Which German commander is the most intellegent and powerful.
Rommel?
Ditto that and if you would like more info on that just click this link.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4514
There is multiple answers in this and other members opinions, dig in there to find some German generals.
In defensive action, I’d say GFM Walter Model. Apart from that GFM Erich von Manstein.
Rommel stood against a supirior force for more than 2 years and practicly perfected armored warfare so he in my idea is the best
gotta go with the fox on this one rommel
I would agree with Rommel for the first half of the war.The drive of the 7.Pz-Div(ghost division) during the battle of France is really impressive.But later on he was subject to depression and constant change of mood(many letters sent to her wife prior the Normandy invasion prove that) which aren’t the best qualities for an Army commander.
One of my favourite commanders would be Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS Felix Steiner and Oberstgruppenführer und Generaloberst der Waffen-SS Paul Hausser.
von Manstein for me. But the Germans were blessed with a whole raft of excellent commanders, much more than the Allies. Top to bottom, or bottom to top. You can admire their aptitude for warfare while at the same time admonishing them for their obvious support of a dastardly regime…
I would go for this even if unpopular. v. Manstein, Rommel, Hausser. SS-Oberstgruppenführer Paul Hausser was an old-school general officer. I am sure there is no one to blame him for any crimes hence the allies didn’t.
Guderian!
Rommel was a good general that actually is either over-praised or over-maligned. But Heinz Guderian was a strategist that contributed a good deal of thought to modern mobile warfare…
Achtung Panzer!
Shame he wasn’t all that good an author though. It might just be the translation, but my copy of Achtung Panzer is rather a turgid read 
Ha. I’ve never read it. But it isn’t uncommon for such types to not be wordsmiths in either German or English. Something might have been lost in translation. but perhaps there wasn’t much to begin with?
I’n all around attack and defence Rommel is supreme but Manstein is very good as well but also Guderian may have made the blizcreig but he also failed to take down Russia in Hitlers Timetable.
Yeah, I was rather hoping one of our Teutonic members could shed some light on the subject!
You guys miss all the good ones…
What about KURT STUDENT…or OBERGRUPPENFUHRER WILHELM BITTRICH…
Model wasn’t much chop on the offensive, and Rommel was an arrogant political appointee with an overblown opinion of his own actions…Rommel threw away any chance of victory in the Med and hamstrung Normandy with ridiculous petty squabbling over what would be the “right” method for defence, rather than listen to the advice of Army Commanders who had far more experience than he did…and his adjudant Hans Speidel was accused of treachery…when you cannot trust your chief of Staff, then how can you perform as an Army Commander with any great competancy…
Take Rommel out of the picture in Normandy and we might well have seen just what the German Army was actually capable of in 1944…
As for other commanders, what about “PANZER” MEYER…FRITZ BAYERLEIN…HERMANN BALCKE…HEINZ HOTH…GEYR VON SCHWEPPENBURG…all these commanders had as much, if not more savvy than Rommel ever could, and they weren’t promoted over their heads…
Rommel is the “Peter Principle” in action…He came to believe the propaganda as much as Hitler did…another Goebbels inspired myth that has outlasted the Third Reich…
I think you’re being excessively harsh on Rommel. Yes, he did suffer from a bad case of overinflated propaganda and trusting excessively to luck. However, anyone who earned the Pour le Mérite as a company commander can’t be all bad.
I have the biography of Rommel and in WW1 he was a tactical genuis also student planned the terrable invasion of crete which lost a chunk of the Ju Junkers the workhorse of the luwaffe as well as doomed the german paratrooper arm of the military! I know this because I am a fanatic.
If youre a fanatic, then Rommel’s performance should be fairly low on the list as a strategist…Rommel was a good divisional commander, but as an Army Commander…WOEFUL…
Fanatic that you are, I’m sure. But, change the perception of Rommel it does not…
I agree with pdf here. Rommel was for many years given an inflated pop-culture image not only because he did win some harrowing victories both in France and in the Desert, but because of his perceived uber-competence was blended with a bit of closet anti-Nazism which may or may not have existed.
Rommel was, and still is, overrated in many circles for a few different reasons. But now I think we’re seeing a revisionist push-back that goes too far in trying to tear down Rommel. The War in the desert was as much a battle of logistics through the Mediterranean as it was a case of Monty finally destroying the “Desert Fox.” The British built Rommel up a bit as a supreme adversary for political purposes, namely to cover the arse’ of their early blunders in the Western Desert. But they gradually became more competent even before Monty (the First Battle of El Alemein was won by Gen. Auchinleck), and Rommel still was able to survive, and even persevere, early on when he had almost nothing but an expeditionary force and a lot of defeated Italians. He was a very good commander that had more successes than he had defeats. He may not have been the best “big-picture” guy, but he knew how to win battles and was adept at managing the fluidity of combat. And if he had totally had his way in Normandy, and had the RAF Tempests not strifed him into a hospital ward, he may very well have killed a lot more Allied troops there. I think that would have been a truer test of his command ability…