3 Comments

1. Gregory Conen  •  Aug 26, 2008 @4:21 pm
   

   There are some more significant criticisms later, notably his alleged tendency to overstretch and underprotect his supply line.

   It's worth noting that aggressive commanders seem to be better remembered than equally skilled defensive talents. People like Nimitz and Montgomery seem to be more famous than people like Dowding, who headed RAF Fighter command during the Battle of Britain.

2. Patrick  •  Aug 26, 2008 @4:37 pm
   

   Yet to compare Rommel to a man who fought in an equally worthy cause Greg, what was his goal?

   Rommel, in Africa, had to win a shocking victory. By the time the United States entered the war, with Russia, the handwriting was on the wall. Rommel certainly saw that, if Hitler didn't.

   Like Robert E. Lee, a more defensive fighter but one who was also willing to neglect his lines, Rommel had to win by crushing the enemy, not just in terms of casualties but in terms of morale. That he had victories at all, speaking of supply lines and with the British navy in the Mediterranean, is evidence of his genius.

   As the linked post says, brilliant improvisation with what one has is the essence of what an officer is supposed to do.

3. Gregory Conen  •  Aug 26, 2008 @7:06 pm
   

   Indeed, the brilliant improvisation is key to good command, and Rommel excelled at that. He was possibly the best ground commander in the war.

   But to dismiss criticism (especially on the mere fact that the critic is not famous) is a mistake.