OT: Favorite General

[Liam]

Definitely Say Rommel is the underdog in N.Africa and made a good show vs Monty and Monty's underlings. Who had all the Materials, equipment, etc... I don't know of many instances of 1 man achieving what he did with what little he had during WW2.

Patton is mentioned here. I don't know of how good he was as a tactician but he was right about the Russians. He was also very aggressive and as mentioned we lacked that, although I firmly believe that he had the go-getter attitude we needed. As did Macarthur.

Doenitz for Admirals was a leading man and he would be somewhere in my book. Most definitely for ending the war and taking the fall too.

[ElGasco]

SARGE,

You couldn't have said it better; Wrong Place Wrong Time Wrong Guy...doing it right.

To others; What is a General? And what are the standards we are using for comparing them, or selecting the Best one?

My point is...are we asking for the best Generals that were inspired leaders of men (Patton/Rommel)? or the best Generals that were caretakers of their troops (Bradley/Stiller)? or are we looking the best Generals that played the "game" (Macarthur/Manstein)? Or something else...

Lets take it up a notch. World War II was for all intents and purposes the first war to incorporate a Global Conflict. The theorum of "I got a bigger gun than you, now" dictated that in such a scope technical advancements, and communications would be tantamount.

With such advancements, the role of the 'General' or supreme commander, changed. No longer did you find this individual on the front...rather, you found them far behind the lines where their "eyes" and "ears" were focused.

In World War II, they might be...

US; Marshall / Eisenhower / Macarthur

Germany; Hitler (who else really ran the global theater?)

Italy; Mussolini (same here...)

Russia; Not sure... (Stalin?, Zhukov? don't really know.)

The point is that there's no real glory in estimating whose better or worse in this bunch. But its real obvious that all the others were modern day Field Commanders. The stuff of legend!

Just imaging Patton vs Manstein; Or maybe Montgomery holding the line at Bastogne. What would have happened if the Tractorworks fell?

I played SC with my friend, and I was Axis. I felled Poland in one turn, turned on the Netherlands, and France, and before the end of 1940 invaded Britain...successfully. USA never entered and the game was over.

Another time, same friend. I attacked Poland (same way) and it took three whole turns to beat them! UGH! Now we are caught in a slugfest.

Yes-siree....right place right time...luck of the draw, and knowing what to do when you draw it.

So, how do we rate them? we can only really say who we liked... And for me, I like the ones' who were underdogs, winners, and had panache!

Patton, Rommel, Clark, Macarthur.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Marshall to me will always be associated with the Marshal Plan.

Frankly, I have never hated the Americans enough to be able to dismiss the fact they are always out there rebuilding after they or someone else or they and someone else or mother nature has trashed you.

And in a lot of conflicts, the US was NOT there as a foreign invader.

The Marshall Plan is clearly not taught to a great deal of persons not living in the US.

Fighting a war is easy, cleaning up after one is not.

[boninza]

the greatest german general was v. rundstedt

[JerseyJohn]

ElGasco

You make some good points, much of it is the way fortune happens to smile on a given day, assuming the general is competent, of course.

Clark and MacArthur had all the skills but didn't always use them properly.

Clark, unfortunately, was too fond of headlines. In early June 1944, while the German lines were losing cohesion and crumbling, Clark detoured to take Rome and be photographed in a parade instead of heading northeast to seal most of the veteran German troops off, forcing their surrender. This was stated by the German commander, FM Albert Kesselring, who certainly had nothing to gain by the admission. If Clark had gone for the German Army instead of the front pages the war would probably have been considerably shortened. This isn't hindsight or monday morning quarterbacking, the other field commanders on the front, for both sides, were baffled by his action.

It has also to be said that Italy was a miserable campaign with almost no chance to exhibit true generalship, other than as a manager of troops. Beyond doubt a firebrand like Patton would also have found himself stuck along those muddy ravines and mountain passes always looking up the barrels of presighted German artillery. It's also probably that Clark, given command in France, would today have been known as America's cut and slash hero. So it's very difficult to judge.

The Italian FM Rudolpho Grazianni was actually a very capable commander in an impossible situation and an even more impossible order to carry out, he said it would all end in a fiasco and it did so quickly. On the other side of the lines, Britain had a pair of able commanders in Wavell and O'Connor who found an unorthodox approach and succeded beyond their expectations. More conservative commanders would probably have fallen back slowly as the Italians advanced fifty miles at a time (constructing a make shift supply road in the process).

Nothing more to say on MacArthur other than what was said earlier. At times he was brilliant and at other times he was terrible, similar to his naval counterpart Halsey.

Patton, to me, was a fine field commander. His abilities would probably have been wasted commanding an army group, but as a corps or army commander I believe he was among the best.

In line with your time and place philosophy, we'll never know how many generals and admirals would have fared if given a reasonable opportunity.

Admiral Husband E. Kimmel was made the skapegoat for the U. S. Navy at Pearl Harbor. He was only given fragments of the overall situation and never had the resources to properly patrol the waters around his command. He'd spent most of his time planning for an open sea battle pitting his own carriers and BBs against the Imperial Navy and had no reason to suspect he'd have to deal with anything else. Then as now the view is that the Japanese attack succeeded due to American incompetance. Too little credit is given to Japanese Admiral Nagumo for navigating such a large strike force through so long a rough weather voyage and for also managing to move without being detected by U. S. Naval elements at Midway. This more than anything else led Kimmel to believe the fleet was save.

Similar appraisal of Lt. General Short, an old style cavalry commander. There's no reason to assume he had any understanding of carrier warfare. He knew that Hawaii was beyond the reach of Japanese landbased bombers and proceeded to guard against what he had every reason to believe was the primary danger, sabotage of his aircraft. He treated as a ground attack problem, as he was trained to do. As with Kimmel, Washington offered little in the way of real information; he was on his own.

Lt. General Wainright, commander of the American troops in the Phillipines, succeeding MacArthur as overall commander. He led a skilfull withdrawl and defense of the Battan penninsula and a dogged, prolonged holding action at the island fortress of Corregador. His command was doomed from the start and he was left, along with his ill supplied troops, to foot the bill.

-- To MacArthur's credit, he requested to remain in the Phillipines and requested only that his wife and son be evacuated. FDR himself insisted he escape to receive a new command.

There are many others, of course, those are just a few of the Americans. Certainly many Soviet Generals, caught up in Stalin's bungled plans, paid with their lives for another man's mistakes. We have no way of knowing if any of them would have been another Zhukov or Koniev.

[ December 07, 2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[imported_Rannug]

Why doesn't anyone talk about Guderian?

[JerseyJohn]

The reason I didn't is I chose Manstein as my favorite German general. There are a lot of Great German choices and I did talk about Guderian a little in relation to Fuller on the first page.

Hurrying Heinz was one of the best, of course. As was the case with so many others a lot of his decisions were all but negated by Hitler. Still, he was more fortunate in that respect than van Kleist and various others who Hitler blamed for his own shortcomings.

-- Will you be saying anything about Guderian? :cool: I'd be very interested in your opinions, as would everyone else.

[Friendly Fire]

well, I think the author of this text deserves a few votes!

"Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces: You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking"

Dwight D. Eisenhower

(I think Eisenhower's strongest assest was his ability to delegate. With an operation the size of Overlord this was essential...)

[JerseyJohn]

Eisenhower was similar to George Washington, while not great field commanders themselves, they were able to hold together unweildy organizations that might have come apart under other people.

Most of Ike's actual battle decisions were terrible and cost many lives.

An example, the counter attack in the Battle of The Bulge (Ardennes 1944-45) in which many more men were killed and wounded than was the case during the German attack! Patton wanted to pincer the pocket at it's base, sealing off a number of unsupplied German armies. Eisenhower was afraid the perimiter would be too weak to hold them (nonsense, they weren't going anywhere!) and ordered a frontal assault going from West to East, pushing the survivors back across the Rhine. A terrible and costly decision; manpower became so critical that men with anything less than serious wounds were treated at field hospitals, given their weapons back, and sent out immediately to rejoin the attack!

But it's also true that without Eisenhower's drive and diplomatic skills the Allies would probably still have had those troops training in England.

After the war, just before retiring, Eisenhow was sent on an inspection tour of Japan. His old boss, MacArthur, was the American Emperor there. Sitting on a veranda for a drink, MacArthur said,

"You know Dwight, it seems certain the next president will be a five star officer from this last war."

Eisenhower sipped his drink and replied,

"Well, it won't be me, I have no desire to hold public office."

MacArthur smilled and patted Eisenhower's knee,

"Very good, you're learning. Keep saying things like that and you'll get if for sure!"

[Oberfuhrer Rundstedt]

Hm. It seems that this board is largely American-based. Seems a waste to reitorate so much. But I prattle on, don't take this the wrong way, it's just constuctive critisism, 'tis all. My favourite general would have to be Manstien, for his obvious strategical strengths, but also for his integrity in not becoming a Nazi lacky, part of the reason for his subsequent dismissal. Zhuhkov was good too, but his ruthlessness with his troops well-being did somewhat counter that. Though I admire him for his guts. Standing up to Stalin was no small feat. Alexander was, in my opinion, the greatest British general, though he was a little on the cautious side. And finally, Patton was my favourite American general, and on that note; A general ought not be remembered for his civilian discretions, nor be forgotten for his military ones.

Oh, and by the way, this is my first post, so hello to all of you out there, and I look forward to some healthy competition.

[JerseyJohn]

Oberfuhrer Rundstedt

Welcome aboard, hope you grace us with many hundreds of fine posts like your first one.

Your namesake is also one of my favorites and for reasons similar to those you mention for von Manstein, both were outspoken and neither of them became a Nazi Lacky.

Three Fieldmarshals, Rommel, Rundstedt and Manstein, who were never Nazi tools.

[ December 09, 2003, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Themasterofall]

the greatest tactision ever was Horratio Nelson. No doubt about it. He defeated a Spanish force three times his fleets size and didnt lose a single ship. Now thats good.

[JerseyJohn]

"...three times his fleets size and didnt lose a single ship. Now thats good."

Beyond a doubt, and for the purposes of this thread it would have been even better if he'd done it during the SECOND WORLD WAR !!!

Okay, my personal revised favorite is Scipio Africanus since he was the only one to ever defeat Hannibul. Hannibul might have been my favorite if he hadn't lost to Scipio!

Not much to look at, but Scipio was hell on the battlefield!

[ December 09, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer39]

John, that would have been a nice trick seeing that the Kriegsmarine was at most 1/3 the size of the RN. Now if he would have been German......

[JerseyJohn]

"...John, that would have been a nice trick seeing that the Kriegsmarine was at most 1/3 the size of the RN."

Panzer39

Well, they certainly weren't using a scenario created by either us!

[Themasterofall]

you Americans are so self-centred, most of you are talking about Aerican generals, yes with a few Germans thrown in their. But what about the great Russain generals???? it was not by force of numbers that the Russains beat the Germans, but by supior tactics, all you need to do is look at the casualties....

Or the British in North Africa, a force of 30,000 took 75000 Italian POWs!!!!! but then, the Italian military has gone down hill since Julius Cesear in my veiw....

[well-dressed gentleman]

“You Americans are so self-centered . . .”

Most Americans and Europeans get along like beans and cornbread,

so why is some knave always out to ruin it?

I can’t take a boy who calls himself “themasterofall” seriously.

I pick Erwin Rommel because he sacrificed his life trying to surrender

his command in France.

He did this for the benefit of his troops, not himself, and proved himself

the opposite of self-centered.

Who controls the past controls all the wise sayings at the bottom of

people’s letters.

[ December 11, 2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: well-dressed gentleman ]

[taxiu]

Everybody here is talking who is the best general in WWII and telling their own candidates usually from either US or from Germany.

I personally would say that I would vote C.G.Mannerheim. My opinion is that nobody could have achive better results with the resources he had available.

In US, Germany, Russia and even Italy had huge resources compared to Finland. Where as the finns only had to face Russian man and material overforce from the -39 until -44. Still finns were able to blockout and destroy entire russian divisions during the war. Finns had less than 20 infantry divisions facing usually 2 or 3 times bigger forces in battles.

Mannerheim was realistic that he knew what will the outcome of the war be so finns never destroyed Murmansk track where the shipments came from the US nor did they launch attacks against Leningrad. This was only to get better positions in peace negotiations.

Mannerheims skills has been also regocnized in the russian army where he served before his time in Finland with many medals during 1887-1917.

[jon_j_rambo]

MasterOfAllBait You're being very narrow minded by only considering the cultures which called themselves "Generals"!

[jon_j_rambo]

I'll take these group of guys too.

[JerseyJohn]

taxiu

Can't agree.

Mannerheim was a great field commander, especially in his early years when he almost single-handedly forced Russian recognition of an independant Finland.

But his actions during WW II were bizarre. He fought only to regain the territory that the USSR had annexed from Finland, not to help defeat them. He allowed only a bare minimum number of German troops to operate out of Finland for action against the Archangeal and Murmansk supply line -- and that was a complete and pathetic failure. He wouldn't allow Axis troops, either Finnish or German, to move along the North of Lake Ladoga to close the line around Lenningrad -- meaning a supply line always remained open across the lake.

So who's war was he fighting in? Even if Finland regained the land lost in the Winter War, did Stalin allow it to be held by them after Germany's defeat?

In the end Finnish troops succeeded in keeping Soviet forces out of their country by round up the Germans themselves, in other words, turning on their former Allies.

A ridiculous situation, either you're allied to a nation or you aren't. Halfway cooperation, which is all that Mannheim did, never works. That not withstanding, as I started off saying, he was indeed a fine field commander.

If he thought the German cause was doomed from the start, he should have remained neutral.

General Rambo

Good points but perhaps we're all misunderstanding this Masterorallbaitors guy.

MOUA

Sorry, I can't use your full name, the Italians in North Africa surrendered en masse for the same reason the British later surrendered en masse after being bypassed and cut off from their supply line. In the desert you don't start wandering around when you know the water you're carrying is the last water you're ever likely to see. The prospect of half a canteen of water, or less, in the baking sun inspires a person to throw their arms in the air and inquire about getting a drink.

Grazziani knew that, Wavell knew that, O'Connor knew that, Auchinleck knew that and most of all Montgomery knew that, which is why he proceeded so cautiously after El Alamein.

It's true that neither the Italian Army nor Air Force was prepared to fight a modern war. It's Navy lacked any form of sonar or radar. These were all deficiencies, among others, that were understood prior to 1940. Mussolini pulled the big bluff, against his generals advice, and Italy had to pay the price. Given a few years to rebuild and modernize they would still have been riddled with political hacks, but in general they'd have narrowed the gap between themselves and the Anglo-French forces.

Most of their problems started and ended with Benitto Mussolini, by far the most inept of all the WW II leaders on either side. Before entering the war he had already sabotaged the Italian effort by sending huge quantities of his own army's needed reserve of war materials to Franco in Spain. Franco showed his appreciation by remaining neutral; leaving Gibraltar open as a route for UK naval vessels and soldiers to use on their way to defeating Italy in North Africa.

Mussolini's administration was so inept that, despite the fact that Italy had been in Libya since 1911, Italian aircraft stationed there were not equipped with sand filters. The Italian Navy had neither spare parts nor a sensible supply of reserve fuel oil and it's army was not equipped with anti-tank guns. These things were all directly attributable to Mussolini's practise of appointing political hacks to surpervise military affairs.

A little quip I've written often concerning this situation can use being written again as it illustrates the well known condition of Italy's armed forces even before it's entry into the war. It took place during a German staff meeting in late 1939. Hitler wanted encouraging opinions that matched his own, especially concerning his reluctant Italian ally.

When pressed for an opinion the dour von Rundstedt replied, "If they remain neutral we'll need a mountain division to watch the Alpine passes; if they join the British we'll need two mountain divisions to defend that area. If they join us we'll need to send a dozen divisions to defend Italy."

[ December 12, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[taxiu]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

taxiu

Can't agree.

Mannerheim was a great field commander, especially in his early years when he almost single-handedly forced Russian recognition of an independant Finland.

But his actions during WW II were bizarre. He fought only to regain the territory that the USSR had annexed from Finland, not to help defeat them. He allowed only a bare minimum number of German troops to operate out of Finland for action against the Archangeal and Murmansk supply line -- and that was a complete and pathetic failure. He wouldn't allow Axis troops, either Finnish or German, to move along the North of Lake Ladoga to close the line around Lenningrad -- meaning a supply line always remained open across the lake.

So who's war was he fighting in? Even if Finland regained the land lost in the Winter War, did Stalin allow it to be held by them after Germany's defeat?

In the end Finnish troops succeeded in keeping Soviet forces out of their country by round up the Germans themselves, in other words, turning on their former Allies.

A ridiculous situation, either you're allied to a nation or you aren't. Halfway cooperation, which is all that Mannheim did, never works. That not withstanding, as I started off saying, he was indeed a fine field commander.

If he thought the German cause was doomed from the start, he should have remained neutral.

Well you clearly had made your point clear. It is clear to me that Finland situation was different than another countries in the war. These points you made have been discussed since the war ended, most of them in my point of the view are political questions.

I tried to point out what he did with his divisions in the front against russia. Not what in generally happened in war. After -39 surprise attack by the russians there were only Germany which offered material support. Even finnish army got 100 planes from the US. In summer -40 the situation was "Conquer or to be conquered". In finns in my mind there wouldn't be a possibility to remain as neutral territory since the fear from russian or germany occupation. Worst case scenario would have been that both parties have fought each another in finlands territory.

Also what I didn't point out that Mannerheim tried to hide the finnish army goals so that war in Finlands front would not get too much attention since russians would have deployed more troops there earlier and which eventually would have lead collaption of whole finnish front much earlier.

In the summer -44 there where nothing else do to than drive Germans out of the country since it was agreed so in peace treaty. Only reason why to sign this treaty was not to have Finland occupied which never happened as it did for the rest of the axis forces. Finns mainly fought their own battles for own reasons not because they liked nazi idealogy, mainly because they did see opportunity to strike back and reclaim the land which was taken during Winter War.

Well as you said not good politician, but much more effient in the battles. Became president of Finland only to get finns out of the war. Since russians trusted him so much that if Mannerheim would be behind peace treaty finns surely would stop fighting.

But if you want to write more about this I would gladly discuss this via email

[JerseyJohn]

taxiu

Between the two of us I think all the real points have been covered. As I stated from the start I've always felt he was an outstanding general.

My only complaint with him is his policies and limited war aims. As you say, he wasn't much of a politician. But then he was placed in an impossible situation. His situation was so impossible that people don't even attempt to speculate on what he should have done, and I won't be the one to start!

That Finland, caught between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, continued to exist at all as a sovereign nation, is a tribute to Mannerheim.

[ December 12, 2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Don't forget that, after the start of Barbarossa, once the Soviets realized Finland was only going to it's 1939/40 territorial borders it religated those areas to holding forces.

Those areas were some of the quietest on the Eastern Front. Russia only had to worry about German units.

In 1944 when the soviets launched their attack to knock Finland out of the war, the Finns jumped ship on their former Ally and sued for peace as fast as they could. Giving the soviets concessions that went beyond the Winter War ones. Including Reparations.

Finnish troops even went as far as attacking German Soldiers retreating through Finland to get to Norway. At the soviets request.

In one of David Glantz's books there is a lot about what each of the Axis minors did to get themselves off the losing side. Can't remember with one it was. If I do, I'll post it.

With allies like that, who needs enemies.

Finland looked out for number one, themselves. Which some people agree with and some don't.

Of course can't really blame them considering the lack of support they got during the Winter War. But that is an entirely different subject.

[Themasterofall]

3,000 "innocent" American civilians died on the "terrorist" attack in America on the 11th of September. 6,000 genuily innocent civilians were killed in the second Iraqi war by american forces as a direct result.........grow up.