a remarkable job when basically starved of resources compared to elsewhere.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
-
derGespenst
- Associate
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
- Location: New York City
I've always felt that after Alamein, Rommel was finished as a competant commander, probably a case of battle-fatigue, and this "strategy" is more evidence of that. No defensive line, however strong, was going to stop the Allies forever. They just had too much stuff. this is as bad as deploying 21st Panzer astride a river in Normandy or thinking he could counterattack the beaches in the face of naval gunfire. He should have retired after he took Tobruk.
Rommel was unlikely to find a stronger position than Kesselring did at Cassino - and the allies finally broke that line.
If Rommel had been in command, breaking the primary line would have put the allies in striking distance of Germany.
Rommel had his moments - but after Alam Halfa I can't think of one.
he was very energetic in building up the coastal fortifications in France. Forgetting of course, Napoleon's dictum that the history of fortifications is linked inextricably to the history of capitulations.
cheers
Reb
If Rommel had been in command, breaking the primary line would have put the allies in striking distance of Germany.
Rommel had his moments - but after Alam Halfa I can't think of one.
he was very energetic in building up the coastal fortifications in France. Forgetting of course, Napoleon's dictum that the history of fortifications is linked inextricably to the history of capitulations.
cheers
Reb
No. Not really. I think what Rommel wanted was for a complete withdrawal from southern Italy before any Allied landings took place.A withdrawal like that would have had to have been a fighting withdrawal...so you STILL take losses, and end up by default giving away huge amounts of territory to your enemy with as little of a fight as you can get away with
I never considered Rommel a great strategist anyway. Brilliant tactician but very flawed overall strategic view. Just look at the way he insisted on following Auchinleck to Egypt on a wild goose chase after the fall of Tobruk instead of insisting on the taking of Malta first. Anyway that's a different topic.
Cry 'havoc' and let slip... the dogs of war
-
John W. Howard
- Moderator
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 10:55 pm
Rommel vs. Kesselring
Hey Gents:
In retrospect it looks as if Kesselring was right; the Allies paid a heavy price for any terrain gained in Italy, and the question of who diverted whom in that theater is debatable. Rommel's strategy, on the surface, looks ridiculous when one first looks at it, but it has to be viewed in the context of Rommel's overall strategic outlook. The Brits had turned him back from the Suez and were under a competent commander, who left him little margin to gain the upper hand. Allied air forces were stronger and did extensive damage to his troops. The Americans were in the war, and even if they did not look very much like they knew what they were doing at first, Rommel found them resourceful, well-supplied, and quick to learn. In short, Rommel knew that North Africa was finished and should be abandoned. Instead, Hitler reinforced and managed to lose 250,000 men in Tunisia. Rommel had no confidence the Italians would fight for their homeland against the Allies, which he was mostly right about, and he saw no reason to expend German lives anywhere else but in the main theaters of operations where the war would ultimately be decided: NW Europe and Russia. Rommel's policy for Italy was to reduce the number of German forces needed there to the minimum, so that they could be sent to more critical areas. The further south in Italy the Germans fought, the longer their supply lines, the more cities which had to be garrisoned, and the greater chance for an amphibious landing, which might cut off German forces. Diverting Allied forces made some sense, but the Allies were in a much better position to have forces diverted than the Germans were.
Thus Rommel's plan for Italy was really just a part of his larger strategic view which was to concentrate as much German force as possible to stalemate the Russians, and prevent at all costs an Allied landing in NW Europe or to crush the landing if it succeeded. This he felt might just force the Allies to offer terms, which was the only way Rommel felt a good outcome for Germany could be had. Rommel recognized in N. Africa that Germany was in deep trouble fighting so many well-equipped Allies at once, that Germany could not win, and that the only way to prevent the utter destruction of Germany was to concentrate her forces and deliver a hard enough blow to the Allies that they would decide to negotiate rather than continue fighting. If looked at in that context, I think Rommel's Italy policy looks more intelligent than at first glance, but I am not sure it was the correct one. Best wishes.
In retrospect it looks as if Kesselring was right; the Allies paid a heavy price for any terrain gained in Italy, and the question of who diverted whom in that theater is debatable. Rommel's strategy, on the surface, looks ridiculous when one first looks at it, but it has to be viewed in the context of Rommel's overall strategic outlook. The Brits had turned him back from the Suez and were under a competent commander, who left him little margin to gain the upper hand. Allied air forces were stronger and did extensive damage to his troops. The Americans were in the war, and even if they did not look very much like they knew what they were doing at first, Rommel found them resourceful, well-supplied, and quick to learn. In short, Rommel knew that North Africa was finished and should be abandoned. Instead, Hitler reinforced and managed to lose 250,000 men in Tunisia. Rommel had no confidence the Italians would fight for their homeland against the Allies, which he was mostly right about, and he saw no reason to expend German lives anywhere else but in the main theaters of operations where the war would ultimately be decided: NW Europe and Russia. Rommel's policy for Italy was to reduce the number of German forces needed there to the minimum, so that they could be sent to more critical areas. The further south in Italy the Germans fought, the longer their supply lines, the more cities which had to be garrisoned, and the greater chance for an amphibious landing, which might cut off German forces. Diverting Allied forces made some sense, but the Allies were in a much better position to have forces diverted than the Germans were.
Thus Rommel's plan for Italy was really just a part of his larger strategic view which was to concentrate as much German force as possible to stalemate the Russians, and prevent at all costs an Allied landing in NW Europe or to crush the landing if it succeeded. This he felt might just force the Allies to offer terms, which was the only way Rommel felt a good outcome for Germany could be had. Rommel recognized in N. Africa that Germany was in deep trouble fighting so many well-equipped Allies at once, that Germany could not win, and that the only way to prevent the utter destruction of Germany was to concentrate her forces and deliver a hard enough blow to the Allies that they would decide to negotiate rather than continue fighting. If looked at in that context, I think Rommel's Italy policy looks more intelligent than at first glance, but I am not sure it was the correct one. Best wishes.
John W. Howard
Imad
"kaserine" Good call.
But I've just read two books on the topic and it looks like Rommel was doing speed and downers alternately. He had flashes of the old tactical genius and then stop and weep for a while because daddy Adolf was mean to him or von Arnim was a schmuck (which I believe to be true!).
The old Rommel would have kicked Arnim aside and tap danced all over us.
cheers
Reb
"kaserine" Good call.
But I've just read two books on the topic and it looks like Rommel was doing speed and downers alternately. He had flashes of the old tactical genius and then stop and weep for a while because daddy Adolf was mean to him or von Arnim was a schmuck (which I believe to be true!).
The old Rommel would have kicked Arnim aside and tap danced all over us.
cheers
Reb
There is something to that John. I think we tend to forget that for all Kesselring's brilliance in fighting a delaying action in Italy, it still cost the Axis a half a million casualties, manpower that could have been put to good use north of the Po. But I think we're all being wise after the event.If looked at in that context, I think Rommel's Italy policy looks more intelligent than at first glance, but I am not sure it was the correct one. Best wishes.
Cry 'havoc' and let slip... the dogs of war
Wouldn't doubt it. Good book by the way. I read it a couple of years back. I'm looking forward to the complete trilogy which is also supposed to cover Italy and Overlord.Reb wrote:Imad
According to a book I just read (An Army at Dawn) Rommel could have over ridden Arnim but had a fit of picque. Not sure how true that is.
cheers
Reb
Cry 'havoc' and let slip... the dogs of war
W00t, my account still works after not using it for years....
In any case, from what I remember, the whole Italian campaign was slow-moving, and towards the beginning of the end, basically stalemated. Didn't it more or less stop completly in north Italy, with the.....oh, that line....damn, i forget. Starts with a G? A K? I don't think it was a K...... In any case, it kinda sounds like K ended up enacting Rommell's strategy of fighting in the north, but after a fighting retreat up the boot.
In any case, from what I remember, the whole Italian campaign was slow-moving, and towards the beginning of the end, basically stalemated. Didn't it more or less stop completly in north Italy, with the.....oh, that line....damn, i forget. Starts with a G? A K? I don't think it was a K...... In any case, it kinda sounds like K ended up enacting Rommell's strategy of fighting in the north, but after a fighting retreat up the boot.
Gold for the craftsman,
Silver for the maid.
Copper for the craftsman,
cunning at his trade
"Good!" said the Baron,
Sitting in his hall
"but Iron, Cold Iron,
is master of them all"
-Kipling
Silver for the maid.
Copper for the craftsman,
cunning at his trade
"Good!" said the Baron,
Sitting in his hall
"but Iron, Cold Iron,
is master of them all"
-Kipling
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm