Erwin Rommel

well there many factors for the German defeat in africa. Logistics was one but other errors and issues were also a big factor. Rommel is perhaps one of the better battalion commanders of not just the war but history. With that said Rommel also had his limitations as a commander. I would not say Rommel was Germanys best army commander. Because he preferred to be on the front lines his ability to command a mass army effectively was rather limited. And he also neglected the role of the air force in offensive operations often extending his armor beyond capable air support (noted by Guderian in France). Of course, he was probably the best battalion commander of the war. He used his available resources better than anybody in the war. And yes in certain situations he could have won battles for Germany that other Commanders could not.

 

In my opinion, Rommel was an exceptional Division commander, a very good Corps commander, and a better than average Army commander. My problem with him comes from micro-managing (leading from the front) and his penchant in Africa to ignore Axis strategic goals. He was there to keep the Italians from losing, not to achive conquests that were destined not to be exploited even if they came to pass. Had he been given a corps in Russia I suspect our opinion of him would be different.

 

Come on guys, the allies had cracked the Germans codes, Rommel could not mount any large attacks without the British knowing about it.

 

But the shoe was on the other foot during is early victories in North Africa. How well did he do after his pipeline into British plans was clsoed?

 

Thanks for bringing that up. I'm sure General Ritchie had nightmares about that defeat often.

 

I agree. had rommel been in russia commanding at a level like guderian he most likely would have made a huge impact. I dont think his "micro-managing" was really a bad thing except for when he was commanding larger groups. I liked Rommels style. He fought war on the most respectable level it can be fought and was still good at it.

 

As a Divisional, or even Corps commander, leading from the front has merit. As a Army commander it offers mixed blessings. There is a reason that there are command seperations at Divisional, Corps and Army levels, so as to make it easier for the commander at each level to see his big picture. There were occasions when Army command level decisions were delayed or made by his staff when they properly should have been made by him, but were not as he was away from his command post or out of communication with it. This is why I rate him as only Better than Average. In this respect Patton May have been a better Army commander.

As for how we would have seen him had he served in Russia, rather than North Africa, several factors would be in play. He would be 1 of 8-10 Panzer Corps commanders, all good, some with more time in such commands. He also would be on a tight operational leash compared to North Africa. The Russian Front was a far more leathal battlespace than North Africa. Leading from the front could and did get a lot of German Generals dead. Finally he was able to fight a clean war in North Africa, free of Nazi Race policies. Far tougher to do in Russia.

I have no doubt he would excell where-ever he was posted ( save perhaps the Balkans ), but he like all great commanders had limits.

 

Seems that the Alamein 70th has led to a bit of Rommel-bashing in Germany............

BBC News - German film looks at ties between Rommel and Hitler

 

I´ve seen this movie and i have to say it was a good made one. It wasn´t bad meant to the person of Rommel but it showed that he had seen to late what his Führer was in reality. He was a old style educated officer and so the words of honor and loyality had a other meaning to him. I will see him as a very good strategist and a good leader for his troops. My Grandpa was at Africa with him and had found only good words. At france he fought again wunder his command and said that this was much better then with some generals at the eastern front. Rommel wasn´t responsible for the bad supply situation and he wasn´t responsible for Hitler´s mean plans of holding without any options strategy. If he had what he needed, the invasion has gone a other way....

 

"Some people don't know he committed suicide under pressure from Hitler and think he perished in the war and there are many questions about how close he was to the resistance." says the producer.

I recall Rommel had no choice, he either swallows the poison and gets the hero´s funeral or he and his family will lose everything, and wife and child might end in the camp. I believe Hitler thought Rommel was among the traitor Generals.

Nothing wrong about looking things from different perspectives but we´ve had very peculiar views on Mannerheim during the last 5 years. He has been seen as a gay fairy with pink wings etc. etc. Maybe that´s what happens to Rommel as well. Will we see Monty and Churchill face the same? Or have they already? Owe Böll waiting behind the corner...

 

There are always some ignorant idiots which twists the truth to make it fit for their purposes. But the good thing on humans is that they can have their own opinion and can inform themself when they want to know things about a historical person.

Yes, Rommel did the suicide to protect his family from the things he heard and has seen. He was at least absolutely loyal to the most important thing in a man´s live, his family!

 

Got the film from a friend in Germany. Well, we´ll see how much I recall words from what I learnt in school... I also got a 45 min documentary of von Paulus. That might be includin all the footage there is of him...

 

Lets be honest and call Rommel what he really was.....a political appointee.

His time as an instructor at the School of Infantry in Dresden served him well. But the beginning of the campaign in Poland saw him with no active command outside of Guard Commander. When Rommel asked for command of a Panzer division, it was granted, and more for his political reliability than anything else.

Rommel was not Staff Colleg trained, and it showed in North Africa, where he consistently failed to see the bigger picture, and to ignore the good advice of people above and below him. Even Mussolini had a better picture of the strategic consequences of Rommel's decisions, and the protests of the italians were long and loud, all in vain, for rommel, as a political appointee, had only one master, and that was Adolf Hitler. Rommel used to run to Hitler when the Italians would not let him have his way, and it was to the detriment of the Axis cause. He consistently blamed the Regia Marina for "Failure to deliver supplies..." when records show that by far the greater majority of troops and supplies sent to Rommel did, in fact, reach their destination.

This puts the conduct of the N/African campaign squarely in his court, for the Italians were not responsible for what happened to those troops and supplies once Rommel got his hands on them.

Rommel never could listen to counsel from his peers, and his attitude toward the Italians shows as much arrogance and lack of respect for the Italian military in general, even when they performed to Rommel's satisfaction, as the Regia Marina light forces did more often than not.

I most certainly agree that Rommel was probably better placed in Russia. Guderian had a similar style of leading from the front, and look what this did for his PanzerGruppe 2, coming within spitting distance of decisively turning the campaign in favour of the axis. Rommel may well have provided the perfect Gruppe companion for Guderian. Had he been with AGN, it is likely that he would have stormed Leningrad very early, and at great cost, just as he did to Tobruk. The strategic consequences of Leningrad in Axis hands would have been quite costly for the Soviet cause. No Leningrad equals no Archangel, which equals no Lend Lease.

In the South, he may well have made a very good divisional commander for Manstein's Army Gruppe. Who knows how different "Wintersturm" would have been had Rommel been at the sharp end of the operation. In fact, no African campaign may well have meant that Rommel might have taken over command of the Sixth Army, instead of the feeble Paulus, and how much different the 42' campaign might have been for this.

In fact, Manstein in Africa swapping with Rommel may well have been the best solution. Manstein would have stuck to what was possible in Africa from a logistical point of view, as a staff trained General. Rommel's 'thrusting' attitude would have served the 42' campaign very well. No need for shuffling of Army gruppes to help out the poor performing Paulus.

But, it's all speculation, and a Russian front Rommel might have died sooner, as was suggested.

 

Only 23% of the total aid to the USSR during the war arrived through the Arctic Convoys.
25% of Lend Lease to Russia came through Iran.

http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-europe-october-1939-february-1943/13629-lend-lease-routes.html

A successful Axis campaign in either North Africa or the southern campaign on the eastern front would have made significant impact on the war effort
- although by 1942 when Lend Lease really came into play, the Russians had won the tide of war.

 

Are you sure? Taking North Africa isn't going to have much impact on the Persian route and it's just going to mean there's a lot of water front with a lot of distance in between that the Axis now have to defend. Like wise aeven a succesful southern campaign on the eastern front won't stop LL and it will still leave the Germans over extended.

I wouldn't say that they had "won the tide of war" by 1942. Indeed it was in 42 that the Germans reached what might be called their high tide point.

 

I have this book that gives a bunch of top ten lists for things in World War Two, such as important battles, technologies, best commanders, etc. it's insightful. One list in particular caught my eye which is why I bought the book. The list was top 10 worst military commanders and Erwin Rommel was #7. Saying that he routinely disobeyed orders, and that "he displayed a contempt of not ignorance of logistics." It says that he compromised the axis strength in the region, and the author implied that Rommel abandoned his generals by heading to western front where he wated resources on the Atlantic wall. The author basically is describing why Rommel was not a good general. Now in a way I do agree with the futility of the Atlantic wall, I do not agree completely with his harsh criticism of Rommel.

 

I tend to lean towards his failures in Army Group West as a myriad of issues stemming from the entire lackadaisical effort by German brass. When Hitler relieved Runstedt, Rommel was the active scapegoat. He had his faults but I wouldn't rank him there. He wasn't a great commander in the west, but he had a solid "career", if you will.

 

In a nutshell: Rommel as a commander had more positives than negatives. His biggest plus was his ability to inspire the troops below him. His largest deficit was that he was not tactful with his subordinate commanders-a fact that later may have led to his death. He was promoted rapidly and this led to missteps and errors because he had to learn to command ever-larger forces by OJT. However, I do feel he learned quickly and tended to not repeat mistakes.

The criticism of him being out in front when he should have been at his headquarters is only partly correct. ALL panzer commanders, regardless of rank, were expected to lead from the front. Only then could they see actually what was going on in real time and make adjustments.

 

This is quite accurate definition of Rommel's success. Deliberately or not, he based his career exclusively on his tight links with the Nazi regime, at the highest level. His promotions were not deserved but presents from his beloved Führer.

 

I also think he seemed more as an infantry kinda of guy. His background during the First World War, was infantry. I know that World War One was the first war ever to use tanks in any kind of situation, and in this case war, and was more fought within infantry, but I think he had a little more experience with infantry than tanks before the war started. I'm starting to read one of his books that he wrote about what he did in th First World War and the tactics that he employed just to get a better idea on his thoughts of infantry tactics.
He did adapt well to tank tactics though, I will not discredit that.