What if Rommel had been chief army commander?

Answer 1

Rommel was good, but not one of the best. Germany actually did a pretty good job of finding the right generals for the right job. The problem was that the totalitarian regime couldn't afford to trust a straightforward command structure, which would decrease central control, so good generalship was often diluted or countermanded.

Answer 2

Not much difference IMO. First of all he would still have had Adolf making damfool decisions over his head. Second, Rommel was good but not infallible- eg. the decision to leave Malta alone was Rommel's, just as was the decision to bypass Tobruk on the first try. End result was that the Africa Corps lost more material during transit (to the planes and subs based in Malta and Tobruk) than they lost in battle. Rommel also did nothing to stop the UK supply route across Western Africa to Egypt- another bad call. And once the US got into the act- even a dozen Rommels would not have made a difference

Answer 3

An earlier answerer has a good point, Rommel was a good general but he did not have the mental discipline to be a good Commander in Chief. He was always looking for a big gamble to end the war right now, which is one of the reasons Hitler liked him and was hesitant to murder him after the Generals' July 20 plot.

Answer 4

Very little. The famous saying is that Hitler would have won had he listened to his generals. He didn't. He wouldn't have listened to Rommel, either. The biggest key to the war is that Germany was stupid enough to attack Russia. Rommel would not have been able to stop this from happening, and the war would have ended pretty much the same.

Answer 5

The only possible difference would have been the plot to overthrow Hitler. If Rommel had been in command and could have counted on the loyalty of his subordinates and if he had been committed to it, then it might have worked instead of being the abortion it was. So, the war might have ended early but there are a lot of 'if's there.

Answer 6

He would have been fired by Hitler and the war would have turned out pretty much the same. Hitler thought that Rommel was very good...but not perfect. The Nazis partly propagandized him into a war hero simply because they needed one.

Rommel would have undoubtedly tried to convince Hitler to end the war...negotiate with the Allies...mitigate damages...or whatever.

He was a lukewarm Nazi and an opportunist to some extent. Hitler would never have tolerated his political opinion and would have forced him to retire "for health reasons" as he did any general who hesitated at his directives to slash and burn and fight to the last drop of German blood.

Answer 7

I don't believe Rommel was Germany's best General, it could have been Manstein or Gauderin. The British immortalised Rommel in n.africa because they wanted to attribute the success to one man, not to one collective group or nationality, so they could still feel good about themselves.

Answer 8

If he was also given free rein (tactically and strategically), and authority over the Waffen SS, and, authority to over-rule Hitler, Himmler, Goring and other top-Nazis....THEN maybe he would've won the war for Germany. But since none of the other Army Commanders in Chief had that authority, all the 'ifs' stated above couldn't help him.

Answer 9

Rommel was a good divisional general who was promoted beyond his abilities. The Brits said he has good because he kicked their asses - not a great achievement when their tank men kept throwing their tanks against the very superior German ones. Even so, he lost control of more than one battle because he couldn't resist getting into the thick of it. When Montgomery got his measure and began to use tanks against infantry, and artillery and air power against tanks, Rommel's star faded.

Answer 10

Germany would of won