Who was the Greatest Allied Commander of WWII?

[boehm]

Originally posted by Dinsdale


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.

Without knowing too much about it...it is my impression from what I have read that while De Gaulle generally was held in very little respect by the forces who had stayed loyal to the Vichy government, and thus was almost a liability in the work to bring the Vichy units in North Afrika to surrender and join the allies....Him and his radio broadcasts to France did do a magnificent job of rallying the public morale and thus help turn the french civilians away from coorporation towards passive and active resistence....It is IMO primarily in this role that De Gaulle can be said to have added significantly to the allied cause.

To elaborate a bit, it is basically my understanding that the animosity between the free french (De Gaulle) and the Vichy Units incl. the french navy in North Afrika can be derived from the fact that when ordered to lay down his arms and surrender to Germany De Gaulle insisted on making his escape to England, with as many of his men as possible, to carry on the fight another day.....whereas all of the loyal Vichy troops by definition obeyed....thus in the eyes of De Gaulle, the loyal vichy units must be seen as cowards who obeyed a "bad" order instead of fighting on for the honour of France etc. etc.....whereas the loyal vichy commanders must see De Gaulle as a deserter or traitor who disobeyed an order and set himself up as some sort of phony figurehead......to admit anything else would sort of be to admit that you yourself made the wrong choice in obeying the order to surrender.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

I agree, the poll is probably not narrow enough.
While it is true that De Gaule was most of the time in London, he deserved credit for several things. He was a shining example that the war was not over for the French, this encouraged others to follow him.
He united the resistence, there were a lot of differnt groups until '43.
The Free French forces were equiped by America, while he wasn't recongized by many, his men recongized him as the leader. I don't know how much credit is to be given for the organisation of the armored forces.
The allies gained an ally, the Free French and the Germans lost one, Vichy could have been a pain for the allies.
De Gaule was the supreme commander of Free French forces, he did what Eisenhower did, but on a smaller scale.
It is also a misconception to say that everythng what as good for the allies was good for the French. The French gained status as one of the winners of WWII, and retained an indipednet foreign politcs, I would argue that this is due the work of De Gaule, and the men that followed him. It isn't very likely they would have if Giraund or some other "satalite" was appointed by the allies.

 

[unmerged(8319)]

No french commander since Napoleon Bonaparte belongs in a poll like this. Petain or De Gaulle - same stiffneck and mega lo mania. That one of them relyed on defense and the other on offense makes no differnce.

Montgomery was nog big genius either. He just made a smaller mess of things than Alexander (he's in the poll as a great commander for screwing up in North Africa???). What Monty did in North Africa was basically to withdraw and build up reserves, let the enemy attack heavily fortified positions and THEN counter attack with superiority 4:1 or 5:1.

My old granma could do that too...

But at least I'm pleased to see Voroshilov wasn't included in the list

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Sgt. Bulldog
No french commander since Napoleon Bonaparte belongs in a poll like this. Petain or De Gaulle - same stiffneck and mega lo mania. That one of them relyed on defense and the other on offense makes no differnce.

Montgomery was nog big genius either. He just made a smaller mess of things than Alexander (he's in the poll as a great commander for screwing up in North Africa???). What Monty did in North Africa was basically to withdraw and build up reserves, let the enemy attack heavily fortified positions and THEN counter attack with superiority 4:1 or 5:1.

My old granma could do that too...

But at least I'm pleased to see Voroshilov wasn't included in the list

let me guess your an american? so who should be in the list?....all americans or what? - and yes while Monty perhaps didnt win any outstanding victories against all ods he performed pretty solid...withdrew and build up his forces until he was certain to win instead of getting lured into a premature offensive....basically time was on his side....so why not wait a bit until u are sure to win? perhaps not the stuff legends are made of but one quality I appreciate in a commander is certainly the ability to know when to gamble and to know when to play it safe! Personally Im not so sure Rommel was that much of a genious, but I will give him credit for knowing when to gamble....basically as I see it he knew when was outmatched and would loose if he played it "safe" so instead he gambled and he was just lucky enough to carry it off several times.....IMO basically his take on France/Normandy was the same....if the germans played it safe and kept their armour in a large central reserve their was no chance of throwing the allies back in the sea....However had they placed all the units on the beaches, they would have had a small chance of repelling an invasion....although to place the forces directly within reach of the heavy shorebombardment could probably also have spelled complete doom if they failed to repel the invasion.....the thing to know is just to know when to gamble and when not to...

 

[boehm]

Someone mentioned that why no naval commanders where included.....well if they were then Cunninham should for sure be included! He is probably the greatest English Admiral since Nelson....

 

[unmerged(5120)]

De Gaulle's book actually did a lot of harm to the French Army.

Note the title "Towards a Professional Army"; it makes no mention of armor.

The debate in France at the time was raging between the proponents of conscription (basically, the left) and those favoring a larger professional element (basically, the moderate right), with a few arguing for an all-professional army (extreme right).

De Gaulle argued for a strong mech component in the French Army, but he also argued it was only feasable with long-term professionals.

Bearing in mind that roughly the same people who argued against conscription had tried to topple the Republic on 6 Feb 1934, it is understandable that a lot of people were rather reluctant to put an armored corps in their hands.

And since De Gaulle had made a lot of noise linking the two concepts, when the debate was closed and a stronger professional core rejected, the idea of an armored corps went with it.

As a field commander, he has a very small record, a few months as a lieutenant in WWI, and a few days in 1940 as CO of 4th DCR.

Juin and De Lattre certainly belong in the poll, but not De Gaulle.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Bah. I see Patton is gaining ground.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by Top Cat
Bah. I see Patton is gaining ground.

It could be Monty, so don't complain too much

 

[unmerged(8783)]

Originally posted by Sgt. Bulldog
No french commander since Napoleon Bonaparte belongs in a poll like this. Petain or De Gaulle - same stiffneck and mega lo mania. That one of them relyed on defense and the other on offense makes no differnce.

De Lattre de Tassigny is an incredibly under-rated French
commander. One might argue that had he not died of
cancer, and continued to command in Indochina, there
would certainly have been no 'Dien Bien Phu' - that was
Salan's fault (de Lattre's successor). De Lattre was also
highly regarded by General Patton as a field commander,
and trusted to hold his flank. Not many can claim that.

---Ank

 

[unmerged(9563)]

I thought De Lattre was killed by a Vietcong's Bullet...

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by AnchorClanker
De Lattre de Tassigny is an incredibly under-rated French
commander.

---Ank

Don't forget Juin. Diadem was his plan and he'd been pushing for it since before 1st Cassino.

 

[unmerged(8783)]

Originally posted by KwangTiger
I thought De Lattre was killed by a Vietcong's Bullet...

That was his son.
De Lattre Senior died of cancer.

---Ank

 

[unmerged(8783)]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Don't forget Juin. Diadem was his plan and he'd been pushing for it since before 1st Cassino.

Yes!

Thank you.
I am getting somewhat senile...

Just tired of the French bashing.

---Ank

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
De Gaulle's book actually did a lot of harm to the French Army.

Note the title "Towards a Professional Army"; it makes no mention of armor.

The debate in France at the time was raging between the proponents of conscription (basically, the left) and those favoring a larger professional element (basically, the moderate right), with a few arguing for an all-professional army (extreme right).

De Gaulle argued for a strong mech component in the French Army, but he also argued it was only feasable with long-term professionals.

Bearing in mind that roughly the same people who argued against conscription had tried to topple the Republic on 6 Feb 1934, it is understandable that a lot of people were rather reluctant to put an armored corps in their hands.

And since De Gaulle had made a lot of noise linking the two concepts, when the debate was closed and a stronger professional core rejected, the idea of an armored corps went with it.

As a field commander, he has a very small record, a few months as a lieutenant in WWI, and a few days in 1940 as CO of 4th DCR.

Juin and De Lattre certainly belong in the poll, but not De Gaulle.

well since I havent read or much about his book before this then I dont really know what to say...but I dont think that one should mix his tactical/strategic pondering about the use of armour with whatever political game was played at the time....if his thoughts regarding use of armour and mobile forces are sound then they are sound....if his book had the consequence of messing up the political situation even furthere well then it did but thats something else and besides this discussion.....but I agree that whether u judge De Gaulle as a division commander or as a political player then either of those two roles fall out of what we are discussing here and he should therefore not be included in the poll.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by boehm
well since I havent read or much about his book before this then I dont really know what to say...but I dont think that one should mix his tactical/strategic pondering about the use of armour with whatever political game was played at the time....if his thoughts regarding use of armour and mobile forces are sound then they are sound....if his book had the consequence of messing up the political situation even furthere well then it did but thats something else and besides this discussion.....but I agree that whether u judge De Gaulle as a division commander or as a political player then either of those two roles fall out of what we are discussing here and he should therefore not be included in the poll.

He wanted something very close to Lidell-Hart and Fuller, ie something way too armor-heavy. IIRC, his armored div was to have 4-500 tanks and 1-2 infantry battalions. In fact, the DCRs were roughly modeled after his armored div, and they weren't very successful.

 

[unmerged(4944)]

I'd say Zhukov, he was the most influential soviet general and had a hand in nearly all major strategyic decisions, and when he was ignored, disaster usually ensued.

How about Marshall? Didn't he oversee the successful creation of the US Army. If the Red Army had failed, his success would have been critical.

Pollsters really should be more specific; or is their some conspiracy designed to antagonise people about the word "great"??? How about a poll on the subject of what "great" means???

 

[unmerged(13241)]

De Gaule proposal
Ah, and one point from the link, the Germans used to group they panzer groups very similar to De Gauls ideas, and they were quite successful.

 

[unmerged(13570)]

I voted for Patton, the only one worth to be mentioned as an exceptional leader.
The rest of them are just ovverrated, especially SU generals. If you just compare the number of casaulties and losses of equipment SU/German side, than what is the purpose of idea to include in this poll any SU general?

 

[unmerged(6964)]

I disagree actually. I think there are at least 2 other names in the list who deserve to be on it at least as much as Patton.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Have I already mentionned I voted O'Connor?

He certainly was helped by Hobart's training 7th armored for a couple of years, but boy! Beda Fomm, what a battle! Manstein wouldn't have done better.