The best WWII general?

[Sarmatian]

(If there has been a similar thread before, please ignore it.)

I know, competition is really heavy...

My vote would have to go to russian general Zhukov. He was instrumental in soviet victories against germans, and before, against the japanese.

Second place is a coin flip between Guderian and Rommel.

Your opinions, please...

[Strike For The South]

Robert E Lee Patton. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Erich von Manstein.

He was a genius, understood tanks and modern combat well and almost always brought better than expected results (Kursk).

Also the Germans generally had the best generals, and Manstein is widely agreed to be the best of them.

[English assassin]

General Slim, commander of the British 14th army in India/Burma. Masterly retreat, retraining in new and effective tactics, brilliant management of very difficult logistics, and a superb campaign to retake Burma over very difficult terrain, all at the head of a sluightly rag tag army well down the priority list when it came to supplies and equipment. He proved himself in all areas of generalship.

The only point you could hold against him as being the all round general was he never handled large armoured formations (large armoured formations not being much use in jungle and hill country). But seeing how quickly he grasped the essentials of jungle warfare from scratch I reckon he would have been equally able to be at home in armoured warfare.

Difficult to say anyone was "the best" general but Slim was IMHO the best British general (by about five light years, sadly)

[Kraxis]

Manstein hands down.

He could do it all, and did it well. And unlike Rommel he had both good relations to others and was keen on logistics.

Zhukov was too willing to just bully his way across enemy lines. While in most cases it coul be argued that he was forced to do so due to various constraints, his action at the Seelöw Heights proved that it was simply his way of thinking. He was also fairly arrogant, not willing to listen to advise.

Patton, while a spirited and talented tankcommander was in fact more similar to Zhukov than Rommel in terms of tactics. He preferred to fight the enemy where he was strongest, and used his strong presence to get the troops to do their duty, as determined by him. Tactically and strategicvally he was not very impressive.

Also these two commanders generally had plenty of advantage in numbers.

[Sarmatian]

Manstein hands down.

He could do it all, and did it well. And unlike Rommel he had both good relations to others and was keen on logistics.

Zhukov was too willing to just bully his way across enemy lines. While in most cases it coul be argued that he was forced to do so due to various constraints, his action at the Seelöw Heights proved that it was simply his way of thinking. He was also fairly arrogant, not willing to listen to advise.

Patton, while a spirited and talented tankcommander was in fact more similar to Zhukov than Rommel in terms of tactics. He preferred to fight the enemy where he was strongest, and used his strong presence to get the troops to do their duty, as determined by him. Tactically and strategicvally he was not very impressive.

Also these two commanders generally had plenty of advantage in numbers.

I think you are not giving credit where credit is due. This is from wikipedia about zhukov:

"In 1938 Zhukov was directed to command the First Soviet Mongolian Army Group, and saw action against Japan's Kwantung Army on the border between Mongolia and the Japanese controlled state of Manchukuo in an undeclared war that lasted from 1938 to 1939. What began as a routine border skirmish—the Japanese testing the resolve of the Soviets to defend their territory—rapidly escalated into a full-scale war, the Japanese pushing forward with 80,000 troops, 180 tanks and 450 aircraft.

This led to the decisive Battle of Halhin Gol. Zhukov requested major reinforcements and on August 15, 1939 he ordered what seemed at first to be a conventional frontal attack. However, he had held back two tank brigades, which in a daring and successful manouvere he ordered to advance around both flanks of the battle. Supported by motorized artillery and infantry, the two mobile battle groups encircled the 6th Japanese army and captured their vulnerable supply areas. Within a few days the Japanese troops were defeated.

For this operation Zhukov was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. Outside of the Soviet Union, however, this battle remained little-known as by this time World War II had begun. Zhukov's pioneering use of mobile armour went unheeded by the West, and in consequence the German Blitzkrieg against France in 1940 came as a great surprise."

"In October 1941, when the Germans closed in on Moscow, Zhukov replaced Semyon Timoshenko in command of the central front and was assigned to direct the defense of Moscow (see Battle of Moscow). He also directed the transfer of troops from the Far East, where a large part of Soviet ground forces had been stationed on the day of Hitler's invasion. A successful Soviet counter-offensive in December 1941 drove the Germans back, out of reach of the Soviet capital. Zhukov's feat of logistics is considered by some to be his greatest achievement."

And generally, tide of the war seemed to turn wherever he was given command.

[Kagemusha]

Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim.
Marshall Of Finland



With the resources he had in his disposal he made more then exellent results. He was a great General but also a great States man. He lead the Finnish forces in the 1918 War of Independancy/Civil War, Winter war and Continuation War Succesfully granting results that saved Finland as an Independent Nation. Mannerheim while beeing the the High Commander of Finnish army insisted to get all the news that reached the Headquarters straight up.So he lead the War personally and was not the puppet of his closest officers like many other famous Generals.
The military Dogma of Mannerheim was pretty revolutionary at the time.The basic thought that he insisted was that it was better to loose ground in a tactical level then to loose men,and then retake the well known positions from already weakened enemy. Without that basicly principle the Soviet forces would have grinded the small Finnish army very fast. Also that principle gave him the unconditional love of the normal Grunts under his command. Also he believed that only way to effectively destroy a larger opponent was to Attack and destroy the enemy when it least expected it. This kind of mobile defence created the famous "Motti" tactics that destroyed wast amount of Soviet Divisions that were suprised surrounded and annihilated. When there are discussion about WWII and Finland many remember Winter War,but to me personally the end of continuation War in Summer 1944.Showed the Leadership of Mannerheim even better.The great Allied Assaults against Axis powers like the Soviet Attacks against The Germans and the D- Day have shadowed another big Operation.The Soviet grand offensive against Finland that started in June 1944 simultaneously with Operation Overlord in Normandy. Soviets had learned their lessons from Winter War and this time they concentrated almost 1/3 of all of the Red Army against Finland.But yet again following the main Principles The Finns first delayed the attack and Finally stopped them in the great Battles of Tali-Ihantala and Ilomantsi. Before the cease fire were made between Finland and Soviet Union,all Soviet Attacks were halted and infact at Ilomantsi the Soviet Attacking spearhead was surrounded by the Finns. So when we talk about the the Peace treaty with Soviets.While politically it was minor defeat becouse Finland couldnt take back the areas it had lost in Winter War.In military point of wiew the War ended in success becouse The unstoppable Red army of 1944.Was stopped in around the same places then they were stopped in Winter War. And without the determination and ingeniosity of Mannerheim i doubt that the Finnish army could have accomplished that.

[Sarmatian]

Is it just my imagination or people tend to favourise their own countrymen?

[Kagemusha]

Is it just my imagination or people tend to favourise their own countrymen?

I think its only natural.Becouse you have more information about them around you.

[Kraxis]

What I have heard about Khalgin Gol was that Zhukov 'stole' the ideas of subordinates, and eventually also the glory.
The counterattack at Moscow is one of the most overrated actions. It is true it turned the Germans back. But they were already at the point of breaking. A lesser commander could also have done it, but with less gains of course. And now he would have been considered the savious of the SU.
Now, I don't consider him bad at all, he was most assuredly a superb commander. One I would feel safe in letting protect my country (if we had the manpower to sustain it).

But we are talking about the best, and in that regard we must pick apart the candidates' weaknesses. We can't afford to only shower out the laurels if we want to find the best.

Manstein's weakness was his own willinglessness to take decisive action politically. Not as in a coup against Hitler. But when his 'Backhand Stroke' was dismissed he didn't fight for it. The 'Forehand Stroke' was then pushed ahead. Hitler then wanted to be as sure as possible, bringing in reinforcements. Manstein tried feebly to object to this, but he never really used his position to force the battle to go ahead as he had wanted to.
Also, he could have given Paulus the order to break out from Stalingrad (and thus negated the order given by Hitler), but he never did so. He was too willing to let others decide if his pland were sound or not, and that was a terrible waste when he knew he was right and the others were not.
But that is about it when it come to him as a commander.

[KrooK]

Zhukov was good general but not great. Everytime he fought, he got big advantage. Under Moscov Russians maybe won, but they lost 1.000.000 soldiers. Into Berlin operation despite superb advantage they lost from 300.000 to 600.000 soldiers.
Best commanders of WW2 was O'Connor for his 1940 campaign. 40.000 soldiers crushed 200.000 fortified enemies.
Good job did Kesserling into 1943 in Italy. He stopped allies for long time with quite small forces.

[Sarmatian]

What I have heard about Khalgin Gol was that Zhukov 'stole' the ideas of subordinates, and eventually also the glory.

Possible. It is difficult to discern what is myth and what is true when Zhukov is concerned. But casulties under his command were much lower in comparison with other soviet commanders, and you have to take into account the quality of soviet troops, which was much lower than the quality of german army. Also, he wasn`t always in command of the defence of moscow. German army was very close to moscow when he was given command. He fought them to a stand still, and then started driving them back. So the majority of casualties during the defence of moscow happened before he was appointed commander of the russian western front.
And I am not sure that german army was at the point of breakup. At the time it was discussed in the german high command whether the army should continue the offensive, or "dig-in" for the winter and than continue the offensive in spring. So, they thought it was quite possible to take moscow, it was just the matter of whether they had enough time before winter. The soviet counter offensive took them by suprise.

Manstein showed great skills in command. Zhukov particularly praised Manstein for his skills, but I think that he never commanded large enough armies to be considered. It`s like in football, a player could have all the skills in the world, but if he isn`t playing in one of the top clubs in europe he will never be considered the best. It is similar with Guderian. I singled Guderian out, because of "Achtung Panzer" :). He is, in a way, a father of german "blitzkrieg" in the wwII.

[Sarmatian]

Zhukov was good general but not great. Everytime he fought, he got big advantage. Under Moscov Russians maybe won, but they lost 1.000.000 soldiers. Into Berlin operation despite superb advantage they lost from 300.000 to 600.000 soldiers.
Best commanders of WW2 was O'Connor for his 1940 campaign. 40.000 soldiers crushed 200.000 fortified enemies.
Good job did Kesserling into 1943 in Italy. He stopped allies for long time with quite small forces.

I don`t think that you can say that a military commander is "the best" on the premise of one or two battles.

Also, casulties of soviet troops which were under direct Zhukov command during the attack on berlin was about 4%, lower than other soviet commander during the attack, and his troops were involved in the most intense fighting.

[Gregoshi]

And I am not sure that german army was at the point of breakup. At the time it was discussed in the german high command whether the army should continue the offensive, or "dig-in" for the winter and than continue the offensive in spring. So, they thought it was quite possible to take moscow, it was just the matter of whether they had enough time before winter. The soviet counter offensive took them by suprise.

The German High Command was out of touch with the reality of the situation at the front according to Guderian's account. The men were fatigued and ill equipped for the Russian winter (or any winter for that matter). The units were below strength due to combat losses of men and vehicles and it was a struggle to get the vehicles they did have moving. The divisions of June 1941 were not the same strength-wise in December 1941 but the High Command didn't seem to realize this. In fact, they accused Guderian (and I'm sure other Generals) of being too close to the situation - the "true" picture looked much clearer back in Berlin.

Kraxis is correct from what I've read - the Germans were at the breaking point. That they were able to advance as far and for as long into the year as they did is really an impressive feat.

[Kraxis]

Do not forget that Zhukov also had the Siberian troops at his disposal, something his predecessor did not. Timoshenko had to make do with human waves and the like of people herded into German fire. Not surprising that they didn't do very well (but they still caused enough casualties to thin out the Germans enough).
So when the fresh, well equipped, professional and very motivated Siberians attacked it was a huge surprise not only to the High Command but the local commanders as well. Where did they come from? Just days before the Russian defences had been crumbling and the human waves finally running out.

Most German divisions, which at the outset had had about 18,000 troops if not more, were now down to about 5,000 if not less. That is a critical sapping of strength, especially in the thin long strike at Moscow.

And lets not forget that while Zhukov was indeed the Defender of Moscow, he had saved it, he also managed to bungle up the advance afterwards. He didn't personally order the lousy attacks that got encircled time and again in the late winter, but he had a hand in the planning.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I think Mannerheim, for doing an incredible job against a superior enemy. Even though the Soviet leadership there was crappy, the results were still amazing considering the difference in numbers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Picking one is difficult, of course, though I probably tend toward Manstein slightly, since he demonstrated ability in a number of settings and with varying resources.

On Patton, I agree with Kraxis. He was a hell of a leader in many ways, but had some egregious flaws. The only time he was ever used optimally was in the initial breakout from Normandy. That is, someone ELSE did the breakthrough attack (without hammering head-on straight at the strong point like Patton) and then Patton's forces were unleashed for the "broken field running" at which he may have done as well or better than anyone.

Zhukov lived up to the reputation too many people hang on Ulysses Grant. Z was tenacious and aggressive, but his tactics weren't really "inspired." With all respect for earlier comments, his Siberian success isn't quite so impressive when you factor in the negligible Japanese armor and light artillery formations. Flanking with armor when you know the other chap can't isn't quite so shocking, and Zhukov had lots of tubes compared to the Nips. Z did know when he had the bigger hammer, and wasn't afraid to use it.

Mannerheim was a good leader who knew his resources and terrain well -- always excellent qualities. A contender.

All-around, I have always had a respect for Bradley. He seemed to have the knack for getting things done -- despite the lack of flash or reputation for brilliance in any single aspect of generaling.

I'd also add Yamashita for consideration. I've always wondered what he would have done if Japan had had a tank force of note -- he certainly wasn't a slouch when it came to speed and shock warfare.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Erwin Rommel. A tactical genius, he was undersupplied, under equipped, and had few reinforcements. Yet he managed to hold off the British in North Africa for an amazing amout of time, and even beat them in the beginning...

His victories in France at the time of the Axis invasion are not to be underestimated either.

[Sarmatian]

Do not forget that Zhukov also had the Siberian troops at his disposal, something his predecessor did not. Timoshenko had to make do with human waves and the like of people herded into German fire. Not surprising that they didn't do very well (but they still caused enough casualties to thin out the Germans enough).
So when the fresh, well equipped, professional and very motivated Siberians attacked it was a huge surprise not only to the High Command but the local commanders as well. Where did they come from? Just days before the Russian defences had been crumbling and the human waves finally running out.

Most German divisions, which at the outset had had about 18,000 troops if not more, were now down to about 5,000 if not less. That is a critical sapping of strength, especially in the thin long strike at Moscow.

And lets not forget that while Zhukov was indeed the Defender of Moscow, he had saved it, he also managed to bungle up the advance afterwards. He didn't personally order the lousy attacks that got encircled time and again in the late winter, but he had a hand in the planning.

Ok, I am not saying that he was genius while other soviet commander were idiots. It is true what you said about siberian troops, but he stopped german offensive before the arrival of siberian troops. He used them later in counter offensive. And once again I think I must remind everybody to take into account the quality of german troops and, maybe even more important, the quality of german commanders. He was up against best german generals like Manstein, Guderian etc... Also, not a single general in the entire wwII was put under so much pressure like he was. The general of opinion of the nation was the he, almost exclusively, will be held responsible for the outcome. Also, he was commander of entire russian western front, while most of the other generals named here didn`t have that kind of responsiblity. Under his command were hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and many other generals. It is not right to hold him responsible for their every action. His overall strategy was brilliant since soviet superiority never came in question and tide of the war was forever turned.

All in all, I think we can all agree that he was one of the best. In my humble opinion he was the best but it seems that no one shares this opinion .
If I had to single out a country that generally had best commanders, then I would have to say germany. But, in singles competition, my opinion did not change.

[Papewaio]

Erwin Rommel. A tactical genius, he was undersupplied, under equipped, and had few reinforcements. Yet he managed to hold off the British in North Africa for an amazing amout of time, and even beat them in the beginning...

If we are talking about generals then we should be picking apart their strategy more then their tactics.

Rommel lost North Africa for the same reason that the Italians did. He ran out of supplies running back and forth across the desert. Add to that the amount of captured troops that was not insignificant and that he was quite foxy in not being their to lead them in the end.

====

My countrymens bias is for Bernard Freyberg and I choose him not for his victories but for his defeat on Crete. Where with a force that was lacking in heavy weapons, radios and a sorely dented command structure after the loss of Greece he managed to do some serious damage to the elite German paratroopers. In fact the damage done was so extreme that despite winning Crete with the largest airdrop to that point in history the Germans never tried that style of attack again. For some reason the New Zealanders and the German Paratroopers went head to head in a few battles.

As to the worst General in history (despite still being venerated by the command staff in Australia) is the sycophant General Thomas Blamey... read this article about the Kokoda Track Campaign and what he said to the troops at the end of it.

[Haudegen]

I´ve heard of that General Freyberg, but I am not very impressed of him. As far as I know the heavy losses on Crete occurred because the Germans underestimated the number of Allied troops on the island. I don´t think we can blame Freyberg for this. However the men under his command fought very bravely.

But he can be blamed for the senseless destruction of the Monte Cassino abbey.

http://www.silvasplendid.com/abbazia_Montecassino_2.htm

[English assassin]

If we are talking about generals then we should be picking apart their strategy more then their tactics

A sensible point in which case Rommel should be rapidly demoted. He absolutely should have pulled back to the Egyptian border after being stopped at First El Alamein. Give Monty the problem of the supply line accross the desert, and a wider battlefield would have played more to Rommel's strengths than Monties. Torch would still have done for him but he could probably have retired from the western desert undefeated.

If war is the continuation of politics by other means then my vote goes to Mannerheim after all. Not for the Winter war. That was well conducted no doubt but ultimately IMHO turned more on the fighting qualities of the Finnish soldier, and, after all, the Soviets did eventually get what they wanted. Instead he gets my vote for the continued survival of Finland as a country outside the USSR/Warsaw pact. How many other countries went to war against Stalin and acheived that (none).

[Tribesman]

Since EA has mentioned Slim , how about Wingate ?
Outstanding tactics and strategy , unorthadox and unconventional , but inspired and effective .

[KrooK]

Talking about Zhukov - have you heard about Seelow battle.
Stupid, unnecessary loses. Anyway if Konev lost more soldiers than Zhukov - it doesn't mean Zhukov was great. Remember that we should compare it with other generals, not only with Russians. We must remember that Russian commanders into WW2 often got big advantage in humans and equipment.
So I don't think Zhukov was superb general - hi simply was well general.

[Pindar]

von Manstein

[orangat]

No one has yet mentioned operation Mars which was a costly and spectacular failure for the Russians under Zhukov despite the advantage in materiel and manpower. Some historians think the failure was covered up to protect the reputation of Zhukov to build him up as a hero.

[Sarmatian]

No one has yet mentioned operation Mars which was a costly and spectacular failure for the Russians under Zhukov despite the advantage in materiel and manpower. Some historians think the failure was covered up to protect the reputation of Zhukov to build him up as a hero.

First of all, there isn`t enough reliable data about operation mars. It is still just speculations. Educated guesses, at best.
Second, it wasn`t a spectular failure because it tied down german troops, which were much needed elsewhere.

Sheer numbers don`t mean anything. The scene from the film enemy at the gates where the first man gets the rifle and those after him bullets is not fictional. Many times soviets were forced to fight that way. German soldiers were experienced and battle hardened veterans, superbly equiped (just not for the winter :) and serving under excellent commanders. If you have one note worth 100 euros, and I have 5 notes worth 20 euros we still have the same amount of money.

Of course, soviets had other good generals. Konev, for example as somebody had said. But, Konev was supposed to be demoted and maybe even put to trial by russian high command. It was only after Zhukov personally insisted that Konev should be his second in command, was his career saved.

When we are talking about Rommel, there are a few things that must also be taken into consideration. He could have withdrawn his troops, but I presume that he wanted to win the war, not save his career. If he had done that, he would have surely lost. Blitzkrieg was not just a tactic germans used in battles. It was a tactic for the entire war. They knew they could not match the resources soviet and allies had, so they had to win fast. That is why withdrawal wasn`t an option for Rommel.

[Csargo]

I dont know about the best during WWII but my fav. would have to Rommel. He did great in Invasion of France and in N Africa

[Papewaio]

But he can be blamed for the senseless destruction of the Monte Cassino abbey.

http://www.silvasplendid.com/abbazia_Montecassino_2.htm

I did say I selected him for his Defeat not his Victories.

Mind you as always I will lay the blame on those who setup their battle line across the Monte Cassino abbey and who then occupied it once it was rubble.

BTW it has been sacked and rebuilt about half a dozen times in its history. Being a heavily fortified structure on top of a hill kind of makes it a strategic location and hence prone to being taken over.

I dont know about the best during WWII but my fav. would have to Rommel. He did great in Invasion of France and in N Africa

Considering the Tunisia Campaign ended with the General *cough, cough* absent and 275,000 or more of his troops as POWs it wasn't really such a great time in North Africa.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Erich von Manstein.

He was a genius, understood tanks and modern combat well and almost always brought better than expected results (Kursk).

Also the Germans generally had the best generals, and Manstein is widely agreed to be the best of them.

I disagree. I think Guderian was a much better general.

Guderian, then Manstein were the best. The best British was Monty. The greatest America was Patton, with MacArther a close second. Japan didn't have anyone notable, nor did Italy. Zhukov was a good Russian general, but he was too cynical with the lives of his men.