# Source of "Rommel's Quote"



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

"If I had American supply lines, British planes, German officers and Canadian troops, I could take over the world"
- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Any source material or documentation to support this? I can't see it.  He mostly fought the Italians as an Inf Offr (and a damn good one) during WW1, and didn't get a chance to see much of us in WW2, having died prematurely.

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Apr 2005)

The quote is apocryphal.   Meaning it is made up.  He may have said something similar involving the British and Americans, but the Canadian addition is pure maple-syrup coated fantasy.

However, Rommel did see sufficient action against Canadian troops from June 6 to July 1944 when he was wounded.  Frankly, I think he had bigger fish to fry - the Canadians were hemmed in behind Caen until the second week of July and really didn't do much that might have impressed him (from his perspective).


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

'Bout what I figured, thx.

Tom


----------



## Jonny Boy (1 Apr 2005)

have you seen the quote with out the Canadian part?  i don't get why someone would add to a quote that someone else said.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Apr 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> have you seen the quote with out the Canadian part?   i don't get why someone would add to a quote that someone else said.



You know what Einstein, said, hutch - "Imagination is more important than knowledge, especially in the military."


----------



## Jonny Boy (1 Apr 2005)

oh i was just wondering. and i didnt really get an answer.  is the quote at all real. or was it someone with an imagination that made it up?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Apr 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> oh i was just wondering. and i didnt really get an answer.   is the quote at all real. or was it someone with an imagination that made it up?




Reread your sig line, and my last post, and see if you get the point I was trying to make....


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

Something else Einstein said comes to mind: 

"Sarcasm, to be effective, must be scaled to the target audience."

Or was it Voltaire?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Jonny Boy (1 Apr 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Reread your sig line, and my last post, and see if you get the point I was trying to make....



ya i am sorry but i still don't get it ??? :. maybe you could actually just tell me.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

Canadians do that, Hutch.  We take things people have said about other militaries, Canadianize them, as pass them off as ours.  Something to do with national military feelings of inadequacy,  or some such.  Intellectual laziness as well, I guess, as we should have enough of our own good quotes around, if people would just dig for them.  Failing that, stick to the original.  Have a good weekend.

Tom


----------



## Jonny Boy (1 Apr 2005)

OK thanks that makes sense.


----------



## QORvanweert (1 Apr 2005)

Since I am the only person on this site to bear this particular quote, I think it is fitting that I try and answer this question. I heard it from a friend who claimed that he saw it in the novel 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'.(William L. Shirer). I have since read this novel and didn't notice it myself, but because it is rather large I may/must have missed it. So, about the validity of the quote, I don't believe he said it in this exact format, but I do believe that he said something along those lines. I can change it if the moderators find this grounds for unacceptable inaccuracy.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Apr 2005)

Shirer's book isn't a novel...

And if it was, "quoting" from it would be a little weird....unless attributed as such.


----------



## Acorn (2 Apr 2005)

My own sig line is one of those "Canadianized" quotes. Frankly I doubt either Rommel or Slim made much bones about Canadians, which is why I put it in square brackets. It's like the "All is secure Santa" thing that makes me puke every Christmas, or the alleged "practice chaos" quote.

Acorn


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Apr 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> My own sig line is one of those "Canadianized" quotes. Frankly I doubt either Rommel or Slim made much bones about Canadians, which is why I put it in square brackets. It's like the "All is secure Santa" thing that makes me puke every Christmas, or the alleged "practice chaos" quote.
> 
> Acorn



The quote in your sig comes from Granatstein's book THE GENERALS.  It is said the saying was inspired by Chris Vokes.  Granatstein simply says it is "an old army saw" without saying who said it originally.  However, Slim didn't serve with the Canadians, he served in Burma during WW II, so its more likely another 8th Army general may have said it.  Vokes was known to swear a lot and also was famous for uninspired tactics - see the Moro River campaign where he was heavily criticized for his handling of 1st Cdn Div.


----------



## TCBF (3 Apr 2005)

Was Vokes a Bde Comd at Ortona?

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Was Vokes a Bde Comd at Ortona?
> 
> Tom



http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/commanders/1divcomds.htm


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (4 Apr 2005)

If you want a real qoute about Canadian fighting prowess, I distinctly remeber reading something in post Great War American war plans drawn up for conflict with the UK that stated that the Canadians would be the toughest adversary in the commonwealth. I'll try and look it up. It went on to say something to the order of 'they fight like we do' Based on the context I'd say we fight, or more accuratly fought, rather better.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Apr 2005)

Pte. Gaisford said:
			
		

> If you want a real qoute about Canadian fighting prowess, I distinctly remeber reading something in post Great War American war plans drawn up for conflict with the UK that stated that the Canadians would be the toughest adversary in the commonwealth. I'll try and look it up. It went on to say something to the order of 'they fight like we do' Based on the context I'd say we fight, or more accuratly fought, rather better.



Based on the Great War example, I'd suggest the two were roughly equal; certainly we had more experience.  Were there any particular areas you feel the Americans didn't measure up during the Great War?

I think the WW II armies are more interesting as the way they did business was so diverse, though again, there are many similarities.  I don't think the US Army was better than the Canadian Army in WW II, nor do I think they were worse.  In many ways we were a lot of like, especially with our artillery based doctrine and our fragile armour support that was unsuited to the task of handling enemy armour - but like the Americans, we didn't think that was their job, necessarily.  Worked out differently in practice than in theory.

But in World War One, I'm not sure there is much to distinguish the two?  Technically and professionally the Canadian Corps had few peers, but depending on when the Americans would have fought us, much of that expertise was lost soon after the war as the veterans melted away and we scrapped our military.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (12 Apr 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Based on the Great War example, I'd suggest the two were roughly equal; certainly we had more experience.   Were there any particular areas you feel the Americans didn't measure up during the Great War?


 Not so much areas as time-frames In the spring of 1916, The states had a pretty green army The learning curve was pretty steep.


> I think the WW II armies are more interesting as the way they did business was so diverse, though again, there are many similarities.   I don't think the US Army was better than the Canadian Army in WW II, nor do I think they were worse.   In many ways we were a lot of like, especially with our artillery based doctrine and our fragile armour support that was unsuited to the task of handling enemy armour - but like the Americans, we didn't think that was their job, necessarily.   Worked out differently in practice than in theory.
> 
> But in World War One, I'm not sure there is much to distinguish the two?   Technically and professionally the Canadian Corps had few peers, but depending on when the Americans would have fought us, much of that expertise was lost soon after the war as the veterans melted away and we scrapped our military.



I agree with you almost entirely regarding WWII 

Now I am not up on my diplomacy in the 20s, but I think the statement was made in an analysis of grand-stratagy, at a time when the isolationist (again) US had a plans for the conduct of war against all other potentialy threatening powers.

I am somewhat less optimistic about Canada's position at the time than you are, though. This is possibly because I don't know much about the state of affairs in the US. It seams to me that, by 1924, the Canadian forces had fallen on extremely thin times, and most of our contingency planning was based of a Militia-Myth.


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Apr 2005)

Interesting quote from:

Bull, Steven 2004. World War II Infantry Tactics: Squad and Platoon. (Elite, 105) Osprey Publishing: Botley, UK. 

"The Canadians alone seem to have managed to blend the virtues of the American and British traditions without inheriting too many of their weaknesses." (in reference to Canadian forces [specifically infantry] in WWII)


----------

