Excellent presentation. As an Australian I am well aware that both Rommel land Montgomery had a good opinion of Australian troops. Monty apparently got on famously with the Aussie digger.
Thoroughly brilliant program! I learned more about Monty's and Rommel's character, personality and military thinking in an hour and 30-some minutes than in decades of reading WW2 histories! Thank you Zita and thank you Woody! Can't wait for the program with Zita, Jon Parshall and Peter Caddick-Adams. That one should be a "barn-burner.";-)
Zita has provided a great perspective on these 2 iconic characters. I always love it when young new historians get a chance to air their views, opportunities WW2TV provides in abundance. Great show to end a great week.
Zita is a breath of fresh air in a dusty cupboard. Less focus on strategy, tactics and weapons and more (brilliant) focus on the men themselves, their motivations and rationales.... top class.
yes, why focus on what really counts...... numbers of troops on each side, equipment, quality of respective armaments etc. No, the 'personality of the soldiers. History as a soap opera. What next ? The Germans lost because they were not so well dressed. The Allies won because they had better looking soldiers ?
An outstanding presentation. The background information on Monty & Rommel was excellent and really provided an understanding of why acted the way they did during WW2. I look forward to Zita returning to WW2TV soon.
Watched Monty on a bbc tv interview recently. He was asked about the differences between 1st and 2nd war recruits. He remarked on the better, physical and educational standards of the later generation and also their different motivations. Of the earlier generation: " ..starvation was the best recruiting sergeant we ever had."
That statement is true. My grandfather, Frank MIlls, was an agricultural worker when WW1 broke out, following which nobody would hire him, telling him to go and fight. (Farmers didn't have to, of course.) Frank joined the KSLI, because he couldn't get any work.
Woody/Zita. Fantastic presentation! I learnt a lot about both Rommel and Monty. I was under the misapprehension that they were both idolised! Looking forward to the next Alamein show. Thanks again to you both! Bob
This presentation was a masterful analysis of these two iconic figures. I believe that Zita Bellinger Fletcher (Steele) has put us in the minds of Monty and Rommel during the time they faced each other in the desert. I am reminded of Hannibal, another great risk taking tactician like Rommel, as he faced Scipio (Africanus), more of a careful planner as Montgomery as he faced the Roman General at Zama. I know its not a perfect analogy, but there are the similarities of how each tried to get into the mind of the other. I think that Zita's point made about Rommel not being well and rested as opposed to Monty is very apt. As a former Platoon Sergeant I can tell you that lack of rest, lack of hygiene and sleep deprivation have profound effects on a leader making critical decisions. We were taught that the leader must have the most rest above his soldiers for just such reasons. At first I resisted this like Rommel did, but eventually I learned the truth of Monty's conclusions the hard way. This was a brilliant lecture and I hope you can invite this well read researcher, historian and journalist back again. Superb!
As a prior service armor officer, we were taught to lead from the front. “See and be seen”. Able to shape / influence the battle. As important was for us leaders to be rested, refreshed and clear headed.
Fantastic, insightful presentation by Zita. Look forward to hearing more from Zita about Montgomery's later actions in Europe. Many thanks. I learned a lot today
@@WW2TV That's great!! She's really inciteful! Perhaps a bit nervous presenting in this context as i imagine it is a new thing for her and; crap we can't overlook the fact that there are people who are biased against women doing war history. Victoria is also wonderful and maybe you could get the two in touch? I do want to make clear that her presentation is Very interesting and my brain was sparking the whole time. Miss Steele doesn't have to change a thing and I'll be very interested in her assessments. I think as she gets to know Woody more she'll really settle in. I'm just so impressed by this episode of WW2TV and there have been a lot of great ones. I'm completely rethinking the views i had of both Rommel and Monty and want to re-read some things with this new perspective in mind! Edit: I want to apologize if anything I said seems critical. I think I'll re-read The Rommel Papers with Zita's assessment in mind and I can't wait until I get her book on Montgomery. Also I really hope she will join a roundtable and I have a bit more of an interest in the scheldt than is typical which you brought up. So that would be a must see as well.
@@johnburns4017 My understanding is that Monty planned, implemented, and was highly involved in MG; it was his show. Patton was against it and upset that Ike gave the go ahead to Monty for MG.
A really interesting and well researched account of Monty and Rommel in North Africa. I would very much like Zeta to talk about the battles in NW Europe 1944-45.
Very well done. Again, a refreshing look at Montgomery, and Rommel, from a non Brit. Enjoyed this immensely and very unexpected coming from someone so young and female. Its usually more mature men talking about WW2 ha. This was great. Loved it.
Really enjoyed this in-depth look at the backgrounds on both men, and really appreciated Zita's deep dive into their writings and other primary materials. Excellent!
Monty had some serious ink eh? I’d like to see his tats. It seems that Zita has zero of the usual American bias toward Montgomery. She forms her opinion of both mens’ personalities from primary sources. Refreshing.
Zita is a very knowledgeable & erudite historian & a particularly thorough & adept researcher on her subjects! A very enjoyable & elucidating talk here!
I missed the live show to my great woe. I'm continually impressed with the depth of knowledge your guests share. Once again more than I would have known to ask for! Thanks to you both.
After seeing Zita talk on the Alamein panel episode I just got hold of Montys Art of War, looking forward to starting it. It is very refreshing to hear someone carrying out critical analysis of sources as she does with Rommels criticisms of Monty at the battle.
A most excellent perspective on two generals I have been reading about for nearly 50 years. Rommel ignored logistics to a far greater degree than he should have. Can't always pull another rabbit out of the hat if your fuel tanks are empty. Rommel's failure to support taking Malta in 42 as planned and outrunning his supply was his biggest mistake. One doesn't need hindsight to see the error. Had Malta been taken the African war would have lasted longer. Look forward to another discussion on both these guys later in the war. Thanks.
An impressive young scholar here. I love how she questions old ideas about these historical characters by considering the greater breadth of their personal experiences and militarily careers beyond WW2. It’s refreshing. Keep it up, Zita,
Just watching re run of Zitas presentation fantastic, just received her book on Monty it’s an addictive book,I find I just can’t put it down.Please get Zita back if you can, great to see younger presenters on your channel Paul, such knowledge, thank you both
Montgomery rated Monash as the best general of WW1. Monash’s combined arms strategies at the battles of Hamel and Amiens were also closely studied by Heinz Guderian after WW1 and helped to form his theories for his book ‘Achtung Panzer’ which caught the attention of Hitler.
I was reading Zita's bio on her web page and she is a fascinating person, I found her insightful, well read, very intelligent and articulate. I would have loved talking her. She has the drive, the focus and creativity to be one of the best Military historians in the coming years. Rock on Woody and I look forward to reading her books
Actually, ZBF your guest brings up a fascinating point about Rommel I have never thought about before. I have felt that this past week has been very abusive of Rommel, but the points have all been very valid, so I could not object. But the fact that Rommel had to report to both Hitler and Mussolini and be accountable to them both is a huge limiting factor on his approach to the North African campaign. I believe Rommel was a first time Divisional commander in France, then a Corps/Army commander in the desert, and the rest is well known. He was learning on the job, and I do think getting the Deutsche Afrika Korps came out of the blue for him. I might be wrong. Excellent show and excellent week so far! High quality work.
On the National Georaphic map the battle site is called Al Uqaylah. On a time scale the Red Army had just encircled Stalingrad before the battle started, Torch had put an Allied army to the West in Tunisia.
Great presentation (I missed the live version). One thing that strikes me about the thorough destruction of Benghazi's port facilities is that the Axis forces were implicitly recognising that they weren't likely to be coming back that way. If they couldn't break through to Alexandria and Suez in the summer of 1942, they had no chance at all after Second Alamein and the destruction of Benghazi.
great presentation -its hard not avoid to avoid the conclusion that setting aside the impact of malta and aircraft on the axis resupply convoys and bad tank design Rommel ran rings around the british with two tank regiments and a regiment of 88 mm guns
Rommel had his own advantages too. The 88s and better tanks with more range while the British were often using tanks that didn’t have enough range or firepower. Just because sometimes the British had more men doesn’t mean they held a complete advantage it simply levelled the playing field as more casualties would be sustained against German 88s than would be sustained against British 2 pounder anti-tank guns. The British had to find every advantage they could such as artillery,air support and lots of tanks. And finally better British anti-tanks guns and tanks would come into service as the campaign went on but never as deadly as the 88m. Also Rommel had intelligence reports given to him by an American general by accident of course.
Commando44 Indeed, and let's not forget the British had a far more difficult supply line TO Africa than the Axis. It took the average British regiment 6 weeks to get to Egypt. All the way down the Atlantic, round past Cape Town, up the Indian Ocean then through the Suez Canal. The Axis had a comparatively short hop across the Mediterranean.
@@lyndoncmp5751 but far safer however if the japanese had coordinated with the germans in early 42 in the Indian Ocean it would have been a different story(submarines and carriers-they would have dominated in the Indian ocean)-they didn't think strategically
Another fabulous show Paul. Zita is a treasure and glad you found her. I like her detailed and precise presentation. I will check out her web site definitely and will look for her to be back. Thanks again and sorry I missed the live presentation. If I saw it live I'd would like to ask Zita about her broach she is wearing. Is it a North Africa design? Thanks again.
Woody, I have never been a fan of the Desert Campaign, but Zita has changed that and have ordered her book! I said this before it is so great to see women take on the male hegemony of military history scholarship and these lectures have been pure gold!
Thanks for the nice comment Joe, 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
While my interest in the desert campaigns started early and I thought myself quite well informed, I read the book "Brazen Chariots" by Robert Crisp. That was an eye opener on so many levels. I cannot recommend it enough.
I agree with you, Paul - Jon and Zita have been especially good presenters. Jon is a known force. Zita has proven herself and yes bring her back. I'm no expert on this campaign but I love seeing historians challenge the usual story. As you often say, we should always be looking to challenge the old story with new information and outside the box thinking
Who said men can't cook? Honestly many of the insightful political/historical/WW2 conversations I've had over the last years have been with women. Their interest and evaluation of the historical/cultural past from a women's perspective is fascinating enough
So how many Axis supply vessels and aircraft had been destroyed by then? German high command may have seen the writing on the wall after their huge losses of ships and transport aircraft.
Hard to believe that Malta was not invaded as it was always the key to the Med sphere of the war....but due to the loses in Crete Hitler was put off Paratroop ops...If I am wrong is there a chance of a show that delves into Malta's importance?
Great presentation , see Monty is good no 9th Australian Division to carry 8th Army any more but no worries the Kiwis and 7th Armoured's luck has turned around now under Monty , everything will be fine .
Cannot disagree with this assessment. What about the difference in material, if there was one? It’s said Monty built up a large resource before the first battle. Could this have run over into this phase?
That would be great. The Scheldt campaign was the ONLY western allied campaign in NW Europe to achieve its objectives in autumn 1944, and with comparatively light casualties compared to the failures of other generals in the Lorraine, Hurtgen Forest, Operation Queen, Ardennes etc.
Rommel never "rebelled against Hitler". At best he blamed the people around Hitler for giving Hitler an unrealistic view of the War situation. Rommel never got involved in the plotting to kill or remove Hitler. He rebuffed every attempt made to get his support for the plot to kill/remove Hitler. Dozens of other Generals DID get involved, and paid for it with their lives. Rommel owed his rank and his fame to Hitler's favour and he did not have the motivation and backbone to oppose him
@@WW2TV Cant't argue with that. We all come to our own opinions based, hopefully, on an objective assessment of the available 'records'. - in my case, the works of established military historians & biographers. I know it's difficult to keep all sorts of biases out of judgments. Though i'm Australian, i'm stupefied at the degree of animus that American "military history buffs" and published historians display toward Montgomery. "Too slow" they bleat, usually just before they compare him to Patton, then tear him to pieces for Market Garden. In any case, thanks for the video discussion and opportunity to comment.
Interestingly, one element that is very often overlooked in the study of Rommel is his ‘Good Source’ (Bonner Fellers) as well as his Radio Intercept Unit 621. This enabled Rommel to have superior insight into the unit strengths, dispositions and intended strategies of the British in the Western Desert in 1941 and 1943, and allowed him to plan accordingly. He was literally reading his opponents’ mail, giving him a huge advantage in the battles at the time. Once the ‘Good Source’ was discovered and the 621 Unit was captured by the Australian 9th Division in July 1942, Rommel seems to have lost his deft touch and his only ‘victory’ in North Africa afterwards was at Kasserine against the newly-arrived Americans. Montgomery is sometimes disparaged by critics for having ULTRA decrypts that gave him an advantage in battle, but strangely it seems that this key advantage is ignored when looking at Rommel and many of his early successes in North Africa. armchairgeneral.com/radio-kills-rommels-621st-radio-intercept-company.htm
The pejorative comments about Rommel's character I get, but why was he the only General-Oberst or higher-ranking officer (he was a Field Marshall after all) who actively supported the resistance against Hitler? Too many armchair moralists have been attacking him of late. Shame on them!!!! He paid with his life.
I have to disagree with this (mostly). We still don't know to what extent Rommel (if any, frankly) supported the resistance against Hitler. If he did truly support the movement it was only very late in the regime. He had been a loyal supporter of the Reich for at the least the first half of the war. Look at his relationship to a proposed Einsatzgruppen Egypt for example. Clearly he wasn't the worst Nazi, but I have a big problem painting him with the good German brush. As for him paying with his life, yes of course that happened, BUT Hitler had many officers arrested and killed who had nothing to do with the resistance whatsoever.
@@WW2TV Fair enough and I agree with you, but he was a Field Marshall and one of Hitler and Goebel's favorites. There has to be a reason why? The others who were taken in by the Gestapo were meaningless functionaries that no one had ever heard of. So why him? Until you answer that question it is just meaningless conjecture. Why care about that? History is what about happened not what someone who everyone likes a lot thinks about what really happened but has no real proof of. Looking for sterling examples of morality is hard to find in the highest ranks of the military or government in any epoch of human history and in the Third Reich it is completely absent. I just think the pendulum has swung and now Rommell is now being tied to the whipping-post as previous generals have been and it all seems unfair. All "Greats" in human history have feet of clay and never are as good as they at first seem.
@@morganhale3434 I went to a lecture by Rommel's son years ago, and even he said he really had no idea what his father's feelings were regarding the Nazis. Furthermore his opinions almost certainly changed and evolved. Either way, Rommel wore the uniform and was part of history - so he's fair game for discussion
The problem with commanding Generals is that their superiors always see them as future threats and their peers as rivals. Just study the late Roman Republic and find that the best way to destroy your character is to be successful in war!!!! Everyone in that strata are an egotist, so I don't count their views as reputable.
Wehraboo alert, Rommel only wins against incompetent opponents that fight on his terms. Montgomery did NOT dance to the enemies tune, but waited for the right opportunity to strike.
I think Monty was smarter than a lot of people would give him credit for. Zita does a good job describing Monty. I've gained a renewed respect for him after listening to the presentation.
Brilliant stand out show. Zita is a superb historian. ty for finding her, Woody, and bringing this excellent presentation to us.
Excellent presentation. As an Australian I am well aware that both Rommel land Montgomery had a good opinion of Australian troops. Monty apparently got on famously with the Aussie digger.
Wonderful show, it’s nice to see there are younger people interested in WWII. Your guest did a great job, she had a very professional presentation.
Thoroughly brilliant program! I learned more about Monty's and Rommel's character, personality and military thinking in an hour and 30-some minutes than in decades of reading WW2 histories! Thank you Zita and thank you Woody! Can't wait for the program with Zita, Jon Parshall and Peter Caddick-Adams. That one should be a "barn-burner.";-)
Totally agree with that. 👍
Zita has provided a great perspective on these 2 iconic characters. I always love it when young new historians get a chance to air their views, opportunities WW2TV provides in abundance. Great show to end a great week.
Yep, it's a privilege to have people like Zita on
wish I could've joined y'all during the live show. watching it now.
Excellent, detailed well-structured presentation.
Zita is a breath of fresh air in a dusty cupboard. Less focus on strategy, tactics and weapons and more (brilliant) focus on the men themselves, their motivations and rationales.... top class.
well put
yes, why focus on what really counts...... numbers of troops on each side, equipment, quality of respective armaments etc. No, the 'personality of the soldiers. History as a soap opera. What next ? The Germans lost because they were not so well dressed. The Allies won because they had better looking soldiers ?
Missed the live stream but catching up now. This was a fascinating insight to both characters. Thank you
Great show! Learned a lot on a topic I thought I already knew: Montgomery and Rommel.
An outstanding presentation. The background information on Monty & Rommel was excellent and really provided an understanding of why acted the way they did during WW2. I look forward to Zita returning to WW2TV soon.
so sorry to miss it live. watching now.
Watched Monty on a bbc tv interview recently. He was asked about the differences between 1st and 2nd war recruits. He remarked on the better, physical and educational standards of the later generation and also their different motivations. Of the earlier generation: " ..starvation was the best recruiting sergeant we ever had."
That statement is true. My grandfather, Frank MIlls, was an agricultural worker when WW1 broke out, following which nobody would hire him, telling him to go and fight. (Farmers didn't have to, of course.) Frank joined the KSLI, because he couldn't get any work.
An amazing debut by Zita. Added new info on both commanders that will change people's perceptions in the long run hopefully.
Great show!
Woody/Zita. Fantastic presentation! I learnt a lot about both Rommel and Monty. I was under the misapprehension that they were both idolised! Looking forward to the next Alamein show. Thanks again to you both! Bob
Well said!
This presentation was a masterful analysis of these two iconic figures. I believe that Zita Bellinger Fletcher (Steele) has put us in the minds of Monty and Rommel during the time they faced each other in the desert. I am reminded of Hannibal, another great risk taking tactician like Rommel, as he faced Scipio (Africanus), more of a careful planner as Montgomery as he faced the Roman General at Zama. I know its not a perfect analogy, but there are the similarities of how each tried to get into the mind of the other. I think that Zita's point made about Rommel not being well and rested as opposed to Monty is very apt. As a former Platoon Sergeant I can tell you that lack of rest, lack of hygiene and sleep deprivation have profound effects on a leader making critical decisions. We were taught that the leader must have the most rest above his soldiers for just such reasons. At first I resisted this like Rommel did, but eventually I learned the truth of Monty's conclusions the hard way. This was a brilliant lecture and I hope you can invite this well read researcher, historian and journalist back again. Superb!
As a prior service armor officer, we were taught to lead from the front. “See and be seen”. Able to shape / influence the battle. As important was for us leaders to be rested, refreshed and clear headed.
Fantastic, insightful presentation by Zita. Look forward to hearing more from Zita about Montgomery's later actions in Europe. Many thanks. I learned a lot today
More to come!
Yes, I like to hear Zita's take on Market Garden, Operation Goodwood & Battle of Rhineland and Ruhr pocket.
@@WW2TV That's great!! She's really inciteful! Perhaps a bit nervous presenting in this context as i imagine it is a new thing for her and; crap we can't overlook the fact that there are people who are biased against women doing war history. Victoria is also wonderful and maybe you could get the two in touch? I do want to make clear that her presentation is Very interesting and my brain was sparking the whole time. Miss Steele doesn't have to change a thing and I'll be very interested in her assessments. I think as she gets to know Woody more she'll really settle in. I'm just so impressed by this episode of WW2TV and there have been a lot of great ones. I'm completely rethinking the views i had of both Rommel and Monty and want to re-read some things with this new perspective in mind!
Edit: I want to apologize if anything I said seems critical. I think I'll re-read The Rommel Papers with Zita's assessment in mind and I can't wait until I get her book on Montgomery. Also I really hope she will join a roundtable and I have a bit more of an interest in the scheldt than is typical which you brought up. So that would be a must see as well.
@@Bochi42 Relax that was a very positive comment. I thought she was excellent also.
@@johnburns4017 My understanding is that Monty planned, implemented, and was highly involved in MG; it was his show. Patton was against it and upset that Ike gave the go ahead to Monty for MG.
A really interesting and well researched account of Monty and Rommel in North Africa. I would very much like Zeta to talk about the battles in NW Europe 1944-45.
Very well done. Again, a refreshing look at Montgomery, and Rommel, from a non Brit. Enjoyed this immensely and very unexpected coming from someone so young and female. Its usually more mature men talking about WW2 ha.
This was great. Loved it.
Really enjoyed this in-depth look at the backgrounds on both men, and really appreciated Zita's deep dive into their writings and other primary materials. Excellent!
Yes it was a stunning debut
Excellent presentation Zita! Thank you
Monty had some serious ink eh? I’d like to see his tats. It seems that Zita has zero of the usual American bias toward Montgomery. She forms her opinion of both mens’ personalities from primary sources. Refreshing.
Great show.
Brilliant lecture, my compliments to Ms Steele for this outstanding presentation.
Great show, it was very informative about both Monty and Rommel.
Zita is a very knowledgeable & erudite historian & a particularly thorough & adept researcher on her subjects! A very enjoyable & elucidating talk here!
Excellent guest, a great analysis containing facets these commanders that is not always appreciated.
I missed the live show to my great woe. I'm continually impressed with the depth of knowledge your guests share. Once again more than I would have known to ask for! Thanks to you both.
Excellent thank you for your hard work and amazing presentation 👍
After seeing Zita talk on the Alamein panel episode I just got hold of Montys Art of War, looking forward to starting it. It is very refreshing to hear someone carrying out critical analysis of sources as she does with Rommels criticisms of Monty at the battle.
A most excellent perspective on two generals I have been reading about for nearly 50 years. Rommel ignored logistics to a far greater degree than he should have. Can't always pull another rabbit out of the hat if your fuel tanks are empty. Rommel's failure to support taking Malta in 42 as planned and outrunning his supply was his biggest mistake. One doesn't need hindsight to see the error. Had Malta been taken the African war would have lasted longer. Look forward to another discussion on both these guys later in the war. Thanks.
Great show. Really enjoyed it
An impressive young scholar here. I love how she questions old ideas about these historical characters by considering the greater breadth of their personal experiences and militarily careers beyond WW2. It’s refreshing. Keep it up, Zita,
What a great presentation, the speaker kept it interesting and had lots of great insight into two of the most written about men of the 20thC bravo
Excellent presentation Zita. Woody I love the theme weeks. We will be a little old men by the time you get to the end possible themes.
I really enjoyed Zita's insight into all of this. I thought she was very impartial, clear headed and intelligent. Monty would have liked her.
Yes she was superb
Brilliant look at Monty and Rommel as they clashed in North Africa. Zita knows her stuff and I am looking forward to her contribution to WW2TV
Just watching re run of Zitas presentation fantastic, just received her book on Monty it’s an addictive book,I find I just can’t put it down.Please get Zita back if you can, great to see younger presenters on your channel Paul, such knowledge, thank you both
Totally agree! Zita is back on Monday
Monty reminds me of Monash which is props from me as Monash is the first modern general
Montgomery rated Monash as the best general of WW1. Monash’s combined arms strategies at the battles of Hamel and Amiens were also closely studied by Heinz Guderian after WW1 and helped to form his theories for his book ‘Achtung Panzer’ which caught the attention of Hitler.
I was reading Zita's bio on her web page and she is a fascinating person, I found her insightful, well read, very intelligent and articulate. I would have loved talking her. She has the drive, the focus and creativity to be one of the best Military historians in the coming years. Rock on Woody and I look forward to reading her books
Yep, she's a rising star
Actually, ZBF your guest brings up a fascinating point about Rommel I have never thought about before. I have felt that this past week has been very abusive of Rommel, but the points have all been very valid, so I could not object. But the fact that Rommel had to report to both Hitler and Mussolini and be accountable to them both is a huge limiting factor on his approach to the North African campaign. I believe Rommel was a first time Divisional commander in France, then a Corps/Army commander in the desert, and the rest is well known. He was learning on the job, and I do think getting the Deutsche Afrika Korps came out of the blue for him. I might be wrong. Excellent show and excellent week so far! High quality work.
On the National Georaphic map the battle site is called Al Uqaylah. On a time scale the Red Army had just encircled Stalingrad before the battle started, Torch had put an Allied army to the West in Tunisia.
Great presentation (I missed the live version). One thing that strikes me about the thorough destruction of Benghazi's port facilities is that the Axis forces were implicitly recognising that they weren't likely to be coming back that way. If they couldn't break through to Alexandria and Suez in the summer of 1942, they had no chance at all after Second Alamein and the destruction of Benghazi.
great presentation -its hard not avoid to avoid the conclusion that setting aside the impact of malta and aircraft on the axis resupply convoys and bad tank design Rommel ran rings around the british with two tank regiments and a regiment of 88 mm guns
Rommel had his own advantages too. The 88s and better tanks with more range while the British were often using tanks that didn’t have enough range or firepower. Just because sometimes the British had more men doesn’t mean they held a complete advantage it simply levelled the playing field as more casualties would be sustained against German 88s than would be sustained against British 2 pounder anti-tank guns. The British had to find every advantage they could such as artillery,air support and lots of tanks. And finally better British anti-tanks guns and tanks would come into service as the campaign went on but never as deadly as the 88m. Also Rommel had intelligence reports given to him by an American general by accident of course.
Commando44
Indeed, and let's not forget the British had a far more difficult supply line TO Africa than the Axis. It took the average British regiment 6 weeks to get to Egypt. All the way down the Atlantic, round past Cape Town, up the Indian Ocean then through the Suez Canal. The Axis had a comparatively short hop across the Mediterranean.
@@lyndoncmp5751 And it was Rommel the genius who decided not to capture Malta to improve his supply lines.
@@commando4481 yeah he should have insisted on it in 41
@@lyndoncmp5751 but far safer however if the japanese had coordinated with the germans in early 42 in the Indian Ocean it would have been a different story(submarines and carriers-they would have dominated in the Indian ocean)-they didn't think strategically
Another fabulous show Paul. Zita is a treasure and glad you found her. I like her detailed and precise presentation. I will check out her web site definitely and will look for her to be back. Thanks again and sorry I missed the live presentation. If I saw it live I'd would like to ask Zita about her broach she is wearing. Is it a North Africa design? Thanks again.
Thank you kindly
I was also wondering about her broach, Richard
Exceptionally good talk
Thanks very much
Woody, I have never been a fan of the Desert Campaign, but Zita has changed that and have ordered her book! I said this before it is so great to see women take on the male hegemony of military history scholarship and these lectures have been pure gold!
Excellent analysis of both men of whom some rigid ideas have formed since the war.
I watched her on the panel discussion with Jon P. and P.C.A. Young people carrying on the flag of military history! Well done Zita!
I thought this was a fascinating talk. It was very interesting to see an American historian's perspective on the two
Thanks for the nice comment Joe, 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
While my interest in the desert campaigns started early and I thought myself quite well informed, I read the book "Brazen Chariots" by Robert Crisp. That was an eye opener on so many levels. I cannot recommend it enough.
I agree with you, Paul - Jon and Zita have been especially good presenters. Jon is a known force. Zita has proven herself and yes bring her back. I'm no expert on this campaign but I love seeing historians challenge the usual story. As you often say, we should always be looking to challenge the old story with new information and outside the box thinking
Was Zita's book ever available in hard back? I'm looking to buy.
Don't think so
Thanks Woody. Paperback it shall be
Who said men can't cook? Honestly many of the insightful political/historical/WW2 conversations I've had over the last years have been with women. Their interest and evaluation of the historical/cultural past from a women's perspective is fascinating enough
Yep, Zita wzs a breath of fredh air
So how many Axis supply vessels and aircraft had been destroyed by then? German high command may have seen the writing on the wall after their huge losses of ships and transport aircraft.
I bet Monty was very thankful to the Bletchley Park mob, otherwise the attack at Medinen would have been very interesting! Thanks Paul and Guest
Hard to believe that Malta was not invaded as it was always the key to the Med sphere of the war....but due to the loses in Crete Hitler was put off Paratroop ops...If I am wrong is there a chance of a show that delves into Malta's importance?
I will do a week of shows on Malta next year
Great presentation , see Monty is good no 9th Australian Division to carry 8th Army any more but no worries the Kiwis and 7th Armoured's luck has turned around now under Monty , everything will be fine .
Can we have her over for some other show? I think she is very good at character analysis.
She's back on this Monday in a panel discussion
@@WW2TV I will be there virtually watching. Can't wait.. Thanks for all the work you do.
Cannot disagree with this assessment. What about the difference in material, if there was one? It’s said Monty built up a large resource before the first battle. Could this have run over into this phase?
Canadian historian and the Scheldt you say Woody?
Your Scheldt shows are fantastic Brad. Enjoying them as much as I'm enjoying El Alamein week here
That would be great. The Scheldt campaign was the ONLY western allied campaign in NW Europe to achieve its objectives in autumn 1944, and with comparatively light casualties compared to the failures of other generals in the Lorraine, Hurtgen Forest, Operation Queen, Ardennes etc.
Just thought of a question how would Rommel had affected the Russian front had he been there instead of Africa?
Good question and we can only speculate on how he would have got on
Rommel never "rebelled against Hitler". At best he blamed the people around Hitler for giving Hitler an unrealistic view of the War situation. Rommel never got involved in the plotting to kill or remove Hitler. He rebuffed every attempt made to get his support for the plot to kill/remove Hitler. Dozens of other Generals DID get involved, and paid for it with their lives. Rommel owed his rank and his fame to Hitler's favour and
he did not have the motivation and backbone to oppose him
Possibly, but its all about how one analyses the accounts. As with lots of figures, the various interactions are open to interpretation
@@WW2TV Cant't argue with that. We all come to our own opinions based, hopefully, on an objective assessment of the available 'records'. - in my case, the works of established military historians & biographers. I know it's difficult to keep all sorts of biases out of judgments. Though i'm Australian, i'm stupefied at the degree of
animus that American "military history buffs" and published historians display toward Montgomery. "Too slow" they bleat, usually just before they compare him to Patton, then tear him to pieces for Market Garden.
In any case, thanks for the video discussion and opportunity to comment.
Interestingly, one element that is very often overlooked in the study of Rommel is his ‘Good Source’ (Bonner Fellers) as well as his Radio Intercept Unit 621. This enabled Rommel to have superior insight into the unit strengths, dispositions and intended strategies of the British in the Western Desert in 1941 and 1943, and allowed him to plan accordingly. He was literally reading his opponents’ mail, giving him a huge advantage in the battles at the time. Once the ‘Good Source’ was discovered and the 621 Unit was captured by the Australian 9th Division in July 1942, Rommel seems to have lost his deft touch and his only ‘victory’ in North Africa afterwards was at Kasserine against the newly-arrived Americans. Montgomery is sometimes disparaged by critics for having ULTRA decrypts that gave him an advantage in battle, but strangely it seems that this key advantage is ignored when looking at Rommel and many of his early successes in North Africa. armchairgeneral.com/radio-kills-rommels-621st-radio-intercept-company.htm
The pejorative comments about Rommel's character I get, but why was he the only General-Oberst or higher-ranking officer (he was a Field Marshall after all) who actively supported the resistance against Hitler? Too many armchair moralists have been attacking him of late. Shame on them!!!! He paid with his life.
I have to disagree with this (mostly). We still don't know to what extent Rommel (if any, frankly) supported the resistance against Hitler. If he did truly support the movement it was only very late in the regime. He had been a loyal supporter of the Reich for at the least the first half of the war. Look at his relationship to a proposed Einsatzgruppen Egypt for example. Clearly he wasn't the worst Nazi, but I have a big problem painting him with the good German brush.
As for him paying with his life, yes of course that happened, BUT Hitler had many officers arrested and killed who had nothing to do with the resistance whatsoever.
@@WW2TV Fair enough and I agree with you, but he was a Field Marshall and one of Hitler and Goebel's favorites. There has to be a reason why? The others who were taken in by the Gestapo were meaningless functionaries that no one had ever heard of. So why him? Until you answer that question it is just meaningless conjecture. Why care about that? History is what about happened not what someone who everyone likes a lot thinks about what really happened but has no real proof of. Looking for sterling examples of morality is hard to find in the highest ranks of the military or government in any epoch of human history and in the Third Reich it is completely absent. I just think the pendulum has swung and now Rommell is now being tied to the whipping-post as previous generals have been and it all seems unfair. All "Greats" in human history have feet of clay and never are as good as they at first seem.
@@WW2TV Hitler was a classic paranoid, so that does explain that. This show was so revelatory about both Monty and Rommell, so well done.
@@morganhale3434 I went to a lecture by Rommel's son years ago, and even he said he really had no idea what his father's feelings were regarding the Nazis. Furthermore his opinions almost certainly changed and evolved. Either way, Rommel wore the uniform and was part of history - so he's fair game for discussion
Disillusioned and a broken spirit.. Rommel
The problem with commanding Generals is that their superiors always see them as future threats and their peers as rivals. Just study the late Roman Republic and find that the best way to destroy your character is to be successful in war!!!! Everyone in that strata are an egotist, so I don't count their views as reputable.
Maybe in a dysfunctional society.
Maybe what?
LOL, given equal resources and equipment, Rommel would have driven Montgomery off the planet.
Wehraboo alert, Rommel only wins against incompetent opponents that fight on his terms. Montgomery did NOT dance to the enemies tune, but waited for the right opportunity to strike.
Yep, definitely needed the LOL there. Rommel winning is hilarious - not
Yeah....no
I think Monty was smarter than a lot of people would give him credit for. Zita does a good job describing Monty. I've gained a renewed respect for him after listening to the presentation.
@@WW2TV I think a lot of Egyptians were rooting for Rommel. They still have huge respect for him.