Germany's Greatest General (1 Viewer)

[dennis420b]

Strange thing to see Rommel as best voted here. A place I don't think he deserves.

So you would take Montgomery over Rommel in an equal fight? Come on, the guy was Mcguyver of this bunch, look at what he did with what was given. Was he a gambler? Absolutely. That's Why I said I wouldn't make him any more than a corps commander. Although I went with Manstein, Rommel belongs on this list.

 

[Marcel]

So you would take Montgomery over Rommel in an equal fight? Come on, the guy was Mcguyver of this bunch, look at what he did with what was given. Was he a gambler? Absolutely. That's Why I said I wouldn't make him any more than a corps commander. Although I went with Manstein, Rommel belongs on this list.

Hmmm, you have a strange way of discussing. You wouldn't make him more than a corps-commander and still he deserves to be on the 'Best General' list. And who said anything about Montgomery?

Fact is, when the British organization was straightened up, Rommel lost. It's as simple as that. Of course, he had bad supplies, but the stretching of the lines was his own doing. He also never appreciated that Malta should have been defeated before rushing from Tobruk to Cairo.

 

[Zniperguy114]

Hmmm, you have a strange way of discussing. You wouldn't make him more than a corps-commander and still he deserves to be on the 'Best General' list. And who said anything about Montgomery?

Fact is, when the British organization was straightened up, Rommel lost. It's as simple as that. Of course, he had bad supplies, but the stretching of the lines was his own doing. He also never appreciated that Malta should have been defeated before rushing from Tobruk to Cairo.

I voted for Rommel Because sure, he may have not been the greatest general ever but he also had a heart and didn't always personally agree with Hitler's policy of anti-semitism. By the way the poll is "The Best GERMAN General of WWII." and not "A Poll For Super-Critical People Discussing Who Is The Best Strategist Of WWII."

Also I think you don't realize that At the same time "The British organization was straightened up", America was starting to:
1. Use its industry to help support the British.
2. Land Troops in Morocco and put a two-front pressure on Rommel ( Where he was at his Weakest, too.)

 

[Zniperguy114]

I would also like to add to that list that Britain and now America outnumbered the Germans severely in all and every categories. Fair fight? 1 word: NO.

 

[Marcel]

By the way the poll is "The Best GERMAN General of WWII." and not "A Poll For Super-Critical People Discussing Who Is The Best Strategist Of WWII."

I thought I was discussing that. Fine, Rommel was a good man, but does that make him a good general? What would you think is the definition of the best General? The whole of Rommel's campagin was notorious by having streched supply lines and bad communication, all caused by his own doing by gambling big time and disregarding logistics. That doesn't make him a candidate for the title best German General in my book. He lost that gamble finally at El Alamein. He simple stuck his neck out too far. Being a general is not just fighting and being nice to the men.

BTW, I might be a 'super critical' person, but I didn't know I was not allowed to disagree with the majority on this board. Thanks for telling me.

Also I think you don't realize that At the same time "The British organization was straightened up", America was starting to:
1. Use its industry to help support the British.
2. Land Troops in Morocco and put a two-front pressure on Rommel ( Where he was at his Weakest, too.)

Rommel was already pushed into the defense before the US landed in Morocco. I'm not just talking about one battle, but about the whole campaign.

 

[dennis420b]

No, your right, you should be able to be critical. And for my inflexibility, I apologize. But it is a bold statement to say Rommel does not belong on the list of best German ww2 general's. Its gonna raise some eyebrows. And he stuck his neck out because he had to, he did not have the option's that the allies had, it was attack or leave. He knew that if he waited he would be rolled over by numbers that he couldn't imagine.

 

[Njaco]

I think its perfectly ok when discussing one's attributes to make comparisons to other country's generals.

That said,....

He was a General who always got himself in trouble. He was a big gambler, only getting away with it, because the British generals at the time were blundering big time.

The same could be said of Patton. In my army I would want a General who thinks outside the box, is aggressive and trusts his abilities than blindly following orders - like von Paulus.

 

[Marcel]

But it is a bold statement to say Rommel does not belong on the list of best German ww2 general's. Its gonna raise some eyebrows.

That was the whole idea, doesn't make good discussions without different opinions.

 

[Zniperguy114]

Sorry I angered you and yes you can be critical, but saying Rommel doesn't belong on the list is something I just can't agree with. I guess I was too critical on you, Marcel, so sorry about that. But the Allies did have the resources to stick out there necks and the Germans did not. El Alamein proved that, but I don't think it proved Rommel was a bad general but rather how limited the Axis were at that point.

 

[dennis420b]

If you have in abundance material, men, and a good reserve, you can be more conservative. But if you are understrength, with no hope of reinforcement you have 3 choices. 1- Defend what you got and hope for the best. That outcome is bad and we all know it. 2- Leave the theater. Not an option given by superiors. 3- Throw the "Hail Mary". Rest it all on the experience and courage of you and your men, and a whole lot of luck and bravado to beat or scare the enemy into retreating. He had few options. Sure the man was a gambler, but that's what you do when you don't have luxuries of replacements and reserves.

 

[Marcel]

No worries, guys.

The same could be said of Patton. In my army I would want a General who thinks outside the box, is aggressive and trusts his abilities than blindly following orders - like von Paulus.

If you want some-one thinking out-of-the-box, you should pick Guderian. He was gambling as well, but his were usually better weighted..

But the Allies did have the resources to stick out there necks and the Germans did not. El Alamein proved that, but I don't think it proved Rommel was a bad general but rather how limited the Axis were at that point.

The reason why I think is not because he lost, it's the way he did his gambles, I'll explain later.

If you have in abundance material, men, and a good reserve, you can be more conservative. But if you are understrength, with no hope of reinforcement you have 3 choices. 1- Defend what you got and hope for the best. That outcome is bad and we all know it. 2- Leave the theater. Not an option given by superiors. 3- Throw the "Hail Mary". Rest it all on the experience and courage of you and your men, and a whole lot of luck and bravado to beat or scare the enemy into retreating. He had few options. Sure the man was a gambler, but that's what you do when you don't have luxuries of replacements and reserves.

You can also think of attacking, but still keep an eye on your valuable resources. Blindly attacking, loosing 2/3 of your tanks and all of your fuel while your situation is dire is suicide instead of brilliant strategy in my eyes. I also wouldn't call Kamikaze a good tactic and that's precisely what Rommel did with his whole army.

One thing, on a tactical level, I think Rommel was brilliant. He just wasn't on a strategic level. I fully agree with the statement that he would have been a good corps commander, but wasn't fit to command a whole army. I think it was one reason why he was a star in such a minor part of WWII instead of the more important ones. Rommel had the luck that the British commanders at the start of the campaign were even worse.

If I have time, I'll be more clear about what I deem reckless gambles by Rommel later this week, to back up my claim that Rommel should not be first in this list.

 

[dennis420b]

Ok Marcel let me ask you this. Do you think the axis situation in North Africa not winnable? And who would you have appointed over the same troops? Keep in mind, who you decide on would not be at his historical post. Hitler would not have sent Guderian, or Von Rundstedt, to command this size of a force.

 

[Zniperguy114]

Marcel, I guess you've convinced me that I should have not picked Rommel, But he DOES belong on the list in my book. The question is now who should I have picked? Any Suggestions?

 

[Marcel]

Ok Marcel let me ask you this. Do you think the axis situation in North Africa not winnable? And who would you have appointed over the same troops? Keep in mind, who you decide on would not be at his historical post. Hitler would not have sent Guderian, or Von Rundstedt, to command this size of a force.

I think the Axis situation in 1941 was winnable if they had been wanting to. Doesn't matter either Rommel or any other general could have brought home the victory over the British forces if only the Germans had taken the Norht African theater seriously. British at that time were totally in disarray, not grasping modern warfare and had many un-imaginative commanders. They were occupied by the events in the Balkan and did not use their full potential in the dessert. They were also lacking on the technological level, so the balance at that time was not unfavorable for the Germans. If the Germans had taken measurements to ensure their supply lines and had someone to keep Rommel in line, they could have won.
Who would I have chosen if I had been the German High Command? Well, if I would have had the same priorities as the Germans had then, I would have chosen Rommel. He would not have had much value on the Russian front where he would have gone un-noticed amongst the other generals. Let us not forget he was a major asset in the propaganda war, that was his biggest succes. I I really wanted to win the desert war, I would have chosen Guderian, promoting him to Field Marshal as well. Someone with the same flair and aggressiveness as Rommel and IMO with better grasp of reality.

Marcel, I guess you've convinced me that I should have not picked Rommel, But he DOES belong on the list in my book. The question is now who should I have picked? Any Suggestions?

Okay, fair enough, he made a huge contribution by being one of the biggest propaganda successes in the German history. This alone gives him the right to be on the list.

Which one should you choose? That's up to you, and it is a difficult question as it depends on what qualities you think a general should have. I would advice against Paulus, who was un-imaginative and not brilliant IMO. I myself choose Guderian for his grasp on modern mobile warfare (like Rommel), inventive thinking but with less of the faults of Rommel. Von Manstein is a good candidate, too and I could easily have picked him, Kesselring was brilliant in his own way, but failed to give Rommel the support he needed. They all have their pro's and cons. It's just what you think are best qualities for a General.

 

[dennis420b]

Ok we all agree with more of a commitment they could have won, but what units were available? The eastern front required the bulk of available mobile forces, the Luftwaffe was already stretched thin, and with very little German naval units they were reliant on the Italian navy. So where would the needed resources to come from?

 

[Marcel]

Ok we all agree with more of a commitment they could have won, but what units were available? The eastern front required the bulk of available mobile forces, the Luftwaffe was already stretched thin, and with very little German naval units they were reliant on the Italian navy. So where would the needed resources to come from?

Remember, Rommel was already on African soil before Barbarossa started. That's why I said the words: "If they had been wanting to win". They didn't, Hitler's priorities lay in Russia. One wonders why they even bothered at all to help the Italians in Libya at that inconvenient time. Malta should have been captured at all costs and ASAP, giving the LW the opportunity to rule the Mediterranean sea. It would have given the Afrika Korps a better chance.
Even as it was, at the end of 1941, the amount of British combat-ready vehicles was actually lower than that of the Afrika Korps. So the Germans did not have that big a disadvantage as is claimed at that time.

 

[Zniperguy114]

Invading Russia ended the war for Germany. If Hitler had the patience to wait for Britain to fall he could have easily won. But, One time I saw a thing about that Winston Churchill had sent Stalin a telegraph inviting him as an ally. It said due to confusion, the telegraph was sent again after Stalin already said no. Hitler's spies picked up that they were comunicating and thought there was an impending attack from the east. He thought wrong, but I'm not sure if that is true.

 

[parsifal]

I think its silly to argue that Rommel was not a great military commander. I dont think he was the greatest, for me that has to be Manstein, but Rommel was still a brilliant commander that rung the utmost from the resources at his dispposal

What intrigues me her though, is this notion that Germany could not win.....that the poor Germans were outnumbered and could not take risks.

Germany outnumbered the British in effective ground formation immediately after Dunkirk about 120:1. She had a frontline fighter force of 1200:350, and an airforce of 4500:1200. She had the most effective sub force in the world, the best warships, and the 2nd biggest economy in the world. She had at her feet the entire economic resouces of western europe.

The British had an economic potential about half that of Germany. She had access to a small amount of lend lease aid, and was supported by the Commonwealth and her empire. On paper she was outgunned, outmanned out resourced. Yet the Germans squandered all these advantages....a product of the Nazi innefficiency mostly. She had every opportunity to win, but blew it basically.

To argue that the allies possessed a manifest destiny of winning is insulting to both sides, and completely wrong, at least for the period 1938-42

 

[Kurfürst]

Manstein the same... its hard to agree with repeated results!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am going to have to agree with Parsifal here. It was a prime example of how a Politician with no strategic sense (and surrounded by "yes men") should never be left to be the ultimate decision maker in a war.