Woody! As a historian, this whole series on El Alamein has been outstanding. Never enough ships and logisitics, but that is just me. 🤣 Congrats on a great job!
What a treat to have three such outstanding historians available in one setting. Each of them expounded on the subject of Rommel, Montgomery and the Battle of El Alamein brilliantly. I must say that John Parshall wrapped the discussion up well. El Alamein, Stalingrad and the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal were all attritional battles that announced the death knell of the Axis forces. I believe that both Rommel and Montgomery were brilliant Commanders that used completely different methods of Command. To have served under either would have been an honor but difficult as well as they both demanded much of their soldiers. Thank you for a great series WW2TV!! We have all been enlightened.
Extremely interesting discussion. The panel both supported and contrasted each others views and that is what you want in a discussion. What I really liked was the nuances that was brought out by the interaction among the panel. Very worthwhile.
Todays panel, Fantastic! Sidebar was Excellent! This is what History is all about. Please people watch it and the 2 weeks of great show leading to it. All likes of new perspectives, History is not stagnate, it's not about being a cheerleader it's about being a critical thinker and learning lessons and improving on those lessons. Thank you Jon Parshall, Peter Caddick-Adams , Zita Ballinger-Fletcher and Paul this was fun!
Thanks Jeff, and the sidebar was brilliant too. Apart from the negative opinions of that one person why kept saying we should have been talking about Stalingrad
This was a remarkable program. All those involved in the discussion (including the moderator) were very well informed, thoroughly prepared and especially glib and understandable. Thanks for putting this one. A good summary. BTW, at your urging, I located your program called "Accidental Agent: Bonner Fellers" and found it very enlightening. Made me laugh in spots when learning of the moments of institutional naivete on the Allied (read"American") part. There is no wonder that Rommel seemed to be clairvoyant !!! I also learned that even though you may be reading your foe's mail, you must always remember two things: 1) it WILL eventually come to an end, and 2) you still have to beat the enemy on the battlefield. Thanks for that program as well. It must be quite a challenge to keep this going at such a high level of quality.
Truly brilliant show; like attending a seminar at a PhD level program at a top notch university like Oxford or Harvard. Hats off to all 4 of you, especially Woody for his excellent tactical and logistical implementation in regards to putting this all together. Gosh, I learned a ton of new information and really appreciated the banter between John, PCA and Zita. And, Woody's moderation is spot on. Standing Ovation!
Woody, Zita, Jon and Peter absolutely outstanding panel on North Africa Theater of Operations. Very good discussion on Rommel, Montgomery and their staffs. Great finish to El Alamein Week. Thank you all.
Paul I think you have outdone yourself with this program. Fascinating program with excellent points made by all the presenters. Great to have the perspective from multiple views on the same program. I can't imagine how much coordination this one took! Thanks to all 3 presenters! Thanks for a superb program Paul!!!
20 minutes in and this is the finest, professional, "fresh take" panel discussion I have ever heard... And regardless of the topic. First class and thank you!
I was swept away by the breadth of this discussion on the 'old El-Alamein thing", and, as a 'very' amateur historian, gratified at how this panel made it so relatable, and understandable. Thank You All.
Excellent show again. Really loving Zita. She put it brilliantly at 1:02. Von Mellenthin also thought it was time for Auchinleck to go and Montgomery to take over.
I believe she sensed that she was in the presence of one of the leading military historians of our time, Jon Parshall, who not only clarified what happened at the Battle of Midway, but challenged the myths surrounding Montgomery's strategic and tactical competence at El Alamein, Caen, and Antwerp.
Fantastic episode tonight and a great end to an outstanding series of episodes on El Alamein. Tonight reminded me of sitting in a pub listening to a group of very knowledgeable friends. Different perspectives and well argued. Thank you Zita, Peter and Jon. I learned a lot tonight. A thought occurs to me if the Germans did not have their tactical signals unit and information from Bonner Fellers would the British generals who preceded Monty been as "bad" as they were thought to be?
Brilliant to have such intelligent and passionate debate, this is how we grow our knowledge. History cannot be studied in an echo chamber, well done guys.
Fascinating discussion and you learn more from this uniquely live exchange of views than simply reading books. Thanks to Peter, Zita, Paul for their fantastic input, and mostly to Woody for arranging, managing, and overseeing such a logistically complex event.
An All-Star panel discussion by three outstanding historians! I really love Zita's & John's discussion about Monty. I hope all three of these excellent historians return to WW2TV soon.
First class panel discussion. Opposing points of view handled with dignity and respect for each other. Maybe to date (although I’m still catching up) the best show of yours I’ve seen. Very professional and very educational.
What a fantastic way to end a great 2 week of brilliant episodes. These are very knowledgeable presenters (as have all the presenters in this series) and bring up good points. Thank-you for this @WW2TV.
Thank you so much!! This is fantastic!! I love hearing from Zita again. Can we also have some in-depth week for any of the Eastern front battles, if you haven't done it before? Stalingrad is staring at you Woody!!
Two weeks of shows about Stalingrad and the wider Eastern Front 42/45 in the New Year. Guests to include Jason D Mark, Prit Buttar, Indy Neidell and Iain MacGregor
Excellent point by Parshall at 47:00 or so regarding the different divisional organization & doctrine. he is spot on about the New Zealand division, which had an organic armor brigade although it was an infantry division.
Thanks for the nice comment, and if you haven't already, please make sure you subscribe to WW2TV and perhaps consider becoming a member? th-cam.com/channels/UC1nmJGHmiKtlkpA6SJMeA.htmljoin
I didn't realize, until I looked it up, that Peter is the author of what I consider the authoritative book on the Battle of Bulge. How cool that I get to hear him in person !
Talk about transformative; WW2TV has been transformative for coverage of the war. Woody, you are fantastic. It's not just getting good guests (which is a tribute to you; they come because this is a great show), but bringing the best out of them. Thanks again!
Brilliant conclusion to an outstanding program series! I learned things about El Alamein that I didn't know that I didn't know. 😄 Thank you, Paul! Looking forward to the next Eastern Front series. Wouldn't it be phenomenal to have an Eastern Front panel, say with Prit Buttar, David Stahel, Dr. Philip Blood, Dr. Roman Töppel and Prof. Söhnke Neitzel.😉
Really absorbing and interesting panel discussion about the El Alamein period in the war focussing mainly on Rommel & Montgomery. Jon, Peter & Zita brought a wealth of knowledge and interpretation to the subject. Well done Woody for bringing this panel together and adjudicating the show!! Having three historians bring their particular interests and expertise together was brilliant and brought out the nuances of the subject.
Reminded me of a book that pointed out the mud throwing at Montgomery. The book described how Montgomery was accused of using Eisenhowers parking spot at a conference. The author pointed out that Montgomery did not drive himself there, Montgomery had a driver, Montgomery would get out of his car at the front, then the car would be driven away to park. But this somehow got translated Monty took the oarking spot .
Great discussion. I was watching it with a highest dose of curiosity!. Thank you Wood for cresting this platform of exchange for greatest historical minds.
My opinion is that Hobart was the best trainer especially of armour units, Montgomery OTOH was much stronger at unifying his forces and spreading tactical knowledge across units. While researching in several archives I have found notes from Montgomery to military suppliers who were being released into non-military production. Short but very sincere he reassures the workforce that he and the army are grateful for their unsung efforts. I don't see much from other senior military or even political leaders. If nothing else he knew the value of reaching everybody. This is a fascinating episode but having three presenters means my bookshelf will get filled that much faster.
The big things that Montgomery did was to tell his generals that anyone who refused to carry out an order when it was given would be gone. He also talked to all of his troops telling them that there would be no more retreats, and he gave all units 2 months of extra training before the El Alemein attack.
The British lost almost all of their military equipment at Dunkirk. Everything had to be replaced. But this resulted in equipment like the amazing Six Pounder anti tank gun. The Second Battle of El-Alamein brought together all that new and very effective stuff. In addition, Rommel was crimped by his logistics being crushed by the British fighting out of Malta.
Rommel knew what his logistics was, he did not increase it. He advanced and made his logistics far worse, self inflicted wound. Strange he never learned!
Bro you just keep slaying it!! Can’t wait for Frank. Hopefully I can snag a copy of Adams latest book. Still waitin on Shattered Sword but 30$ right now is a little rough
Thank you Paul, I find this kind of debate fascinating and instructive but if I could offer one critique, it is that I would like the perspective of a German military historian for the European and African campaigns - as well as an English speaking Japanese military historian for the Asia Pacific. Cheers.
A great presentation from a great panel. The tiger tank is a development of the VK3001 in 1940 not a development from the experience with T 34 in Russia.The British mounted the 17 pounder gun on the 25 pounder carriage and shipped these to Tunisia in autumn 1942. The point of Alamein a a coalition victory is very important. The point made of lack of centralized doctrine in armour, is paralleled by the lack of a system of battalion drill until Sir David Dundas in 1792 , principals of military movement.
The idea of putting a 88mm on a tank does stem from France 1940 yes, however the Tiger's increase in massiveness and weight up to 56 tons was due to encountering the T-34 and KVs in 1941.
@@WW2TV Absolutely right. The Germans were playing around with paper designs and prototypes like anyone would...until 1941. *Then* they put priority on the project. There's simply no question that the form the Tiger took, and the fact that it was actually produced, came from the experience of encountering the new-generation soviet tanks.
Thanks for the nice comment Victor, and if you haven't already, please make sure you subscribe to WW2TV and perhaps consider becoming a member? th-cam.com/channels/UC1nmJGHmiKtlkpA6SJMeA.htmljoin
2nd comment: Zita keeps mentioning "Rommel's memoir's", the fact is that Rommel never got to write his memoirs. The Rommel Papers, which I read for the first time during the 72-73 9th grade school year, was a collected works of Rommel's writings put together and edited by B.H Liddel Hart and by his faithful staff officer Fritz Bayerlein along with the cooperation of his living widow Frau Lucia Rommel. But I understand why Zita used that terminology. If Rommel would have survived the war, he most certainly would have written his memoirs and quite possibly have been a general in the West German Army.
Long time fan. Watching this episode this morning here in Western PA. Excellent cast of historians. First comment: I have read about the North African campaign for years, and The Auch gets short shrift from Monty and history. Who won the First Battle of El Alamein? The Auck and his foresight to set the final defensive line at that desert railroad station and its commanding heights, and of course with the northern flank secured by the Med and the southern flank secured by the Qattara Depression.
Paul you do awesome work. I'm not critiquing your work when I make comments on your guests. But in Zita's case she clearly hasn't done enough research to make some of her comments. If you research it you will see that the "Rommel doesn't understand supply" myth only comes from 1 man. That man being Haldler. Haldler survived the war and was able to promote his view. Of course leaving out his hatred for Rommel. No other German senior commander ever said Rommel was bad with supply. Also Zita completely overlooks that the critiquing of Monty isn't Rommel or even German driven, but is vastly driven by American generals.
If that is true, then why do many historians who have studied this for years draw the same conclusion as Zita. I could give a big list of renowned figures who maintain Rommel's weakness was logistics
@@WW2TV because unfortunately they go off of Haldler's statements. They won't quote other Germans because no one else said it. Also just looking at the battles in Africa was the timing of Allied attacks any different then Rommel's? It was for both sides attack-build up for months-attack again. Rommel only attacked when he had proper supplies and only retreated when he couldn't maintain his front. Which is true of just about all WW2 generals. The only time this wasn't true was Stalingrad/Caucuses, where Germans attacked knowing they would have to stop every few days to wait for supplies.
@@WW2TV I would have no problem with their conclusions IF any of them gave an example of Rommel's lack of supply knowledge. No one, not even Haldler gives an example.
I can't believe I missed this show. My question would be, if it were to be considered, if Rommel & Monty played chess matches, who would be white? What would their favorite piece be? I'd say say Rommel would be the queen, able to move all over the board & Monty a king. Who would win? Best of 11 matches. I'd say Rommel would win early matches and Monty the later ones, lessens learned. Thanks for another great show Paul.
The British armour behave much like the cavalry in the Napoleonic period Welling said "they were want of much discipline" and the heavy cavalry especially had to be kept still for when let go developed battle madness, and usually spent after 1 charge. The Armoured troops still had attitudes that resonated in hindsight.
I don't get much out of Ms. Ballinger-Fletcher's comments. She says that Rommel made the same mistakes in France that he made in Africa. Fairly well known are Rommel's comments that the invasion when it came must be met immediately. He said: "Even with the most modern weapons, anyone who has to fight against an enemy in complete control of the air fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and the same chance of success." - Quoted from "American Thunderbolt" by Steven Zaloga p. 196
"Fairly well known are Rommel's comments that the invasion when it came must be met immediately." But one of her points was that Rommel wasn't available to command "immediately". He'd gone swanning off to his wife's birthday party. Zita rightly castigated him for that. He should have been there commanding, not gulping down cake in Germany hundreds of miles away.
But there WAS an invasion that day, and where was Rommel? He was eating birthday cake hundreds of miles away in Germany. An invasion was imminently expected, and yet Rommel left the front.
It reminds me of Bradley and Eisenhower when the Germans broke through in the Ardennes on December 16th 1944. They were playing cards together in Versailles. What did Bradley do when he heard the news? Did he rush back to his HQ that afternoon? No, he stayed with IKE and cracked champagne with him, celebrating IKE's 5th star and carried on playing cards until midnight.
The problem for the Americans in the Ardennes was a British Chief of Intelligence at SHAEF. British operations were rife with bad intelligence as at MARKET-GARDEN. Patton's G-2 Col. Koch briefed him on December 9 that an attack on 1st Army was likely. The British Army went from defeat to defeat to defeat throughout the whole war.
Every battle is a complex event, whether El Alamein or the Battle of Eastern Solomons. It's easy to focus narrowly on the interlocking details while not realizing the context leading up to the battle nor the lessons brought into and out of each battle. Covering both - context and details - even in a 500 or 600 page book, is difficult.
Very interesting program but sad to see the two US contributors still in thrall to the myth of Patton as a great commander. Zita Ballenger Fletcher actually referred to his "battles agains Rommel", which as we know never happened, and Jon Marshall lauds his master of mobile warfare in Sicily!
The US Army did perform some pretty impressive feats of mobility in Sicily, and not all of it was vehicle-borne. Study the operations of the US 3rd Infantry Division some time to see an impressive use of good old fashioned marching.
Jon Parshall, the answer to your question at 1:24:40 came from the new world. India, Canada, NZ, Australia. I haven't included RSA because a fair few of them probably wanted to fight for the other side. By the end of 1942 the old world was exhausted, and Churchill was right.
Dave Holland states that while they were very dangerous to face, the Tiger and Panther tanks were very heavy and thus hard to transport. They were very complex, time consuming and expensive to produce. The required very large amounts of increasingly scarce fuel. A TV documentry about Normandy that I watched many years ago featured a tanker who fought there stated that side armor of Panthers could be penetrated by the Sherman 75mm guns. The allies also learned that they could defeat Tigers by hitting them from the rear. Dave Holland quoted a British vet of North Africa as saying that the new 17 pounder AT guns could penetrate a Tiger's armor. WW2TV presentations showed that high velovity 76.2mm guns were deadly to Panthers and, in many cases, to Tigers.
I respect and find Jon and Peter most excellent. I found Zita refreshing and making (made) superb points. As a Yank I mostly saw Monty as a marionette, spoiled ego maniac....ironically what could be said of Gen. Patton.
If Aukinleck was the commander at Singapore, he probably would have concurred with building fortifications like the general commanding the engineers recommended.
Relative to each other were the Afrika Korp and the 8th Army equals at El Alamein? It always seemed to me Monty beat up on the Afrika Korp when that army was at the end of its tether and he had the advantage of lines of communications. Not to take away from the victory, because knowing when to strike an enemy an important part of war fighting, it would seem the victory over Rommel would seem more complete had 8th Army defeated an equal or better opponent in the desert.
But he'd already defeated Rommel at Alam el Halfa WITHOUT numerical superiority, and that was the first time in the North African war that the 8th Army didn't suffer disproportionate tank losses. Montgomery DID make a difference. It was not just about numerical superiority. Ritchie at Gazala and Fredendall at Kasserine had numerical advantages. They both got routed.
One of the major points of being a good tactician is ensuring you are never in a fair fight. Dead men and losers fight fair. Tactical skill consists partly of ensuring all odds are in your favor as heavily as possible before the first shot is fired. Montgomery was exceptionally good at this. And while it is true that he had the advantages of the allied logistical system on his side, it is also true that: a) other generals had had favorable circumstances and still lost (Percival et al) and b) this is another way of saying that the germans were pretty stupid at the strategic level.
Very late to the party here, but really interesting discussion. Tripped over it when I was looking for material on Alamein. Something I'd note on the Auchinleck vs Monty debate is that comparing Montgomery to Auchinleck, or Wavell for that matter, has never sat right with me. Wavell and Auchinleck were CINC of the whole of Middle East Command, while Montgomery only had to run 8th Army. When people refer to them as his predecessors it's accordingly inaccurate: it was Harold Alexander who succeeded Auchinleck at Middle East Command, and Sir Alan Cunningham and Neil Ritchie who preceded Monty at 8th Army. Alexander, as one of the presenters noted, tends to get lost in the story of Monty's success, while Cunningham just isn't really discussed at all, unless it's as a footnote in the story of his more successful big brother (while Ritchie is so poorly known I forgot to include him in the first version of this comment). I feel there's some very good studies yet to be done of Alexander as CINC Middle East, and of the transition not from Auchinleck but Cunningham and Ritchie to Montgomery.
Just want to comment that Montgomery was generally critical of special operations forces, so, this was not a positive lesson he would have drawn from Africa at 26:27. He regarded special ops units as drawing off the best NCOs and officers from regular units and thus weakening those regular units. Even to this day that's one of the better critiques of spec ops anyone has ever had.
Rommel had more than Hitler to deal with on D-Day. His superior, von Runstedt, had the final say as to the positioning of the panzer forces....and he preferred that they be kept far away from the coast.....and, as a consequence, played no significant role in smashing the Allies on, and close to, the invasion beaches.
Rundstedt was correct, though, because no one knew where the allied attack would come. Any staff school in the world would agree with Runstedt. To take an example where the opposite was done: In the 1940 campaign, the French army committed its mobile forces to the Belgian front, falling for a German feint, and kept nothing substantial in reserve. So once the main weight of the German attack was identified, there was no great mechanized reserve force to deploy.
Interesting comments by PCA about the 2nd NZ Div converting itself into a "panzer grenadier" division. The Canadian infantry divisions in NWE did much the same, with permanently attached tank brigades. Meanwhile the Australian divisions back in SWPAC re-organised as litghtened jungle-mountain TOE air moblie (WW2 style) divisions. A nod to Burma here, where a number of Indian formations went the same route as the AIF. Meanwhile, back in blighty, the Gds armoured division managed to re-organise itself into American style cxombat commands... but not until months after D-day. Is it just me, or is anyone else seeing the dominions, exhibiting a bit of initiative, dragging the old empire's aristocratic officer class into the modern era? Thank God Freyberg, Blamey, Morshead, Lavarack, Symonds and their subordinates had the political clout to refuse stupid orders from British generals and accomplish the mission their way, without taking unnecessary casualties.
One odd point was when it was brought up "why didn't Rommel just turn on Hitler if he was so dedicated to his troops?" Which felt like a bit of a leap. "Let's go through 1918-19 again, or worse, Russian 1917, in the middle of a war" is what it would logically amount to. It feels like an impossible standard, when 8th Army is the one losing, why aren't people saying Wavell should depose Churchill? When losing, you should depose the functional head of state, after all. "Because we know the Germans were more evil after the Russians occupied the concentration camps." Yes, which didn't happen yet. The only option he would have is to resign, but if the resignation comes off as bad PR it won't be allowed. I do think Rommel is overinflated in the mythos of ww2 commanders, but it seems like each German commander at some point is ranked by "since he didn't start a civil war he is bad." Stalin did nasty things too, but we don't rank Soviet commanders on their willingness to overthrow Stalin.
On the German attitude towards the Russians as opposed to the Western Powers, i.e. Rommel & Bayerlein's views... After the War, Erich Hartmann, the top fighter Ace of All Time - was turned over to the Soviets and held as a "POW" for several years. During this period he was asked by a Russian interrogator, "Who, in Hartmann's opinion, had been the very best fighter Ace of the War?" Without hesitation Hartmann replied, "Marseille." - 'Jochen Marseille'. "But you shout down almost 200 more enemy than Marseille!" his interrogator responded in obvious exasperation. (158 vs 352) "True," said Hartmann. "But Marseille scored all his victories while flying against the British. I was only flying against Russians." Sooo... Yeah, it was a more universally held feeling amongst the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe than just Rommel and Bayerlein.
Woody! As a historian, this whole series on El Alamein has been outstanding.
Never enough ships and logisitics, but that is just me. 🤣
Congrats on a great job!
Thank you very much
What a treat to have three such outstanding historians available in one setting. Each of them expounded on the subject of Rommel, Montgomery and the Battle of El Alamein brilliantly. I must say that John Parshall wrapped the discussion up well. El Alamein, Stalingrad and the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal were all attritional battles that announced the death knell of the Axis forces. I believe that both Rommel and Montgomery were brilliant Commanders that used completely different methods of Command. To have served under either would have been an honor but difficult as well as they both demanded much of their soldiers. Thank you for a great series WW2TV!! We have all been enlightened.
Extremely interesting discussion. The panel both supported and contrasted each others views and that is what you want in a discussion. What I really liked was the nuances that was brought out by the interaction among the panel. Very worthwhile.
Todays panel, Fantastic! Sidebar was Excellent! This is what History is all about. Please people watch it and the 2 weeks of great show leading to it. All likes of new perspectives, History is not stagnate, it's not about being a cheerleader it's about being a critical thinker and learning lessons and improving on those lessons. Thank you Jon Parshall, Peter Caddick-Adams , Zita Ballinger-Fletcher and Paul this was fun!
Thanks Jeff, and the sidebar was brilliant too. Apart from the negative opinions of that one person why kept saying we should have been talking about Stalingrad
@@WW2TV Yeah, that guy was bizarre. Trolls everywhere.
This was a remarkable program. All those involved in the discussion (including the moderator) were very well informed, thoroughly prepared and especially glib and understandable. Thanks for putting this one. A good summary.
BTW, at your urging, I located your program called "Accidental Agent: Bonner Fellers" and found it very enlightening. Made me laugh in spots when learning of the moments of institutional naivete on the Allied (read"American") part. There is no wonder that Rommel seemed to be clairvoyant !!! I also learned that even though you may be reading your foe's mail, you must always remember two things: 1) it WILL eventually come to an end, and 2) you still have to beat the enemy on the battlefield. Thanks for that program as well. It must be quite a challenge to keep this going at such a high level of quality.
Truly brilliant show; like attending a seminar at a PhD level program at a top notch university like Oxford or Harvard. Hats off to all 4 of you, especially Woody for his excellent tactical and logistical implementation in regards to putting this all together. Gosh, I learned a ton of new information and really appreciated the banter between John, PCA and Zita. And, Woody's moderation is spot on. Standing Ovation!
Woody, Zita, Jon and Peter absolutely outstanding panel on North Africa Theater of Operations. Very good discussion on Rommel, Montgomery and their staffs. Great finish to El Alamein Week. Thank you all.
Paul I think you have outdone yourself with this program. Fascinating program with excellent points made by all the presenters. Great to have the perspective from multiple views on the same program. I can't imagine how much coordination this one took! Thanks to all 3 presenters! Thanks for a superb program Paul!!!
You are welcome Dave. I will have to do more of these
20 minutes in and this is the finest, professional, "fresh take" panel discussion I have ever heard... And regardless of the topic. First class and thank you!
I was swept away by the breadth of this discussion on the 'old El-Alamein thing", and, as a 'very' amateur historian, gratified at how this panel made it so relatable, and understandable. Thank You All.
Woody/Jon/Peter/Zita. GREAT PRESENTATION! Thanks. Bob
Excellent show again. Really loving Zita.
She put it brilliantly at 1:02.
Von Mellenthin also thought it was time for Auchinleck to go and Montgomery to take over.
I believe she sensed that she was in the presence of one of the leading military historians of our time, Jon Parshall, who not only clarified what happened at the Battle of Midway, but challenged the myths surrounding Montgomery's strategic and tactical competence at El Alamein, Caen, and Antwerp.
@@williamfankboner4206 "the myths surrounding Montgomery's strategic and tactical competence at El Alamein, Caen, and Antwerp."
What myths????
Phenomenal show w/Jon Parshall, Peter Caddick-Adams and Zita Ballinger-Fletcher!!
Paul, Yank here. If Unterwhatever cannot handle it oh well. I enjoy having my preconceived notions challenged and in many cases squashed. Keep it up.
Fantastic series, Paul
I usually cannot watch them live because I'm usually at work but always happy to watch your shows after that.
Excellent content
Fantastic episode tonight and a great end to an outstanding series of episodes on El Alamein. Tonight reminded me of sitting in a pub listening to a group of very knowledgeable friends. Different perspectives and well argued. Thank you Zita, Peter and Jon. I learned a lot tonight. A thought occurs to me if the Germans did not have their tactical signals unit and information from Bonner Fellers would the British generals who preceded Monty been as "bad" as they were thought to be?
Brilliant to have such intelligent and passionate debate, this is how we grow our knowledge. History cannot be studied in an echo chamber, well done guys.
Great round table , would love to see more of these to cap a week of shows.
Thank you Paul, for another great program.
Brilliant panel discussion tonight, room for all sides to argue their points. A great way to end a fantastic run of programs.
Extraordinarily valuable discussion, great format & chairmanship.
Thanks for being a part of this landmark project. 15 shows, 15 different perspectives
Fascinating discussion and you learn more from this uniquely live exchange of views than simply reading books. Thanks to Peter, Zita, Paul for their fantastic input, and mostly to Woody for arranging, managing, and overseeing such a logistically complex event.
Many thanks Nicholas
An All-Star panel discussion by three outstanding historians! I really love Zita's & John's discussion about Monty. I hope all three of these excellent historians return to WW2TV soon.
First class panel discussion. Opposing points of view handled with dignity and respect for each other. Maybe to date (although I’m still catching up) the best show of yours I’ve seen. Very professional and very educational.
What a fantastic way to end a great 2 week of brilliant episodes. These are very knowledgeable presenters (as have all the presenters in this series) and bring up good points. Thank-you for this @WW2TV.
Glad you enjoyed it!
An excellent stream! 😃 Very nice with the collaboration that brought a lot out in this subject.
Yep, it all worked out really end. I'm very happy with the range of subjects anf guests
Brilliant panel and discussion ! Well done.
Thank you so much!! This is fantastic!! I love hearing from Zita again. Can we also have some in-depth week for any of the Eastern front battles, if you haven't done it before? Stalingrad is staring at you Woody!!
Two weeks of shows about Stalingrad and the wider Eastern Front 42/45 in the New Year. Guests to include Jason D Mark, Prit Buttar, Indy Neidell and Iain MacGregor
@@WW2TV most excellent
I am watching this again because of the shorts you put out. I forgot how good an episode it was.
so pleased that I discovered this program by some of my favorite historians living in this age. KUDOS !
Welcome aboard John
Outstanding panel discussion. Differing views added breath to it.
Excellent point by Parshall at 47:00 or so regarding the different divisional organization & doctrine. he is spot on about the New Zealand division, which had an organic armor brigade although it was an infantry division.
Another excellent point by Parshall at 59:19 - there was no unified doctrine for the training and operation of British mech units.
Thanks for the nice comment, and if you haven't already, please make sure you subscribe to WW2TV and perhaps consider becoming a member? th-cam.com/channels/UC1nmJGHmiKtlkpA6SJMeA.htmljoin
@@WW2TV Done, thanks
Thank you very much
Great show, the panel was really good and a fantastic discussion from all.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Bout to kick back and enjoy this. Thanks to all involved.
I didn't realize, until I looked it up, that Peter is the author of what I consider the authoritative book on the Battle of Bulge. How cool that I get to hear him in person !
Well he's been on WW2TV a few times, and will be on again. I was with him this weekend and he's as delightful as ever
Very good audio , thank you. Really interesting commentators.
Talk about transformative; WW2TV has been transformative for coverage of the war. Woody, you are fantastic. It's not just getting good guests (which is a tribute to you; they come because this is a great show), but bringing the best out of them. Thanks again!
Thanks very much
Brilliant conclusion to an outstanding program series! I learned things about El Alamein that I didn't know that I didn't know. 😄 Thank you, Paul!
Looking forward to the next Eastern Front series. Wouldn't it be phenomenal to have an Eastern Front panel, say with Prit Buttar, David Stahel, Dr. Philip Blood, Dr. Roman Töppel and Prof. Söhnke Neitzel.😉
A really good mix of viewpoints, opening the door to a well trodden subject. Bloody good show.👣😁
Really absorbing and interesting panel discussion about the El Alamein period in the war focussing mainly on Rommel & Montgomery. Jon, Peter & Zita brought a wealth of knowledge and interpretation to the subject. Well done Woody for bringing this panel together and adjudicating the show!! Having three historians bring their particular interests and expertise together was brilliant and brought out the nuances of the subject.
Fantastic round table discussion. Very entertaining plus extremely informative. One of your best.
So much good discussion on personalities and how their experiences in NA shaped their experiences in the ETO.
Reminded me of a book that pointed out the mud throwing at Montgomery. The book described how Montgomery was accused of using Eisenhowers parking spot at a conference. The author pointed out that Montgomery did not drive himself there, Montgomery had a driver, Montgomery would get out of his car at the front, then the car would be driven away to park. But this somehow got translated Monty took the oarking spot .
Monty haters gotta hate!
Thanks just got a chance to watch it. Great insight!
Great discussion. I was watching it with a highest dose of curiosity!. Thank you Wood for cresting this platform of exchange for greatest historical minds.
My pleasure!
Jon the bassist, doubly genius 😊
My opinion is that Hobart was the best trainer especially of armour units, Montgomery OTOH was much stronger at unifying his forces and spreading tactical knowledge across units. While researching in several archives I have found notes from Montgomery to military suppliers who were being released into non-military production. Short but very sincere he reassures the workforce that he and the army are grateful for their unsung efforts. I don't see much from other senior military or even political leaders. If nothing else he knew the value of reaching everybody. This is a fascinating episode but having three presenters means my bookshelf will get filled that much faster.
Monty was married to Hobarts sister, she died in 1938
Wonderful, far-ranging discussion and terrific exchange of ideas. BRILLIANT use of backgrounds, Zita, I loved your use of Monty's trailer!
Thank you so much!
Best things are intelligent viewpoints discussed and challenged respectfully and courteously. Everybody learns something, great show.
Truly interesting panel discussion. Well done, all!
Great show today mate!🎉
Thank you so much, this is fantastic
The big things that Montgomery did was to tell his generals that anyone who refused to carry out an order when it was given would be gone. He also talked to all of his troops telling them that there would be no more retreats, and he gave all units 2 months of extra training before the El Alemein attack.
Fantastic discussion. Really enjoyed this show.
Very interesting discussion, pleased to see some love for the Auk and Alexander as well as Coningham. Many thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Howdy folks. Excellent look at the high command of both sides in North Africa. Lots of info and informed analysis. Don’t miss this one.
Thanks Jim
Absolutely brilliant! More please!
Woo great stuff!
The British lost almost all of their military equipment at Dunkirk. Everything had to be replaced. But this resulted in equipment like the amazing Six Pounder anti tank gun. The Second Battle of El-Alamein brought together all that new and very effective stuff. In addition, Rommel was crimped by his logistics being crushed by the British fighting out of Malta.
Rommel knew what his logistics was, he did not increase it. He advanced and made his logistics far worse, self inflicted wound. Strange he never learned!
@@benwilson6145not understanding logistics is a signature move for the Wehrmacht
Bro you just keep slaying it!!
Can’t wait for Frank.
Hopefully I can snag a copy of Adams latest book. Still waitin on Shattered Sword but 30$ right now is a little rough
Thank you Paul, I find this kind of debate fascinating and instructive but if I could offer one critique, it is that I would like the perspective of a German military historian for the European and African campaigns - as well as an English speaking Japanese military historian for the Asia Pacific. Cheers.
Yep agreed, it's an ongoing issue finding German historians
Excellent
Very strong Panal. Thanks
A great presentation from a great panel.
The tiger tank is a development of the VK3001 in 1940 not a development from the experience with T 34 in Russia.The British mounted the 17 pounder gun on the 25 pounder carriage and shipped these to Tunisia in autumn 1942.
The point of Alamein a a coalition victory is very important.
The point made of lack of centralized doctrine in armour, is paralleled by the lack of a system of battalion drill until Sir David Dundas in 1792 , principals of military movement.
But Jon's point stands about the German need for a new approach to armour as a result of the experiences of 1942.
Thanks for watching
The idea of putting a 88mm on a tank does stem from France 1940 yes, however the Tiger's increase in massiveness and weight up to 56 tons was due to encountering the T-34 and KVs in 1941.
@@WW2TV Absolutely right. The Germans were playing around with paper designs and prototypes like anyone would...until 1941. *Then* they put priority on the project. There's simply no question that the form the Tiger took, and the fact that it was actually produced, came from the experience of encountering the new-generation soviet tanks.
One of these is now the only operational Tiger in the world at the Tank Museum.
Arrrgh, fell asleep and missed this. Catching up now.
I really do enjoy your programs, much more preferable to have been there, rather chilly in the evening.
Jolly good, and do please carry on.
Thanks for the nice comment Victor, and if you haven't already, please make sure you subscribe to WW2TV and perhaps consider becoming a member? th-cam.com/channels/UC1nmJGHmiKtlkpA6SJMeA.htmljoin
Great panel discussion. Peter, what’s with the cell phone?😂
2nd comment: Zita keeps mentioning "Rommel's memoir's", the fact is that Rommel never got to write his memoirs. The Rommel Papers, which I read for the first time during the 72-73 9th grade school year, was a collected works of Rommel's writings put together and edited by B.H Liddel Hart and by his faithful staff officer Fritz Bayerlein along with the cooperation of his living widow Frau Lucia Rommel. But I understand why Zita used that terminology. If Rommel would have survived the war, he most certainly would have written his memoirs and quite possibly have been a general in the West German Army.
He could have been the founder of German heavy metal instead of Til Lindeman
Long time fan. Watching this episode this morning here in Western PA. Excellent cast of historians. First comment: I have read about the North African campaign for years, and The Auch gets short shrift from Monty and history. Who won the First Battle of El Alamein? The Auck and his foresight to set the final defensive line at that desert railroad station and its commanding heights, and of course with the northern flank secured by the Med and the southern flank secured by the Qattara Depression.
Episode on the mine-clearing school in North Africa? Are you referring to the episode on Brig PTN Moore?
Yes indeed Mandeep
Paul you do awesome work. I'm not critiquing your work when I make comments on your guests. But in Zita's case she clearly hasn't done enough research to make some of her comments. If you research it you will see that the "Rommel doesn't understand supply" myth only comes from 1 man. That man being Haldler. Haldler survived the war and was able to promote his view. Of course leaving out his hatred for Rommel. No other German senior commander ever said Rommel was bad with supply. Also Zita completely overlooks that the critiquing of Monty isn't Rommel or even German driven, but is vastly driven by American generals.
If that is true, then why do many historians who have studied this for years draw the same conclusion as Zita. I could give a big list of renowned figures who maintain Rommel's weakness was logistics
@@WW2TV because unfortunately they go off of Haldler's statements. They won't quote other Germans because no one else said it. Also just looking at the battles in Africa was the timing of Allied attacks any different then Rommel's? It was for both sides attack-build up for months-attack again. Rommel only attacked when he had proper supplies and only retreated when he couldn't maintain his front. Which is true of just about all WW2 generals. The only time this wasn't true was Stalingrad/Caucuses, where Germans attacked knowing they would have to stop every few days to wait for supplies.
@@nickdanellis7065 Or they have drawn their own conclusions based on wider study
@@WW2TV I would have no problem with their conclusions IF any of them gave an example of Rommel's lack of supply knowledge. No one, not even Haldler gives an example.
Rommel kept out running his supply lines. That's a fact. He had to be personally recalled by his subordinates on more than one occasion.
Beauty and the Beasts. Fantastic stuff, and definitely not too Anglocentric.
I can't believe I missed this show. My question would be, if it were to be considered, if Rommel & Monty played chess matches, who would be white? What would their favorite piece be? I'd say say Rommel would be the queen, able to move all over the board & Monty a king. Who would win? Best of 11 matches. I'd say Rommel would win early matches and Monty the later ones, lessens learned. Thanks for another great show Paul.
Monty plays black. Favourite piece: the pawns!
Montgomery Was born in England of Northern Irish Stock. He grew up in Tasmania!
No wonder things got freaky
The British armour behave much like the cavalry in the Napoleonic period Welling said "they were want of much discipline" and the heavy cavalry especially had to be kept still for when let go developed battle madness, and usually spent after 1 charge. The Armoured troops still had attitudes that resonated in hindsight.
I don't get much out of Ms. Ballinger-Fletcher's comments. She says that Rommel made the same mistakes in France that he made in Africa. Fairly well known are Rommel's comments that the invasion when it came must be met immediately. He said: "Even with the most modern weapons, anyone who has to fight against an enemy in complete control of the air fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and the same chance of success." - Quoted from "American Thunderbolt" by Steven Zaloga p. 196
"Fairly well known are Rommel's comments that the invasion when it came must be met immediately."
But one of her points was that Rommel wasn't available to command "immediately". He'd gone swanning off to his wife's birthday party. Zita rightly castigated him for that. He should have been there commanding, not gulping down cake in Germany hundreds of miles away.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The German weather forecast told them that no invasion was possible on the 6th. And of course the weather was very iffy that day.
But there WAS an invasion that day, and where was Rommel? He was eating birthday cake hundreds of miles away in Germany. An invasion was imminently expected, and yet Rommel left the front.
It reminds me of Bradley and Eisenhower when the Germans broke through in the Ardennes on December 16th 1944. They were playing cards together in Versailles. What did Bradley do when he heard the news? Did he rush back to his HQ that afternoon? No, he stayed with IKE and cracked champagne with him, celebrating IKE's 5th star and carried on playing cards until midnight.
The problem for the Americans in the Ardennes was a British Chief of Intelligence at SHAEF. British operations were rife with bad intelligence as at MARKET-GARDEN. Patton's G-2 Col. Koch briefed him on December 9 that an attack on 1st Army was likely.
The British Army went from defeat to defeat to defeat throughout the whole war.
Every battle is a complex event, whether El Alamein or the Battle of Eastern Solomons. It's easy to focus narrowly on the interlocking details while not realizing the context leading up to the battle nor the lessons brought into and out of each battle. Covering both - context and details - even in a 500 or 600 page book, is difficult.
@WW2TV could you do a video about my grandfathers division 99th inf
It's all a matter of finding an expert guest
Very interesting program but sad to see the two US contributors still in thrall to the myth of Patton as a great commander. Zita Ballenger Fletcher actually referred to his "battles agains Rommel", which as we know never happened, and Jon Marshall lauds his master of mobile warfare in Sicily!
The US Army did perform some pretty impressive feats of mobility in Sicily, and not all of it was vehicle-borne. Study the operations of the US 3rd Infantry Division some time to see an impressive use of good old fashioned marching.
Jon Parshall, the answer to your question at 1:24:40 came from the new world. India, Canada, NZ, Australia. I haven't included RSA because a fair few of them probably wanted to fight for the other side. By the end of 1942 the old world was exhausted, and Churchill was right.
Someone once said: “ The British manage to lose all the battles, but in the end win the war!”
Dave Holland states that while they were very dangerous to face, the Tiger and Panther tanks were very heavy and thus hard to transport. They were very complex, time consuming and expensive to produce. The required very large amounts of increasingly scarce fuel. A TV documentry about Normandy that I watched many years ago featured a tanker who fought there stated that side armor of Panthers could be penetrated by the Sherman 75mm guns. The allies also learned that they could defeat Tigers by hitting them from the rear. Dave Holland quoted a British vet of North Africa as saying that the new 17 pounder AT guns could penetrate a Tiger's armor. WW2TV presentations showed that high velovity 76.2mm guns were deadly to Panthers and, in many cases, to Tigers.
I respect and find Jon and Peter most excellent. I found Zita refreshing and making (made) superb points. As a Yank I mostly saw Monty as a marionette, spoiled ego maniac....ironically what could be said of Gen. Patton.
Maybe you should read to find out what their men thought of them. Montys men respected and loved him. Pattons men hated him, our blood his guts!
Sorry "martinet" although in some way my original comment is true....Point: I found Zita's takes refreshing.
Enjoy the points of view, Zita mirrors my view of Monties strengths and Rommel's weakness....for this theater.
If Aukinleck was the commander at Singapore, he probably would have concurred with building fortifications like the general commanding the engineers recommended.
Relative to each other were the Afrika Korp and the 8th Army equals at El Alamein? It always seemed to me Monty beat up on the Afrika Korp when that army was at the end of its tether and he had the advantage of lines of communications. Not to take away from the victory, because knowing when to strike an enemy an important part of war fighting, it would seem the victory over Rommel would seem more complete had 8th Army defeated an equal or better opponent in the desert.
Yep, Monty had a 2 to one numerical advantage
But he'd already defeated Rommel at Alam el Halfa WITHOUT numerical superiority, and that was the first time in the North African war that the 8th Army didn't suffer disproportionate tank losses.
Montgomery DID make a difference. It was not just about numerical superiority. Ritchie at Gazala and Fredendall at Kasserine had numerical advantages. They both got routed.
Disproportionate tank losses against Rommel I meant to say.
One of the major points of being a good tactician is ensuring you are never in a fair fight. Dead men and losers fight fair. Tactical skill consists partly of ensuring all odds are in your favor as heavily as possible before the first shot is fired.
Montgomery was exceptionally good at this. And while it is true that he had the advantages of the allied logistical system on his side, it is also true that: a) other generals had had favorable circumstances and still lost (Percival et al) and b) this is another way of saying that the germans were pretty stupid at the strategic level.
@@executivedirector7467 One could also say Montgomery had to deal with a much tougher war opponent than O Connor in 1941.
More equitment and better than enemy
An American running down Montgomery after being a Patton fanboy. I tell you I am shocked!
What about the Italian perspective? General Messe?
We have covered Italy's war before and will do so again
@@WW2TV That's great, thank you. I like what you are doing, it's very informative. I'm learning a lot.
Very late to the party here, but really interesting discussion. Tripped over it when I was looking for material on Alamein.
Something I'd note on the Auchinleck vs Monty debate is that comparing Montgomery to Auchinleck, or Wavell for that matter, has never sat right with me. Wavell and Auchinleck were CINC of the whole of Middle East Command, while Montgomery only had to run 8th Army. When people refer to them as his predecessors it's accordingly inaccurate: it was Harold Alexander who succeeded Auchinleck at Middle East Command, and Sir Alan Cunningham and Neil Ritchie who preceded Monty at 8th Army.
Alexander, as one of the presenters noted, tends to get lost in the story of Monty's success, while Cunningham just isn't really discussed at all, unless it's as a footnote in the story of his more successful big brother (while Ritchie is so poorly known I forgot to include him in the first version of this comment). I feel there's some very good studies yet to be done of Alexander as CINC Middle East, and of the transition not from Auchinleck but Cunningham and Ritchie to Montgomery.
Just want to comment that Montgomery was generally critical of special operations forces, so, this was not a positive lesson he would have drawn from Africa at 26:27. He regarded special ops units as drawing off the best NCOs and officers from regular units and thus weakening those regular units. Even to this day that's one of the better critiques of spec ops anyone has ever had.
Did UK plan to annex Italian colonies in Libya and Somaliland like the Mandate System in aftermath of World war 1?
I don't know, maybe someone else will know
Peter likes the sound of his own voice😂
Peter is confident about his views of this campaign
Rommel had more than Hitler to deal with on D-Day. His superior, von Runstedt, had the final say as to the positioning of the panzer forces....and he preferred that they be kept far away from the coast.....and, as a consequence, played no significant role in smashing the Allies on, and close to, the invasion beaches.
Rundstedt was correct, though, because no one knew where the allied attack would come. Any staff school in the world would agree with Runstedt.
To take an example where the opposite was done: In the 1940 campaign, the French army committed its mobile forces to the Belgian front, falling for a German feint, and kept nothing substantial in reserve. So once the main weight of the German attack was identified, there was no great mechanized reserve force to deploy.
Interesting comments by PCA about the 2nd NZ Div converting itself into a "panzer grenadier" division. The Canadian infantry divisions in NWE did much the same, with permanently attached tank brigades. Meanwhile the Australian divisions back in SWPAC re-organised as litghtened jungle-mountain TOE air moblie (WW2 style) divisions. A nod to Burma here, where a number of Indian formations went the same route as the AIF. Meanwhile, back in blighty, the Gds armoured division managed to re-organise itself into American style cxombat commands... but not until months after D-day.
Is it just me, or is anyone else seeing the dominions, exhibiting a bit of initiative, dragging the old empire's aristocratic officer class into the modern era? Thank God Freyberg, Blamey, Morshead, Lavarack, Symonds and their subordinates had the political clout to refuse stupid orders from British generals and accomplish the mission their way, without taking unnecessary casualties.
One odd point was when it was brought up "why didn't Rommel just turn on Hitler if he was so dedicated to his troops?" Which felt like a bit of a leap. "Let's go through 1918-19 again, or worse, Russian 1917, in the middle of a war" is what it would logically amount to. It feels like an impossible standard, when 8th Army is the one losing, why aren't people saying Wavell should depose Churchill? When losing, you should depose the functional head of state, after all. "Because we know the Germans were more evil after the Russians occupied the concentration camps." Yes, which didn't happen yet. The only option he would have is to resign, but if the resignation comes off as bad PR it won't be allowed.
I do think Rommel is overinflated in the mythos of ww2 commanders, but it seems like each German commander at some point is ranked by "since he didn't start a civil war he is bad." Stalin did nasty things too, but we don't rank Soviet commanders on their willingness to overthrow Stalin.
On the German attitude towards the Russians as opposed to the Western Powers, i.e. Rommel & Bayerlein's views...
After the War, Erich Hartmann, the top fighter Ace of All Time - was turned over to the Soviets and held as a "POW" for several years. During this period he was asked by a Russian interrogator, "Who, in Hartmann's opinion, had been the very best fighter Ace of the War?"
Without hesitation Hartmann replied, "Marseille." - 'Jochen Marseille'.
"But you shout down almost 200 more enemy than Marseille!" his interrogator responded in obvious exasperation. (158 vs 352)
"True," said Hartmann. "But Marseille scored all his victories while flying against the British. I was only flying against Russians."
Sooo... Yeah, it was a more universally held feeling amongst the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe than just Rommel and Bayerlein.
Lesson learned, have a 10 to 1 superiority in men and materiel. Sumole.