George McCllelan over Erwin Rommel?

Fiction, movies, alternate history, humor, and other non-research topics related to WWII.

Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil

User avatar
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:25 pm

Post by Rosselsprung » Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:56 pm


A bit more about the Philippine KKK. It's a bit more wordy than Ku Klux Klan though. :wink:

Oddly enough, the page is run by a German! :D

Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb » Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:51 am

A bit wordier but not so many bad connotations!


Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by Uli » Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:12 pm

See John Allen Wyeth's "That Devil Forrest" (forwarded by Henry Steele Commager) LSU Press, or Jack Hurst's "Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography."

I bought my Hurst book many years ago, while touring Carnton House, just below Nashville, and believe it the bible on Forrest.

Forrest died in Memphis at 56, in 1877, of diabetes. Maligned, though never convicted for his part in the Fort Pillow 'massacre,' he suffered his only real setback in the field at Parker's Crossroads, just 40 miles east of the Tennessee River. The Civil War's greatest historian, Shelby Foote, named him "the greatest person produced by the war." Believed even today by the public-at-large a bigot, Forrest--slave trader, soldier, klansman--was penitant near life's end, and frequently, publicly renounced his earlier hatreds. Wrote Hurst: "The reality is that over the length of his lifetime Nathan Bedford Forrest's racial attitudes probably developed more, and more in the direction of liberal enlightenment, than those of most other Americans in the nation's history."

Those who continue to deride Forrest in the name of 'racial justice' are largely those who've never studied the man.

To mention Rommel's name in the same category with George McClelland is sacrilege. A lifelong teetotaler (see: David Irving's "The Trail of the Fox"), Rommel would be tipping the bottle today were he to know he's been included with McClelland on Feldgrau.

Rommel and Forrest, yes--but Rommel and McClelland?

Has someone besides me been drinking? 8)

Fact is, McClelland was fortunate to have been removed from command early, and to have never seen duty in the west. Had he been so unfortunate as to have tangled with Forrest, it's arguable he'd have lost the Mississippi and the entire Tennessee valley.

J.E.B. Stuart, "The Gray Ghost," "Old Blue-eye" Thomas Jackson, and Forrest. Imagine having guys like this on the Russian Front, in Afrika? Might've turned the tide for the Axis.

But McClelland? I'd rather have Ambrose Burnside, if it came between these two men.... 8)

Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by Uli » Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:56 pm

Please amend "McClelland" to read "McClellan," in that previous post.

Randy "McClelland," in fact, is the local owner of a Lil' General gas station and one-stop. Seems he's a millionaire many times over, given his infamous penchant for vastly overcharging for a gallon of gasoline. At any rate, Randy probably possesses more drive, determination, and willingness to succeed than George McLellan himself.... Placed in George McClellan's shoes 144 years ago, Randy would've ruthlessly driven the Army of the Potomac from Virginia to Florida's tip, north and west to Memphis, and then back to D.C., and along the way would've established hundreds of Lil' Generals which would've made him fabulously wealthy.

User avatar
Rodger Herbst
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am

Post by Rodger Herbst » Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:34 am

As long as we're on the American Civil War gentlemen, does anyone see a likeness of the Brit 8th army in the desert and the Army of the Potomac
until they both got real leadership?

max painless
Under Review
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:53 am
Location: Good Ole US of A...Yee-Haw!!!

Post by max painless » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:36 am

Yes, but George Mcclellan is considered be a major factor in the future success of the Army of the Potomac later in the war. He was a master of training. Despite his reluctantness to commit his forces, he did help prepare them for the war they would eventually win. Just to give a little of the lesser told story. This is from a guy who is loosely related to Grant, and thus not inclined to give old George his dues.
~All you touch, and all you see, is all your life will ever be~

Beppo Schmidt
Posts: 657
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:25 pm

Post by Beppo Schmidt » Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:10 am

Plus Rommel deressed better.
Rommel was like the best-dressed guy in WWII.
He was a master of training. Despite his reluctantness to commit his forces, he did help prepare them for the war they would eventually win

Maybe we should judge McClellan the trainer and McClellan the battlefield commander separately then. I guess we have to give him credit for training the troops who were later used much more effectively by better field commanders. But as a field commander, Rommel is far superior to McClellan. McClellan had too much hesitation and he moved too slow, two things Rommel was never known for.

User avatar
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:26 pm
Location: Lansing MI USA

Post by stabsfeldwebel » Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:28 pm

Taylor Collector wrote:Oh, BTW it is the War of nothern, agression, and the civil war bey definition took plasce in maryland in 1861 only.
WHAT? :?: War of Northern agression? What books have you been reading? American Civil War is the accepted title(In America anyway).
I would sugest that you put down those books & invest in a typing book, as your posts are difficult to read. :?
Surrender? Hell Ive got them right where I want them-surrounded from the inside!

User avatar
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Wyoming, USA

Post by coggle » Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:07 pm

Even in the war museum in Atlanta today, its still called the war of northern aggression.
To all Patriots, Regardless of country...

max painless
Under Review
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:53 am
Location: Good Ole US of A...Yee-Haw!!!

Post by max painless » Sat Dec 31, 2005 3:10 pm

-"Even in the war museum in Atlanta today, its still called the war of northern aggression."

Is that true? That would be a real trip. Yeah, though it seems like a long time ago, the Civil War was one of the bloodiest wars prior to WWI, and II. It's historically very recent. The Rebel Flag is alive and well I have seen with my eyes and ears when I'm in Virginia, and down south. Alot of people down south still have the war on thier minds to some degree, as opposed to Northerners who, by and large, never mention it out of hand. In the south people will sot of joke with me like "But, You guys won the war". Ironically, I had relatives on both sides and so it is impossible for me to "Win". Imagine those extra 550,000 men alive. The population of this country would be significantly bigger today, more then likely. Also, minus the over 400,000 wounded men. That's about a million, almost all military, casualties for 4 years of fighting. 3.09% of the population of the USA were casulaulties of the war. Since Lee refused to conduct a guerilla war, as some wanted, this country can talk about the war peacefully, and travel without serious incident, generally speaking. unlike many other countries after bloody civil wars of the recent past. Though, a guerilla war in the USA would have changed our national character, and history along with it. You'd think with one decent Japanese historian on the civil war (The civil war had only ended about 75 years prior to pearl harbor) the Japanese would not have doubted our resolve, ability, or willingness to accept casaulties. Things I can't say are true today in my country. Though, fighting a major enemy power is more unifing nationally through it's desperateness, then the mainly police actions and ambushes in Iraq, or the jungle guerilla fighting of Vietnam.

I found this dispute, it lists "The War of Northern Aggression". ... _Civil_War

Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:04 pm

Post by dduff442 » Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:59 am

Whatever about McClelland, U.S. Grant ranks with the finest generals in history, IMO. Running the guns at Vicksburg to land his army (with no source of supply) downstream was the kind of wild maneuver Rommel would have approved of. While I tend to admire Rommel mostly for his prose and battlefield inspiration, Grant was the ultimate practical general.

(The only confederate in the western theatre who might have equalled him, my fellow Corkman Patrick Cleburne, had his career stymied by political considerations.)

Trivia Fact: Gen Sheridan attended Kaiser Wilhelm I's coronation at Versailles (as did a certain young officer named Paul von Hindenburg). Asked by someone what he thought of the Prussian military, he said that if U.S. Grant were to land in Lisbon with 100,000 men he'd be in Berlin in six weeks. Hyperbole maybe, but not without a grain of truth.

Completely missing the meaning of the war (as did every other military in the world. Even the US Army had forgotten every lesson within 20 yrs.), one German General Staff man described the US Civil War as "two gangs of hooligans chasing each other round the countryside for four years".

Question: How long would it have taken for Germany to capture Paris in 1914 had it adapted the rough-rider cavalry tactics of the US Civil War? I'd guess 6 times as many infantrymen could have ridden cheap horses in 1914 than rode with the splendid but pointless Cavalry regiments. I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that the class-suicide of the Prussian nobility -- up to that point the most durable in all the world -- began at the charge against the Belgian Maxims at Liege in 1914.


User avatar
2nd SS Panzer Das Reich
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: NC

Post by 2nd SS Panzer Das Reich » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:32 am

Little Mac was not a bad commander because he picked the wrong fights but because he didn't pick his battles at all. He kept asking for more troops (like ol' westy in nam). He always thought he was outnumbered when he wasn't. He wasn't the only bad general in the civil war but one among many. He was not to aggressive like a load of other Union generels were (Burnside and US Grant at times) but he would never fallow up on what he did win. He had a lot in common with Braxton Bragg in the above. As I said before the US civil war is full of really bad generals - the list goes on and on.
Wehrmacht: men of courage

User avatar
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:34 pm

Post by Bohemond » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:24 am

For a good read on little mac try The Civil War Fort Sumter to Perryville by Shelby Foote .McClellan was a good general but way too cautious,he seems to have been more a set piece battle general (more Montgomery than Rommel)never having enough men in his view to do the job,as can been seen during the peninsula campaign.In front of richmond he was more than happy to lay seige rather than storm the city always thinking he was out numbered, though he wasn't helped by pinkerton agents over-estimating the enemy's size.

Back to my book :[]

User avatar
Deiter Hollenstein
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:26 pm

Post by Deiter Hollenstein » Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:32 pm

McClellan always accepted over-estimates of the forces opposing him, no matter the source. Pinkerton just fed into his weakness as a way to secure his position.

McClellan was a good trainer and organizer, but he was a failure as a combat commander. All one needs to do to confirm this is look at Antietam, where he was HANDED Lee's battle plans and still managed to fight his way to a bloody draw. It was a strategic defeat for Lee, to be sure (as were all his thrusts into Northern territory), but McClellan squandered many chances to crush his opponent due to his own timidness. He was more afraid of losing than he was of risking things to secure victory.

User avatar
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Belgium


Post by mellenthin » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:19 pm

Liam wrote:
George McClellan was one of the most incompetent Generals the Union had. No way is he worthy of comparison to Erwin Rommel. Rommel didn't hesitate and chicken out and delay and fool around like McClellan did.
No, he just made a complete hash of his army's supply and logistics, thereby ensuring their eventual total defeat!
He had no responsability for the supplying of the forces in North Africa.

Post Reply