Best WWII General

jonniebgood1

Which general from WWII do people rate the highest. This is a personal judgement based on what the General achieved with what they had. Apologies if anyone feels I have left any worthy candidates out (feel free to post below if I have). If people want to explain their choice or try and convince others of what way to vote then post below.

The options I've given are the most well known in alphabetical order:

Eisenhower: Entered the war as an assistant to the more senior Officers MacArthur and George Patton, showed his worth as a commander during the North Africa Campaign, before being chosen by Roosevelt to head the liberation of Europe on the Western Front as commander of SHAEF.

MacArthur: In World War 2, he commanded the U.S. troops in the Philippines until told by President Roosevelt to leave for Australia as the Japanese closed in. He then directed the U.S. counterattack that eventually recovered the South Pacific islands lost to Japan. MacArthur formerly accepted the Japanese surrender and was in charge of the occupying force on Japan for years.

Montgomery: Won the Second Battle of El Alamein and played a crucial role in the completion of the North African Campaign. Then led the Eighth Army during the Battle of Sicily and then the invasion of Italy itself. Was transferred back to the United Kingdom to take command of the 21st Army Group and led all Allied ground forces during Operation Overlord.

Patton: An aggressive general whose ferocious military thrusts earned him admiration and respect from all participants in the war (and at times endangered his military career). Successfully used the German tactic of armored blitzkrieg against the Germans.

Rommel: Rommel is regarded as having been a humane and professional officer. His Afrikakorps was never accused of war crimes. Soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. Furthermore, he ignored orders to kill captured commandos, Jewish soldiers and civilians in all theaters of his command.

Rokossovsky: Decisive role in the Battle for Moscow, led encirclement forces at Stalingrad, broke German counter-attack at Kursk, advanced into Poland and eventually linked up with the Americans at Wismar.

Tito: Josip Broz Tito Liberated Yugoslavia from the Axis powers. He did this using native forces without reinforcements from either the Red army or the western allies.

Von Runstedt: Rundstedt distinguished himself as commander of numerous fronts of World War II including the Western and Eastern fronts of Europe. Led divisions in France and led 52 infantry divisions in Barbarossa.

Von Manstein: he was responsible for the Ardennes plan of attack in 1940 and for the reestablishment of the Ukraine front and the re-organisation and defence of the german army in Russia in 1943 after the Stalingrad defeat.

Yamashiita: a general of the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II. He was most famous for conquering the British colonies of Malaya and Singapore, earning the nickname "The Tiger of Malaya".

Zhukov: Organised defences of Moscow and Leningrad. Devised the counter attack from Stalingrad together with Aleksandr Vasilevsky. Played a pivotal role in leading the Red Army through much of Eastern Europe to liberate the Soviet Union and other nations from the Axis Powers' occupation and conquer Germany's capital, Berlin.

Morlar

I would not counter zhukov as being one of the greatest, one of the most brutal perhaps.

The order to execute the families of men who became pow's, the execution of survivors of the wolchow front, etc etc.

jonniebgood1

Other

Morlar wrote: »

I would not counter zhukov as being one of the greatest, one of the most brutal perhaps.

The order to execute the families of men who became pow's, the execution of survivors of the wolchow front, etc etc.

What is brutal to one person is ruthless to another. I would'nt particularly argue with an accusation that he was brutal. I think that the same could be said about many of the significant Generals of WWII and it would perhaps be a reason why they were successful.

My opinion is Zhukov as no. 1. The reason I would pick him is for the number of important battles he was involved in. The structuring of defences at Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad showed one side of his powers. Particularly Leningrad and Stalingrad would not have held out without his Ruthlessness (or brutality if you like). He then led the counteroffensive breakout at Stalingrad that surrounded the German 6th army and led to the Russian victory of the Battle of Stalingrad. He was involved in the planning of the battle of Kursk and the advance into Germany from there. He led his army to Berlin where they won another bloody battle. A simple list of those battles which he played a significant role in shows his importance in WWII.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is brutal to oe person is ruthless to another. I would'nt particularly argue with an accusation that he was brutal. I think that the same could be said about many of the significant Generals of WWII and it would perhaps be a reason why they were successful.

Rommel treated his men and opposition prisoners with as much humanity as was possible. There are many, many stories from the afrika-war which bear this out. Patton once famously slapped a soldier for alleged cowardice (which was possibly shellshock) that was more or less it. Patton almost lost his career as a result of the slapping incident. It's likely they all had the potential to be cavalier with their mens lives, they all sought glory and there is probably a moral question mark over most of them, taking risks which were, with the ultimate benefit of hindsight questionable.

However Patton never ordered the mans family executed. Nor would Rommel or any German General have done so to the families of their own men who had been captured.

So the excesses of Zhukov are not transferrable to the others. Nor can they be overlooked in my view.

The defence of leningrad was brutal, but at the end of the day the city was a communist symbol, 'the cradle of bolshevism' (as Hitler called it). A non communist govt in Russia at that time could simply have let the city fall and it's population survive, it was (at least in part) for communist party symbolic reasons that it needed to be defended rather than let the population endure occupation. The desperate defence (throwing 'volunteer' militia into the firing line etc) was not necessarily required to begin with. So the extent of his brutality would rule him out for me.

As mentioned issuing an order to execute the families of your men who become pow's, and having survivors (of for example the wolchow front) executed on the spot would rule him out for me.

PS I agree he was involved in an impressive list of battles, I never said his role was not an important one but there is a difference between having an important role and being the 'Best General of WW2'.

hinault

For me Erwin Rommel showed superb defensive qualities as a general especially in North Africa where short of fuel supplies and facing an opponent with great numbers he managed to score significant victories over his enemy.

Add to the fact that he managed to retreat from Africa with the majority of his forces intact, I think that this is a great compliment to a general who is recognised by both his men and opponents as being exceptional.

Von Manstein and Guderian's leadership qualities were tested to the limit on the Ostfront.
Von Manstein did manage to slow down the Soviet advance but there was no way that he could turn around a losing situation.
Still his defensive tactics were first class.

Omar Bradley was an excellent American general and should be on that list instead of Patton in my opinion.

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is brutal to one person is ruthless to another. I would'nt particularly argue with an accusation that he was brutal. I think that the same could be said about many of the significant Generals of WWII and it would perhaps be a reason why they were successful.

My opinion is Zhukov as no. 1. The reason I would pick him is for the number of important battles he was involved in. The structuring of defences at Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad showed one side of his powers. Particularly Leningrad and Stalingrad would not have held out without his Ruthlessness (or brutality if you like). He then led the counteroffensive breakout at Stalingrad that surrounded the German 6th army and led to the Russian victory of the Battle of Stalingrad. He was involved in the planning of the battle of Kursk and the advance into Germany from there. He led his army to Berlin where they won another bloody battle. A simple list of those battles which he played a significant role in shows his importance in WWII.

Zhukov got promoted by the party as being a genius, which is fair enough as they needed to use their propoganda machine to bolster confidence in their leadership, however if you actually look at his record he was quite often reckless with the lives of his own men and used blunt force more often than maneuver warfare.

His role in the battle of Stalingrad was very much overstated. General Chuikov conducted the defence of the city and most of the planning and execution of Operation Saturn was down to Vasilivsky and Vatutin. Zhukov was at the time heading Operation Mars, the attempt to take the Rzhev salient which is pretty much unknown because it was a Soviet defeat. if one reads a detailed account of the soviet side of the battle its mostly Zhukov shouting at his subordinates, urging them to attack more even after their divisions have been decimated. Division after division was fed into the german defensive meatgrinder in frontal attacks instead of attempting diversionary or outflanking maneuvers.

If I was to pick an outstanding Soviet general it would be Nikolai Vatutin as he learnt the art of maneuver warfare and employed to great affect in the encirclement of the 6th army at Stalingrad and in the post-Kursk breakout at Belgorod and his pursuit of Army Group Ukraine headed by FM Von Manstein across southern Russian and Ukraine in 1943-44. If one measures worth by the opponents they defeated then beating Germanys greatest strategist Von Manstein is a huge achievement. One of the main reasons he didn't achieve the fame of Zhukov or Konev or Rokosovssky is that he didn't survive the war, he was killed by assassins in 1944.

As a battlefield General (as opposed to a strategic general/FM) I would put forward Heinz Guderian (who inexplicably isn't in the list?). He's commonly known by such terms as the "Father of Blitzkrieg warfare" but his significance goes much further than glib terms like that. He was the first one to actually put into practice the type of combined-arms operations that are still used today. The integration of motorized infantry, artillery and anti-aircraft units into tank divisions and closely supported by ground attack aircraft was adopted by every opposing nation. He smashed the french at Sedan and cut through the british right to the coast cutting them off and leading to the eventual withdrawal at Dunkirk.

In operation Barbarossa he led Panzergruppe 2 to stunning victories at Smolensk, Kiev, Vyazma and Bryansk before finally being forced to a halt 50km from Moscow and being sacked by Hitler for making an orderly retreat of some of his forces against hitlers orders. He would later come back as Inspector General of Armoured troops in 1943 and chief of staff of the OKH in 1944 which mainly seems to have entailed a series of arguments with Hitler wanting troops to stand fast and die and Guderian wanting to retreat and counter-attack where possible. He was again sacked in 1945 for one argument too many with Hitler. Not only was he a great battlefield leader, "Fast Heinz" was respected by his men because he led from the front and like Rommel would be in the thick of the fighting in his command half-track. He also showed geniune pathos for the suffering of his troops which is something you don't always see in a commander.

This post is already too long but on the american side Patton, despite his arrogance was an outstanding commander of combined arms forces, its obvious that he must have studied how the likes of Rommel and Guderian operated and put it into effect in North Africa, Italy and France. His defeat of the very capable Hasso Von Manteuffel in eastern France in late 1944 is evidence of this.

Chester Nimitz deserves a mention for his island hopping campaign against the Japanese and also General Slim for his campaign against the japanese in Burma. Slim, unlike Monty, could win when the odds were not vastly in his favour.

hinault

The manpower available to the Soviet general in WWII and their generals willingness to sacrifice their soldiers lives in a perverse way actually makes the achievements of Guderian and VonManstein even greater.

If you have an opponent who is willing to literally sacrifice millions of soldiers in order to achieve a victory, and you have far less human resources to expend the result is a foregone conclusion.

jonniebgood1

Other

I should have included Guderian. An oversight.

I agree that victory against the odds is an important part in considering. Zhukov's 'excesses' as they are described are disgraceful and I agree Rommels behaviour in terms of manner and respect are admirable. It is interesting to consider how he would have managed though in the 'war of annihalation' demanded in the east? Perhaps the excesses of Zhukov were what allowed him to be successful, i.e. he used the massive number of soldiers he had as a weapon in the same way as a general might use superior air power?

Ping Chow Chi

hinault wrote: »

The manpower available to the Soviet general in WWII and their generals willingness to sacrifice their soldiers lives in a perverse way actually makes the achievements of Guderian and VonManstein even greater.

If you have an opponent who is willing to literally sacrifice millions of soldiers in order to achieve a victory, and you have far less human resources to expend the result is a foregone conclusion.

I think Hitler wasn't too squeamish at sacrificing his soldiers as well if he thought he could gain victory, it is just that he didn't have as many of them to sacrifice.

I find it hard to gage who was the best in the eastern front, yes the soviets had much more man power, and in the end much more equipment. But at the start, when Germany and its allies gained the fantastic victories, the soviet army it faced was poorly equipped for the most part and completly in disarry as far as leadership and tactic were conserned.

jonniebgood1

Other

From Time magazine an interesting piece of wartime propaganda in relation to Zhukov:


Full article here:
http://books.google.ie/books?id=IlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA95&dq=zhukov&hl=en&ei=UmtvTdj8As24hAe329VM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CC0QuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=.&f=false

Its not an article that argues much in Zhukovs favour in terms of this thread- I found it interesting as a reflection of the wartime propaganda, particularly given the coldwar period which followed (article is february 1945). The comparisons between American generals with Zhukov was also surprising.

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

From Time magazine an interesting piece of wartime propaganda in relation to Zhukov:

Its not an article that argues much in Zhukovs favour in terms of this thread- I found it interesting as a reflection of the wartime propaganda, particularly given the coldwar period which followed (article is february 1945). The comparisons between American generals with Zhukov was also surprising.

Thanks for that, as you said its an interesting historical piece. Its more or less a pr puff piece that "accentuates the positives" and dosen't mention his defeats. One wonders what they would be saying about him 4 or 5 years later.

krissovo

No Bill Slim in the list!

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

From Time magazine an interesting piece of wartime propaganda in relation to Zhukov:

.....

Its not an article that argues much in Zhukovs favour in terms of this thread- I found it interesting as a reflection of the wartime propaganda, particularly given the coldwar period which followed (article is february 1945). The comparisons between American generals with Zhukov was also surprising.

I knew that name was familiar :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lauterbach

Richard Edward Lauterbach was the TIME magazine Moscow bureau chief during World War II.

Lauterbach was among a group of several journalists employed by Time magazine including John Scott that demanded publisher Henry Luce fire Whittaker Chambers as head of the foreign news department because of Chambers views toward Stalinism and Soviet Communism. Lauterbach was Time's Moscow bureau correspondent.[1] According to Jack Soble, Lauterbach threatened to resign rather than write articles critical of the Soviet Union. Soble recommended Lauterbach for recruitment to the KGB.

HavingCrack

Von Runstedt

I honestly think it has to be Tito. The only leader who liberated their 'country' (whether Yugoslavia could have been considered to be a proper country is a debate for elsewhere) without outside Allied assistance. There was some support from the Chetniks but they went over to the Axis side eventually.

Tony EH

Morlar wrote: »

I would not counter zhukov as being one of the greatest, one of the most brutal perhaps.

The order to execute the families of men who became pow's, the execution of survivors of the wolchow front, etc etc.

The orders re: POWs were from higher up though. Not Zhukov's.

I think Zhukov gets underplayed quite often in the West. Frankly, if the western allied generals had to face half of what Zhukov faced in the East, they'd probably still be in France in 1945.

As for "best" generals, as I said before in a similar thread some time ago...Von Manstein in attack and Heinrici in defence.

It's interesting that Rommel is topping the charts at the moment. Personally, I find him vastly overrated, especially by westerners. I think that most of this impression comes from the British "bigging him up", as he had them on the back foot a lot in Africa, so he MUST have been great, eh? 'The Trail of the Fox' by David Irving (yeh I know, blah blah blah), is a great effort at re-evaluating the Rommel myth and does a lot to give the man a more rounded appearance. Recommended reading.

To me, he was great at a tactical level, with small forces and a great improviser. But, was really untested with larger groups at a strategic level.

keithc83

Rokossovsky

hinault wrote: »

For me Erwin Rommel showed superb defensive qualities as a general especially in North Africa where short of fuel supplies and facing an opponent with great numbers he managed to score significant victories over his enemy.

Add to the fact that he managed to retreat from Africa with the majority of his forces intact, I think that this is a great compliment to a general who is recognised by both his men and opponents as being exceptional.

I could not agree more. Excellent points.

Morlar

Tony EH wrote: »

The orders re: POWs were from higher up though. Not Zhukov's.

I think that is a possibility. I am working from this (also known as the ciphered telegram 4976 ) :

http://www.antonybeevor.com/Templates/WWII_Quarterly_%285.1%29%5B2%5D.pdf

Q: Vis à vis the need for additional scholarship, what do you believe is the most under-examined aspect of 1) the Soviet-German War; 2) Great
Britain and the Second World War; and 3) the Spanish Civil War?


A: Additional scholarship is always needed and in the case of the Soviet-German War, much work is needed in several areas. First of all, the
siege of Leningrad requires a new appraisal and I will be very interested to see the results of Anna Reid's current research for her new book. For
example, a colleague of mine recently discovered that Zhukov's attitude at the end of September 1941 was even more pitiless than that of Stalin
himself. Directive No. 110/c, "written on the basis of the Coded order No. 4976 from the Commander of Leningrad Front comrade Zhukov,"
instructed commanders:

To make clear to all troops that all families of those who surrender
to the enemy would be shot, and they themselves would
be shot upon return from prison.

This goes much further than Stavka Order No. 270 and the "Ni shagu nazad" ("Not one step backwards") order of the following summer. It even surpasses the Nazi's Sippenhaft reprisals. Rogov, the chief of the political department of the Navy complained about this to Malenkov on 5 October. But whether the order was carried out or not is unclear.

I have not seen anything to suggest this 'ciphered telegram/coded order 4976 ' originated anywhere other than Zhukov.

My understanding of the Stalin directive 270 (which Zhukov's telegram replaced) was that the Stalin one was far more lenient, mentioning the removal of ration privileges from the families of returned pow's (stopping short of actual executions).

There is another reference to Zhukov having Russian survivors of the wolchow/volkhov front who swam to the opposite bank executed on the spot as an example to the other men. I can't find that at the moment but can look properly later on. I am not sure if that 'issued in the field' order would have necessarily came from above either.

This one from the same source as above may also be of interest :

Q: How would you assess Marshal Georgi Zhukov's performance as a front commander?

A: I would agree entirely with David Glantz that Zhukov's performance as a front commander has been greatly inflated, especially by western historians, and his brutality has not been fully appreciated. Apart from his order in Leningrad to shoot the families of those who surrendered, he was the prime mover in August 1942 behind the implementation of blocking groups to enforce Order No. 227, even using tanks manned by selected officers to shoot down those who retreated.

PeterIanStaker

Rokossovsky

Excuse my ignorance but who is "Yama****?"

Tony EH

Tomoyuki Yamashita, I presume.

PeterIanStaker

Rokossovsky

Tony EH wrote: »

Tomoyuki Yamashita, I presume.

Oh I see. Not his fault that his name would fall afoul of internet censors.

jonniebgood1

Other

Tony EH wrote: »

Tomoyuki Yamashita, I presume.

Yes indeed- the computer thought I was swearing I guess. I think Yamashita is very much worthy of inclusion in the list for the capture of singapore with massively inferior numbers to the established colonial forces of Britain. Whether people use the subsequent war crimes against him is personal choice but I would put them separate from his ability as a leader.

Ardennes1944

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Yes indeed- the computer thought I was swearing I guess. I think Yamashita is very much worthy of inclusion in the list for the capture of singapore with massively inferior numbers to the established colonial forces of Britain. Whether people use the subsequent war crimes against him is personal choice but I would put them separate from his ability as a leader.

General Taylor...Macauliffe?

thereitisgone

Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim.

Elmer Blooker

Tony EH wrote: »

It's interesting that Rommel is topping the charts at the moment. Personally, I find him vastly overrated, especially by westerners. I think that most of this impression comes from the British "bigging him up", as he had them on the back foot a lot in Africa, so he MUST have been great, eh? 'The Trail of the Fox' by David Irving (yeh I know, blah blah blah), is a great effort at re-evaluating the Rommel myth and does a lot to give the man a more rounded appearance. Recommended reading.

Interesting comments there about Rommel. I remember seeing a documentary a few years ago on BBC2, Timewatch or Hidden History or something like that. The whole "Desert Fox" myth was created after the war as part of the rehabilitation of the (West) Germans during the cold war. The west needed to create an image of the "good nazi" as the Soviet Union became the new enemy.

Morlar

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

...The whole "Desert Fox" myth was created after the war as part of the rehabilitation of the (West) Germans during the cold war. The west needed to create an image of the "good nazi" ...

Did the programme bring any new information to the table in terms of his war record ?

hinault

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Interesting comments there about Rommel. I remember seeing a documentary a few years ago on BBC2, Timewatch or Hidden History or something like that. The whole "Desert Fox" myth was created after the war as part of the rehabilitation of the (West) Germans during the cold war. The west needed to create an image of the "good nazi" as the Soviet Union became the new enemy.

Was this the same documentary which showed British war veterans placing a wreath of Rommel's grave near Ulm??

keithc83

Rokossovsky

Tony EH wrote: »

To me, he was great at a tactical level, with small forces and a great improviser. But, was really untested with larger groups at a strategic level.

Rommel certainly was a brilliant tactician, but don't get me wrong he also had his flaws like many other General's. Yes he was untested with larger groups and maybe he would not have been seen as he is today if that had happened. But we shall never know for sure.
He was certainly brutal and he fell out with many General's but he was also decisive. Maybe not every single time the right call but more often than not he chose the right course of action even though to others it may have seemed a gamble. He was aggressive and you have to admire a General who is tactically inclined to attack at every opportunity. Similar to Zhukov in that respect.

Tony EH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Yes indeed- the computer thought I was swearing I guess. I think Yamashita is very much worthy of inclusion in the list for the capture of singapore with massively inferior numbers to the established colonial forces of Britain. Whether people use the subsequent war crimes against him is personal choice but I would put them separate from his ability as a leader.

Yamashita is certainly worthy of inclusion. His effort in defeating Percival in Singapore would be sung from the mountain tops, endlessly, if the roles were reversed.

As for the kangaroo court that executed him for, ahem, "war crimes", I think once most people read up on that particular episode, they'll recognise it as the judicial farce it was.

Tony EH

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Interesting comments there about Rommel. I remember seeing a documentary a few years ago on BBC2, Timewatch or Hidden History or something like that. The whole "Desert Fox" myth was created after the war as part of the rehabilitation of the (West) Germans during the cold war. The west needed to create an image of the "good nazi" as the Soviet Union became the new enemy.

The "Desert Fox" moniker was applied to Rommel during the war alright, and he was held in very high esteem by both the Germans, the British and their respective allies. There were even memos sent around British forces re-enforcing the fact that Rommel was just a man. His reputation had swelled to such ridiculous levels.

But, Rommel could be terribly reckless too and would sometimes choose the wrong option in favor of advancing into areas that would yield little or no long term strategic value. In fact, one could say that the whole desert campaign had no real strategic goal, other than denying the territory to the British. The fact remains though that Rommel, for all his success, was nothing more than an extremely large thorn in the allies side.

He was a great "corps" commander and good at the immediate tactical level, with flashes of extreme brilliance. His use use of limited tanks was fantastic and his trick of luring the enemy into specially designed "kill zones", where 88's would rip into British armour was great. The fact that the British fell for this time and time again may the job easier though.

But I think if he had to face the trials that the some of the generals faced in the east, his particular type of "seat of the pants" command would have failed miserably. It's just my suspicion of course, as Hitler never sent him to Russia (There may have been a sound reason) and we can never really make a fair judgment.

It's interesting, though, to read the polar views of Rommel in works like Desmond Young's 'The Desert Fox' and David Irving's 'The Trail of the Fox'. Given the two, I'd say Irving is closer to the mark.

However, I'm not too sure I buy into the "need" to create a "Good Nazi" archetype. I think it's more to do with the fact that it was the British who defeated him in North Africa, that was to lead to the Rommel myth. Rommel was touted as the "greatest" German general by the British, because it was the British who defeated him in the campaign he was most famous for.

MWoods

Von Runstedt

What about Von Stauffenburg. He may not have been the best leader, but he was the most ballsy.

Other than that I'd say Tito.

Prefab Sprouter

Tony EH wrote: »

The "Desert Fox" moniker was applied to Rommel during the war alright, and he was held in very high esteem by both the Germans, the British and their respective allies. There were even memos sent around British forces re-enforcing the fact that Rommel was just a man. His reputation had swelled to such ridiculous levels.

But, Rommel could be terribly reckless too and would sometimes choose the wrong option in favor of advancing into areas that would yield little or no long term strategic value. In fact, one could say that the whole desert campaign had no real strategic goal, other than denying the territory to the British. The fact remains though that Rommel, for all his success, was nothing more than an extremely large thorn in the allies side.

He was a great "corps" commander and good at the immediate tactical level, with flashes of extreme brilliance. His use use of limited tanks was fantastic and his trick of luring the enemy into specially designed "kill zones", where 88's would rip into British armour was great. The fact that the British fell for this time and time again may the job easier though.

But I think if he had to face the trials that the some of the generals faced in the east, his particular type of "seat of the pants" command would have failed miserably. It's just my suspicion of course, as Hitler never sent him to Russia (There may have been a sound reason) and we can never really make a fair judgment.

It's interesting, though, to read the polar views of Rommel in works like Desmond Young's 'The Desert Fox' and David Irving's 'The Trail of the Fox'. Given the two, I'd say Irving is closer to the mark.

However, I'm not too sure I buy into the "need" to create a "Good Nazi" archetype. I think it's more to do with the fact that it was the British who defeated him in North Africa, that was to lead to the Rommel myth. Rommel was touted as the "greatest" German general by the British, because it was the British who defeated him in the campaign he was most famous for.

I would completely agree with Tony's assertion about Rommel. Tactically brilliant but strategically quite poor. At various stages of Battleaxe and Crusader, he could not be located by his Headquarters staff because he was off "leading from the front". Crucial decisions could not be made or were delayed due to this type of "leadership".

When Tobruk fell, Rommel was supposed to wait whilst the Luftwaffe reduced Malta, a real thorn in the side of the Axis supply chain. But no, despite agreeing to the former, Rommel the gambler took off to "seize the opportunity" and, to be fair, it nearly worked. However, by the time he got to Alamein, the British were Dug in and the Afrika Korps were depleted and low on fuel and Ammo. Malta was still functioning and the supply situation got ever worse.

Rommel might have been a thorn in the side of the British, but he was even worse for the Italians. Rommel was quite disdainful of the Italian army and whilst he managed to save the remains of his own army at Alamein it was at the expense of his Italian Allies. Contrast the behaviour of Eisenhower, another General who had to lead a coalition of Armies from different nations, with that of Rommel.

Best WW2 General - how can you make that sort of decision so easily? Too many factors, too wide a brief. But I will make some nominations for Generals who were effective:

Bill Slim - very effective leadership of the 14th Army under very trying circumstances.

Hermann Balck - Commanded effectively at all levels from Division to Army Group level. Faced Allied and Soviet forces and performed well against both.

Gotthard Heinrici - Superb defensive General who made his name in the East.

Everyone will have their opinions and well made they will be but trying to determine "Best WW2 General" is like finding a needle in a haystack.

HavingCrack

Von Runstedt

Does anyone else feel this thread is far too dominated by German generals?? What about any of the American generals in the Pacific theatres?

Prefab Sprouter

HavingCrack wrote: »

Does anyone else feel this thread is far too dominated by German generals?? What about any of the American generals in the Pacific theatres?

I assume that Admirals are included in this as well, Havingcrack. I'd put Nimitz down as an effective general/Admiral

BlaasForRafa

Prefab Sprouter wrote: »

Rommel might have been a thorn in the side of the British, but he was even worse for the Italians. Rommel was quite disdainful of the Italian army and whilst he managed to save the remains of his own army at Alamein it was at the expense of his Italian Allies. Contrast the behaviour of Eisenhower, another General who had to lead a coalition of Armies from different nations, with that of Rommel.

Aside from perhaps the Ariete division the Italians in the desert war performed fairly poorly. Rommel routinely had to assign scarce german units to Italian ones so as to stiffen their resolve (ie stop them from breaking). Don't forget that the main reason Rommel and the DAK were there in the first place was because of the abysmal Italian performance against the british in 1940

BlaasForRafa

Prefab Sprouter wrote: »

I assume that Admirals are included in this as well, Havingcrack. I'd put Nimitz down as an effective general/Admiral

Admiral Spruance as well. For the victory at midway alone he should be considered an outstanding leader as well as the island hopping advance on japan later in the war.

I think its understandable that theres more of a focus on the european theatre of the war because thats what most of us are probably familiar with.

Tony EH

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Aside from perhaps the Ariete division the Italians in the desert war performed fairly poorly. Rommel routinely had to assign scarce german units to Italian ones so as to stiffen their resolve (ie stop them from breaking). Don't forget that the main reason Rommel and the DAK were there in the first place was because of the abysmal Italian performance against the british in 1940

The Italian performance during the war has been unfairly maligned, imho, by most Nations. But, as far as I can tell, the German opinion of their Italian allies was that while the average combat soldier performed his duty well enough, he was severely handicapped by poor leadership at higher levels and bad equipment.

The primary source for the disparaging view that is held of the Italian army during WWII, comes from the British, who used an Italian defeat to bolster the morale of their own troops during the North African campaign in 1941.

Morlar

Tony EH wrote: »

The Italian performance during the war has been unfairly maligned, imho, by most Nations. But, as far as I can tell, the German opinion of their Italian allies was that while the average combat soldier performed his duty well enough, he was severely handicapped by poor leadership at higher levels and bad equipment.

I would go along with that. I know for example that Major Hans Von Luck (one of Rommels most trusted) in his memoirs paid tribute to their bravery and abilities.

He did make note of what he called the 'mediteranean mentality' which differed from the German outlook, whereby in a hopeless case the Italians would not sacrifice themselves in the same way that many Germans did. They would instead surrender or flee. However he basically made the point that they had the right outlook and that surrender rather than sacrifice was usually the more sensible option. Throughout his post-war book he makes several mentions of how their poor military reputation was not deserved by the common Italian soldier.