Poll: WWII Military Leaders

[Yan Hunt]

like it or not the british empire covered a third of the entire world and dominated all the worlds trade. no country or ruler has ever controlled more than that.

the best general - bill slim

who he? the mastermind behind the burmese campaign of wwii. he brought victory against impossible odds shattering two japanese armies with superior tactics and determination. no one has ever really done more with less (unless they had a massive technological advantage which he didn't).

 

[Farther than stars]

Rommel, only thing standing between him and victory was Hitler. Lucky us I guess.

Yeah, but if Hitler hadn't been there, none of this would have started, right? >.>

(I know someone will disagree with me there, which is why I dislike all this "what if" business so much. Using causality as a method of prediction is futile in situations as complex as these.)

How about I agree instead?
All the alternative scenarios are especially pointless once you remember that the US had nukes by the end of the war.
Germany could have conquered the Soviet Union (it couldn't) and even held its ground in the West?
All those fancy generation 0 jet engines could have brought back air superiority? (no)
Amazing, but then Berlin and just about everything would have been flattened anyway.

Oh yeah, definitly, I agree with what you're saying. My point is more that Hitler was the cause for the war, so dispite what he did to harm the strength of the German army, it never would have mattered if he had never been there at all.
Although I do have to admit, German military leadership was rather well organised (why wouldn't it be, their dictatorship allowed for a strong obidience to hierarchy) and that's probably why they fought so efficiently for so long against the masses of the Allied Forces. In the end though, the Allies still outdid them tactically.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Germany. If Hitler didn't go completly off the deep end and execute most of his generals and made bone-head move after bone-head move, we'd all be speaking German. Heck we shouldn't hate him so much, you guys couldn't have won WW2 without him! Granted WW2 would have probably been started by Stalin then...

 

[DSK-]

Germany. It still makes me laugh that the Germans went around the Maginot line by going through the Ardennes and then using paratroopers to take over the 'impregnable' fort and then turn it's guns on France.

The British were competent, however due to the development of tanks technology as more of a troop support role - compared to the breakthrough charge doctrine epitomised by the likes of the German 'PuLK' - and as a result their utility was pretty limited when going up against German panzers.

Then again, both sides were able to adapt and adopt tactics to counter the other.

Having said that, Goering and Monty were both idiots, more so Goering though.

 

[teebeeohh]

Britain, Germany may have had better commanders but they were hamstrung by ideological bullshit.
and the guy who won the war for the US in the pacific was apparently very good but i don't know a lot about that theater.

 

[HerrBobo]

I'm at home for once, and my boredom requires alleviating.

Question: who, in your (esteemed (sic)) opinion, was the most talented (open to interpretation) commander (any service) during the Second World War?

WRT the poll, I wanted to get Finland in there somewhere... sorry.

EDIT: *peeved* NO POLITICIANS... sorry... I'd rather responses detailed those with some justification of (repeated) strategic/operational/tactical acumen beyond vague grand strategic decisions (I'm looking at you Churchill! You may have been John's biographer, but you'll never be John!).

Over all, I think Germany just pips it. They had fantastic land and naval command, but their air command was weak.

The best individual commander though was a Russian; Georgy Zhukov. No one man did more to defeat the Germans.

 

[thecoreyhlltt]

wat to go germany, clean sweep!

i says lil hitler as well

 

[FllippinIDIOT]

i can't choose. most of these nations had their fair share of terrific generals.

 

[Sansha]

Germany.

Rommel and Donitz were geniuses... too bad Hitler was a lunatic and ordered all military deployments must be approved by him first. Too bad he was asleep during the D-Day landings.

Britain, Germany may have had better commanders but they were hamstrung by ideological bullshit.
and the guy who won the war for the US in the pacific was apparently very good but i don't know a lot about that theater.

That'd be Chester Nimitz.

 

[laidtorest195]

I would honestly love to say Canada but unfortunately our leaders were not nearly as strong and brave as our soldiers were. So i have to say the Germans, the Americans and Russians I personally believe didn't have the quote-unquote "sack" that the Germans did. The Germans had some very daring plans and to be fair most of them worked out well, they went all in on everything that they did whereas the Americans played a very defensive game and the Russians just through mass amounts of armies at whomever looked at them funny, so my vote goes to the Germans.

 

[DarkArk]

I really don't think you can separate the political and military leadership and judge them separately in this kind of debate. Hitler, Stalin, and FDR were all the commanders-in-chief of their respective militaries. In which case FDR was easily the best, because he interfered in matters he did not understand the least.

Overall I would say the US. The US easily had the best admirals of the war. Admirals Nimitz, Halsey, King, et al did a fantastic job defeating the naval forces of the Axis nations and ensuring that the US could get supplies and troops where they needed to go. This was instrumental to the Allied war effort and could not have been completed without them.

Yamamoto had the problem of constructing large set piece operations where none of the various pieces could support each other. If there had been BB and CA anti-aircraft guns defending the carriers at Midway it would have been a different story, but instead they were 600 miles away.

I'd say the best overall ground commander was Zhukov. He was crucial to defending all three cities (Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad) and without him the Soviet Union would have likely crumbled in late '41. He was then very successful on the offensive.

Rommel had the problem of never seeing the grand strategy of what he was doing. Sure he could win in North Africa, but his constant demands for troops that could be better used elsewhere show a commander who should have not been sent to backwater fronts where you will always get second rate equipment and troops. Frankly North Africa wasn't that important and Germany never should have sent many troops there, focusing more on the Soviet Union. To me Guderian and Von Manstein were better overall commanders. Guderian invented modern blitzkrieg after all.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Do the officers who were killed in Stalin's Purges count towards the Soviets? If so, then the USSR. If not, I'd give it a tie between Germany and the USA.

Although, special mention goes to the Chinese leaders. Once they got their heads out of their asses and started actually using the things Germany, and later the Soviets, gave them, they easily reclaimed their occupied territories.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Germany until 1942 theeeeen America until the end of the war

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Also it was an American General Eisenhower who was in overall command of the Allies in Europe and he did a damn good job of getting the best out of the American, British and Other commanders. That is a significant strategic achievement, to arrive late and jsut take charge so effectively.

Yeah, but don't forget it was also Eisenhower who let Operation Market Garden fail to such a drastically extent, which arguably caused the war in the western theatre to go on for about another six months.

But that was all Montgomery's idea and plan

 

[Dasrufken]

Possibly Hitler; he had the most success, until he invaded Russia. The shit hit the fan after that.

With risk of being repetetive due too me being to lazy to see if anyone has corrected you (sorry if someone has...) I would like to inform you that Hitler was a tactical retard. A good political leader yes but utterly useless as a military commander.

It is extremly fortunate for the world that it was not Rommel, Himmler or Göring who was in power.

Definetly Germany.
The mistake was Invading Russia.
If NAPOLEON didn't make it, why do you think YOU can pull it off?
Why make the risk? Invade Britain!

Oh and Napoleon actually managed to successfully invade Russia and conquer Moscow. On paper he had complete control of Russia, but since its such a big country it is impossible for him to control in practice.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I'm gonna say America. Sure, they may have won and lost, but a lot of was split decision and guts the commanders displayed made much a of a difference, especially in the Pacific Theatre.

Now I'm not saying the other generals were any worse, or that there werent better. But I just think that the American drive to just keep going forward but them on a better egde,

 

[octafish]

Rommel, only thing standing between him and victory was Hitler. Lucky us I guess.

And the Australian 9th Division.

like it or not the british empire covered a third of the entire world and dominated all the worlds trade. no country or ruler has ever controlled more than that.

the best general - bill slim

who he? the mastermind behind the burmese campaign of wwii. he brought victory against impossible odds shattering two japanese armies with superior tactics and determination. no one has ever really done more with less (unless they had a massive technological advantage which he didn't).

Although to be fair, he did have a regiment of Gurkhas under his command, and no-one fucks with a Gurkha.

 

[Rems]

I'd have to give this to Germany. It is from their tactics and designs that a lot of conventional modern warfare based on today. eg-assault rifles, mbts, combined arms theory. Other nations had some great commanders such as Zukhov or Patton but German commanders brought a whole new way of waging war into the light and showed true innovation (at least pre 42).

That said for greatest commander of all time: Subutai. The man was Genghis Khan's main general and directed more than twenty campaigns, winning over 65 pitched battles and conquering 32 nations. No one else has ever done that. He perfectly co ordinated attacks hundreds of miles apart at a time where messenger horse was the fastest method of communication.

So the best general of the largest land empire ever forged, all done in the Middle Ages, yea i think Subotai wins.

Also ironically enough for all his strategic ineptitude Hitler did win the Iron Cross, Germany's highest military honour for bravery, in the First World War.

 

[Squilookle]

A general is only as good as his troops. So Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Nepal have the best WW2 leaders. Mostly Nepal.

I'm intrigued- what did Nepal get up to that impressed you so much?

 

[SckizoBoy]

I don't want to be a dick, but (sic) doesn't really seem to belong here. It means 'such', and means that an error is directly copied from the original source of a quotation rather than any fault of the writer. The more you know, and such.

That's only one of the uses of the 'sic'. Errors may not necessarily be grammatical, punctuation or spelling based. Where none is evident, it is used to denote factual or logical slips.

My use was purely for levity, since I respect the generally high level of earnest intellect/sophistry that pervades the Escapist that does not receive the esteem that it deserves.

In the above sentence, you may find cause to insert a (sic).