In 1941, OKH sent Rommel to command a small corps of German mechanised troops to North Africa to prevent the collapse of the Italian position in Libya. He had to ensure for every defensive measures required there to 'protect Rome'. But once Rommel arrived, began attacking the Brits, his entire force yet not arrived, what made Halder saying him 'mad'.... But the OKH there expecting a best defensive act from him! This made the situation critical to handle for Berlin.. My question is, disobeying continuously the HQ, being a General, is it acceptable? Is not it going against military doctrine? How many of such instances are there in military history?
No it's not acceptable, but Rommel was defeating his enemies and gaining victories for Hitler. It becomes difficult to punish someone when they are successful. Had Rommel been defeated by the British when he attacked in 1941 he would have been relieved of his command, sent back to Germany and at best sacked, at worst shot!
Well, there we have seen a genuine and definite clash between the military doctrine (German) vs tactics (Rommel's), where this knightly self-propelled Commander Heeresgruppe B overran frequently his HQ. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel is regarded as one of the greatest German general, whose tactics were ever best for which Hitler had seen many victories, Goebbels became his fan.. And their enemy experienced however Krieg Ohne Hass (War Without Hate). I usually think that had Rommel 'halt' at Gazala,a 'balance' would have been settled between tactics and strategy(doctrine); ie., it could ensure the Axis assult for both the anphibious and airborne, at Malta etc. although he had not, so he/Berlin repent. If we recall Revolutionary War, we found the more or less same tensions between George Washington and Greene, but he(Greene) occasionally overrun George's doctrine. Greene was an earnest believer of guerrilla (tactics) warfare! So the contemporary German military leaders believed that Rommel was the best tactician, .... had been an adequet divi commander but his command of corps was often flawed .. by concentrating more into the tactical warfare, he neglected the incoming 'datas' of enemy order of battle, intelligence or the logistical problems.
The reason why Rommel was so successful in the magrib (North Africa) is that his boffins were de-crypting British Signals and had an Intelligence advantage. Also there were a few spies in Cairo. For similar reasons Patton was able to look good in France.
