Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiskeyPapa
But Hitler didn't lose that much at El Alemein -- he didn't have much to lose.

Hitler lost that part of the war at El Alamein, Walt. Numerical losses mean little when the strategic blow is overwhelming.

1,033 posted on 11/19/2002 12:45:08 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1023 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
But Hitler didn't lose that much at El Alemein -- he didn't have much to lose.

Hitler lost that part of the war at El Alamein, Walt. Numerical losses mean little when the strategic blow is overwhelming.

El Alemein gets a lot of play. It was just about the only victory that was solely British.

The Germans took some licks, but the forces involved were very small compared to the Russian Front. When the Brits began emerging from the mine fields, the Germans grabbed all the motorized transport and left post haste. The Italian infantry was left behind for capture. Hitler was in a bad way because he knew he couldn't count on the Italians to hold the Med for long. Reinforcing NA was just a stop gap. Large numbers of very good German troops were sent to NA and thereby thrown away in North Africa after it was clear the Italian Navy was too timid and later too outnumbered to support them.

but you still forget that the Germans defended the Italian front until the very end of the war.

El Alemein per se was not that big a deal.

Walt

1,041 posted on 11/19/2002 12:59:00 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1033 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson