Could it be that one focuses on the personalities more and, their perceived shortcomings in WWI rather than the WWII due to the technological advances in weapons and warfare?
Its easy, as has been done many times, to critique the WWI generals because they used tactics that in a modern world sitting comfortably in our homes seem absurd. However, its convenient to forget the times they were executed and, all the surrounding influences and pressures placed upon these men at that time.
I think, the weapons and tactical change in the second world war obfuscated many of the weaknesses etc that would have been highlighted in another time. Many commanders made poor decisions but, were fortunate for things like airpower naval bombardment and substantial reserves that actually won the day even, with a poor plan. This just was not the case in WWI so, many just focus on a single personality take him out of the whole scenario and, pull their actions apart. Simple to do but, addresses nothing of value to the actual issues.
I think also, many senior commanders had some failings but, as the chain goes down there were some exceptional commanders lower down that improvised on the orders they received sometimes a lot sometimes only a little but, were able to get the job done. They did so not because every plan was flawed or, the commanders were unfit but, due to the fluidity of battle and, their knowledge of the actual area it was fought. The main focus, the general's, be it Patton, Model, Monty or Rommel then collect the accolades and awards.
I think personality was important and WWII was the personality war media reporting was becoming hugely important not only to the armed forces but, to an ever increasing enquiring public. Monty, Rommel and Patton certainly instilled confidence in their men but, also to the publics back home. One also must remember that some of these men completely understood that they were fighting a ''total war'' and, their primary focus was destroying the enemy.
Mitch
