Poll: WWII Military Leaders

[Frankster]

However, your criticism of Rommel as a poor manager is perhaps a little unfair, because he was caught between a rock and a hard place since supplies were shipped from Italy and were generally few and far between (with regards to hardware), so he sort of had to make a charge for Cairo out of necessity. (I'll have to read up on that to check.)

Always nice to see unbiased history fans

Whilst I might have slightly exagerated Rommel's shortcomings, most of what I read really does suggest that his problems In Afrika came from pushing too fast, too soon.

A fair few german generals argued the neccesity to secure a steady supply line but Rommel didn't listen , he instead kept pushing and this is what lead to his supply problems.
He simply didn't grasp the logistical problems he would have if he overextended and ignored the requests to not go past certain lines, lines defined because other german generals knew going past them would make supplying forces difficult.

By the time Rommel realized just how much supplies would be a problem, he relied on Germany sending him more help, but they simply didn't give a damn about Africa by that point, saw it as a secondary theatre since they were focused on Barborossa and Rommel's unpopularity with elements of german high command sealed the decision to leave him with what he got.

Don't get me wrong, Rommel=awesome and his conduct was admirable throughout the war, but a german general with a better grasp of the "bigger picture" rather then one who is happiest leading his troops on breakthroughs, would (very hypothetically of course) have handled Africa better, maybe not in the short term due to unwilligness to push like Rommel did (and to be fair, he very almost did succeed in breaking the british line entirely), but in the long term would have dealt with the supply line problem, leading to a stronger force when the Allied reinforcements came (by then, Rommel only had 250 tanks left out of his original 1000!)

Rommel, Montgomery and Patton all get far too much credit and their reputations are massively overblown. None of these three should come anywhere near a list of the greatest military commanders of WW2.

Agree x3. It makes me sad when people quote these 3 names more then others, except for the occasional person who can back up his bias with some historical arguments, this is a result of media influence and mild propaganda (films tend to glorify those 3 to the point of ridiculousness)

 

[Kair]

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

Hitler wasn't the one who orchestrated the invasions, he just approved or denied them. It was later in the war when he decided to play general that Germany was really bound to lose the war.

 

[ntw3001]

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).

On further study, okay.

[quote-"Wikipedia"]Nonetheless, a writer's siccing of his or her own words may lead readers to confuse the source of the sic as being the book's editor and is often considered strange even when the sic's source is understood.[/quote]

Internet says it's technically okay, but still weird . I feel justified in assuming it was a case of incorrect use. The more I know.

 

[Treblaine]

You're right, and I think that the reason they both looked past everything that could go wrong was because they were both so eager to end the war as quickly as possible and they let that eagerness cloud their judgement.

Thanks for your support. Although if you agree with me, I also urge you to read the discussion I've been having with Sckizoboy and Treblaine, as they offer some insightful analysis concerning this situation.

Just a final comment on what Treblaine said in the post after yours:

But the problem with Market Garden was time.

Time is indeed our greatest enemy. And in these kind of situations, I guess we should count ourselves lucky that we had such brilliant minds to make these sort of decisions; leading to a favourable victory in the end.

Time was imperative in so many ways.

It was a race between the Soviets and Western allies, Britain had joined the war over Germany invading Poland, something the USSR had done at the exact same time. Now they were going to seize more of Eastern Europe...

Elections were looming in both Britain and America, turns out though FDR would make it Churchill did not.

The economic situation was tense, how much longer could this go on? America was completely dependant on war-bonds and the consent of the public, Britain's debt was spiralling out of control.

But worst of all - though it was not entirely apparent outside of the Nazi hierarchy - was the Death Camps. The Nazis sensed the end was coming accelerated their "Final Solution" death camps murdered as many as 10'000 people per day.

Market garden was conceived on the idea of saving precious time, to win the war quickly by taking advantage of the brief time period that Germany was on the run from Normandy. But Time was its failing, the western allies clearly needed a solid plan to be successful.

Time is such a vital factor for conflict:

The Russian Winter put the brakes on Barbarossa, time for USSR to reinforce and respond.

The SAS's storming of Iranian Embassy, they had the time to train meticulously but more so the Japanese Embassy Hostage Crisis broken by Peruvian commandos, hardly the most renowned special forces in the work but the formed a good plan, trained to perfection and executed it competently to a resounding success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_embassy_hostage_crisis#The_military_solution

Back to WWII, D-day was an incredibly bold operation but was a success thanks to the best planning and deception.

 

[winter2]

I doubt it. Everybody knows Monty is vastly overrated as a commander.

* runs away *

Yes, run over to me, I can rant all day about how Montgomery was an arrogant entitled self-involved irreverent unrepentant twit...

Funnily enough I read something about Mony in todays Times... Apparently he once reportedly opened a reading of the Gospel with the words, "And the Lord said unto Moses, and, in my opinion, quite rightly"

Just how conceited can one be???

 

[tsb247]

Germany had some brilliant strategists during WWII. However, Adolf Hitler was his own worst enemy when it came to getting things done on the battlefield. Hell, the man slept through the D-day invasions!

 

[Duffeknol]

Stalin won the war with one order: 'not one step backwards'. He got a shitzillion of his troops killed, but it was the only way to win the war. Brutal. Heartless. Efficient.

 

[SckizoBoy]

snip

Quite so... though one thing I forgot... he had to command the Italians as well, who were a reluctant bunch to say the least, and their materiel supply situation was even worse. A headache one could do without. Still, it's true, Rommel was a brilliant tactician, but (while not poor) an insufficient strategist, and here is a massive if: what if, at the Second Battle of El Alamein, he wasn't hospitalised in Germany? *scratches head* I think that his continual need to be in both tactical and overall command of the front (as Auchinleck was, which ultimately lead to his demise) cost his army, there was no-one to cover for him. Montgomery had General Alexander, at least...

semantics snip (!)

What a bizarre discussion we're having in the middle of a series of military history debates. Still, to be fair, when I started using 'sic' in general text, I did indeed misuse it, and it's turned into a strange habit (self-siccing, that is).

Funnily enough I read something about Mony in todays Times... Apparently he once reportedly opened a reading of the Gospel with the words, "And the Lord said unto Moses, and, in my opinion, quite rightly"

Just how conceited can one be???

Quite so... I've never really understood why people big him up so much. I've heard his speeches (really really old archive footage) and they're rubbish. Granted, it's all propaganda (all WWII speeches were hate/'inpiration'-filled patriotic propaganda), but his delivery is unassured, he doesn't sound charismatic in the slightest and what he says does justice neither to his own troops nor that of the enemy (propaganda 101, big up your enemy so when you kick his ass, you knock him down even further). A lot of the content was just puerile insults and vague statements. You could probably get a better speech out of a high school teacher FFS!

Also, his memoirs (published in 1958) pissed off every allied commander still alive, without exception. Go figure...

 

[Nerdstar]

Stalin won the war with one order: 'not one step backwards'. He got a shitzillion of his troops killed, but it was the only way to win the war. Brutal. Heartless. Efficient.

that by its very definition this is not efficient. not only were those plans indefeasible(as someone earlier pointed out he failed to use the abundance of Russian space), the idea of efficacy is to make a plan and execute while losing as few men as possible,and using /losing as few supplies as possible. this dos not describes Stalin at all whose main tactic was to throw men into the meat grinder and hope for the best.

 

[Duffeknol]

Stalin won the war with one order: 'not one step backwards'. He got a shitzillion of his troops killed, but it was the only way to win the war. Brutal. Heartless. Efficient.

that by its very definition this is not efficient. not only were those plans indefeasible(as someone earlier pointed out he failed to use the abundance of Russian space), the idea of efficacy is to make a plan and execute while losing as few men as possible,and using /losing as few supplies as possible. this dos not describes Stalin at all whose main tactic was to throw men into the meat grinder and hope for the best.

Honestly it just depends on your definition of efficient. American and British losses were lamentable, and losing men was horrible and should be prevented. From a Russian point of view losses didn't even matter. Men were numbers, resources to be spent and used up. When your tactic is simply to sacrifice the one thing you have an abundance of, and you win, that's efficiency for the Soviets.

Lesson 1 in university history: always think from their own point of view.

 

[Nerdstar]

Stalin won the war with one order: 'not one step backwards'. He got a shitzillion of his troops killed, but it was the only way to win the war. Brutal. Heartless. Efficient.

that by its very definition this is not efficient. not only were those plans indefeasible(as someone earlier pointed out he failed to use the abundance of Russian space), the idea of efficacy is to make a plan and execute while losing as few men as possible,and using /losing as few supplies as possible. this dos not describes Stalin at all whose main tactic was to throw men into the meat grinder and hope for the best.

Honestly it just depends on your definition of efficient. American and British losses were lamentable, and losing men was horrible and should be prevented. From a Russian point of view losses didn't even matter. Men were numbers, resources to be spent and used up. When your tactic is simply to sacrifice the one thing you have an abundance of, and you win, that's efficiency for the Soviets.

Lesson 1 in university history: always think from their own point of view.

efficiency: doing things in the most economical way (good input to output ratio)

its not a matter of perspective, even if you view troops just as "resources" the idea still holds true and that is to use as few resources as possible to obtain your goal. getting " a shitzillion of troops killed" is by no means effeict method of obtaining an objective a brutal one yes,but an effective one, no. I'm not taking about this from a moral standpoint I'm speaking from a logistical one.

you need men to fight, if you have more you have a better chance of winning, if you have equipment your men can fight and thus win, training troops to be effective is both time and resource consuming,add to that there equipment and the like. simply put a "meat grinder" tactic is not the most efficient way to win it may have been the only option available to Stalin at times but all and all its not the way to really in a war

 

[Duffeknol]

Stalin won the war with one order: 'not one step backwards'. He got a shitzillion of his troops killed, but it was the only way to win the war. Brutal. Heartless. Efficient.

that by its very definition this is not efficient. not only were those plans indefeasible(as someone earlier pointed out he failed to use the abundance of Russian space), the idea of efficacy is to make a plan and execute while losing as few men as possible,and using /losing as few supplies as possible. this dos not describes Stalin at all whose main tactic was to throw men into the meat grinder and hope for the best.

Honestly it just depends on your definition of efficient. American and British losses were lamentable, and losing men was horrible and should be prevented. From a Russian point of view losses didn't even matter. Men were numbers, resources to be spent and used up. When your tactic is simply to sacrifice the one thing you have an abundance of, and you win, that's efficiency for the Soviets.

Lesson 1 in university history: always think from their own point of view.

efficiency: doing things in the most economical way (good input to output ratio)

its not a matter of perspective, even if you view troops just as "resources" the idea still holds true and that is to use as few resources as possible to obtain your goal. getting " a shitzillion of troops killed" is by no means effeict method of obtaining an objective a brutal one yes,but an effective one, no. I'm not taking about this from a moral standpoint I'm speaking from a logistical one.

you need men to fight, if you have more you have a better chance of winning, if you have equipment your men can fight and thus win, training troops to be effective is both time and resource consuming,add to that there equipment and the like. simply put a "meat grinder" tactic is not the most efficient way to win it may have been the only option available to Stalin at times but all and all its not the way to really in a war

Actually, it did win him the war.
See, the first batches of frontline troops were worthless farmers. They weren't given proper weapons nor proper gear (we've all seen Enemy at the Gates or at least played Stalingrad in Call of Duty 1). The giant waves of worthless men were used to soak up fire and deplete German ammunition. The ones that eventually survived were soldiers worth equipping with actual weapons, ammo and gear. Since they didn't have much to spare (before the allied weapon shipments, at least), they needed to at least make sure that the things they didn't have a lot of got spent well. Sacrificing the 'shitzillion' soldiers was actually beneficent for the Soviet cause. It was a brilliant move. The same tactics were later used during the tank battles. No Russian tank could match a Tiger, but 100 Russian tanks could. Solution: meatgrinder. When it doesn't matter how much you lose, and it's the quickest way to win, that's efficient.

As for input/output ratio. You need to think of the value of things.
1 Tiger for the Germans is not equivalent to one T-34 for the Soviets. Sure they're both one tanks, but for the Germans 1 Tiger = a crapton of resources. For the Soviets one tank = only, say, 0.1 resource.
So losing 10 tanks to destroy one Tiger = still higher output ratio for the Soviets.

 

[elbrandino]

I'd say Germany. I don't know a ton about all of the commanders in World War II, but I do know Germany had some damn good generals. Unfortunately, they also had the misfortune of having to answer to Hitler. And as a military commander, Hitler was a complete idiot.

 

[Xhuliano Pula]

They attacked the USSR to early. They should have dealt with England and maked sure Japan was not going to attack the USA and focus on China while getting ready for attack on USSR. They should have attacked Russia from the Mid-east, Japan and from Europe. Also the mass murder of workers didn't help. Killing thousands of people in Ukraine(which was PRO NAZI!!! and was ready to fight aganist Stalin) made Millions more people hate him. He was a horrible (military) leader. He never listen to some of the greatest generals of our time (AKA Rommel). Nazi Germany SHOULD HAVE WON. As much as we hate them. They could have easily won. Lets just thank God (or whatever you believe in) they lost.

 

[Hatter]

"...It was a combination of bad luck and ego's bigger then that of an average American that Operation Barbarossa failed..."

Whoa... Excuse me? My ego is unrivaled.

OT: Germany was good no doubt, but I just don't see them coming out successfully even if Hitler was taken out of the picture.

 

[nima55]

I hope Im the first to say this, but
Escapist, You magnificent bastard, I read your ARTICLE

 

[owen4evr]

Russia falling back made the Nazis cocky and over-confident great plan.

 

[Henkie36]

Whoa... Excuse me? My ego is unrivaled.

OT: Germany was good no doubt, but I just don't see them coming out successfully even if Hitler was taken out of the picture.

Well, it was Hitlers idea to stop ad conquer the Ukrain instead of Moscow. Hitlers idea to keep sending waves of Luftwaffe into Britain ruther then everything in one go. Hitlers idea to grind the production of tanks and airplanes to a halt since the Soviet Union had been defeated, 400 km from Moscow. I could go on like this for some considerable time.

Roosevelt, Churchill Stalin and Hitler didn't have any strategic insight. But the first three left the strategics up to their generals, while Hitler insisted on doing it himself. Guess the creed ''if you want something done, do it yourself'' didn't work in this case.

 

[SckizoBoy]

I hope Im the first to say this, but
Escapist, You magnificent bastard, I read your ARTICLE

... uh... what? *confused*

Germany was good no doubt, but I just don't see them coming out successfully even if Hitler was taken out of the picture.

That's one of the many 'ifs' that I enjoy debating about. Because factoring out Hitler means a radically different foreign policy... or replacing him with a similar but perhaps toned down nationalist whose patience might've made a difference.

If Germany had managed to politically stall everyone until 1945... *shrug* (1945 because Germany would've, by then, had a navy that could contend Japan, which would include the KM Graf Zeppelin). However, it's all speculation... still fun, tho.

 

[John the Gamer]

Germany, although Finland (winter war) also comes to mind. Russia didn't do to bad, but most of it's leaders were dead...so...yeah.