Best general of WWII IN YOUR OPINION - Please don't just post Rommel unless you have good reasons?

Question

I looking for some interesting opinions. I personally think is Erich Von Manstein, since he participarted in Poland, planned the 1940 France offensive, captured Sevastopol, and led his army group pretty effectively even when they were being overrrun by teh Russians. But I woudl like to hear fromo other WWII fan who thinks otherwise and why.

Please don't post that the best general was Rommel because a)Hollywood told you, b) the Brits thought so, or c) he commanded the Afrikakorps. The same goes for Patton or McArthur.

Thumbs down for anybody who posts Montgomery as the best, unless you really have a good reason to change my mind on this guy.

Answer 1

I'm surprised that nobody so far has said my choice. Yes, Patton, Rommel, Bradley and the others were excellent, but I will suggest the Soviet General Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov.

Most peole know him as the general who led the Red Army to liberate the Soviet Union from the Nazi occupation, to overrun much of Eastern Europe, and to capture Hitler's capital, Berlin. He was a pioneer in the use of tanks and was easily as influential in tank warfare as Patton or Rommel.

He actually started his fame in WWII in 1938 when 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.

This led to the decisive Battle of Khalkhin 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 manoeuver 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.

In October 1941, when the Germans were closing in on Moscow, Zhukov replaced Semyon Timoshenko in command of the central front and was assigned to direct the defense 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. The 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.

In 1942 Zhukov was made Deputy Commander-in-Chief and sent to the south-western front to take charge of the defense of Stalingrad. Under the overall command of Vasilievsky, he oversaw the encirclement and capture of the German Sixth Army in 1943 at the cost of perhaps a million dead.

In January 1943, he orchestrated the first breakthrough of the German blockade of Leningrad. He was a STAVKA coordinator at the Battle of Kursk in July 1943, and, according to the memoirs, playing a central role in the planning of the battle and the hugely successful offensive that followed. Kursk was the first major German defeat in summer and has a good claim to be a battle at least as decisive as Stalingrad.

Zhukov then led the Soviet offensive Operation Bagration which some military historians believe was the greatest military operation of World War II. He launched the final assault on Germany in 1945, capturing Berlin in April. Shortly before midnight, 8 May, German officials in Berlin signed a Instrument of Surrender, in his presence.

Answer 2

Most military officers served their capacity for the state and not any particular political party, because according to law, Hitler was the head of state and therefore the embodiment of Germany. Of course the natural politics surrounding generals and the civilian government tends to complicate things. If you were a German soldier then you either liked Hitler, which was great, or you did not, in which you still had to serve anyways, preferably without saying so because the Gestapo might come after you. The Nazis had a way of trying to synonomize Germany with the Nazi movement and their ideology. The same can be said for Rommel. He was a no-nonsense career officer. Politics mattered little to him, and was only relatable due to the inherent relationships that you get as a high-ranking general (and eventually field marshal) The German army has traditionally had aristocratic and apolitical attitudes; most military members that liked the Nazis did so because the latter advocated re-expanding the former after Versailles. A lot of them were also wary of the Nazis trying to butt into their affairs, especially with issues like the Allgemeine-SS, a state security organization likened to the modern Russian FSB and includes the Gestapo and, by extension, the ordinary police, and the Waffen-SS which were in reality quite separate and hardly associated with the general SS, which were a fourth branch that the army treated as inbred politically fanatic imitators. The political atmosphere surrounding Hitler was also one of currying favours- you couldn't really get things done without being close friends with the Fuhrer, or at least have achievements to boast or connections with such kinds of people. This does not mean that such people like Rommel shared similar views with Nazi ideology. An example is the US Joint Chiefs position of Chairman- first of all this guy has to be nominated by the President, AND have voted approval by the US Senate. Naturally this means that whoever wants this position is going to have to pander to the president, the backing party, as well as most of the senators: otherwise he's going to have to be VERY lucky or miraculously be recommended by the president and then voted. This does NOT however inherently mean that the man who gains this position will always hold the same views as the president and/or the political party he is supported by, but what are the odds that a die-hard Republican will be nominated by a Democrat president, and also voted in by a Democrat-dominated Senate? Guy's either going to have to give up his dream of becoming chairman, or learn to sidestep political landmines. Rommel himself was not associated with the army's traditional aristocratic power structure, and well before he met Hitler he had already made a name and career of himself. Rommel did not look up to Hitler like a hero or an example to follow- rather it was more the other way around. Rommel was essentially a cog in the machine that was Germany's army. Rommel also clashed with some notable Nazis, yet befriended others like Goebbels. Overall he's very much the no-nonsense guy that prefers practical solutions and methods over rules and ideologies. If it works it works and is worth using, even if it's deemed socialist or whatever. Yet at the same time he is a conflicted and complex character- he would disobey certain orders he perceives as unacceptable behaviour, so he had a clear sense of morality, or at least realizes the consequences of treating certain groups poorly.

Answer 3

I'd have to agree about von Manstein. "Lost Victories" (his war memoir) is an interesting recollection of the operations he planned and led. Almost all were successful, one notable exception being his failed relief of 6th Army trapped in Stalingrad. Without a doubt, his genius extended beyond the planning and logistics but actual execution of his carefully prepared plans. He was also able to exploit opportunies as they arose. "Von Manstein's Back-Hand Blow" against the the over-extended Red Army is still widely studied by soldiers and historians alike. Only Hitler doubted his ability and hated that von Manstein stood up when he thought Hitler's decisions were wrong.

By most accounts, von Manstein was a gentlemen and old school Prussian warrior who valued loyalty and antiquated concepts such as honour. He never joined the Nazi party.

There is no question his successes on the battlefield allowed the S.S. and Gestapo to round up and massacre civilians or send them to concentration camps. A sad and shameful legacy for an otherwise brilliant general.

Answer 4

Sorry, but I still vote for Patton. He was able to defeat Rommel, the Desert Fox, and to liberate at least one town in France that had already been encircled by the British. He did it by being able to move his troops in faster than the Germans thought possible and catching them off-guard. There was a reason he was used as a decoy on D-Day--the Germans assumed that he would be a key player in any attempt to invade occupied Europe, so they remained focused on Calais as the probable landing sight.

Answer 5

There were two for the allies. Omar Bradly becasue he was in many fox holes with his troops rather than staying where it was safe and the other was Patton. Him because he did what he said he was going to do. From Africia to the Battle of the Bulge he got his men to do the impossible. When the others said that there was no way to help the 101 airborne at the Bulge he figured out how to get his men there and the supplys that they needed.

Answer 6

Paul Hausser is my pic, in particular for his tactical maneuvering of his II SS Panzer Corp during the 3rd Battle of Kharkov, beating back a Red Army force 7 times his size. Against explicit orders from Hitler about not retreating, Hausser disobeyed and maintained a mobile defence. He's one of the few generals that disobeyed the Furher's orders in the field.

Answer 7

Omar Bradley - "The Soldiers General" - commanded the assaults on Utah and Omaha beaches during Operation Overlord. Commanded the 12th Army Group, the largest group of American soldiers under a single commander. He was the primary commander during the Battle of the Bulge. He was polite, loved by his troops, and respected by nearly all his peers. He was not given to bluster and bravado. He led by example.

Answer 8

Gen. Tadeusz Kutrzeba, who bravely fought back the invading German scum in the face of insurmoutable odds in Poland. The only real Polish success of the September campaign (although we held out longer than the French anway!)

Answer 9

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was the best. He concieved an impressive plan for Japan to dominate the Pacific and he didn't succeded because of some random incidents

Answer 10

General Guderian who devised the panzer attacks.