Wasn't it a pity Rommel was not involved in the Operation Barbarrosa?

Answer 1

Field Marshall Erwin Rommel-
Arguably one of the greatest commanders of World War Two.

I disagree with your statement and here is why;

The "Afrika Korps" was formed 12 Feb 1941. Originally designed to supplement the Italians fighting a losing war against British forces the 'Afrika Korps' began decisively beating the British at every turn. This unit eventually grew to become "Panzer Armee Afrika" and if they had been better supplied would have swept the British from Egypt and the oil fields Hitler needed so desperately. As it was, Rommel tied up VAST forces that could have been used by the Allies years earlier to attack Europe. At the end of the day, Panzer Armee Afrika consisted of 9-11 divisions mostly at 50% strength at best.

Operation Barbarossa began June of 1941 with a combined force of 166 divisions and over 4 million soldiers. Barbarossa was delayed by 6 weeks due to the Albanian campaign and if they had launched the attack as planned, the leading forces would have captured Moscow in 1941 as planned.

Field Marshal Rommel would have had command of less than 1% of this force at the start of 'Barbarossa' and less than 5% even at the height of his career.

Answer 2

Looking at a strictly logistical viewpoint, Hitler didn't know how to use his generals correctly. Rommel was one of the best generals to ever grace the battlefield, which was acknowledged by General George Patton himself. While I am glad we won WW II, he deserves the respect from the Allied Forces the same way that Hannibal deserved the fear and respect that he received from the Roman Empire during the 2nd Punic War.

Answer 3

Why a pity? Are yu suggesting things would be better if Rommel was there? Maybe like the Nazi would have won? Remember that luny Hitler was the ultimate controll and so doomed to fail

Answer 4

Rommel was a good divisional commander who got promoted beyond his ability. For a while he was better than the Brits - no great achievement in that phase of the war - so of course they put it about that he was marvellous. He wouldn't have made any difference to Barbarossa.

Answer 5

yes and no
Because he was in Africa he wasn't " been watched " so strictly so he could more easily fought his one war, when he would had been in Russia more people that would had kept a eye on him so he couldn't do his daring maneuvers like in Africa.
On the other side he certainly would had been at his place at the start of Barbarossa where there where very deep penetrations of the Russia front line