The best general of the eastern front?

But of course there is. Their are two main problems though.
1) Coming up with a good and acceptable definition of "best"
2) Evaluating the various generals vs said definition.

 

I have big problems with the reply function:it does not function

 

I can't post something longer than 2 sentences,thus I will do it in several posts

 

All generals commanded different units,had different missions,were fighting in different situations,and were opposed by different enemy formations:all comparisons are flawed:it is like compare Pele to Beckham .There also is the fact that all decisions were a collective work and were a reaction to enemy pressure.

 

All generals commanded different units,had different missions,were fighting in different situations,and were opposed by different enemy formations:all comparisons are flawed:it is like compare Pele to Beckham .There also is the fact that all decisions were a collective work and were a reaction to enemy pressure.

 

Who was better:the CoS of AGC(Greiffenberg) ot the commander of the 12th PzD (Harpe) ?
It is always comparing apples with lemons.

 

Who was better :Guderian,Hoth,Kleist,Hoeppner?

 

There were 19 PzD on the East front in 1941:who had the best commander ?

 

First give me a good definition of "best". What are the criteria and what are the weights? Oh by the way make sure there is some reasonable way to evaluate the generals vs the criteria.

 

As there is no good definition,no criteria to use,and as an evaluation is impossible ,the logical conclusion is that "the best general on the eastern front" is a non sequitur,a waste of time.
BTW:my question was rhetorical.

 

Isn't there? It very much depends on why the question is asked. Depending on what a person is interested in I could see a number of good definitions. The important part is choosing a reasonable one.

If you choose a reasonable defintion of best it will imply at least some of the critieria. Some may be more difficult to measure or be more subjective but that's not the same as saying they don't exist.

But of course it isn't.

Givne that your argument is based on fallacies your conclusion is suspect. Indeed even without a good definition a discussion on a topic such as this can be useful especially if it is well reasoned and rational.

Which one?

 

Posts 106,107,108=no one can answer these questions :no one can say that any of the following was better than the other ones :Guderian,Kleist,Hoth,Hoeppner:each of them was fighting in different circumstances with different forces against different opposing forces,and,during different periods:Guderian was fired in december 1941,Kleist in march 1944:this alone is sufficient to make any comparison between both a non sequitur .
And,this is only for the Germans :how could one compare Zjoekow with Manstein ? Zjoekow was chief of staff,Manstein commanded an army group.A comparison Halder/Zjoekow also is flawed.

 

Well, at least Hitler´s favourites were Schörner, Model, Manstein ( until March 1944 ) , Steiner, Sepp Dietrich...and Model probably was his biggest favourite.

 

But of course they can.

That's hardly correct indeed I will prove you wrong:
Kleist was the best. See! As for why well I just happen to like his name more.
Alternativly one could base it on LER and perhpas weight offensive and defensive LER's. If you think the Red Army got better each year weight calculate LER's for each year and weight by year. Perhpas add in an MOE for ground lost or gained. With that defintion one can certainly evaluate them. If one wanted a more general answer one could then calculate at what point say the assigned weights changed the answer.

It makes a rational comparison more difficult but no impossible. Indeed time in service before being fired might be a useful MOE in and of itself.

Similar scemes to the above could be used. The comparisons can be made and the process should grant some insight. The problem is that people often thing the results mean more than they really do.

 

Simple definition, Gentlemen....results as compared to casualties sustained. For this reason the Soviets look like butchers. For the numbers involved, their German counterparts were far more effective.

One criteria we are ignoring is command level. Divisional commanders have an entirely different role and function to corps/armee'. Some commanders function better at lower levels of command, and stink when given the Army Command. Generals like Rommel were better at divisional command, for instance. But Rommel was not an Eastern Front commander, so I'm just using him as an example.

Many so called "good" commanders could still give questionable advice. Manstein, for example, was a supporter of the Sixth Armee's "kessel" strategy, preferring that it should hold fast while a 'fire brigade' column would bust it's way in to relieve the seige. Given the support of Manstein for this idea, it's painful to look at his performance during the subsequent releif attempt, timidly turning back and leaving the Sixth Army to it's fate, then blaming these circumstances on Goring for his assurances that the necessary supply tonnage could be ferried in by air.

A quick look at the figures for numbers of servicable Luftwaffe transport aircraft, (and the fighters to cover such an operation) should have told Manstein all he needed to know about the Sixth Army's chances of holding their position while the operation was in progress. Blaming his own lack of performance on Goring was typical of Manstein, and other East Front generals. They ALL, at some stage, blamed their own operational lack of results on the High Command. At the end of the war, too, they blamed the High Command for their own culpability in the atrocities committed by the Army as a whole in Russia. Many commanders were co-operating wholeheartedly with the SS, especially when it came to implementation of the notorious 'Commisar Directive'.

Funny how, as a group, these people would have gotten the lions share of the credit in the unlikely case of a German victory in the East. I'm sure as hell they would have stood in rank and file to receive the medals and citations, so why they couldn't shoulder a large proportion of the blame as well escapes me entirely.

 

General Ponomorenko-for setting the Axis rear on fire; Axis History Forum • View topic - Partisans in Belarus

 

Definitely not the greatest but deserves a mention-
General Mikhail Grigoryevich Yefremov. The man refused to leave his troops and was the only Russian general that I know of that was buried by the Germans with Full Military Honors.

 

Zhukov definitely-if for only one word and that word is "MOSCOW."
JeffinMNUSA

 

Among Nazis 1)von Manstein and 2)Model. Model was great in Moscow counteroffensive and Rzhev battles,the generall for messy situations one can relly on. But Mansteins work was IMO most exciting,he had that touch of a genius, combined with aggresion and risk taking.Results were most brilliant victories of blitzkrieg like France or Crimea.
Among Soviets its very hard to decide among Chuikov,Rokossovsky,Konew,Katukov,Malinovsky and others but my choise would still be Zhukov.Because of Leningrad and Moscow already on the werge of colapse.Because of his involment in Stalingrad offensive, planing the trap at Kursk (persuading Stalin to let the Germans attack), planning Bagration etc.. Very common critics about Zhukov are that he was ruthless to his man and used unsofisticated tactics to hammer the Germans with no regard of loss of lifes.While this is true to some extent, one must bare in mind that his job was to win in mortal struggle to the death by all means and with assets at his disposal. These assets were very crude in 41/42 and he had the guts to use the soviet army as a cumbersome club when this was the optimal course(tying enemy forses with costly attacks to achive succes elsvere or orders to die where you stand if needed to halt the enemy),because the red army in that time just couldn't implement in the field,for many practical reasons,the sofisticated doctrines of mobile modern warfere that were clear to many comanders, espetially Zhukov(which he proved as early as 1939 at Halkin Gol and many times later).

 

@arca:
Great post with clear explanations. I still wonder why you omit Aleksandr Vasilevsky from the best generals. I am aware that it is impossible to compare him on the consistent basis with others but his contributions were significant.