It depends on what you mean by strategy. He was the best German general, but most of the strategy was set by Hitler.
Many of the others mentioned were more tacticians than strategists in my opinion.
I'd rate Stalin as the best strategist - he started with a pretty weak position, because the war started before he was ready - Russia had lost wars to Poland and the Finns not long before, yet Stalin came out the clear winner - one of two superpowers.
His strategic masterstrokes included relocating arms factories east of the Urals before the invasion, and the masterful playing of his western allies - in particular the advantages he gained from Rossevelt's naievity.
Alan Brooke and Chester Nimitz have to rate among the best.
2007-08-13 00:57:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by no_bloody_ids_available 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's arguable. No doubt, Manstein was good but then so too were Model, Guderian and Rommel on the German side. For all Manstein's talents, he couldn't save the German Sixth Army from Stalingrad. Great strategists of WW2 will include Yammamoto, Yamashita (both Japan), Montgomery, Alan Brooke, General Slim and Lord Louis Mountbatten (British), the US had Patten, Omar Bradley and MacArthur. Even Ike and Marshall can be counted if you take strategy to include both political and military strategy. The Soviets had Chuikov and Zhukov. It is really hard to argue that Manstein was better in strategy than all these guys.
2007-08-12 17:06:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think so, He failed miserably with the whole Stalingrad thing, and that was one area, The Soviet General Zukov or the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, ( he never wanted to bomb pearl harbor, he knew it was not a good statigic move) or General Marshal of the US Army, and Even a few British Generals who's names I seem to have mislaid some where at this moment, where great a stradegy, Patton and Rommel, where tactical Generals, and the best of the best, Eisenhower was a politician who happened to be a General, and it was really the genius of his staff, including Bradley that was his talents. ans as to Mac Arthur, that strutting ignoramus failed so bad in the Philippines, being the governor General for over 15 year before the war, that the defenses he had were so ill conceived and a waste of resource and manpower showed the waste of human space he was. no one that served under him had a good world to say about this king of debaukles.
2007-08-12 20:16:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by edjdonnell 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe you are right, a close second i would mention Guderian. The others, Rommel, Hausser, Zhukov were better tactical generals....
2007-08-12 17:50:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋