The best general of the XX century...

Friedrich · #1 (**permalink**) July 15th, 2002, 06:16 PM

Hallo, gentlemen!

I have been curious for a long time about this thread. And talking to Mussolini of board I decided to do it. He said that Rommel was, but my opinion is that he is far away from being the best German general, much further of being the best of WWII and in no-way the best of the XX century... I have heard that Erich von Manstein was the best general of the XX century according to some books and historians which I shall not name now.

What is your opinion? I will post mine later.

C.Evans · #2 (**permalink**) July 15th, 2002, 08:20 PM

Hard to say--and it depends in what capacity. In battle--had most of these generals had their way--it would be impossible to choose. For a few in my opinions--Rommel and Manstein and Model.

For defensiveminded and caring generals--Gotthard Heinrici and Weildling come to mind.

dasreich · #3 (**permalink**) July 15th, 2002, 08:55 PM

THE best...thats a hard question. My personal favorite is Rommel, because he worked brilliantly with the lack of men, supplies, and decent allies he had in North Africa. Kesselring was pretty good too, though. And then of course theres Patton, McArthur, Marshall...I guess what I'm trying to say is, most major wars occurred in the XX century, producing an incredibly large and varied group of great generals. Its hard to pick one who is a cut above the rest.

Martin Bull · #4 (**permalink**) July 15th, 2002, 09:12 PM

von Manstein immediately comes to mind. . . . . although if I sat and thought for a few minutes longer I expect several others would qualify. This one is not easy.

Friedrich · #5 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 12:54 AM

Erich von Manstein comes to my mind. Why? Here are my reasons:
1. He was an awesome infantry commander (he was an infantry officer, what else do you need?)
2. He was an awesome armour commander even if he did not have much experience (watch at Khárkov)
3. He was an awesome artillery commander (watch at Sebastopol)

So, the man commanded awesomely these three types of forces.

But there is more:

4. He was an awesome division and corps commander, always at the front with his men.
5. He was an excellent chief of staff, planning major offensives and planning the logistics (look at the "Sichelschnitt")
6. He was an awesome army or army group commander, leading large number of troops and performing major offensives.

7. Good defensive tactician.

8. Awesome ofensive tactician.

9. Innovative tactician.

10. Brave commander who earns respects and dares to defy authority but obbeys at the same time.

For me, for hight notes on having these ten points make him the best German general, the best general of WWII and the best general of the XX century. I can think on many other men, but they do not have such high notes on the ten points and certainly, Rommeldidn't have the next as strong points: Numbers 5, 6 and 7. Low notes there.

Friedrich · #6 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 03:33 AM

I would have to say that Manstein is not my favourite, but he was the best, for all the reasons I put there. But I also have to say that I have my favourites and consider them very good (but not to be the best of the century). Those are the three main Army Groups commanders of Germany: Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, Fedor von Bock and Gerd von Runstedt (described by Eisenhower as the ablest of the German commanders).
Wilhelm von Leeb had high notes on numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (definately an 11! He was the pioner of defensive warfare), 8, 9 and 10. A complete general.
Fedor von Bock had high notes on: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10.
Gerd von Runstedt had high notes on: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Just make a little research and you will see it is true what I tell you, my friends.

Martin Bull · #7 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 09:47 AM

Thanks, Friedrich, interesting to read your thoughts on Manstein.

Actually, it's true for whatever we discuss here, I think. Whether talking of commanders, men, weapons, aircraft or whatever, there is the logical, researched 'best' and then there is our personal 'favourite' - which is often entirely different....

But this is one of the things which makes such discussions fun !!

[ 16 July 2002, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: Martin Bull ]

Panzerknacker · #8 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 03:13 PM

I would have to say Rommel or Vandegrift.....

CrazyD · #9 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 03:47 PM

For the "best" general, especially when considering ww2, Zhukov comes to mind. Never lost a battle, mainly responsible for defeating the German army. But then again, Zhukov didn't really care about his own casualties.
Rommel and Guderian also come to mind, rommel for his ability to adapt and take advantage of opportunities, Guderian for his innovations with armored theory.

C.Evans · #10 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 07:08 PM

Thats easy as for the Best Russain General--I agree he has to be Zhukov.

The best US General--Patton--hands down.

The Best British General, and or my fav--Orde Wingate

The best Frainch gereral--probably Georges Duloc.

The best Japanese General--probably Kawaguchi (famous for commanding the Kawaguchi Brigade on Guadalcanal) or I can picture him but cannot think of his name at the moment--and unfortunately--I think he was hanged by macarthur--for war crimes that some of his men committed--to which he did not.

Martin Bull · #11 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 07:35 PM

Actually, for best French General I'd go for Alphonse Juin....

dasreich · #12 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 08:44 PM

I noticed no one here mentioned Monty...whew!

My favorite is still Rommel...and I have to say he is the best too. He never commanded a massive front, but he had a shortage of men, fuel, armor, you name it. Add to that his allies were basically worthless. They got their entire fleet wiped out in one British air raid and could never effectilvely protect the few supplies Rommel was sent. Still, he slugged it out and had many successes against an enemy superior in almost every way. If he just had more supplies he could have ripped through Egypt and the Middle East, cut off the Brits from the Suez, while getting valuable oil and perhaps help create a two front war with the Soviets. Alas...

Friedrich · #13 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 09:37 PM

Hallo, gentlemen!

Thanks for your opinions.

I agree that Liutenant general George S. Patton Jr. was the best American commander, but also General of the Army Douglas McArthur and general Omar Bradley were very good. Bradley was just more conservative than the other two.

The best of Great Britain: Sir Archibald Wavell and Sir Claude Auchileck (we will hang the one who mention Monty in this thread...)

France: Charles Léclerc, Henri Meaupaunt de Tassimi (spelling?).

USSR: Georgi K. Zhúkov, Simeon Timoschenko, Vasilievski, Ivan Koniev, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Mikhaíl Vatutin, Vasili Chuikov, etc. There are many. But Zhúkov was simply the best of bests. But let me tall you something, my dear crazy. Zhúkov did lost a battle, and a big one. In winter 1942-1943 operation "Mars" which should have destroyed GO Model's 9. Armee failed and he had 400.000 casualties. If you remember well, "little Saturn" should anhilate GO Von Paulus' 6. Armee, "Saturn" should attack Rostov and anhilate Heeresgruppe A in the Caucasus and a big part of Heeresgruppe B. Then, "Mars" and "Saturn" should have gone together to make "Jupiter" and destroy the entire Heeresgrupe "Mitte". Zhúkov failed in "Mars", Vasilievski won "little Saturn" but failed "Saturn"... Anyway, Zhúkov was one of the best for sure.

And let me tell you why I do not think Rommel was the best. He was indeed a marvellous commander who took opportunities and attacked with poor resources ordering his men "impossible" things. His innovative tactics like the carton tanks, the mine fields, etc. All those things made him the great general he was. But, das Reich, let me tell you that the Italian soldiers were not worthless, you have no right to disdain them that much. Rommel indeed did not like the Italians because their weaponry was awful and their officers were too. But the Italian men were brave and when they were leaded addecuately they showed themselves as good or even better than the Germans. Even Rommel admitted it, but in secret. And let me tell you that Rommel did not command well large units. He liked to be at the front and that is not good for an Army Group commander. He had a tremendous mistake which costed him the campaign of 1942. He persuaded the Führer that he could take Egypt by himself. He could not. Keßelrings' strategy was to take Malta first, secure the awful supply line in the Central Mediterranean. Then, the British naval, aereal and submarine menace would disappera and the supplies could reach Africa easily. But no, then Rommel with his big ego at that moment said that he could take Egypt by himself. This is a terrible misconception of him: he had a supply line of 1.000 kilommetres long, 25% or 30% of his supplies were being sunk by the British in Malta (ships, submarines and aeroplanes). Then he demanded all the air support to invade Malta for himself. Then, at El Alamein he lost because he did not coordinate that large amount of troops excellently. As he could not use his tricky and innovative tactics he had to fight in a conventional way in which he was not so good (this is a sign of a non-balanced officer) and he lost also and perhaps more important for the lack of supplies.

What if he had waited a little until Keßelring had taken Malta and secured the supply line? What would have happened in El Alamein if Rommel would have had 30% more tanks, men and petrol? He would have won. But the supply line must have been secured, because with Malta under British power those 30% of supplies then became 50% and then 75%! Then he had to retreat and retreat without supplies. The fox was chased and hunted by the sheep with his own fox's tactics...

If we talk about his decision of general strategy in Normandy I agree that he was entirely right due to the circumstances in 1944. The invasion could only have been rejected in the beaches with his "innovative" bareer (by the way, he got inspired of Wilhelm von Leeb's defensive tactics of 1930s) and an armoured instant counter attack.
By the way, why did he put all the big guns altogether in Normandy? That is a very bad decision also.

That is what I mean when I say that we was not the excellent, five-stars, perfectly ballanced general the propaganda says he was. He still was one of the best in the German army and surely the more colourful, but not the top-best.

Steve · #14 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 09:49 PM

I would have to go with Patton or General Holland Smith USMC.

dasreich · #15 (**permalink**) July 16th, 2002, 10:46 PM

General Der Infanterie, I see your points. But I feel I should clarify on the Italians. The individuals were not worthless, and indeed were brave, like most soldiers should be, and I never meant to say that they were totally without worth, but as a whole, Italy did not contribute very much to the German war effort. In fact, they were detrimental to it. They dragged the Germans into conflicts they couldnt win by themselves (North Africa, Balkans) and delayed Barbarossa, wasting critical time and resources that would be needed elsewhere. Drydocking their entire fleet and consequently getting it destroyed virtually handed the Meditteranean to the Allies. When I was berating the Italian war effort, I was doing so on the basis of the entire war, not on the individual.

Back to Generals, Rommel did have his problems, like the ego, but then most generals had egos, it practically came with the job(Monty, Patton, Mcarthur)and always being at the front was not to good either. But Rommel COULD have taken Egypt, given the Italians could have properly defended his supply lines. Malta would have been VERY helpful to have under German control, but it was not critical until it was to late to do anything about it. With the proper support, he could have won in North Africa, until the Americans landed in Algiers. And also, he was popular with the troops. I have a great uncle who served in the Afrika Korps, and he said all the troops loved him. True, he wasnt the picture of perfection that propaganda made him out to be, but I feel he was indeed one of the best, if not THE best general in the XX century.

About Von Manstein...I must confess that beyond the basics, I don't know that much about him. I think I will go look up some info on him.

Friedrich · #16 (**permalink**) July 17th, 2002, 05:24 AM

Well, I agree with you about the Italians and how they got us into trouble. But it was only fault of the Duce's bad decisions, the idiotic senior and junior officers in the Italian armed forces and corrupted business men who made filthy weaponry to become richer, etc. Without all these, Italy could have ruled the Mediterrenean and stop the British by itslef.

Well, I was not talking about Rommel's super-ego, because he was modest and humble until certain point. But ego is the problem with all the generals. That is logic to happen when you are the master of 300.000 men...

dasreich · #17 (**permalink**) July 17th, 2002, 07:46 AM

You're right. They had the potential to control the Med, and it is because of bad officers, corrupt businessmen, and Il Duce that they didn't.
Their war effort was a disaster because of it. Which raises the question, who was the best general Italy had to offer in ww2?

Martin Bull · #18 (**permalink**) July 17th, 2002, 12:47 PM

Good point, Dasreich.

Surely, they can't all have been bad ? But it appears true that the upper echelons of Mussolini's army were riddled with incompetence, intrigue , favouritism and corruption.

Rommel himself, in The Rommel Papers , is almost totally dismissive of the Italians with only one notable exception : -

'There were splendid Italian officers who made tremendous efforts to sustain their men's morale. General Navarrini (XXI Italian Army Corps ) for example, for whom I had the highest regard, did everything he could'. ( The Rommel Papers, p.253 ).

Rommel makes several other complimentary references to Navarrini. Admittedly, though, one has to research very hard indeed to find any reference at all to competent Italian 'Generalship' !

CrazyD · #19 (**permalink**) July 17th, 2002, 04:22 PM

Ooops- forgot about Mars. That wold definetely qualify as a defeat. And again, as I mentioned before, Zhukov cared nothing about his own troops and how many casualties he took. His tactics often involved simply overwhelming the germans and smashing them- not too creative.

as dasreich mentioned, no one has mentioned Monty! Anyone out there really a fan of his?

Anyone?

Friedrich · #20 (**permalink**) July 17th, 2002, 04:34 PM

Yes, Martin. General Navarrini (X corps I think, Brescia, Ariete, etc.) was a good officer too who saw how German sergeants replaced Italian captains and majors and took the Italian troops to victory...
General Italo Gariboldi was conservative and didn't like Rommel at all, nor Rommel liked him, but he performed some better in Russia, comanding Italian VIII army.
Marshall Italo Balbo was probably one of the best aviators of the XX century and was an innovative man who can be compared with Model and Guderian. These too were pioneers with the armoured German forces. Well, marshall Balbo was a pioneer in the same way to the Italian air force. It is a pity that he was killed when aç stupid Liutenant shot the marshall's aeroplane down. And the worst part is that that liutenant was Italian!!! Incidents like this gave the Italians that awful reputation that they do not deserve much. The problem with them were the officers, junior or senior, who were officers just for the payment and privileges than because of being with their men and being professional...

Martin Bull · #21 (**permalink**) July 17th, 2002, 06:17 PM

Monty - we've just been discussing him on the 'Market Garden' thread....
The man knew his craft but he's such a strange, tactless and seemingly screwed-up personality to read about.... But I do think that he's been a too-easy target for post-war denigrators.

I'm even more surprised that no-one seems to have mentioned Ike. I know we all like 'men of action' but he did an extraordinary job in a very new type of role - a coalition commander of democratic forces, trying to control egotistical (in)subordinates and keeping political masters happy - some job !!