Rommel - the most overrated general since Alexander the Grea

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Locked
Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#46

Post by Andreas » 28 Apr 2007, 10:28

[email protected] wrote:Andreas,

I tend to treat the Forum as a serious discussion platform. Expressions like " sliced cakes" are lowering the proper tone.You should express your views, if any, in a more appropriate way...
Regards+
,
Alkan Kizildel
If you were indeed treating the forum seriously, you would try to explain how the quote you provided relates to the topic of the thread, instead of providing random quotes bereft of their context while taking cheap shots at other posters ('Armchair Strategists').

Since you did not take the forum seriously in your post above, I saw no reason to honour your post with a serious reply. It works both ways.

If you have more comments to make, I suggest you put them in a PM, instead of taking this thread further off-topic.

All the the best

Andreas

User avatar
Imad
Member
Posts: 1412
Joined: 21 Nov 2004, 04:15
Location: Toronto

#47

Post by Imad » 28 Apr 2007, 13:20

Alkan, I think what Monty was trying to say there was that there was a serious potential of a German breakthrough to the Suez Canal and the Middle Eastern oilfields if Hitler had allocated the proper resources to that theatre of operations. I don't think that has any bearing on whether Rommel was overrated or not, which is the general thrust of the argument in this particular thread.
My personal take on all this is that Rommel was a superb tactician who often showed an instinctive understanding for his opponent's weakness but who also showed an alarming recklessness in not subordinating tactical needs for the sake of maintaining a wholesome strategic concept.
A perfect example of this, and I have said this elsewhere in the forum, was his willingness to forgo Hercules for the sake of chasing Auchinleck into Egypt (although some forum members seem to have doubts regarding the overall importance of Malta). This is all the more puzzling when you consider that during the attack on Crete Rommel had commented to one of his officers, Heinz-Werner Schmidt, that Mercury was a mistake and that Malta should have been given priority over Crete as a target.
Look forward to your reply


[email protected]
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: 01 Jul 2006, 11:09
Location: EURASIA

#48

Post by [email protected] » 29 Apr 2007, 20:01

Imad,
I agree with you: of course Rommel had his faults but who doesn't ! However his achievements far surpass his failures. He was the supreme exponent of Military Opportunism and was very successful at it, but it is not possible to replenish one's stores from the enemy's supply dumps all the time ! He tended to neglect the logistics of the warfare. Indeed after his capture of Tobruk, his finest hour, he was warned by Halder that he was going to run into disaster if he continued his offensive operations...As it is well known initially Rommel's task in Africa was considered by the German High Command as that of a " fire
brigade" : a holding operation to help brace the crumbling Italian front under the blows of O'Connor's brilliant offensive. Rommel with his limitless aggressiveness and energy turned the tables on the British. His achievements were all the more astounding, both in offensive and defensive operations, as they were obtained by numerically and materially inferior forces.
My quote from Lord Montgomery was meant to show what Rommel could have achieved had he had at least equal resources to his enemy. Similar tributes were paid to Rommel by other soldiers that is to say professionals. This brings me to my last point: it is easy to conduct operations on the sand table, in the map room in wargaming. These are commendable hobbies and no doubt require skill. But this is not the real thing!!! As a professional I maintain that to pass valid judgement on a figure like Rommel one has to be a soldier who had commanded at least a regiment under combat conditions. Generals like Monty, Fraser, Carver admirably fit this description. Rommel was a general's general ( like Rembrandt, a painter's painter). I hope I have made mysely clear.
Best Regards+

Alkan Kizildel

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#49

Post by Andreas » 29 Apr 2007, 20:42

The quote you provided is not a tribute to Rommel. It is an analysis of a strategic failure at OKW. One does not have to have commanded a regiment to realise that.

All the best

Andreas

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#50

Post by JonS » 30 Apr 2007, 00:16

[email protected] wrote:As a professional
Professional what?
I maintain that to pass valid judgement on a figure like Rommel one has to be a soldier who had commanded at least a regiment under combat conditions.
I will be extremely interested to hear what Keegan, Hayward, Glantz, Reid, Zetterling, Dupuy, van Creveld, Hastings, Moorehead, Di Nardo, Bidwell, Tooze, Copp, Marble, Middlebrook, Murray, Doubler, Cooper, Gooderson, Lewis, Jarymowycz, et al, have to say when you bring that up with them.

Please, do let us know how that goes.

Best regards
Jon

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#51

Post by Qvist » 30 Apr 2007, 00:55

I maintain that to pass valid judgement on a figure like Rommel one has to be a soldier who had commanded at least a regiment under combat conditions.
Bollocks. A soldier who thinks he's uniquely qualified to assess the truth just because he has three stars on his shoulder patch is no better than he who thinks he knows everything because he's got "Prof." written on his visiting card. And from what I have read of military historical analysis so far I am afraid I have seen little to fortify any belief in any particularly superior analytical ability among military professionals.

cheers

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#52

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 30 Apr 2007, 02:24

Alkankizil may be hitting around a point that is better said of "professionals" of any field of expertise, or just the basic idea of "standing in another man's shoes". Leading armies is truely a "rare profession" and if you haven't done it yourself, you can really only have a layman's view of the job. Considering the uniqueness of the position and that it was also very dependant on who he worked with and the situation at the time, even the description of Rommel's expertise or his situation by other generals can be suspect too.

And as some of us may know, in whatever field(s) we may be experts in, in real life, explaining to a "layman" about what you do(did) can be exasperating, if not impossible.

Chris

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#53

Post by Andreas » 30 Apr 2007, 09:37

I'm with Qvist and Jon - you can analyse command performance even if you are not a soldier. I can also criticise flawed cooking even though I am not a chef myself.

BTW Christopher, I have not noted any reluctance on your part to do so either, and IIRC you have never commanded a regiment yourself. So I am a bit surprised to see you agreeing with this peculiar point of view.

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#54

Post by Qvist » 30 Apr 2007, 09:54

Sorry Christopher, but I don't think you have much of a point at all. Despite copious writing by military men, very little of the most valuable and insightful literature about war through the ages have been written by commanders. And in this war is no different from other fields of endeavor. Do you have to have been a good player to be a good coach? Do you have to paint to be an art historian? If you do, would you be smart to regard your summer holiday aquacolors as the key to understanding Tintoretto?

To be sure, the experience of command is something to take along into the analytical situation. But let's not make more of it than the marginal and indeed somewhat ambivalent benefit that it is - Does the colonel have the intellectual flexibility to understand clearly the differences in his own experience and the circumstances facing Rommel - in other words, where his own experience applies and where it doesn't? Does he understand the process by which you build an understanding of a past chain of events involving people who thought and acted in the way that seemed best to them, not the way that seem best to him? For reasons who might not automatically occur to him? This is, in my opinion, the point where it becomes REALLY useful to him if he remembers that what he is currently doing is writing history (which is not his profession) - and especially if he manages to avoid kidding himself with the ridiculous and vain self-deception that his own command experience gives him a fast lane to a viable conclusion.

In this case, Alkankizil is invoking that vanity as a feeble defense for having made a plainly misunderstood point. Montgomery's statement does not in fact carry the meaning that he imputes to it, which makes his objection irrelevant even if it was in itself viable, which it isn't. Unless having commanded a regiment gives you accesss to a different dimension of semantics.

cheers

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#55

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 30 Apr 2007, 13:01

Andreas wrote:I'm with Qvist and Jon - you can analyse command performance even if you are not a soldier. I can also criticise flawed cooking even though I am not a chef myself.
You may know good cooking from bad, but unless you can debone a whole chicken in about 15 seconds(which is impressive if you have ever seen it done) I don't think you can truely understand what being a "chef" is all about.

BTW Christopher, I have not noted any reluctance on your part to do so either, and IIRC you have never commanded a regiment yourself. So I am a bit surprised to see you agreeing with this peculiar point of view.
All the best
Andreas


I don't think you know what my view is at all. All I was trying the to say is the opinion of Rommel's comtempories has more weight than the opinions of others, as some of his comtempories' opionions were founded on having a working knowledge of the trade. I don't think Alkan made a clear point either. However it seems it is quite possible some misunderstanding occured by him conveying his view in ENGLISH perhaps , I think I know what he was trying to mean in his post or at least where he was going with it. You all just ganged up on him, with little cause.

Besides the original line of his thinking was based on a line that can be read several ways not necessarily about "priorities" either
" Had a proportion of the troops and equipment used against the Russians been sent to Africa , and particularly armoured divisons, it is reasonable to presume that the Germans would have gained Egypt, the Suez Canal and possibly established a stronghold in the Middle East..."
Oh well, Chalk it up to cultural and lingual variance and the subtleties of the English, but Monty's quote may well have been an underhanded compliment to his most famous adversary and his best benefactor, "priorities" be damned.


Tranlated from "subtle" English to American, Monty might have meant,

"If Rommel had had more stuff , he would have kicked my ass".

Depends how a layman slices that cake, IYKWIM.
Chris

I'll leave this topic again, it was a silly topic to begin with anyway.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 30 Apr 2007, 13:03, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Imad
Member
Posts: 1412
Joined: 21 Nov 2004, 04:15
Location: Toronto

#56

Post by Imad » 30 Apr 2007, 13:02

And as some of us may know, in whatever field(s) we may be experts in, in real life, explaining to a "layman" about what you do(did) can be exasperating, if not impossible.
Probably, but the point is that the above quote by Montgomery is not the paean to Rommel that the Colonel (I'm assuming that's what he is) thinks it is. And even if it is, it is still suspect, because we know that military commanders in the past have had the tendency to overrate their opponents' prowess in order to magnify their own military achievements.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#57

Post by Jon G. » 30 Apr 2007, 18:39

[email protected] wrote: (paraphrasing Montgomery)" Had a proportion of the troops and equipment used against the Russians been sent to Africa , and particularly armoured divisons, it is reasonable to presume that the Germans would have gained Egypt, the Suez Canal and possibly established a stronghold in the Middle East..."
That is not an historical analysis but merely idle speculation, which professional historians (or anyone else for that matter) should not really concern themselves with. Whether Rommel would have won or not had he been stronger is irrelevant - it's far more interesting to try and find out why he wasn't stronger.

J.F.C. Fuller made an even more favourable comment about Rommel's prospects if only he had been stronger:
Fuller wrote:...Had Rommel, in November 1941, been fifty percent stronger than he actually was, the probabilities are that he would have taken Tobruk; that Auchinleck would never have dared to attack him; and that, after Tobruk had been eliminated, Rommel would have won Egypt.
...but it is still speculation, which is of limited use in an historical discussion. If anything, it demonstrates that ameteurs shouldn't concern themselves with history because they can't resist the temptation to speculate.

For what it is worth I doubt if regimental+ commanders ever act on assumptions on what might happen if they, or their enemies, were stronger than the case actually is.

By the way, I'm not sure if Fuller ever actually commanded anything larger than an experimental mechanised brigade, and that wasn't under combat conditions. Then again, Rommel commanded a corps (and larger) during most of his stay in North Africa, so regimental commanders shouldn't really be qualified to comment on Rommel's chances either :) If we draw the line at corps command rather than at regimental command, there are very few if any military history writers left this side of Julius Caesar.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 12:37
Location: scotland

#58

Post by doogal » 27 Aug 2007, 17:27

Churchill paid the man many a compliment and so did montgomery and many other allied generals.Ill go with there opinion as they were directly affected by rommel.
All operations are subject to many variables, if for only a few items some of the great commanders could be nobodys.
Results are what makes a career. Legends are born through books and storys. Rommel seems to be in both categorys, and was very quickly. It doesnt happen by accident.
I and all of you are lower in rank than field marshall, we can assess his tactics and view results as historians. We can ask what was in his mind and attempt to show the facts and truth of a situation. We can even write a thesis on his operations or his defeats. But it is not our job to say whether he was great. That is already assured from before most of us were born.

Wargames
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 21:11
Location: USA

#59

Post by Wargames » 08 Sep 2007, 07:15

I think one has to divide the Rommel argument into camps - those who served under him and those who served over him. Those who served under him enjoyed success, whether it be in France or North Africa. But to his superiors, Rommell was a major headache. If you were Rommell's supply officer, be it in France 1940 or North Africa 1941-42, you would have learned to hate him. He always outran his supply lines, gobbling up huge amounts of teritory which he then could not hold.

I propose we examine Rommel's accomplishments by the instructions given him. If we do that, we find he was not an obedient officer. He advanced too fast, too far (or not far enough, fast enough, depending upon your opinion of Dunkerque) and was not sent to North Africa to capture Egypt. He was sent there to prevent the Italians from surrendering. He changed a defensive situaton into an offensive one, one the High Command never considered, but then had to.

Rommel made his superiors respond to his decisions rather than he respond to theirs. He forced Egypt to become a German High Command objective when it actually was not. Rommel interpreted his orders as he liked. Because he did so, we are able to evaluate a strategy that otherwise would not be available to us today.

So, if you served under him, you thought he was God. If you served over him, you viewed him as competition.

Witko
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Apr 2005, 11:31
Location: Sweden

#60

Post by Witko » 09 Sep 2007, 23:46

Wargames wrote: ... those who served under him and those who served over him. [...] if you served under him, you thought he was God. If you served over him, you viewed him as competition.
This feels more like Rommel mythos than historical facts. I don't believe Wikipedia is the site of all truths, but it is easily quoted and available to all reading this post, and the article on Rommel seems balanced, AFAIKS, and among other things, its says (with my emphasis):
Rommel has been hailed as a brilliant tactician and competent strategist,[77] but certainly not without flaws. Contemporaries who had to work with him under adversity often had very few kind words to say about him and his abilities. Following Paulus' return from his inspection of Rommel's doings in North Africa and also considering the reports submitted by Alfred Gause, Halder concluded: "Rommel's character defects make him very hard to get along with, but no one cares to come out in open opposition because of his brutality and the backing he has at top level". Others mentioned his leadership style, with expecting much of his commanders, and not being open to criticism or objections.[78] He had little patience for sub-commanders who did not do their jobs properly. Only three weeks after assuming command of the 7th Panzer Division in February 1940 Rommel found a battalion commander performing sub-par, and had the man sacked and sent on his way in 90 minutes.[79] This manner of management would certainly send a signal that he demanded the utmost of his men, but it was bound to create a feeling of resentment among some of his officers.
I agree Rommel is "cool" - together with Patton perhaps the "coolest" there was, but some time one has to grow up (and I'm not talking about your or mine psychology, but of us WWII buffs getting beyond the propaganda and one-liners.)

Locked

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”