-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Zhukov: he crushed Army group centre '44. *this was much worser then D-day for the germans* Uranus was a big disaster. Mongolia was a great success. So was Kurks.
He knew when to attack and wehn to defend.
As for the allies, De Gaule.
He knew when to attack and wehn to defend.
As for the allies, De Gaule.
Zhukov saved Leningrad and Moscow, destroyed the Germans at Stalingrad, and authored their greatest defeat in the war; Operation Bagration, which cost Germany 800,000 casualties (Stalingrad was a mere 250,000; but that was Zhukov, too).
It's axiomatic amongst serious students of WWII that the war was won and lost in Russia. Zhukov was there from start to finish (actually from before start, if you count the thrashing he gave the Japanese at Khalkin-gol in Mongolia in May of 1939). He gets the gold medal.
It's axiomatic amongst serious students of WWII that the war was won and lost in Russia. Zhukov was there from start to finish (actually from before start, if you count the thrashing he gave the Japanese at Khalkin-gol in Mongolia in May of 1939). He gets the gold medal.
Uranus a big disaster? The encirclement of von Paulus 6th army a disaster? either I'm confused about which operation was Uranus (most probably), or we have really different definitions of disaster.
Whose battlefield honors include... ??????
Wasn't De Gaulle's "finest" campaign where he threatened non-cooperation and French rejected of Allied printed Francs if he was not allowed to lead the first troops into Paris?
With allies like De Gaulle who needs Germans to fight.
without ever having read his book Id say that De Gaulle´s greatest contribution to ww2 warfare was his book published in 37 (dont know the name) which together with the writings of Captain B. H. Liddell Hart (the main english military thinker of the time) were intensely studied by none other than Heinz Guderian....
So to some extend if u believe Guderian to be a great general because of his advancement of the concept of mobile warfare then u also must give some credit to De Gaulle too...unfortunately for France the french military just didnt pay much attention and his book was actually more known in Germany than in France at the time before ww2.
No we aren't speaking about the same operation. Zhukov didn't command the operations around Stalingrad. He later claimed he was, but only to hide his greatest disaster. The Sovjets comenced two operations at the same time, Zhukov was in charge of second: Operation Mars. This was his grand plan to crush army group centre. He was not involved in the Stalingrad battle. *Mars started prioir and lastest longer then Uranus*
He fought versus Model, who understood what the Sovjets were capable of, and managed to hold them, in a more difficult position then Paulus. The Sovjets lost some 320 000 men in this operation.
About De Gaule: In the French campaign he lead his men very succesfuly, he faced Romels division and forced the same to retreat. Also the French first army was the fastest in France, blizing them. They even got so far as Bayern.
I'm sorry if De Gaule didn't follow American and English interest first, but after all, he was French.
He fought versus Model, who understood what the Sovjets were capable of, and managed to hold them, in a more difficult position then Paulus. The Sovjets lost some 320 000 men in this operation.
About De Gaule: In the French campaign he lead his men very succesfuly, he faced Romels division and forced the same to retreat. Also the French first army was the fastest in France, blizing them. They even got so far as Bayern.
I'm sorry if De Gaule didn't follow American and English interest first, but after all, he was French.
About the book:
"In 1934, Colonel De Gaulle published his famous book Vers l'Armée de métier (towards a professional Army). In this book, colonel De Gaulle suggested the creation of an army of maneuver and mechanized shock, armored, constituted with elite personnel. This elite army would consist of a light division and 6 line divisions. The personnel would be 100 000 professional soldiers with 6-years contract. The parallel with General Estienne's Brussels conference of 1920 is stricking. Even more stricking is the composition of PanzerGroup Kleist in 1940: 5 Panzer Divisions and 3 Motorized Divisions (approximatly 100 000 men)."
"In 1934, Colonel De Gaulle published his famous book Vers l'Armée de métier (towards a professional Army). In this book, colonel De Gaulle suggested the creation of an army of maneuver and mechanized shock, armored, constituted with elite personnel. This elite army would consist of a light division and 6 line divisions. The personnel would be 100 000 professional soldiers with 6-years contract. The parallel with General Estienne's Brussels conference of 1920 is stricking. Even more stricking is the composition of PanzerGroup Kleist in 1940: 5 Panzer Divisions and 3 Motorized Divisions (approximatly 100 000 men)."
To the one who said so: including MacArthur? You surely must have been joking 
MacArthur is SOOOOOO overrated in the States. Luckily more and more ppl see him as not so good a commander.
I voted for Zhukov myself btw... Most able commander. Lovely moves at Moscow and Kursk in particular.
I'm quite surprised Rokossovskii didn't get one vote... Ah well, maybe he was 'just excellent but not the best'
MacArthur is SOOOOOO overrated in the States. Luckily more and more ppl see him as not so good a commander.I voted for Zhukov myself btw... Most able commander. Lovely moves at Moscow and Kursk in particular.
I'm quite surprised Rokossovskii didn't get one vote... Ah well, maybe he was 'just excellent but not the best'
what was so lovely with them? At Kursk he merly defended, and was getting his arse kicked until Hitler withdrew his SS divisions (among others) and sent them to Italy. Zhukov was IMHO a brute, sure he got the job done, but the cost, was horrendous, the Soviets, as I know that you know, were having severe manpower problems in -45, despite having so huge pool.
DeGaulle's positive impact on the allied (France was an ally yes) cause was almost nothing. Inspirational propaganda from London perhaps, military success? I'm still waiting.
Which French campaign did he face Rommel? The one where he had to be evacuated to Britain?
Eisenhower didn't always follow either British or American interests either, he followed allied interests. Among his great headaches was dealing with De Gaulle who had one agenda ahead of all others; De Gaulle's interests.
The great General would have been lost with the rest of France 1940's other unspectacular officers had he not been lucky to be stationed close enough to the British Navy to have his worthless hide shipped to safety.
I don't know if he is overrated anymore. His famous blunder in Korea about the Chinese not daring to cross the border focussed a reassesment of his earlier "accomplishments."Originally posted by Vulture
To the one who said so: including MacArthur? You surely must have been joking
I would like to stay to the facts. It seems like you have an opinion that is based on personal bias. If you have concrete examples when De Gaule decision on the battlefield were bad, or when his operations were a failure, feel free to post them.
Should you argue with things like "worthless hide", I won't particiapte any longer in the discusion with you.
I'm not arguing about his political skills, but his military. To note it, Patton had also problems with Eisenhower, as did Monthy.
To say that the Free French did nothing for the allied cause is like stating that the carpet bombing did nothing for the outcome of the war.
About the battle with Rommel, De Gaule was "only" a division commander at this time, as was Rommel. Rommel comanded the 7th Panzer division and De Gaule the 4th DLM. This is a fair matchup, both sides with about equal armour on they disposal.
This counterattack at Arras, which failed at the end. Bought a lot of time for the BEF.
About Paris, Eisenhower intented to go around, howevere the sitaution in the city was serius. There was a food shortage, the police was on strike and a comunist uprising very likely. De Gaule convinced Eisenhower to allow the 2nd French armoured to take Paris. And they did it, after a heavy battle. Also the French took southern France on they own, most supplies came from there until Antwerpen was taken.
Should you argue with things like "worthless hide", I won't particiapte any longer in the discusion with you.
I'm not arguing about his political skills, but his military. To note it, Patton had also problems with Eisenhower, as did Monthy.
To say that the Free French did nothing for the allied cause is like stating that the carpet bombing did nothing for the outcome of the war.
About the battle with Rommel, De Gaule was "only" a division commander at this time, as was Rommel. Rommel comanded the 7th Panzer division and De Gaule the 4th DLM. This is a fair matchup, both sides with about equal armour on they disposal.
This counterattack at Arras, which failed at the end. Bought a lot of time for the BEF.
About Paris, Eisenhower intented to go around, howevere the sitaution in the city was serius. There was a food shortage, the police was on strike and a comunist uprising very likely. De Gaule convinced Eisenhower to allow the 2nd French armoured to take Paris. And they did it, after a heavy battle. Also the French took southern France on they own, most supplies came from there until Antwerpen was taken.
How come no naval commanders? Surely Nimitz and co. deserve some credit.
BTW, I voted Bradley. He wasn't too reckless as Patton and wasn't too conservative as Monty. A perfect mixture and as later days proved, quite an adequeate administrator in the post-war era. Plus, he taught mathematics. Pretty flexible. =)
P.S. If there is an Allied poll, how come there is only a German poll and not a general Axis poll? Some Italian and Japanese commanders deserve some recognition I'm sure!
BTW, I voted Bradley. He wasn't too reckless as Patton and wasn't too conservative as Monty. A perfect mixture and as later days proved, quite an adequeate administrator in the post-war era. Plus, he taught mathematics. Pretty flexible. =)
P.S. If there is an Allied poll, how come there is only a German poll and not a general Axis poll? Some Italian and Japanese commanders deserve some recognition I'm sure!
The problem is that he did nothing. You're example of his divisional engagement against Rommel is not enough to put him in the category of great, or even bad Generals. He does not have a large enough body of work to either prove, or disprove his military worth.
Divisional counterattacks, which were lost in a subsequent retreat could apply to 100s of commanders. Where is the evidence for De Gaulle's superlative war record as a military leader?
I did not say anything of the kind. Free French forces fought with distinction. They were not though, under De Gaulle's battlefield command. He spent most of the war in London jockeying for political position, and trying to get his government recognized by FDR.
The Free French did not take southern France on their own. They were part of the allied landings which netted several hundred thousand German prisoners. At the time of D-Day, Free French forces numbered 300k. In the south they fought under Tassigny, in the north Leclerc. The only time the Great De Gaulle involved himself was to display his medals on the drive through Paris.
De Gaulle's career as a politician is second to none, his career as a military leader; 1 engagement, decent job in the middle of a disaster would not warrant a mention in history without his political career.
As for Paris, Eisenhower was finally "convinced" when De Gaulle threatened to order the advance into Paris with or without allied cooperation.
Not exactly Mareschal Lannes was he? More of a Tallyrand in my opinion.
If you want one, then start a thread on either Italian or Japanese commanders, and, when there's some consensus on the best ones, either send me a PM or post in that thread the list of commanders you want in the poll.
Fine, but the 4th DLM fought the entire French campaign, sure the French lost, but the 4th put a fine performance.
The problem is that strickly speaking Eisenhower didn't have any battlefield command (at least not that I'm aware of, please correct me). Yet, he is in the poll.
Like I pointed out, it was a wise decision to take Paris, but this is not really Eisenhowers fault, de Gaule had far better information on the sitaution.
Now, why I think de Gaule was the best allied commander, becouse he had a difficults task. He manged to form the free French forces. He was recongnized as the supreme commander. So I compare him with Eisenhower. Also, as someone pointed out he was great theorist on the field of armoured warfare. This, imho rounds him up to the greatest Allied Commander.
The problem is that strickly speaking Eisenhower didn't have any battlefield command (at least not that I'm aware of, please correct me). Yet, he is in the poll.
Like I pointed out, it was a wise decision to take Paris, but this is not really Eisenhowers fault, de Gaule had far better information on the sitaution.
Now, why I think de Gaule was the best allied commander, becouse he had a difficults task. He manged to form the free French forces. He was recongnized as the supreme commander. So I compare him with Eisenhower. Also, as someone pointed out he was great theorist on the field of armoured warfare. This, imho rounds him up to the greatest Allied Commander.
I'm not so sure that Ike should be on the list either. However as Supreme Allied Commander his decisions did have an impact on the battlefield. He appointed theatre commanders, army commanders, assigned offensive priorities such as Patton and Montgomery (a big error on Ike's part BTW he should have chosen Patton to spearhead a 1944 offensive), and played a part in the planning of both D-Day, Sicily and Italy.
De Gaulle did act as a figurehead for Free French forces, but though the British, who recognized him as the government of France, the French Fleet in North Africa did not, leading to one of the darkest chapters of British maritime history; a perfidious attack on the French Fleet.
Roosevelt did not recognize DeGaulle until very late in the war, and wanted Giraud to be his replacement.
I don't even see where De Gaulle's political career aided the allies. It seems to have been more successful for his own self-promotion than any tangible contribution to the war.
I must confess that I do not understand how De Gaulle has been lifted to a position of grandeur in post-war France. Surely there were other, more deserving figures who actually participated in the war who should represent the modern lineage of a quite outstanding history of French Generals.
Good ol' George and his requirement for his troops to wear ties in combat gear. My grandfather hated Patton (gramp's infantry unit was attached to Patton's armor for a while after Operation Torch).
A fair old number of Patton's own men hated him.
"Old Blood and Guts - his guts, our blood."
"Old Blood and Guts - his guts, our blood."