During World War II, two famous military commanders – British Field Marshal Montgomery and German Field Marshal Rommel fought many times. Although Montgomery defeated Rommel in June 1942, it is still widely believed that Rommel was a better general.
The outcome of the war does not depend entirely on the ability of one general. Rommel's North African battlefield was a barren land, lacking resources, and the Allies were far superior to the Germans. In this unfavorable situation, Rommel was able to successfully stop the advance of the British army, and he won a series of important victories, which undoubtedly showed his remarkable talent.
In contrast, Montgomery's advantage lies in the fact that he has more tactical experience and a deep theoretical foundation. The armored forces under his command in the Battle of the Suez Canal showed great strategic vision. However, at the Battle of El Alamein, despite Montgomery's decisive victory, he did not show the same tactical innovation as Rommel.
Nor can we ignore the fact that Rommel is known as the "Desert Fox", and he is the only person who has been able to achieve such a brilliant feat in the desert of Africa. This unique combat experience has allowed him to surpass his peers in many ways.
We should also take into account the influence of history on the evaluation of characters. Due to historical political factors and personal biases, people's perceptions of certain people or events tend to be greatly influenced. For example, after the end of World War II, in order to show that they are the righteous party, Western countries often portrayed the losers as demons. As a result, it can also lead to an over-demeaning of those who were once seen as formidable opponents by the enemy.
Rommel was an excellent general, and his achievements cannot be denied. But that doesn't negate the greatness of Montgomery. Every successful military strategist has a unique side, and we should respect their contributions, rather than simply jump to conclusions.