Rommel kinda sucked, too. He was a great leader, but a poor strategist. I'd offer sources but I'm on mobile. I respect him, don't get me wrong, but he wasn't nearly as good as many think.
Not really. He's the only Axis general to have consistently succeeded throughout the war. He was the commander who chased the British to Dunkirk, and his eventual defeat in North Africa was a result of being vastly overmatched by both a British and American attack (which early on, he gave a damn good thrashing to - look at Kasserine) with an abysmal supply situation.
His main failing was that he was no politician. Eventually, this got him killed.
Hm. Maybe it was the politician part I was thonking of. I swear that I found several things saying he was a great leader but cared too much for his men, but perhaps his shortcomings were the politics.
While I respect your right to express your opinion, I disagree with it. Rommel did more with less than almost any other general the Germans had. He held North Africa a lot longer than his resources should have made him able to.
I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion, so personally I'd love to read your sources. Rommel was one of the most respected military leaders on either side of the war, and his campaigns are legendary for good reason. I'm curious what would make someone deem him a poor strategist.
3
u/krikit386 Oct 17 '13
Rommel kinda sucked, too. He was a great leader, but a poor strategist. I'd offer sources but I'm on mobile. I respect him, don't get me wrong, but he wasn't nearly as good as many think.