Who was the most brilliant general of the war?

[jacob-Lundgren]

Originally posted by Henrique Duarte
Finally some sense of scale in these crazy and very interesting discussions...

I do not intend any insult on the memory of those that fought in other fronts, I suppose that on an individual level suffering and effort are pretty much the same anywhere . It´s just that the scale of the war on the those fronts was almost ridiculously minute when compared with the eastern front. I just read a book that had a bunch of detailed statistics on war material/production and where it was used. It was sobering reading. According to this source, in 1945 only, the soviets put out more than 30.000 tanks (mostly T34/85 models) whereas the rest of the allies pulled together produced some 5-7.000 tanks (many of them crappy shermans when they should be producing those nifty new heavier models, sorry can´t remember their names).
Note tha I am aware that if the war had lasted another year USA war production would have been overwhelming (read somewhere there wher some 60.000 tanks coming out of the production lines by the end of the war!), but that´s one of those what if scenarios.

actualy the the US alone built around 30,000 tanks (they were busy building manly ships and planes so they built fewer tanks. steel for 30 fleet carriers and 120 escort carriers has to come from somewheres) and about 5000 tanks from the west were shipped to the soviets. and most of those tanks were not t-34/85s they were a mix of all sorts of kinds, as most armies tend to be. a lot might have been but armies always use a mix, if only to avoid having 1 type of unit and the enemy finding a fatal weakness in it.

 

[donkeysaint]

Originally posted by Top Cat
I think that's a bit too reductionist. It's only one step from saying that the Eastern Front was the main theatre, therefore the best general MUST be one from the Russian front to saying that the Russians beat the Germans on the Eastern Front therefore the best general MUST be a Russian one.


Anyway, the truth is that it's very difficult to judge because different generals do different things well. For example, my vote for best American general of the war would go to George Marshall, even though he never commanded at the front. But he was a genius when it came to organisation and logistics and in many cases that is what counted, banal though that fact is. Equally, Brooke deserves consideration for best British general due to his time as Chief of the Imperial General Staff (though my personal vote would be for Slim).

Hi Top Cat!

My point is that the eastern front was extreme compared to other theathers, and that battle enviorment really tested the commanders. I'm talking about things like climate (mud-season, blizzards...), roadnetwork, logistical problems etc. And off-course the immense number of soldiers and equipment used in the operations. In those sences no other front/theather can be compared to it.

This does not mean that the very best commander could be other than German/Soviet. There are plenty of brilliant leaders from other nations. But they never got to play in the highest-leauge so to speak. But this is just my opinion...

Edit: Besides, my candidate is Manstein, as stated before. Not a Russian.

 

[unmerged(12760)]

(umm a bad german general? anyone? help me out here.) [/B]

schörner

 

[unmerged(2943)]

No one mentioned modest man, Omar Bradley. He was good.

In such great clash, it is hard to determine who is the best. To say that in Japan or Soviet Union they had no one in the air is stupid, because their military doctrine was different.

Minoru Genda, Captain of Frigate and Chief of Staff to Nagumo, comander of Khido Bhutai, the strike force of Combined Fleet was very capable air strikes planer. He did Pearl Harbor, but then blew it in Midway. First was briliant, second was a mess.

No one mentiond Fletcher and Spruance.

I think this is fruitless discusion because there are too many of them who did realy great

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

and althought the pacific was mainly a lot of little battles they were in horrible terrain, just as bad as suffering through a blizzard.
and in total numbers of forces the pacific is really about the same as Europe. its just not 1 big land front

 

[unmerged(15263)]

Zhukov, Manstein and Guderian.

Idiots of the war: Budenny, Voroshilov, and the most of the French

Also, Patton seems to be overrated here.

 

[unmerged(11272)]

First off, I don't think USSR generals should get too much credit. Anyone can win when you have an infinite number of everything!!

The best general of the war was obviously George Smith Patton Jr. Who knows what would have happened in the Bulge, France and Germany without Patton and 3rd Army. Same thing in Italy, what would have happened if it was all up to Monty (shudder).
Also, another leader that deserves some credit is Mannerheim of Finland. He set up the Finnish defense quite effectively if you ask me.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Originally posted by Patton777
Anyone can win when you have an infinite number of everything!!

I assume this would therefore also apply to American generals.

 

[unmerged(469)]

As more ammunition for the "I hate Monty" crowd, read in Beevor's Battle of Berlin that Monty really pissed off Ike after Bulge by trying to hog all the credit for the victory.

 

[unmerged(15974)]

Woohoo!!!

GREAT THREAD!!!

I think everyone has their own personal favorite, mine is Patton.

But I think that basically every General mentioned in this thread, with the exception of a few, filled a specific role in their respective Army.

What about Small Unit commanders though?????

The general gave the orders, someone had to implement them.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

Originally posted by Patton777
First off, I don't think USSR generals should get too much credit. Anyone can win when you have an infinite number of everything!!

The best general of the war was obviously George Smith Patton Jr. Who knows what would have happened in the Bulge, France and Germany without Patton and 3rd Army. Same thing in Italy, what would have happened if it was all up to Monty (shudder).
Also, another leader that deserves some credit is Mannerheim of Finland. He set up the Finnish defense quite effectively if you ask me.

Soviet generals are important because they transformed the ineffective Red Army to the most formidable land army in the history. It is true that they also wasted a lot men but I would blame Stalin and his purges. Soviets lost a lot of good men because of him and Stalin also struck fear on Red Army´s officer corps and civil population. Civil population wanted to support Wehrmacht in many non-Russian western areas of SU in 1941 when Germany invaded SU. German political leadership was foolish and rejected this aid.

Patton is overrated. A good general is team player, not gloryhound and Patton was a gloryhound. He wasn´t the right man to treat mentally collapsed soldiers. I think he was sometimes even too aggressive. I wonder how he would have survived if the enemy would be able to gain air superiority. (This is from the Patton warmovie.) I guess that he would be more cautious or he wouldn´t be able to manage the situation. This was a common problem for German generals during last years of war.

Mannerheim was a very good general because he was the leader of a very effective team. Finnish army for example had a high quality artillery and an excellent radio intelligence in the WWII. He also had a lot of good division and corps commanders and his chief of staff, Lt. General Akseli Airo who was probably one the best staff officers of the WWII. Mannerheim had a very formidable team under his command. His problem was that he had about 400.000 men and SU could muster about couple of million men against him. In the end Mannerheim was quite a conservative general.

I think that the best general was probably Manstein. Mannerheim didn´t develop new ways to wage war but Manstein was the main architect of blitzkrieg warfare. He was also of best army commanders of the WWII so he was a great in military theory and applying it to practice.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Finnish Dragon
Patton is overrated. A good general is team player, not gloryhound and Patton was a gloryhound.

Rommel is overrated. A good general is a team player, not gloryhound and Rommel was a gloryhound.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Not a Patton fan. Better than Macarthur though.


Make of that what you will.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
Rommel is overrated. A good general is a team player, not gloryhound and Rommel was a gloryhound.

That´s true. I think that in the Normandy Rommel wasn´t at his best. Allies tricked him when Ike ordered to launch the Overlord operation when there was a bad weather. I remember that Rommel was in Ulm, Germany at his home to attend his wife´s birthday or something like that.

Rommel was a decent general with devil´s luck in the early war. He had luck because his opponents were inexperienced, made mistakes and Luftwaffe had air superiority. In that way he had the initiative and he used it quite well. He overshadow men like Manstein, Guderian and Rundstedt because he was the adversary of western Allies only. I think that western military historian exaggrated his reputation because in that way they would create a more formidable foe and bring the glory of defeating this foe to Patton or Monty.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by birch23
Germany;von Rundstedt,Manstein,Guderian,von Kluge,Rommel and Halder,and Dietl Seaönitz Kieseritzky Air + Land;Kesselring SS;Hausser

I think that Kurt Meyer deserves a nod for best SS commander, even though he was only a divisional commander. His defense of the rivers in Northern France was absolutely masterful. How you can give Dönitz the nod over Raeder I'll never know. Dönitz was somewhat skilled as an organizer, but his inability to decide whether to use mass unrestricted submarine warfare or to search and destroy specific targets limited him, and confused his subordinates. Moreover, his willful ignorance of the surface fleet was ridiculous. Having the entire German battlefleet cooling it's heels was reprehensible, especially since they consumed vast resources even just sitting there.

USA;Patton (he was one of the few Allied Commanders who understood Blitz)Clark,Marshall Sea;a lot of fine commanders but Nimitz and Halsey on top: Air Spaatz perhaps LeMay.

Spruance was a better admiral than Halsey, no doubt. Heck, Spruance and Fletcher won the war while Halsey was still cooling his heels. As for air commanders, I would say that both Spaatz and LeMay were too obsessed with strategic bombing to earn the title.

How about Canada: Leftenant General Guy? The a top tactician and strategist, as well as the man that kept General Crerar going. One of the best Canadian commanders in history, the only challenge being General Andrew MacNaughton, whose innovation as a brigadeer in WWI pretty much singlehandedly set the Allies back on the offensive.

 

[Allenby]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
As more ammunition for the "I hate Monty" crowd, read in Beevor's Battle of Berlin that Monty really pissed off Ike after Bulge by trying to hog all the credit for the victory.

But Monty WAS better wasn't he?

He only wanted to capture Berlin so that the Soviets couldn't mess half of Europe up for fifty years.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Originally posted by Neil
General Andrew MacNaughton, whose innovation as a brigadeer in WWI pretty much singlehandedly set the Allies back on the offensive.

Um... bit of an overstatement that, no?




I can't BELIEVE somebody has put forward Mark Clark as a top US commander. He was hated by everyone, including the men under him, meddled with other people's commands and then let Kesselring's men slip away in his ego-massaging run to Rome. Bizarre choice.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by Allenby
He only wanted to capture Berlin so that the Soviets couldn't mess half of Europe up for fifty years.

Wouldn't matter. The Allies would pull back and allow the Soviets to occupy East Germany, just as they did in real life. No way was Atlee going to go to bat against Stalin just to keep Monty happy, no matter how much of a diletente Monty was. They promised Stalin East German, and East Germany he would get.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Allenby
But Monty WAS better wasn't he?

He only wanted to capture Berlin so that the Soviets couldn't mess half of Europe up for fifty years.

Better than who? Or what? I don't see Monty has *any* kind of positive reputation. 1st El Alamein, he wins a defensive battle with more tanks than Rommel. 2nd El Alamein he attacks and wins with 10-1 odds. Sicily, rounds up eager Italian prisoners, complains about Patton. Operation Goodwood, loses more tanks in single battle than exist in entire German force. Market-Garden, bets the farm on a long shot, refuses to revise in light of new information.

One could argue that he wanted to capture Berlin because it was the only city left under Nazi control that was large enough to contain his mamouth ego.

 

[unmerged(13158)]

Rommel was a decent general with devil´s luck in the early war.

If he didn't get sick so often then maybe he could have attended his two most critical battles: El Alamein and D-Day. The fact he wasn't present at these battles when they started leaves Rommel with an inconclusive grade in my opinion.