rommel---africa or russia? - Page 3




View Poll Results :should Rommel have been sent to the eastern front?
yes 16 64.00%
no 9 36.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
April 20th, 2005  
Farseer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farseer
I voted yes, because I think that Rommel wouldn't have obeyed Hitler's most foolish orders. Maybe there would not have been Stalingrad as we remember it if Rommel would have been there instead of Paulus. Or maybe in northern flank Leningrad would have fallen if tactician like Rommel would have been there. Still it might have happen that Rommel would have been dismissed after he had denied Hitler's orders.
Rommel would been dismissed in December 1941, as Guderian was, had he refused to obey foolish orders. The situation at Leningrad was decided by stout Soviet defence assisted by the guns of the Soviet Baltic Fleet, as well as the fact that von Leeb's Army Group was the weakest of the 3. Lack of tactical skill didn't play any part.

Rommel was a very able mobile commander but Germany had lots of 'Rommels'. Hoth, Hoeppner, Balck, Hausser, von Kleist, von Manteuffel and of course Guderian were all excellent panzer commanders, as good as Rommel if not better.
I think that key for crushing Leningrad was in Syväri, east from Leningrad. Someone like Rommel with few divisions could have crushed Russian lines there and make contact with Finnish troops, so permanently cutting supply lines into Leningrad. I doubt if Leningrad would have stand without supplies. With Finnish troop at Northern Flank and German troops in East and South, Leningrad would have had hard job to survive even first winter.

I think that in normal circumstances Guderian was better panzer commander, but in Russian front and with those circumstances and with mainly infantry Rommel was far better than Guderian or any other German general, including Manstein. Especially if battle would have been small-scaled, Rommel would have been best choice.
April 20th, 2005  
Zucchini
 
I voted for him being in Russia, but I also think he would have been reduced to mush.
July 30th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
This is one of those if's and buts things, yet know one will ever know if he would have as succesful on the Eastern front as he was in the Desert.
--
August 6th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
I think much of it all comes back to the same questions: Why has everyone heard a lot about Rommel in this world? Why is everyone thoroughly convinced that he was the greatest military commander produced by Nazi Germany?

The answer is simple: We fought Rommel throughout WW2. He was good, but as Doppleganger has pointed out, there is a sizable list of Panzer leaders, Generals and Field Marshalls that were as good or better, all fighting on the Eastern Front. The West doesn't sing their praises because Westerners don't generally know or care anything but the absolute bare minimum about the Eastern Front.

Moving him over to heading Armygroupe North or Armygroupe South would have had very little overall effect on the outcome of things in the East for two major reasons:
1.) Hitler was micromanaging everything. Rommel would have eventually failed against impossible odds and been fired by Hitler for it, right along with most of the best that Germany had in the East. Guderian was definitely a better Panzer leader than Rommel and truthfully the best Panzer Leader of the war, but Hitler fired the man for arguing in favor of common sense strategy. This front was Germany's "do or die trying" front, so the emotions, politics and stakes were much much higher.
2.) One thing Stalin was very good at pushing his Generals to do was the one thing that would have robbed Rommel of some of his best tricks: Constant pressure from anywhere and everywhere possible.

Lets say we move him to Armygroupe South (which definitely needed better leadership). I honestly don't think he could have greatly alterred that Armygroupe's fortunes in the long run, but perhaps it could have saved them from quite a number of messes, perhaps. However, taking him away from the African theater would have guaranteed total failure in Africa far far sooner. Relying on Italy to actually take care of the Aftrican Front was much like asking a dog to go fetch a Killer Whale out of the Ocean for you: It just wasn't going to happen. Honestly, they even botched Greece, and thereby proved that they were often more a liability than a strength to the Axis Powers. I think that, in the balancing out of things, Rommel is best left in Africa where he was able to have a greater impact.
August 10th, 2005  
specialasiankid
 
El Alamein was a purely luck battle for the Allies. if their replacement general had not died then it probably would hav ended differently. Though Rommel being on the East front is debatable. Rommel would hav won if they didnt hav montgomery.
August 10th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farseer
I think that in normal circumstances Guderian was better panzer commander, but in Russian front and with those circumstances and with mainly infantry Rommel was far better than Guderian or any other German general, including Manstein. Especially if battle would have been small-scaled, Rommel would have been best choice.
What evidence do we have that Rommel would have excelled in war on the Russian front, including the Russian winter? What on Earth was ever small scale about Leningrad? While I agree that he may have improved matters very slightly, I don't think he would have had the freedom of movement anywhere on the Eastern Front to use his talents to their fullest.