Were the German generals being overrated compared to American, British, Russians and Japanese?

Answer 1

~If anything is overrated regarding WWII, it is the US ability, competence and contribution. After the Nazis, primarily Heydrich, Goebels and Himmler, successfully duped Stalin into purging the Red Army and eliminating most of his top generals, (and thereby unknowingly delaying the planned Soviet attack on Germany) Stalin was able to replace his military hierarchy with modern thinking tacticians who were a near match of their Wehrmacht counterparts. The Soviets won the war at Stalingrad. After Paulus surrendered the 6th Army, the inevitable fall of Berlin was simply a matter of time. The Red Army was underestimated by the German General staff as to resolve, ability and equipment and they lost the war as a result. The 10 million Soviet troops and 15 million Soviet civilians who died in the war pretty much proved the fallacy of German thought concerning Soviet resolve and they learned very quickly that the Panzer's were no match for the Soviet tanks.

Bear in mind that the US House of Representatives voted to extend the draft by a single vote in August, 1941. The US army was undermanned, under-trained and inexperienced. US military technology, equipment and tactics lagged far behind that of the Soviets, the Germans, the Japanese and the British. Soviet tanks and artillery were the best in the world at the time, followed closely by the Germans. Japanese air power, particularly at sea, was head and shoulders above the rest of the world, but German land-based air power was second to none in 1941.

German tactics were developed to accommodate the new weaponry, and the Wehrmacht generals mastered the new tactics like no others. The most significant fighting of in the European theater occurred in Russia and along the Eastern front. Stalin's strategy to fall back and cede ground while he moved his factories behind the Urals, trained troops and got his T-34's and KV series tanks in the field so he could make his stand on ground of his choosing was brilliant and, by that strategy, he won the war.

The US finally landed troops for the first time in Africa in November, 1942. By then, El Alamein was over and done with and Stalingrad was in full swing. Because of the debacle the Italians had made of Tobruk, the German army was divided between the Eastern front and the Afrika Corps, with the bulk of the best troops, equipment and supplies being sent to the Volga. Facing a much weakened foe, the US troops were able to learn tactics and get some seasoning in a relatively minor skirmish, and the heaviest fighting they engaged in was at Normandy and Bastonge, but they were opposing secondary troops in a war whose end had already been written.

US and British forces faced a lower echelon of German troops and leaders in the West. Even so, Rommel was a superior General to any of those he squared off against. Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, Rommel's boss, was no slouch. Had they agreed on tactics at Normandy, or had Hitler resolved their differences for them, Overlord may well have failed. Von Rundstedt undeniably had the more practical and viable plan, but resistance from Rommel prevented him from employing it. Rommel's strategy involved far greater risk, but could have succeeded with support from von Runstedt and reinforcements from the east. Either way, all Normandy did was, at best, perhaps shorten the war by a few months. The Red Army would have continued its relentless march to the Oder and the untenable supply lines of the depleted Wehrmacht was not going to stop it, particulary with the help of allied bombing of German factories and the denial to the Fatherland of necessary resources and ability to manufacture weapons, ammunition and spare parts. Had Rommel and von Rundstedt been able to draw reserves from the east, rather than sending their own reserves to Russia, Patton would have been eaten up. Omar Bradley and Ike were first rate strategists (having been among the few in the '30s who realized the role the tank was going to play in warfare) but with the men and equipment they had at their disposal, they would have been a poor match for the Wehrmacht had they had to face the commanders and troops that were busy in the east.

No, the Germans are not overrated. Blitzkrieg attacks following air strikes on forward troops and defensive positions is the modern way in which contemporary wars are still fought (witness Norman Schwarzkopf and Desert Storm). The basic game plan was developed by the Germans in the '30's. The strategy only works if the commanders in the planning rooms and in the field can implement it. The Germans did, and they did it well. They lost the war as a result of attrition of men and supplies. They did not lose to superior commanders.

Answer 2

My, my, aren't some of us blindly nationalistic.
My first response was (is) the German Generals were, overall, the best. Their position as such is highly related to the fact that they had been in training for THIS war since they had their backsides spanked in The Great War, not to mention from the cradle.
Germany is also a militaristic society with a culture so ingrained with it that their meter maids goose step.
Unfortunately, for them, the Generals did not have free rein to run the War their way - they, again blindly, followed a liitle Corporal in Berlin who eventually destroyed most of Europe and a large bit of the rest of the World.
So the Germans were the masterminds of Stalin's purges, too, huh? Hmmm...hadn't known that. I thought Stalin was evil enough all on his own and had his own good reasons for exterminating anyone who threatened his tyranny. Guess I'm not giving Goebbels enough credit there, either.
The Germans are not overrated. Had they been able to do what they wanted, and needed to do, to win the War, without ridiculous interference from poiticians, painters and chicken farmers, the War's outcome might very well have been different.
Had the Americans prepared for WWII immediately following WWI - the Americans would have kicked their butts much more quickly than we eventually did.
We were an ocean away, not involved in millenia old gripes amongst the European nations and would have been happy to leave it that way. However, when a bully decides he wants to take over a town by force and kill millions of innocent people, good people have a moral obligation to do something about it. No matter where it is and what effect it would have on them. That's what we did.
The only reason the War didn't end sooner is because we weren't in it, and prepared for it, when the Germans decided to take over the World.
Once the "Sleeping Giant" was awakened - it was already over - it just took millions of unnecessary deaths before Germany was ground into the ground. Let's ALL hope they've learned their lesson this time.

Answer 3

I think so, mainly because Germany was a member of the axis powers at the time. But there are good people...good soldiers in every army. Just because they were German doesn't necessarily mean they were all "evil" and such. The American, British, Russians and Japanese all had their low points...what about the Russians in Stalingrad? :)

Answer 4

The only over-rated general i can think of during WWII was B. Montgomery. Many of the German generals were rated high on both sides of the line, in particular the Desert Fox, Rundstedt, Mainstein and Guderian. A certain amount of respect was earned on both sides of the line for a few generals. The Germans highly respected Patton and Zhukov, as an example.

Answer 5

Which general?

Rommel (I may have mispelled that) was definately not overrated and was admired for his gual and techniques.

As far as American generals go:

I most certainly believe that MacArthur and Bradley were far overrated.

Patton was not.

Each army and nationality have their good generals and their bad generals. Sometimes, generals are just following some time-honored tradition from an Annapolis textbook and it works, so they get honored. Others just get plain lucky. Some may have been good generals, but something they could not have anticipate occurs, then suddenly they are labeled as "poor".

The question, inmo, is too vague and open to rightly answer. In order to really answer a question like this, I think we need to know WHICH general you have in mind that you wish to know more about.

Answer 6

For the most part, the German generals were the best in the world, fortunately for the allies, Hitler took command of the war, and the generals were not able to function in an effective manner.

Answer 7

NO: the German army made a few mistakes true, But do not for get they were taking on the world. They were facing France, Poland, England, Russia, and America. The bombings had cut the replacement line of production, each engagement took more away from the German Army. making them weaker, and they were running out of fuel as well. They had reach the point were they could not win.

Answer 8

In "general" no. In the west we tend to pay closer attention to those who fought in the west. For the Germans the generals in east were thought to be more skilled although less publicized.

Answer 9

My first reaction would be yes because they lost the war, but what if they were given carte blanche from Hitler, instead of Hitler micro managing them, and, or, killing them (Rommel for instance)? The "Blitz Krieg" was like nothing that war has ever seen before and was a fantastic way of winning battles and territory in a short time.

Answer 10

I also think that Germany had best army and generals in the early 20th century