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
In typical Walt fashion, you simply marginalize and downplay any tangible evidence that does not fit with your preset position. It would be laughable if it were not so sad.
Back in the real world, the turning points of World War II are interpreted in three battles.
One is the stalemate in Stalingrad, which personified the collapse of Hitler's push into Russia. One is Midway, which turned the Pacific theater. And one is El Alamein. Those three battles turned the war, Walt. Others after them were great and glorious victories, but the Nazi and Japanese pushes were cut strategically at those three battles. Wars do not turn on meaningless engagements in inconsequential regions, Walt.