Reassessment of WWII generals

So like most guys my age, I've read way too many World War II history books. I know it's a trope and a joke, but it's true for most of us. I suspect there are others on this board who share this affliction.

So I never seek out books on biography or rating the generals, which I don't find that interesting. That said, it tends to come up in a lot of books I select to read for other reasons, including the one I just finished last night - Gershom Gorenberg's "War of Shadows", about the role of code breaking in the North African conflict. In this case the target is Erwin Rommel.

I'll get back to Rommel, but first let me briefly summarize what I have read in other books. I won't be able to remember the particular ones if asked for sources.

MacArthur - horribly overrated, tremendous self-promoter, the real villain in the early loss of the Philippines, refusing to take action that he was directed to do or act on intelligence, too much absorbed with his lifestyle in Manila. Always first and foremost a self-promoter and political operator. The books I've read mention that Inchon in the Korean War was great success for which he deserves credit, but I'm limiting to the Second World War.

Montgomery. Almost as much of a self promoter as MacArthur. Couldn't get along with any other generals and would almost undermine comprehensive planning to try to steal credit for himself or his troops instead of working as part of the team. The most recent book I just read gives him a lot more credit for El Alamein. He does steal existing plans without credit and other similar measures, but actually instills a lot of discipline and organization that was ultimately key to the success that others had planned for but were unable to execute.

Ike. His primary talent was not anything you customarily associate with strategy but more in keeping all of the personalities in check and quasi working together, especially with multiple nationalities in the coalition. Skills that obviously served him well as President. His skills were invaluable to success but not what you normally look at in terms of leading troops in campaigns.

Maurice Rose. American general that most considered the most unknown and underrated. Like Rommel, he led from the front and ultimately lost his life because of it. But it was said that he charge across northern Europe after D-Day and especially the breakout immediately after D-Day would not have occurred but for him.

Patton. Nothing not already known. Couldn't work with people or as part of the team. Tended to outrun his logistics and had to be reigned in, but still brilliant leading and pushing forward.

Now Rommel. The legend of him is well known. Besides being a great battlefield commander, he was a gentleman military man. This book only reaffirms that the British and the Germans in North Africa were perhaps the most humane in terms of prisoners, etc. Rommel even insisted the British saboteurs sent to assassinate him be treated respectfully. And he had no time for the atrocities. Some happened behind his advances but he never cared for it and certainly never slowed down or tried to work with the forces sent to liquidate Jews or others.

The book does detail how enthusiastic Italians were for the task and how excited other Nazis were about liquidating Jewish population across the Middle East as Rommel proceeded across the Suez canal up through Palestine, etc.

Part of the plot against Hitler. Certainly that's what caused him to lose his life as he was considered to be part of the plot. But the author casts some doubt on that conclusion although he doesn't give much reasoning. Just mentioned it in passing.

Not a self promoter. German propaganda certainly played him up to strike fear in the Egyptian population, but he was never one to grant interviews or seek self glory, and he was forever loyal to his wife, which is why his letters back to her so invaluable.

As a military commander, he led from the front, was loved by his men, frequently won conflicts where he was severely outnumbered, extremely aggressive pushing forward against all odds, with success. He was another one who outran his logistics.

BUT, the common legend is that he was betrayed by his lack of logistics and the inability to get supplies across the Mediterranean and would have easily otherwise prevailed but for the failures behind him. There is truth to that, but it's a little bit more complex.

The main reason he was so eager to outrun his logistics is he was getting extremely precise daily intelligence on the exact positions of opposing troops, their morale, their equipment, their training, etc. He had been told from the very "reliable source", the term used in the enigma intercepts, that all of Egypt was ready to fall. The British were also getting German intercepts but it took far longer to decrypt and was far less complete and far less detailed. Rommel had an incredible intelligence advantage, which is why he seemed to have such perfect judgment at going around or through gaps and striking perfectly at the weakest point in Allied lines. No doubt he was a great general, but his amazing success was much more attributable to the precise intelligence he received. When he didn't have that advantage, he was not nearly as spectacular, and had a long list of failures.

Turns out that the American liaison in Cairo, who was able to sit in on British strategy meetings and talk to everyone and get reports on unit strength, incoming supplies, strategy, detailed plans, etc, was cabling that all back to Washington with a cipher that the Italians had the code book to by breaking into the US embassy after hours just before the war started and stealing the code books.

The Brits suspected the Americans were the leak and kept telling them to change their ciphers. He got orders to do so but the orders got lost on a piece of paper which delayed has changed the ciphers for a few weeks. The timing was momentous and changed history. Had he gotten the order timely and changed ciphers, Tobruk almost certainly would not have fallen, the lightning advance would not have occurred, and millions of lives would have been substantially different.

At the same time, Rommel got the detailed intelligence, which was in part misestimation and ignorance of other plans, that Egypt was completely ready to fall with the slightest push. It was for that reason that he pushed ahead even knowing that his logistics were suspect and that has troops were somewhat depleted. The ciphers were changed just as the Brits were putting together the final strategy to make the stand using the natural features at El Alamein, and other Australian reinforcements were coming in which greatly strengthened the British forces. Rommel had no knowledge of that. But he probably would have never proceeded into the "trap" but for the confidence instilled by the precise and accurate use of months of detailed intelligence which had never led him wrong.

Just something interesting I couldn't get out of my head.

 

From everything I have read that is exactly correct