Poll: Greatest General of World War 2

[Shock and Awe]

Just been thinking about this one recently, which General was the best? At offense? Defense? Overall? No wrong answers but try to back them up.

I would say George Patton for offense because he ripped through arguably the best trained and most experience military in the world at the time like...well crap through a goose. He was the only General to my knowledge in the West that had to be held back. It also says a lot when many German officers feared the man. However he was limited as he never had much to do with defensive warfare so I can't make a call there and he wasn't much for logistics either.

In defense I'd give it hands down to Gregory Zhukov. He broke the back of the German offensive not once, not twice, but three times in Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. If this man hadn't managed the defense of these cities I doubt they would have held out, though with the possible exception of Stalingrad because Chuikov was a good one, though thats assuming the first two cities held but I digress. He didn't do as well on offense because even with overwhelming numbers and force the counterstrik was still still stopped by the acts of our next general...

Eric von Manstein, glorious bastard. If there was one general who proved his meddle in attack and defense it was von Manstein. He practically planned the offense in France, and was one of the most successful and insightful generals in the East. When things went sour he managed to halt the Soviet onslaught and could have maybe even went back on the offensive it wasn't for the meddling of a certain Fuhrer. He wasn't the best in my mind in either but he was a very adaptable commander.

An honorable mention to George Marshall who was excellent at organizing the overall war effort. I also would like to mention his greatest contribution to the world "The Marshall Plan"
which probably saved Europe.

Well thats mine Escapist, whats yours? The poll is just some I'd think would be more common.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Patton. Because...

HE READ YOUR BOOK!!!

No MacArthur? Or did I just not see him? He was great! Crazy... but great!

 

[Offworlder_v1legacy]

Yeah I'm gonna say Patten as well, because in truth the only thing that stopped him was the president telling him to stop.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'm going to say Rommel. Patton was great, but Rommel was the only general that would have done better with no superior, because the man was a war genius. There's a reason he was called The Desert Fox, and it wasn't because it sounded scary.

 

[JaceArveduin]

I'm with the guy above me. Rommel was able to hold off an army that was better supplied while in a desert. It's a desert, it's not as easy to hid in the desert, can't just strap some branches to your helmet and blend in. Most people know him as the Desert Fox, but he was also in charge of the 'Ghost Division'. Which was the 7th Panzer Division that was called that because they often ended up so far ahead of their allies that they strayed out com range.

 

[LetalisK]

Edit: Patton was good at seizing an opportunity. Rommel was good at making an opportunity.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

If Rommel had been given the supplies at the disposal of the Allies, I think things would have gone very differently in North Africa. It was him who made the D-Day landings as hard as they were. If the allies hadn't prepared for it in every minute detail it would have been much worse.

Zhukov got results but at enormous losses.

Monty fought Rommel to a standstill but messed up Market Garden.

Patton was a fighter who believed in keeping the initiative out of the hands of the enemy. I would say his biggest flaw was his ability to make his own allies hate him.

Manstein and Guderian were master organizers from beginning to end.

All had their weaknesses. I favor Rommel, who was crippled by priority being given to the Russian offensive. They were very fearsome on the battlefield in their time.

 

[Corax_1990]

Rommel, both for his ability as a general and as an honorable man. Under his command, the Akricakorps was never accused of war crimes and he was involved in the plot to overthrow Hitler. The man was a Nazi general who defied orders from Hitler himself and protested the treatment of the Jews. It takes a great man to achieve one objectives when given orders, but takes a greater man to stand up to those orders when they are wrong.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I may be a Jew, but even I must say that Rommel was the best out of the bunch. I still have great respect for Patton though.

 

[dangoball]

Patton, 'cause he liberated my city!
...
And because I don't know anyone else from the poll

 

[Albino Boo]

I have always believed that Patton is overrated. He only achieved results against a numerically smaller and badly supplied enemy. Its easy to win when you the deck is stacked in your favour. Its hard to avoid the conclusion the people under his command were just things to be sacrificed to the greater glory of George S Patton.

The legend that has grown up around Rommel is largely due to the fact he is perceived as uncontaminated by Nazism and the holocaust. He was a good general, but not great one. If he had the same advantages as Patton, Rommel would have almost certainly beaten Monty. Rommel was a strong supporter of Hitler until the Germans started to lose and he then turned against Hitler. The Germany the Rommel wanted was not about freedom and democracy but the return to rule by the Prussian military aristocracy. This included the shooting of communists and imprisonment of democrats.

Von Manstein and Zhukov were both great organizers and planers. Zhukov plans had to be a lot simpler because the red army was not capable of the same level of tactical fineness. If Manstein and Zhukov had swapped armies the plans would ended up looking pretty much the same. However both are morally comprised by the participation in one of the top 4 biggest mass murdering regimes in human history.


Almost by default Omar Bradley gets my vote. Bradley cared about the men under his command and didn't want to throw away their lives pointlessly. Patton became one of his sub commanders, effectively Pattons victories post 44 were only possible because of Bradleys decisions. He had none of the drama queen tics of Patton and Monty. Bradley of course came from the US, a county with no concentration camps or gulags and isn't comprised by involvement in a totalitarian state.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

The legend that has grown up around Rommel is largely due to the fact he is perceived as uncontaminated by Nazism and the holocaust. He was a good general, but not great one. If he had the same advantages as Patton, Rommel would have almost certainly beaten Monty. Rommel was a strong supporter of Hitler until the Germans started to lose and he then turned against Hitler. The Germany the Rommel wanted was not about freedom and democracy but the return to rule by the Prussian military aristocracy. This included the shooting of communists and imprisonment of democrats.

It's been said that Rommel's real advantage was the institutional superiority of the Wehrmacht compared to the opposition. So as you say, if those at home had invested more troops into the Africa campaign in the first place he would've won through superior troops alone, heedless of his (overblown) ability as a general.

A good British candidate would be General Bill Slim, who probably doesn't get the recognition others do because his war was mostly in South-East Asia, while Europe and North Africa have typically gotten the most attention.

 

[Shock and Awe]

snip

I will say this about Rommel, the man was a good tactician, but a god awful strategist and had little mind for logistics. While he did make an impressive offensive against the British in North Africa he just took swaths of land. He did not take the ports that he would need to supply his army. This means he would have to call on a logistics train that was way longer then ideal. Even in tactics he was bested by Montgomery three times in a row.

He then went on to oversee the Atlantic Wall which was the most time consuming and expensive building project of the war...and the most useless.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Bradley of course came from the US, a county with no concentration camps or gulags and isn't comprised by involvement in a totalitarian state.

*can't tell if sarcastic* Still, American Civil War begs to differ (regarding concentration camps).

...

OT: Y'know, I've rather given up trying to figure out which general was the best during WWII. All had their various strengths and weaknesses, whether they were inherent in their personalities, their political situation, the military tradition of the nation that they served, the forces at their disposal and so on and so forth. Not to mention how they can be compared, whether as individuals, their approaches to leadership, delegation, treatment of subordinates/enemies, tactical/operational/strategic acumen, political nous, logistical skill, foresight and the abilities of their CoS's & QMG's.

As a whole, though, I'm inclined to go for Rommel (ably supported by Dr Hans Speidel... at times). Mainly for lasting as long as he did in North Africa and keeping it one of the cleanest fights of WWII, had he Montgomery's level of support from Berlin, then he likely would've won and been set up in Cairo well before the Americans landed in Tunisia (or at least I think it was Tunisia).

Rommel, both for his ability as a general and as an honorable man. Under his command, the Akricakorps was never accused of war crimes and he was involved in the plot to overthrow Hitler.

Actually, he wasn't, but he was heavily inplicated because Wilhelm Bittrich (who was tacitly supporting the plot, but not directly involved) pledged his 2nd SS PzCorps to Rommel if the latter took the Fuhrer's role upon a successful coup. However, Rommel declined to be party to it.

 

[Albino Boo]

It's been said that Rommel's real advantage was the institutional superiority of the Wehrmacht compared to the opposition. So as you say, if those at home had invested more troops into the Africa campaign in the first place he would've won through superior troops alone, heedless of his (overblown) ability as a general.

A good British candidate would be General Bill Slim, who probably doesn't get the recognition others do because his war was mostly in South-East Asia, while Europe and North Africa have typically gotten the most attention.

As you say the Wehrmacht was institutional superior, the Prussian military aristocracy formed the officer core and its oft forgotten that Hitler youth gave military from age 12. The average German 18 year old already had 6 years of part time training under his belt. Any general with such an army would do well.

Bill Slims Burma campaign was well run and he achieved victory with limited supplies, in difficult terrain, with some troops of doubtful reliability and against a battle hardened enemy. Its a great shame that the whole 14th army is largely forgotten.



Personally, I think Wavells North African campaign against a larger better supplied enemy marks him down as one the better British generals. If he hadn't been stripped of planes and tanks for the disastrous Greek campaign, he would have made it to Tripoli at least and the legend of Rommel would have never been born.

captcha meet your waterloo

 

[Aulleas123]

Ok, I voted for Patton because I believed that he was one of the generals who saw the big picture of what was going on and what could go on after the war had ended. However, I have to ask, why wasn't Eisenhower put anywhere on this poll? I'm not sure if I would've voted for him before Patton, but I have to admit that Eisenhower was a very talented general who matched his strategic mind with a political charisma which brought many sides together to plan out one of the largest military operations in human history. All I have to say is give credit where credit is due.

 

[Kitsune Hunter]

The Desert Fox, Rommel, a genius and an honorable man, him and his men never committed war crimes, I mean even his enemies found it hard not to like him or at least admire his tactician skills and of course he tried to kill Hitler, shame how it ended though

 

[Frankster]

Rommel is winning that badly?
Bunch of poseurs who know your history by media products rather then actual history ¬¬

Rommel was awesome in a lot of ways, but he comes nowhere close to being the "greatest" general, he was a beast of a leader of men and a tactical genius but not a strategical genius and certainly not anywhere near Eric Von Mannstein.

Patton and Montgomery being on the list is also facepalm worthy. Apart from patriotic reasons there is 0 reason to put them above the german leaders besides that they were on the winning side and history is written by the victors so have been lionised.

 

[ParanoidEngineer]

Monty because I'm a patriot
Also, considering that he managed to beat Rommel, who (according to the poll) was the best general in the whole war, proves he was an extremely competant general (glossing over the fact that he won the second battle of El Alamein because Rommel was visiting his wife at the time).