2006-11-13 09:47:58 · 16 answers · asked by devil332 p 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Sure, why not. You don't have to be on the side of right or justice to be competent.
Rommel was implicated in the plot to assassinate Hitler, and was forced (allowed) to commit suicide.
2006-11-13 09:49:43 · answer #1 · answered by Rockvillerich 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Rommel was a great general, Germany would have possibly won the war had Hitler listened to Rommel and secured the beach heads as per Rommels reports. The reports were sent well in advance of D-Day and had they been followed D-day would likely have failed...
Rommel ran an incredible campaign in northern africa earning the name "The Dessert Fox" he was a military genius able to use cunning, surprise, and unconventional tactics to advance his troops quickly over vast amounts of ground capturing key ports and cities crippling the allied forces...
Rommel was amongst the best generals of all time... He however worked for a mad man who luckily didnt have the foresight to look ahead and listen to Rommel at a key time in the war...
2006-11-13 18:49:56 · answer #2 · answered by Diane (PFLAG) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Churchill had a good grasp of the business of war, so Rommel was probably a great general in terms of waging war.
The issue of greatness; however, might be further complicated by the nation's rationale for war.
Even though generals are trained to follow the political leadership explicitly, is there a time when they should stand up and say "no"?
It's a debatable issue.
2006-11-13 17:50:50 · answer #3 · answered by a_blue_grey_mist 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As a field tactician he was arguably the best in the war, but he had a strategic weakness, one he shared with Patton, in that he consistently failed to secure his supply lines. In North Africa he repeated had to stop his attack and go back to re-secure his support bases, this caused him to have to fight for same territory several times, and it was that which finally gave Montgomery the victory. As a man he was an Officer and a Gentleman in the truest sense of the phrase. His prisoners of war were given the same food, water, and medical care as his own men and himself, orders from Berlin to commit atrocities were ignored, and, had the assassination attempt on Hitler succeeded, Rommel would have been proclaimed President of Germany, at which point he could, and almost certainly would, have ended the war.
2006-11-13 22:03:37 · answer #4 · answered by rich k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rommel was a hell of a general, if he and Patton were to have worked together, they would have rolled in to Berlin, with in 3 to 4 months in my opinion.
2006-11-13 17:58:53 · answer #5 · answered by redneckmp28 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One does not have to be on the same side of a conflict to recognize good leadership. Yes, I agree with Churchill. If I recall my history, Hitler was more of an impediment to the war effort in that if he had let his generals prosecute the war as they saw fit, Germany might have done better in WW2.
2006-11-13 17:55:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, one can separate Rommel's personal beliefs from his military prowess and tactical skill. He was a great military general, however he was not a good man.
2006-11-13 17:56:31 · answer #7 · answered by Rayslittlegurl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree emphatically.. Rommel was one of the greatest generals that ever was
2006-11-13 18:50:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rommel was indeed an excellent general.
2006-11-13 17:55:36 · answer #9 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He said it more because Rommel was seen as an enemy by Hitler and staff, he was forced to commit suicide.
2006-11-13 17:51:53 · answer #10 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without question...Rommel was one of the best. A very savvy military mind...unlike his boss (Hitler), who turned out to be a bigger idiot than GWB.
2006-11-13 17:53:52 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋