alcal
surfin'
Then guys, who do you think to be the best general? Patton or Rommel?
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
Patton vs Rommel
- Thread starter alcal
- Start date
LightSpectra
me autem minui
A general for Nazi Germany is less of an SOB than an American general with temper issues?
For the topic, Rommel has got to be one of the most overrated generals in history. He doesn't compare to Patton, let alone Omar Bradley or Erich von Manstein.
RalofTyr
King
They should have joined sides and fought the Soviets.
Maimonides
Emperor
I honestly can't decide. It's a very close call. They were both very good in their own way.
alcal
surfin'
In a perfect world...
Eskel
Warlord
Hitler had given Polish Government such proposal - but we couldnt agree because we didnt accepted Nazi's methods.
alcal
surfin'
You preferred soviet ones...
Junzi Nicuzn
Gaijin Samurai
The Devil and the deep blue sea. The Polish government didn't want anything to do with either, but their location denied them this option.
Maimonides
Emperor
On further thought, I'm going with Patton. When the two came up against each other in North Africa, Patton was the victor.
Patton's troops had much less experience than Rommel's Africa Korps. Rommel was fighting on two fronts & had a very serious supply problem. It's a very close call.
Patton's troops had much less experience than Rommel's Africa Korps. Rommel was fighting on two fronts & had a very serious supply problem. It's a very close call.
I would probably say Rommel. Personally I think they are both over-rated. Rommel did some good work in North Africa, and while his troops were generally more experienced then Patton's and he had some much better tanks, he had few supplies and the British rolling on the other side.
Patton almost, if not always, had a significant advantage in supplies and air support in Europe, with his flanks protected by others. Not to say he wasn't a good general, but I get sick of people who act like he conquered France by himself, sure he was often leading the charge, but the Germans didn't just magically disappear elsewhere.
EDIT: I have no idea what happened there, I hit submit once, my computer froze for a moment and these all appeared. Hmm that is weird, before my computer was showing seven posts.....
Patton almost, if not always, had a significant advantage in supplies and air support in Europe, with his flanks protected by others. Not to say he wasn't a good general, but I get sick of people who act like he conquered France by himself, sure he was often leading the charge, but the Germans didn't just magically disappear elsewhere.
EDIT: I have no idea what happened there, I hit submit once, my computer froze for a moment and these all appeared. Hmm that is weird, before my computer was showing seven posts.....
Nah, Poland didn't agree because they didn't want to let the Germans take Danzig, and then Hitler, in true foolish fashion, went the wrong way in his negotiation tactics...he demanded Danzig plus West Prussia...
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
^^^ Ironically, wanting Danzig was probably the least objectionable of all the demands Hitler made. It was the administrative capital of Prussia for a short period for Christ's sake, and the capital of West Prussia for a few hundred years.
Regarding the OP, it's a tough call. Both men are overrated as generals - not to say they weren't good, but people see them as modern day Alexanders, which they're not. Then again, I think he was overrated too - but they were still ver talented, and the problems which they faced were differing. Patton had inexperienced troops much of the time, but often came up against enemies in a worse state. Rommel seldom had enough supplies to hold position let alone push ahead. But, on balance, I find Rommel to be a superior commander. Though it's a close call.
Rommel was also a much better human being than Patton, which is extremely disconcerting, considering he was a Field Marshal and national hero under the Nazis.
Regarding the OP, it's a tough call. Both men are overrated as generals - not to say they weren't good, but people see them as modern day Alexanders, which they're not. Then again, I think he was overrated too - but they were still ver talented, and the problems which they faced were differing. Patton had inexperienced troops much of the time, but often came up against enemies in a worse state. Rommel seldom had enough supplies to hold position let alone push ahead. But, on balance, I find Rommel to be a superior commander. Though it's a close call.
Rommel was also a much better human being than Patton, which is extremely disconcerting, considering he was a Field Marshal and national hero under the Nazis.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I say again, how is a man who killed in order to bring Nazi domination to the world a better person than a guy with a temper?
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
A man who planned to assassinate Hitler and surrender France to the Western Allies upon learning of the Holocaust versus a fairly rabid anti-Semite who said Russians were untrustworthy because they were Asiatic, and that being a Nazi party member was no different from being a Republican or Democrat? Yep, Rommel wins hands-down.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
The Holocaust isn't the only bad thing Nazi Germany did, and I find it hard to believe that Rommel didn't know of it in the first place. And, his involvement in the July 20 plot is uncertain. Hence why I don't think a possibly good guy fighting for the evil side is better than a short-tempered racist (in the 1940s) fighting for the good guys.
bigdog5994
Lady Day
I thought Patton hatted Russians because he believed he was reincarnated from one of Napoleon's generals
Rommel got his butt stomped again and again and Patton never lost so Patton is the victor
Rommel got his butt stomped again and again and Patton never lost so Patton is the victor
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
No, the Holocaust wasn't the only bad thing Germany did. But very few of those bad things took place in Africa. You have to remember, Rommel wasn't exactly in the loop a lot of the time, and when he was, he routinely refused to believe what he was hearing. He was hardly alone in this. Many people had supported the rise of Hitler in the belief that all his outlandish statements were merely rhetoric to stir up the common people. There were even a few Jewish industrialists that supported him initially.
On the July 20 plot, a clarification: Rommel almost certainly knew about it, yet did nothing either way. He was, however, the only real choice as a non-Nazi successor to Hitler, regardless of the actual plans of the plotters. And he knew it. He also seemed to be actively planning to surrender France before his staff-car was bombed. This is little-known, as he never actually got to do it.
It's also a certifiable fact that Rommel did his best to stop crimes against humanity when he came across them. When he commanded Northern Italy, he pissed off the Gestapo no end by refusing to obey instructions on how to treat the populace.
Patton was extremely racist, an anti-Semite, and frankly, a bit of a nut. Admittedly, he was horrified when he entered the camps, but even Himmler threw up upon seeing Jews being killed, so I don't really give him points for that. Most human beings would experience absolute horror and sickening contempt upon seeing them.
I seem to recall Patton was also the officer who overlooked many of the crimes of the Goums in Germany, who raped more German women in one night than were raped in France during the whole occupation. I am unsure of this though, as I'd actually expect Patton to take the side of the Germans over the Moroccans. He did appoint many Nazis to positions of power in his territory.
Patton was not a nice guy, whereas from all accounts, even those of his enemies, Rommel was. Hence, Rommel wins the humanity contest. And I'm not even going into the whole "difference between fighting for Germany and fighting for the Nazis" argument, which has some merit.
Just because he served his homeland in a war does not mean anything. I believe he was a soldier for over 2 decades before Hitler rose to power.
Show me where he ordered his men to actively participate in the holocaust. Most of the old German Army generals appear to be quite honourable men, which in many cases likely would prevent them from acting out against Hitler, haveing sworn an oath to him and all.
I am sure if Patton was born and raised in Germany he would have joined the German army in a heart-beat.
I don't know where Patton sits morally, but it sure as hell seems like he was an a-hole.
Show me where he ordered his men to actively participate in the holocaust. Most of the old German Army generals appear to be quite honourable men, which in many cases likely would prevent them from acting out against Hitler, haveing sworn an oath to him and all.
I am sure if Patton was born and raised in Germany he would have joined the German army in a heart-beat.
I don't know where Patton sits morally, but it sure as hell seems like he was an a-hole.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
The problem is that this would have meant jack squat if the side he was fighting for happened to win the war.
Now, I'm not an expert on the man, but I'm familiar with this quotation: "I don't give a damn who the man is. He can be a [n-word] or a Jew, but if he has the stuff and does his duty, he can have anything I've got. By God! I love him." That seems to be actually a bit less racist than other men of his era.
Cite a source for this, please. If this is true, I will concede.
