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

To: WhiskeyPapa
That wouldn't show an attempt at global conquest.

It shows an act of conquest outside of the "continental" realm of Europe, which you purported to be Hitler's only concern and only realm.

Hitler had no interest at all in Africa

Yeah Walt. Hitler had nothing a stake there. He didn't want to be there. He only sent his most prestigous general there to lead the Africa Corps to a hoped and sought after victory. El Alamein was only one of the three main turning points of the war for the allies. Try again, Walt. You're grasping at straws and it is showing.

987 posted on 11/19/2002 11:24:57 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
He only sent his most prestigous general there to lead the Africa Corps to a hoped and sought after victory.

Rommel was nobody when he went to Africa. He -became- prestigious and the Nazi media built him up big time.

Africa was always a sideshow for Hitler. He was just bucking up the pasta eating surrender monkeys.

A big part of the success that Rommel garnered was due to the almost criminal ineptitude of the Brits and their very inadequate equipment.

The Brits were completely incapable of armored maneuver warfare. It's been suggested that the Brits -never- acheived compentency in maneuvering large formations during WWII. Their losing 470 Sherman tanks in 4 days in Normandy is ample proof of that.

To counter your assertion about Africa, Hitler let the Africa Corps wither without supply. By late 1942, the Brits had a 4:1 ratio in tanks, 10:1 in artillery, 2:1 in men -- and the Germans had no gasoline.

Egypt was vital to the Brits, it was a sideshow to Hitler.

Walt

992 posted on 11/19/2002 11:38:50 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 987 | View Replies ]

To: GOPcapitalist
He only sent his most prestigous general there to lead the Africa Corps to a hoped and sought after victory.

Rommel was nobody when he went to Africa. He -became- prestigious and the Nazi media built him up big time.

Africa was always a sideshow for Hitler. He was just bucking up the pasta eating surrender monkeys.

A big part of the success that Rommel garnered was due to the almost criminal ineptitude of the Brits and their very inadequate equipment.

The Brits were completely incapable of armored maneuver warfare. It's been suggested that the Brits -never- acheived compentency in maneuvering large formations during WWII. Their losing 470 Sherman tanks in 4 days in Normandy is ample proof of that.

To counter your assertion about Africa, Hitler let the Africa Corps wither without supply. By late 1942, the Brits had a 4:1 ratio in tanks, 10:1 in artillery, 2:1 in men -- and the Germans had no gasoline.

Egypt was vital to the Brits, it was a sideshow to Hitler.

Walt

993 posted on 11/19/2002 11:38:51 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 987 | View Replies ]

To: GOPcapitalist
Try again, Walt. You're grasping at straws and it is showing.

Napoleon also sent troops to Egypt. He had as little success as Hitler. And yet his "system" was a continental one.

Hitler's goal was similar, as General Fuller said.

Walt

1,005 posted on 11/19/2002 11:52:27 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 987 | 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