Doppleganger said:Farseer said: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.