who do u think was the greater war tactician, i think Rommel most defiantly was, even though he was a disappointment during D-Day and North Africa campaign
Rommel, the only reason he lost North Africa was due to lack of supplies, the reason he lost Normandy so quickly was lack of air power.
Churchill would have run rings around Rommel if he had been alive. :lol:
u think so, even though he was responsible for thousand of Australian death in ww1 Galliopolli cauz he made errors in the landing spots
Rommel wasnt the leader of Germany though? He wasnt responsible for government policy etc only implementation.
The question is just not a valid one I think, two very diffrent roles.
Quite. It’s like asking which was better, the Spitfire or the Tirpitz?
Yes you’re right. Rommel was not a politician, he was a (very good) soldier. He joined the anti-nazi resistance inside the german officiers, but refused to kill Hitler. He wanted an arrestation and judge him.
Churchill was a politician, he wasn’t behind the maps in Africa, he didn’t prepared Overlord like Eisenhower did… He led the contry but his generals made the war…
Yes Rommel was very good soldier one of the best in german army ,Churchill was politician and he is been very good in that .
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. :shock:
re: Gallipoli. I’m not entirely sure that it was Winston Churchill that chose the landing sites anyway. Even if he did there is nothing to say that he maliciously chose them in such a way as to kill as many ANZACs as possible - as seems to be the belief of quite a few chippy Aussies. There were far more British casualties than Australian ones yet Australians persist in seeing the whole episode as somehow a direct attack on them.
By the way Minimalistix, there is more than one famous Churchill (that is a hint to help you think about 2nd’s post.
While Winston Churchill and Rommel were from different generations (Churchill commanded a battalion in WWI France when Rommel was still a subaltern) I do not believe that things would have been quite so clear cut had they been contempory. Churchill is credited with showing great promise as a junior cavalry officer, so while he never rose to command multiple units it may heve been a lot closer between him and Rommel had they met at the squadron or regimental level.
understood
Apart from his limited personal experience, Churchill was a strategist rather than a tactician.
Rommel was quite famous for his achievements on the alpine front in WW1, but later he became one of the first political officers in the Wehrmacht, strongly supporting the Nazis. Only in 1944 did he break with Hitler, before he was an ardent admirer of Hitler.
Jan
Rommel vs Montgomery would have been a better debate. I dont Believe that during WWII Churchill actually planned and led any operation.
Churchill only eat , drink ,sleep and smoking he do nothing all operations have do generals but all glory go to him he is premier :lol: :lol: :lol:
who comes up with these questions. :roll:
Winston Churchill had a lot to do with the strategy of the war, Norway, Greece are two that spring to mind. Also the emphasis on Europe first when the US entered the war was also important. The prime minister would also mess with the navy tasking whenever he could get away with it. He would also replace generals he had fallen out of favour with.
I assume you’re referring to the illustrious son of Sir Winston Churchill, who won the odd battle like Blenheim and Ramillies? If so I’ve got to agree, Rommel wasn’t a patch on the guy.
I assume you’re referring to the illustrious son of Sir Winston Churchill, who won the odd battle like Blenheim and Ramillies? If so I’ve got to agree, Rommel wasn’t a patch on the guy.[/quote]
That who I thought he was on about at the start. 
Winston Churchill had a lot to do with the strategy of the war, Norway, Greece are two that spring to mind. Also the emphasis on Europe first when the US entered the war was also important. The prime minister would also mess with the navy tasking whenever he could get away with it. He would also replace generals he had fallen out of favour with.[/quote]
churchill was a good boy,but he can´t do more than eat chips and look the battles on the bbc.
and im afraid the topic could be montgomery vs rommel,no?..
BTW:montgomery is worst,he winned only with luck and factors in his favour.