El-Alamein is often cited as a ww2 "turning point".The Axis had been virtually undefeated in North Africa (with a temporary setback during Operation Crusader, before winning a crushing victory at Gazala shortly after).With the battle of El-Alamein, Rommels forces were routed back to Libya.Rommel however had to dash much further.The US-UK invasion in Morocco and Algeria, with a rapid and determiend advance to capture Tunis. Realising this, Rommel had to beat the allies to Tunis in order to not be completely trapped on the continent, and ensure the control of one of the largest and closest ports to Axis continental territory. Rommel had to abandon all of Libya to narrowly beat the Americans to TunisiaThe problem:The US invasion forced Rommel to secure Tunisia immediately to deny the US a major port close to Libya and secure it for GermanyHe had to U-turn to meet this new threat.This means he would have been forced to do so, regardless of the battle of El-Alamein.Churchill knew about Operartion Torch, but Churchilled pressured Montgomery to meet and defeat Rommel at El-Alamein because Churchill needed at least one decisive British victory in ww2 before America becomes the main allied force of the war.Churchill then made grand pompous speeches following the El-Alamein victory in order to amplify the victory to the public. Churchill continued to drum up the El-Alamein victory in his memoirs post-ww2.El-Alamein thus became more politically motivated than strategic. It served Churchills interestsA hypothetical alternative would have been that Montgomery simply does not make a stand at El-Alamein, but simply continues to retreat in anticipation for the American Operation Torch that would dramatically accelerate the strategic situation in North Africa. Rommels continued advance in Egypt would put enormous strain on his logistical lines.This would also spare the lives of thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers that otherwise died at El-AlameinThoughts?
idk but to this day the egyptians love Rommel and have a museum dedicated to him and the Afrika Korps in there, they were probably rooting for him
anything the brits do is exaggerated
While you're not wrong about Torch being more important, it's not like the opportunity to win a major victory became "unnecessary". Was Bagration unnecessary because the D-day landings were so successful?
>>18732342>Was Bagration unnecessary because the D-day landings were so successful?Thats not even remotely the same context.But if Bagration was also executed by an allied army, and all of Army Group Center had to turn around and give up all of eastern Europe to defend NormandieAnd Army Group Center gets trapped and encircled and destroyed in Normandie because it could be routed from both sides (as what happened at Tunis once Montgomerys army arrived from the east, and allied naval blockade from the north).Then yes, all those millions that died in Bagration would have had a questionmark over their names since there was a superior strategic alternative available than facing the enemy head-on.Especially if FDR committed to Bagration mainly because he "needed" a victory before Overlord.
>>18732342Also if Army Group Center wasnt on the defensive, but actually advancing into the Soviet interior (a barren interior, with no strategic advantage) while suffering from a imploding logistical supply situation the further they advance, then it became even more relevant to the Torch-Alamein scenario to simply allow it to dig itself deeper. Not only will it hurt its own army by the logistical situation, but it will also make the eventual forced U-turn west even more difficult.
>>18732351>not remotely the same contextOn a large enough timescale it is. Why is the American force invading North Africa and moving east irrelevant here, and Churchill the only important decisionmaker? Are American lives less important than British ones? Somebody was going to have to go east across North Africa, or west. Wouldn't the Americans have taken fewer casualties if they had let the 8th Army do more in Africa for them before launching Torch and going east?
>>18732375>Wouldn't the Americans have taken fewer casualties if they had let the 8th Army do more in Africa for them before launching Torch and going east?Would they?Rommel lost nearly 300.000 men, 500 tanks, and 3000 aircrafts at Tunis, a catastrophic number compared to allied losses (Battle of Tunis was a joint US-UK battle since Montgomerys 8th Army encircled from the east, so dont think this debate is about US vs UK lives).It wasnt won because the US-UK faced the Axis on a head-on battle, but by outmanouver and encircle.
>>18732373If the only goal in fighting the war is letting the allies do everything and saving men/equipment in battle then sure, it was a bad decision to press at El Alamein, or hold it back in June. The Brits should have just sat at Dover, let the Empire fall, and let the Yanks fight the entire war for them.
>>18732342Bagration was a German strategic victory
>>18732397That's not whats being argued here. Stop being passive-aggressive like a woman.The argument here is to use strategic depth to your advantage until you find a favorable ground for battle, something which is very common. They were never compelled to make a stand at El-Alamein and could have retreated another 100km further, digging Rommel deeper into his deteriorating logistics and make it even more difficult for Rommel to pull out to face the UK-US forces from the west.And Tunis was a far more optimal ground for battle since it was geographically perfect for enrcirclement. Axis didnt lose 300.000 men because they were defeated in a head-on battle. They surrendered because they were trapped.
>>18732401>Bagration was a strategic German victoryAgreed. Few people realize the final redpill that Jews are the strongest carriers of German sociopath master race genes. While evolutionary pressures of modernity and genetic drift killed off the strongest Aryan strains after the Middle Ages, Jews had taken in this old genome and it survived because of their overall segregation. Jews have more of the ancient Aryan warrior in them than the purest looking long faced blonde Nordic does. Sorry but it's the truth.
>>18732412Why are you responding to your own post you autistic retard.And why are you trying to gaslight the thread with your jew bullshit?
>>18732417>I'm a humorless autistWhy are you so mad about the true Germans (ie, Jews) winning the war?>>18732408>winning a major victory at el alamein was somehow bad>just let Rommel take Alexandria before you push him back>churchill sacrificed thousands of lives for his personal glory by stopping the germans at el alamein insteadAnon, the Italians could have used a retard like you for a general. You would've led to an earlier collapse and fewer Italians dying.
>>18732428>just let Rommel take Alexandria before you push him backAnd this is going to benefit him how?He still has to U-turn that same month.This is assuming there wont be a siege, like Tobruk.
>>18731697If you read The Wehrmacht Retreats by Robert Citino you will see that despite operation Torch succeding the british and americans were in conflict with each other and the americans were deeply unorganized and messy at attacking. I don't think that even without rommel in tunisia the americans succeded in taking itIf the british retreat from el alamein it's easier for rommel because there is no qattara depression impeding him, the first battle of el alamein almost ended in a german victory so if the british decide to not stand their ground in el alamein there is a chance of them losing alexandria.
>>18732896>there is a chance of them losing alexandria.What differences does it make that Rommel holds Alexandria for 3 months?Alexandria wasnt the main port for the 8th Army, and Rommel couldnt re-direct his supply line any further already since Benghazi and Tobruk were essentialy blocked by the Royal Navy and Royal Airforce.In fact Rommel thought capturing Tobruk would ease his logistical line but it never did.And again, he would HAVE to U-turn a mere couple of months later, so Alexandria would barely become a factor in such short span of time.The real damage of losing Alexandria would be prestige, and it might even end Churchills career (he had narrowly survived a vote-of-no-confidence by the parlament that same year).And this is all assuming Rommel actually captures Alexandria in a single swoop, which we have no reason to believe since he had to siege Tobruk for over a year, and Tobruk was just a town. Alexandria is a major city, and Rommel was pushing El-Alamein on his last leg, he was pretty much out of ammo and fuel and most of his tanks were unuseable because they were still waiting for spare parts to repair. He would HAVE to siege Alexandria with his meager corps.
>>18732988After the capture of Tobruk the axis were fighting mostly with allied trucks, allied fuel and allied food. Hitler had conferences with arab leaders and the arab local populations were very pro axis. Alexandria was THE port for allied supplies in North Africa. You forget that Rommel started retreating BEFORE operation Torch. If you read death of the wehrmacht robert citino explains how Hitler was DEMANDING that Rommel wouldn't retreat and would stand fast and fight but that Rommel convinced him with logistical reasons. How would you think that would turn out? "Hey Hitler i want to abandon the biggest port in Egypt and all the gains we made in a year because there is a landing 2500km away when the allied forces in egypt are not able to attack.""And this is all assuming Rommel actually captures Alexandria in a single swoop, which we have no reason to believe since he had to siege Tobruk for over a year"That was in 1941, he took Tobruk in a week in 1942 and pushed all the way until el alamein because he kept capturing allied stockpiles and allied forces kept disintegrating, what's not to say he couldn't take alexandria all at once with an allied morale collapse.
>>18733092>After the capture of Tobruk the axis were fighting mostly with allied trucks, allied fuel and allied food.Rommel was doing that almost immedaitely following the critical success of operation sonnenblume. Rommel captured unfathomable amount of allied material and resources and it basically carried the N.African campaign for the Axis, and he continued to capture British resources and equiptment with every victory.> Alexandria was THE port for allied supplies in North Africa.They had multiple different ports such as Said and the Suez canal itself.>You forget that Rommel started retreating BEFORE operation Torch. Nope I didnt forget it.It's you who forget that Rommel retreated because of his defeat at El-Alamein.My argument was that Rommel would have been forced to retreat regardless if he wins or lose El-Alaimein because he cannot allow the allies to capture Tunis (and Tripoli after).>because there is a landing 2500km awayYes he has to.Because if he doesnt, the allies will capture Tunis.If they capture Tunis, they can support large operations in N.Africa, far larger operations than Rommel can. They are also within striking distance of Sicily, the very thing Rommel was sent to prevent in 1941 (his original orders).Also, if the allies capture Tunis, they're not far from Tripoli, the port that virtually supplies 90% of Rommels forces. You think Rommel can just stay in Egypt under these circumstances? Think.>That was in 1941, he took Tobruk in a week in 1942.He captured Tobruk in a week because Tobruk was virtually undefended after the Gazala line collapsed. Auchinleck scrambled a makeshift defence of Tobruk during the chaotic retreat from Gazala but they had no time to prepare any lines.You dont have that scenario with Alexandria since there is no catastrophic defeat like there was at the battle of Gazala.
>>18733278Holy shit read The Wehrmacht Retreats by Robert Citino, there is no way for the allies to take Tunisia before mid 1943.First the suez canal is not a port and based on modern tonnage figures port said has 1/3 of the tonnage capacity of Alexandria. Then you tell me how the allies are supposed to mount an attack across the nile.You still haven't adressed my point about Hitler telling Rommel to shut the fuck up and to stand fast which in this scenario he didn't lose at el alamein and took alexandria which means no reason to retreat.What do you mean there was no catastrophic defeat, the allies got fucked so hard after the capture of tobruk that they barely made a stand at the first battle of el alamein. Like explain exactly how they were going to make a stand if they kept overruning them at such a fast speed? For example the germans in 1944 couldn't even hold brussels and antwerp due to how fast the allies were advancing, same scenario here if there is no stand at el alamein.
