Best commander of WW2

[Oldman731]

(Oldman pokes his head into room.) Yo! An opinion poll! Diggit!

Best:

Nazis: Von Manstein, Kesselring - (remarkable what they could do under pressure)

English: Alexander - (head and shoulders above the rest of his class)

U.S.: Eisenhower (he made it all work), Hodges (check his record sometime)

Bolshevik: Zhukov, Chuikov - (they were there when the going was roughest)

Most overrated:

Nazi: Rommel - (Like Patton, he was a one-dimensional guy. When things got tough, he fell apart)

English: Monty. (Alamein and crossing the Rhine were ok, but what about the pursuit of Rommel, the Mareth Line, Sicily, Caen, the Scheldt, Market Garden, and Bulge? No imagination)

U.S.: Patton. (Too much imagination. When he ran up against opposition, as in later part of Sicily and at Metz, he could go toe-to-toe with Zhukov as a life-waster)

Bolshevik: For inexplicable reasons, no one has ever rated these guys highly, so there are no candidates in this category.

- Oldman

[Priest]

Sorry guys but I have to go with Erwin Rommel. First off let us not look only at his stellar performance in World War II but also his very successful career in World War I. The guy was a man ahead of his time when it came to tactics on the modern battlefield. He did make mistakes and he actually admitted them in his diaries. Also he was a patriot. And for those critics that say he is one dimensional, an attacker with little knowledge of strategy remember two things. Rommel was one of the first to see the end. He almost predicted exactly how it would happen in 1943. Also he was in charge of the Alantic wall and not only recognized the inaptitude of the wall but made it stronger (more time and more resources were needed though). And Rommel also understood the power of the allied air force. If Rommels plan to put the Panzer units near the beaches had been followed and the Panzers (even a portion of them) would have been able to get to the beaches things could have turned different (at least more costly and made the allies more cautious thus buying time for the Germans). Lastly Rommel was probably the bravest son of b**ch around. I mean really in early 1944 with the Russian campaign falling apart and teh Allies about to land in the west would you have the balls to tell a raving Hitler that all is lost and better to surrender on the west and hope for a draw on the east. Nah I thought not.

[Wisbech_lad]

Yey! A poll!

Best:

Western Allies: Slim, nice guy and great general, Nimitz – bypassing Japanese strongpoints great strategy, shame about MacArthur

Eastern Allies: Zhukov, Mao Ze Dong & sidekicks

Axis (German): Kesselring, Manstein

Axis (other): Mannheim, whoever took Malaya/ Singapore.

Worst:

Western Allies: Gamelin, Percival

Eastern allies: Chiang Kai Shek, more interested in feathering his own nest than defending China

Axis (German): Goering.

Axis (other): Whoever was in charge of the Albania/ Greek campaign for the Italians. Grazziani. S.C. Bose (commander of the INA in Burma)

Most Overrated/ Overhyped:

Western Allies: Patton, Monty.

Eastern Allies: No opinion

Axis (German): Rommel. Not his fault, a myth of a “good German” was required to rearm W Germany. He was obvious candidate, dead, won a few “dashing” victories, untainted by Eastern Front, lost convincingly when it mattered.

Axis (other): Yamamoto – Pearl Harbour was Genda’s plan, and like Rommel, he is famous for winning a few dashing victories, pointing out that Axis hadn’t a hope, and dying. But as Japan was never required to rearm, same hagiography did not arise. Interestingly Genda was elected to the Japanese Diet for 20 years after the war.

[Priest]

The battles I believe you are refering to (Tobruk, El Alemien, the western front) were really stacked against him (well the first battle of Tobruk was his fault and he admitted it in his diaries). El Alemein II (I know I am spelling it wrong) for example, Rommel was not only outnumbered 5 or 6 to 1 but also the British Armor consisted of newer American designed tanks while a large quantity of Rommels forces were made up of very substandard Italian models. Also you claim that Rommel had a "few" dashing victories, hmmmmm, the entire french campaign in 40' was a success for Rommel. The majority of North Africa was a success for Rommel. Let's see that would leave the Normandy campaign but wait they did not let Rommel really plan that one so hmmmmm. Three years of primarily success would qualify as more than a "few" victories in my opinion. So far I think that most people believe his skill was hype because he was so hyped. With the exception of Tobruk, Rommel was a model of quick and decisive action, and was a master at finding the line between daring and foolhardy. One last thing, Rommels troops respected and loved Rommel (Patton got respect but no love) who had a charisma like Monty. The difference is that Rommel, who possessed panache, was not an egotist nor did he have utter disregard for the men in his command. Also unlike Monty he knew his way around a battlefield and could employ tactics other than build up until you are 5 times the size of your opponent and then bombard him and charge! Just my thoughts, I just think many people have become disenchanted with Rommel for reasons having nothing to do with his ability.