Patton or Rommel?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
I don't see this as a plus when he is in fact pulling resources from those who would use them to gain ground in order to attempt that Market-Garden crap. Political skill is a liability in an officer who is already way over his head, even though it is also an asset for anyone who has the right idea.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Monty tried this super ambitious, risky plan because as everyone knows he was too conservative.

As Eisenhower said "Leadership is the art of getting someone to do what you want done because he want to do it."

Patton was lousy at leading his bosses towards his goals, even when his goals clearly had the potential of great rewards. That a sign of a really shitty leader.

Monty was able to lead people towards his goals, even when these goals were dubious. That's why he was a better leader than Patton.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Isn't this about the better general?

[Kramerman]

rommel

[Kramerman]

an interesting point to note:

Tomorrow, Novemeber 15, is my birthday.

Tomorrow, November 15, is Erwin Rommel's birthday

coincidence? I think not...

[Imran Siddiqui]

What, you are both Nazis?

[Kramerman]

dp

[Kramerman]

actually Rommel always maintained that he was a German, not a Nazi, or something like that IIRC.

[Boris Godunov]

Rommel was certainly not a Nazi, and the units under his command in Africa have the distinction of being (I believe the only) German divisions not accused of committing war crimes. Rommel expressly forbade his troops from such things.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What, you are both Nazis?

No, heres a hint:

I am like 120 years old or something (im so old i lost track) and proudly wear like a bazillion iron crosses (again, i lost track) around my neck and the esteemed rank of Field Marshal.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Rommel. Patton merely had better forces.

MtG: With regards to the Atlantic wall, if you fortify any position, you automatically send the enemy to a weaker point, consider for example, a castle with a strong wall with one weak segment. Where do you attack?

It was far better for the Germans if the Allies invaded Normandy instead of Calais, the latter being closer to Germany, and outflanking most of the occupying German forces in France. If they had got their act together, they could have easily defeated the Allies in June '44, it was because of a clever deception on the part of the Allies, and blunders at the highest level on the Germans, that we succeeded in pushing the Germans out of France and accross the Rhine.

Rommel knew that it wasn't so much where the Allies attacked that mattered, but how the Germans defended. The traditional approach was to let the invaders land and then attack with reserves. Rommel knew this would be a bad idea--he said over and again that the only way for the Germans to win the invasion was to defeat the Allies at the shores and never let them land. He wanted to put all the reserves into immediate action.

Hitler, however, allowed Rommel to be overruled on this. Had he listened to Rommel, The D in D-Day would likely now stand for "Disaster."

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Monty tried this super ambitious, risky plan because as everyone knows he was too conservative.

As Eisenhower said "Leadership is the art of getting someone to do what you want done because he want to do it."

Patton was lousy at leading his bosses towards his goals, even when his goals clearly had the potential of great rewards. That a sign of a really shitty leader.

Monty was able to lead people towards his goals, even when these goals were dubious. That's why he was a better leader than Patton.

I still maintain that a bad General with political skill is worse than a good General without it.