Topic: Erwin Rommel

godofthunder9010 · October 16th, 2007

The point I'm trying to get at is simple. Erwin Rommel benefits from the fact that the Western allies like to overstate their role in defeating Nazi Germany. From 1941 - 1944 the UK was a virtual non-factor in the war for Europe. The same can be said of the USA. ALL the big battles were fought on the Eastern Front and there were a ton of them. If Rommel was the best of the best, he would have been sent to that front and not North Africa (which Nazi Germany only half-way cared about.)

Let's go with this analogy. Let's say there was a Union Civil War General who successfully defeated a group of hostile Indians out in the Rocky Mountains during the Civil War. Is it fair to crown him "Greatest Union Commander of the Civil War" in the face of the enormous battles that were fought in and around Virginia? Does brief success and subsuquent failure on less crucial secondary fronts make Erwin Rommel a better commander than Guderian or Manstein?

I'm especially puzzled by the fact that you seem to be saying that all military victories over the Red Army in the early phases of Barbarossa are irrelevant and meaningless. The combined French and British forces outnumberd German forces in every category in 1940, yet they had no better luck against the Germans. Considering the outcomes, their luck was far worse. France and Britain did not suffer from a lack of leadership, nor did they suffer from general disorganization.

October 16th, 2007
godofthunder9010 Tribunus Laticlavius Gear	The point I'm trying to get at is simple. Erwin Rommel benefits from the fact that the Western allies like to overstate their role in defeating Nazi Germany. From 1941 - 1944 the UK was a virtual non-factor in the war for Europe. The same can be said of the USA. ALL the big battles were fought on the Eastern Front and there were a ton of them. If Rommel was the best of the best, he would have been sent to that front and not North Africa (which Nazi Germany only half-way cared about.) Let's go with this analogy. Let's say there was a Union Civil War General who successfully defeated a group of hostile Indians out in the Rocky Mountains during the Civil War. Is it fair to crown him "Greatest Union Commander of the Civil War" in the face of the enormous battles that were fought in and around Virginia? Does brief success and subsuquent failure on less crucial secondary fronts make Erwin Rommel a better commander than Guderian or Manstein? I'm especially puzzled by the fact that you seem to be saying that all military victories over the Red Army in the early phases of Barbarossa are irrelevant and meaningless. The combined French and British forces outnumberd German forces in every category in 1940, yet they had no better luck against the Germans. Considering the outcomes, their luck was far worse. France and Britain did not suffer from a lack of leadership, nor did they suffer from general disorganization. __________________ "It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!! "It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase