DAK Evacuation and Hitler

Mr Holmes · Post by **Mr Holmes** » 16 Sep 2005 11:06

Hello all,

I've just done a search for a North Africa evacuation, as I have wondered whether any German troops were evacuated from the North Africa front. The closest thread I came to was this:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... evacuation

So although my question is answered, it spawns a new one.

Does anyone have any information as to why Hitler forbad the evacuation of these troops? Was it a case of, "no retreat, no surrender" leave them to their own fate? Or where logistical considerations at the core of the decision?

Thanks in advance

Imad · Post by **Imad** » 06 Oct 2005 16:52

This may have been one of the few incidences when one of the Fuhrer's "No retreat, No surrender" orders had a logic, although his logic was wrong. The whole idea was to buy time to stave off the Allied invasion of Europe which Hitler knew was coming, especially after the U.S entry into the war.

It did not seem to strike him that the quarter of a million Axis troops lost in the North African front could have been used for a stronger defence of Europe. It is especially puzzling when you consider that some very fine units like the 21 Panzer and an experienced General (Arnim) went into the bag. As for logistical considerations, did Hitler's mind even have a grasp of such a thing?
Imad

Michael Emrys · Post by **Michael Emrys** » 07 Oct 2005 09:31

In addition to what imad posted, after March 1943 the Allied air-naval blockade of Tunisia would have rendered an evacuation near suicidal anyway. I suspect that many if not the bulk of those quarter-million soldiers would have ended up as fish food.

Mr Holmes · Post by **Mr Holmes** » 07 Oct 2005 10:42

@imad

I have a sneaking suspicion that this (no retreat, no surrender) may have been the overrarching reason.

@Grease-Spot

Yeah, control of the sea by Allied naval forces would have rendered such a possibility as you say "suicidal".

But I wonder, was there a Fuhrer Directive or official policy announcement with an excuse/reason given?

Imad · Post by **Imad** » 08 Oct 2005 20:04

Sepp Dietrich wrote:@imad

I have a sneaking suspicion that this (no retreat, no surrender) may have been the overrarching reason.

@Grease-Spot

Yeah, control of the sea by Allied naval forces would have rendered such a possibility as you say "suicidal".

But I wonder, was there a Fuhrer Directive or official policy announcement with an excuse/reason given?

I did not understand your first statement. Overrarching reason for what?
Imad

Mr Holmes · Post by **Mr Holmes** » 09 Oct 2005 02:11

ie. the primary reason. That there might have been some more factors such as the logistical or whatever, but that the policy of no retreat is what kept them there.

Imad · Post by **Imad** » 11 Oct 2005 17:11

Sepp Dietrich wrote:ie. the primary reason. That there might have been some more factors such as the logistical or whatever, but that the policy of no retreat is what kept them there.

I simply don't understand what logistical considerations there could have been for such a silly decision. If there were I would sure like to know. I think the hardest battle Rommel had to fight was explaining his logistical problems to the Bohemian corporal.
Imad

Mr Holmes · Post by **Mr Holmes** » 11 Oct 2005 21:57

Hi imad,

I don't know either, which is why I posted this thread. I'm thinking that by asking these questions it may jog someone's memory.