Who was the best commander in WWII?

Gerd von Rundstedt, captured Kiev, destroyed Market Garden, and apolitical as any good soldier should be. Its a tied between him and Von Manstein for me.

quite funny that close to all votes go to the losers
even more funny is that the generals that the krauts most feared just get 10% of the votes (patton)
he went to crete and the krauts pull troops from italy to greece
he stayed behind in england and the krauts waited for him in calaise
he did in 48 hours what the could need a week to save the 101 ab inf from Bastogne
and i could on like this

I think we are forgetting who beat Rommel. My vote goes to Patton.

"May God have mercy on my enemies, 'cause I sure as hell won't!"
    -General George S. Patton

Who beat Rommel!?
Well...who beat him?
Not Patton, perhaps Montgomery - both are at the list ;)

But as a small note: formal Rommel wasnt beaten by anyone because in the moment of defeat he wasnt the commander neither of the DAK, Panzerarmee Afrika or Heeresgruppe Afrika or Heeresgruppe B.
But on the other side you can say that the General Montgomery wasnt the first commander who defeat Rommel for the first time because the first defeat ( out of my view ) was in 1941 in front of Tobruk against General Auchinleck ;)

I always liked Rommel. He was a brilliant tactician, suffered from supply problems, yadda yadda, but I really liked his character. He visited hospitals built for wounded British soldiers and talked to them. He also openly disagreed with Hitler and disliked the regime. Any general who disliked the regime I immediatly have respect for. That is also why I like von Manstein as well. Many even looked to Manstein to be the one to oppose Hitler and force him down from power over the Officer's staff, like how the German forces did in 1812 against the French.

I also like Zhukov myself as well, because even as Generals around him were being sacked and soldiers executed for "Counter revolutionary propaganda", or ,"Defeatism", Zhukov was still bold enough to completely disagree with Stalin and always reported the true conditions of Russia's situation, no matter how bleak at whichever point. (1941-42)


Different generals showed excellence in some areas. To say that one is overall, "the best", is hard to do. I like Rommel very much so for the Operations in Africa and tactical thinking. I like Msnstein for his Prussian military view over the army and his excellence at the strategic level. I also like Zhukov for his uncanny ability to tell Stalin that he needs to do this or that, and not whatever Stalin himself is wanting to do. Which at that time, could very well have gotten him killed.

Best General For USA was Patton, Globally it would've been Rommel
But Patton still was brilliant with Shermans

i guess you are right, rommel disliked the nazi regime.
HE STILL HELPED THEM FIGHT A WAR AGAINST HUMANITY REGARDLESS!!! which makes him an evil man.

So every German Troop in WWII was Evil in your views??

well considering my grandpa was a u-boot officer (a lower one, 2cond officer)
i wouldnt say every one was evil but a brilliant man like rommel should have seen the dark side of the nazis+ he problably knew very well about holocaust.
but enough about this discussion.
in  my opinion rommel was a good soldier, leading his men to die for the wrong cause

I don't blame Rommel for what he fought for. Most Generals felt that they were fighting for Germany, not for Nazism. Such as Groscurth at Stalingrad. He stated after the Seige that he fought on only for Germany, and not for Hitler.

No one was able to know for sure what was happening to these "undesireables". The best that circulated through German ranks were rumors about concentration camps and such. Maybe Rommel knew about the Holocaust, maybe he didn't. Maybe he knew, but knew the best he could do would be to allow the Valkyrie plan go into action. Ideas to overthrow Hitler started in 1941, after generals recieved the illegal Barbarossa orders invloving the ,"Extreme measures against all forms of Jewry." Plans to do so didn't evolve until Hitler directly invloved himself into major military defeats, such as Stalingrad and Kursk.

The Holocaust was very well hidden from many people. People living near concentration camps were probably told that these were POWS. Why would they wish to investigate a POW camp full of Eastern European prisoners of war (supposedly)?

The Nazis did a damn good job of confusing the average German soldier of what their intentions were with Jews. Especially in Russia. They purposely rounded up Jews and Partisans and executed them both at the same time in order to cover up their operations. The term "partisan" became very loose in Russia.

figgy wrote:
I don't blame Rommel for what he fought for. Most Generals felt that they were fighting for Germany, not for Nazism. Such as Groscurth at Stalingrad. He stated after the Seige that he fought on only for Germany, and not for Hitler.

No one was able to know for sure what was happening to these "undesireables". The best that circulated through German ranks were rumors about concentration camps and such. Maybe Rommel knew about the Holocaust, maybe he didn't. Maybe he knew, but knew the best he could do would be to allow the Valkyrie plan go into action. Ideas to overthrow Hitler started in 1941, after generals recieved the illegal Barbarossa orders invloving the ,"Extreme measures against all forms of Jewry." Plans to do so didn't evolve until Hitler directly invloved himself into major military defeats, such as Stalingrad and Kursk.

The Holocaust was very well hidden from many people. People living near concentration camps were probably told that these were POWS. Why would they wish to investigate a POW camp full of Eastern European prisoners of war (supposedly)?

The Nazis did a damn good job of confusing the average German soldier of what their intentions were with Jews. Especially in Russia. They purposely rounded up Jews and Partisans and executed them both at the same time in order to cover up their operations. The term "partisan" became very loose in Russia.

While there are good points merged with some not so good points here, I generally agree Rommel was one of my favorite him and Bulk were revered gens but...

The Holocaust as a whole was not by any means "well hidden" nor can you go out and broadly say that your average german soldier knew nothing at all about the fate of jews at the time.

Interesting how Hitler ordered deaths of millions yet was a vegetarian and was disgusted at the slaughtering of animals.

Erich von Manstein without any doubt ;)
...the man was brilliant tactician and strategist which was not so common during WW2.

I like Heinz Guderian too because he was visionary, he knew  years in advance how the battles would be fought and what will be improtant. Even armies of today are still using strategy which he developed.

Also some interesting names which were not mentioned and are worth some info:

Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz - der Panzergraf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyazinth_Graf_Strachwitz_von_Gross-Zauche_und_Camminetz

Walter Model - Hitler's fireman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Model

Rodion Yakovlevich Malinovsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodion_Malinovsky

Ivan Stepanovich Konev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Konev

Akalonor wrote:
Interesting how Hitler ordered deaths of millions yet was a vegetarian and was disgusted at the slaughtering of animals.

I believe he thought other kinds of people were "animals" 

There's a lot of attention towards the generals in Europe but not much love for poor Yamamoto. He knew the US so well that he was convinced the Empire of Japan would not win a war against them. Yet when war became unavoidable he quickly deduced the main advantage of the US, their industry, and formulated a counter, a massive decisive battle that would force them to capitulate quickly. He masterminded probably the most brilliant attack of the 20th century and completely changed the course of naval warfare from this point onwards, with the focus shifting to aircraft carriers rather than battleships. If US forces hadn't been lucky in not having their carriers in port, the entire pacific war may have gone differently. He was also the only non-German to ever receive a knights cross.

After the Japanese won battle after battle, the US navy eventually recovered (as Yamamoto knew it would) and he suffered some defeats, most notably at midway. But this was due to the US intelligence which was able to decrypt exactly when and where the attack would commence. He was similar in Rommel in that his support network was just fail but better in his strategic vision.

Anyway, I know this thread's a few months stale but I really think Yamamoto deserved a few more votes.

I have no respect for Georgi Zhukov, how he sent millions of men to their fate with his conscript spam strategy.

HyperSniper999 wrote:
I have no respect for Georgi Zhukov, how he sent millions of men to their fate with his conscript spam strategy.

It prove you dont know too much about this general (no offense intended  ;)).

I have top go with Major General Orde Wingate, commander of the British&Commonwealth forces in Burma. He was a brilliant tactician that led to many victories in Burma for the Commonwealth.

Red_Stinger wrote:

HyperSniper999 wrote:
I have no respect for Georgi Zhukov, how he sent millions of men to their fate with his conscript spam strategy.

It prove you dont know too much about this general (no offense intended  ;)).

Well it's just another chance to learn. Enlighten me about Zhukov, please.

HyperSniper999 wrote:

Red_Stinger wrote:

HyperSniper999 wrote:
I have no respect for Georgi Zhukov, how he sent millions of men to their fate with his conscript spam strategy.

It prove you dont know too much about this general (no offense intended  ;)).

Well it's just another chance to learn. Enlighten me about Zhukov, please.

I'm not an historian teacher, but I can tell you at least he defeated ("crushed" would be the right word) the japanese forces in Far East by using a combined arms strategy (with poor air support btw due to lack of airport in Siberia) with large tanks group, massive artillery barrage to cut down ennemi supply and others modern/innovative tactics. We can see that the Red Army dont relie on massive infantry charge and heavy losses, but much more on massive supply and interesting use of different parts of the army!

He also take part in the Finnish War, but stalin wanted to use georgian infantery division to be sure that they will not fraternize or betray the USSR, instead of regular infantry, much more equipped/trained/skilled and ready to fight in the cold winter. With officer's purges, we know all the results of the soviet offensive  ;) And Zhukov dont performed well in this war.

In the Great Patriotic War, he commanded at different sector of the front. He was tasked to the defense of St-Petersburg when germans nearly take the city. Then he backed to Moscow to organize the defense. He prepared the return of siberian division and commanded the counter-offensie of Moscow, successfully.

In 1942, he also organized the defense of Stalingrad, and the encirclement of germans forces into the city. In 1943 he take part in the Kursk battle.
He also broke the siege of St-Petersburg in 1944, and lead the Operation Bagration.

Thats only the most known of his success. But his primary quality was his capacity to contradict stalin and to give him advise. Thanks to him, politics commissar lost their commanding powers in favor of officers in 1942, and these officers were then able/encouraged to take initiatives. Btw, he wasnt, like Rommel, a convinced partisans of stalin!

wordsmith wrote:
Erich von Manstein without any doubt ;)
...the man was brilliant tactician and strategist which was not so common during WW2.

+1
At least thats what I hear watching documentry shows on Youtube.

Why dosent anyone vote for Zhan de Latr de Tassinii? :'(

Red_Stinger wrote:
It prove you dont know too much about this general (no offense intended  ;)).

Well it's just another chance to learn. Enlighten me about Zhukov, please.
[/quote]

the Red Army dont relie on massive infantry charge and heavy losses, but much more on massive supply and interesting use of different parts of the army!

He also take part in the Finnish War, but stalin wanted to use georgian infantery division to be sure that they will not fraternize or betray the USSR, instead of regular infantry, much more equipped/trained/skilled and ready to fight in the cold winter. With officer's purges, we know all the results of the soviet offensive  ;) And Zhukov dont performed well in this war.

In 1942, he also organized the defense of Stalingrad, and the encirclement of germans forces into the city. In 1943 he take part in the Kursk battle.
He also broke the siege of St-Petersburg in 1944, and lead the Operation Bagration.

Thats only the most known of his success. But his primary quality was his capacity to contradict stalin and to give him advise. Thanks to him, politics commissar lost their commanding powers in favor of officers in 1942, and these officers were then able/encouraged to take initiatives. Btw, he wasnt, like Rommel, a convinced partisans of stalin!
[/quote]
Care to back that up with actual facts and not your glorified dogma of the red army? Conscripts made the base of the army therefore to some extent every general in the red army would eventually have to utilize the necessity of using conscripts in waves of cannon fodder. Why do you think they made penal companies for? Also the fact proven by numbers is the Soviets did suffer the most causalities of all belligerents in the war.

I fail to see how this strengthens the point your trying to make..? hell its well known that Stalin didn't particularly care for any of his generals and viewed all of them more or less as potential rivals of his rule ex Great Purge. Lastly lets not forget that he even alluded to this when made statement on how he thought of Hitler as the red army's greatest general ironically we know that this wasn't far from the truth.  :D

Yes and no, yes he did but in large part it had more to do with Stalingrad itself and german folly in thinking they could bulldoze through instead of being forced into bottle-necking their forces and yes in large part due to Hitler thinking that if Stalingrad was taken somehow the war in the east would then be won..

Last but not the least what the hell did you even mean by that?

Also I would add to the list, overall I think Manstein was the most proficient of them but I would also add Heinrici and Bock.

Last edited July 7, 2010 at 8:52 PM by Sovereign

Seeme wrote:
Why dosent anyone vote for Zhan de Latr de Tassinii? :'(

Do you mean Jean de Lattre de Tassigny? He was a good general, but he doesnt take part on very big, major operation as far as I know  ;) Thats pleasing when people dont take all frenchs for collaborants/cowards!  :)


Sovereign, I'm not glorifying the red army. When you are studying red army in a deeper way than most (if not all) western people/historians, and make difference between soviet post-war propaganda/glorified war-story and real facts, you can notice that "Ennemy at the Gates" facts are bullshit.

You've talked about penal companies? There are penal companies in EVERY army, even in the "mighty" Wehrmacht, and in every army their purpose is to serve as cannon fodder.

Conscript didnt make the base of soviet army at all. Its evident that you dont know anything about the red army.
Conscript troops were formed in major, besieged cities like Moscow, St-Petersburg or Stalingrad to make basic defense lines and defend them! Thats all!

I will not talk in details about numbers of losses, I'm tired of this! Red Army suffer more losses than Wehrmacht, thats obvious. But much less that western historians keep to assert. Also numbers given are inaccurate.

"I fail to see how this strengthens the point your trying to make..?" I'am not making any points here. HyperSniper999 ask me about Zhukov. I answer him about Zhukov.

Dont take this post as the beginning of a flame-war here. I dont want to be impolite with you, but there is some "proved facts" about red army that irritate me, especially when facts are thrown within any deeper explanations!  ;)

Red_Stinger wrote:

Seeme wrote:
Why dosent anyone vote for Zhan de Latr de Tassinii? :'(

Sovereign, I'm not glorifying the red army. When you are studying red army in a deeper way than most (if not all) western people/historians, and make difference between soviet post-war propaganda/glorified war-story and real facts, you can notice that "Ennemy at the Gates" facts are bullshit.

You've talked about penal companies? There are penal companies in EVERY army, even in the "mighty" Wehrmacht, and in every army their purpose is to serve as cannon fodder.

Conscript didnt make the base of soviet army at all. Its evident that you dont know anything about the red army.
Conscript troops were formed in major, besieged cities like Moscow, St-Petersburg or Stalingrad to make basic defense lines and defend them! Thats all!

I will not talk in details about numbers of losses, I'm tired of this! Red Army suffer more losses than Wehrmacht, thats obvious. But much less that western historians keep to assert. Also numbers given are inaccurate.

"I fail to see how this strengthens the point your trying to make..?" I'am not making any points here. HyperSniper999 ask me about Zhukov. I answer him about Zhukov.

Dont take this post as the beginning of a flame-war here. I dont want to be impolite with you, but there is some "proved facts" about red army that irritate me, especially when facts are thrown within any deeper explanations!  ;)

Movies that come from Hollywood or any other such institution for that matter are solely for entertainment purposes not actual historic documentation but there are some truths in it for ex not everyone was able to even have a gun and supply thus why the mass movement for conscription which had happened prior to Stalingrad and the others you listed case and point. Also the documented "duel" as its called wasn't just some afternoon affair as its been documented that Vasily Zaytsev's rivalry with the unnamed Wehrmacht sniper happened over the course of three days.

Conscripts made up an estimated 1/3 of the entire army now granted the numbers varied as time went on but still the most provident soldiers even ones like strekly or even some guards for that matter had once been amassed and even when climbing the ranks and more times then not they would be mediocre at best when compared to most soldiers of the Wehrmacht at the time and lets not forget that they enlisted women who for a large part would had much rather stayed at the homestead.

I would love to debate it further but seeing how it seems you would continue in your ill-fated pre-conceived notion that I know nothing about the red army I shall leave it at that.

QuoteDuring the Great Patriotic War, the Red Army conscripted  29,574,900 men in addition to the 4,826,907 in service at the beginning of the war. Of this total of 34,401,807 it lost 6,329,600 KIA, 555,400 deaths by disease and 4,559,000 MIA (most captured). Of these 11,444,100, however, 939,700 rejoined the ranks in the subsequently liberated Soviet territory, and a further 1,836,000 returned from German captivity. Thus the grand total of losses amounted to 8,668,400.[48]. This is the official total dead, but other estimates give the number of total dead up to almost 11 million men, including 7.7 million killed or missing in action and 2.6 million POW dead (out of 5.2 million total POWs), plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses.[49]  The majority of the losses, excluding POWs, being ethnic Russians (5,756,000), followed by ethnic Ukrainians  (1,377,400).[48]  However, as many as 8 million of the 34 million mobilized were non-Slavic minority soldiers, and around 45 divisions formed from national minorities served from 1941 to 1943.[50]

From wiki, oh darn those pesky facts have befallen my own personal dogma..

Last edited July 7, 2010 at 10:28 PM by Sovereign

You should  leave at that, I agree.  ::) ::)

Do the American and Soviet enthusiasts take into account the cost of the successes of those such as Patton, Zhukov, Montgomery, and others? I truly believe that is what sets the Germans apart from the other countries in WW2. The Germans didn't have an endless suppply of soldiers and tanks, the Americans and Soviets did (Americans proping up the Brits) The Germans K/D ratio speaks for itself, simply put, the allies had more tanks and men then the Germans had ammunition to shoot at!

Red_Stinger wrote:
[quote author=Seeme link=topic=118.msg39970#msg39970 date=1278533968]
Conscript didnt make the base of soviet army at all. Its evident that you dont know anything about the red army.
Conscript troops were formed in major, besieged cities like Moscow, St-Petersburg or Stalingrad to make basic defense lines and defend them! Thats all!

Pretty much.
Wehrmacht had there volkssturm, UK home guard and US national guard.

Quote
I will not talk in details about numbers of losses, I'm tired of this! Red Army suffer more losses than Wehrmacht, thats obvious. But much less that western historians keep to assert. Also numbers given are inaccurate.

Its interesting that in 1944 Soviet casualties/number of germans on the fronts ratio (Soviets fought 75% of german armies) were comparable to these of US and UK.

Mannerheim =D

Thanks for starting another pointless agruement again mate ::)

Who ? Its usually me ( I started a political riot in WoW trade chat :D , why do people call me a troll ?) but I havent posted in awhile.

You like being a troll- I beat your one in Runescape ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I chose Patton for two reasons. One, he was willing to Rush in to beat the Germans head on in successful tank battles, which hurt German moral, and two, he was going to advance onto Moscow, but then he had an 'accident' involving a diesel truck. I say it was a Soviet assassination of Patton, cause they knew if he was going to move into Mosocw, they be hopeless to stop the US and British charge. Don't think that the Soviets, with more men, could have held of the US and British. The British were about to field the Centurion tank, and the US had the M26 on the battlefield. Also, the Allied Air power would have crushed the Soviet air force. And well, the US had the nuke, it could have killed two soviet armies with one bomb. So the Soviets offed Patton, effectively getting rid of the best Allied Commander of the war. (Montgomery was a coward, he wasn't willing to take risk if it ruined his reputation.)

Panzer4life wrote:
I chose Patton for two reasons. One, he was willing to Rush in to beat the Germans head on in successful tank battles, which hurt German moral, and two, he was going to advance onto Moscow, but then he had an 'accident' involving a diesel truck. I say it was a Soviet assassination of Patton, cause they knew if he was going to move into Mosocw, they be hopeless to stop the US and British charge. Don't think that the Soviets, with more men, could have held of the US and British. The British were about to field the Centurion tank, and the US had the M26 on the battlefield. Also, the Allied Air power would have crushed the Soviet air force. And well, the US had the nuke, it could have killed two soviet armies with one bomb. So the Soviets offed Patton, effectively getting rid of the best Allied Commander of the war. (Montgomery was a coward, he wasn't willing to take risk if it ruined his reputation.)

All you're saying is if ... . There are no ifs in history.
While practically, Patton didn't do much but kept his mouth open when it had to be shut way too often.
Don't get offended, I just think that the sum of his accomplishments just isn't big enough to seriously consider him even one of the best. He's more like one of the best known, if you get my point.
If Eva hadn't offered Adam that apple, he'd still be in Eden. So?

IJoe wrote:

Panzer4life wrote:
I chose Patton for two reasons. One, he was willing to Rush in to beat the Germans head on in successful tank battles, which hurt German moral, and two, he was going to advance onto Moscow, but then he had an 'accident' involving a diesel truck. I say it was a Soviet assassination of Patton, cause they knew if he was going to move into Mosocw, they be hopeless to stop the US and British charge. Don't think that the Soviets, with more men, could have held of the US and British. The British were about to field the Centurion tank, and the US had the M26 on the battlefield. Also, the Allied Air power would have crushed the Soviet air force. And well, the US had the nuke, it could have killed two soviet armies with one bomb. So the Soviets offed Patton, effectively getting rid of the best Allied Commander of the war. (Montgomery was a coward, he wasn't willing to take risk if it ruined his reputation.)

All you're saying is if ... . There are no ifs in history.
While practically, Patton didn't do much but kept his mouth open when it had to be shut way too often.
Don't get offended, I just think that the sum of his accomplishments just isn't big enough to seriously consider him even one of the best. He's more like one of the best known, if you get my point.
If Eva hadn't offered Adam that apple, he'd still be in Eden. So?

I don't get what Ijoe is trying to say with that Adam and Eve reference but i don't really like Patton for 2 simple reasons
1) He was a loud mouth and in many ways a total asshole. His actions were more reckless than tactical and was just a really lucky SOB
2) He was a bit of a racist.... 'Nuff said

Oh and Panzer, want to know a secret? At the Victory Parade, the apperance of the IS-3 (which didn't serve in Europe but was begining to be deployed by late September 1945) scared the living vodka out of anyone that wasn't Soviet. The Brits and Americans knew that their Pershings and Centurion were no contest for the IS-3 and the IS-3 outnumbered them. Oh and lets not forget the thousands of IS2 that were already battle-tested and filled with veteran crews. They were at minimum on par with, if not superior to the Pershing and Centurion

They were also unaware that the Manhatten project was filled with Soviet spies, which could easily sabotage the bombs, and supply the neccesary specs for the Soviets to make their own (which they did after WW2).

IMO Patton was full of Hot Air and Bluster. If anyone was stupid enough to listen to him after WW2, they would have been smacked into the ground faster than you can say "Comrade Stalin".

@neosdark
He meant that you cannot speculate about it, you need to decide it based on the real facts.

i think what neosdark says is true
right after WW2 russias army was way superior to the war weary british and american armys
and on the american air superiority...i am not sure but i think russia had more fighters, just less heavy bombers

Pauly3 wrote:
i think what neosdark says is true
right after WW2 russias army was way superior to the war weary british and american armys
and on the american air superiority...i am not sure but i think russia had more fighters, just less heavy bombers

In fact, the soviet air force was AT LEAST equivalent to USAF or RAF, due to the high number of experienced pilots using well-made and reliable aircraft. But I agree that soviet heavy bombers were just too old to be efficient.

Panzer4life wrote:
Montgomery was a coward, he wasn't willing to take risk if it ruined his reputation.

Not his reputation, his army. He cared too get the job done, thats all. Allways fighting the main German force while head on wasnt the best way to get fameous but it had too be done by someone.

Patton on the other hand didnt care about getting else than reputation. His father once said to him: "George, I got the money for the family, you get the glory". Thats why solidiers called him "His guts, our blood".
IMO Omar Bradley was the best US general.