Who was the best General?

Im in agreement with you. I too think EvMvL, was probably the Germans best General. Also agree with you is saying that I dont think I would wanna be in Zhukovs command either, but then again, look who he had to serve under....

 

Yes, I would agree. He is a very good strategist. He exceled at the Field Marshal level. I wonder how he would have performed at the divisional level? Some have considered Rommel an excellent tactician but a poor strategist. What to you think?

 

I don't think Rommel had enough of a chance to prove himself as a strategist.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is another great Soviet General I am thinking of but just cannot remember his name at this time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ivan Konev, perhaps?
Chuikov was another; he showed a lot of guts in the defense of Stalingrad.
I don't know if I'd put Budenny on the list - I think he was more of a party hack.
But I have to agree with you on Zhukov. He did a great job of adapting to different circumstances... 'cutting his coat according to his cloth.'
Much of the catastrophic Soviet losses early in Barbarossa could have been avoided if Stalin had listened to Zhukov. Zhukov was given command for the defense of Leningrad when the situation was almost hopeless, and he managed to hold it together. Later, when things were going better for the Soviets, he adapted an orgainization of forces and an offensive philosophy that worked within the limitations of the Red Army. Mastermind of the Stalingrad counteroffensive and the Kursk defense - two major blows against the Wehrmacht.
Probably the most admirable thing about Zhukov, though, was that he wasn't afraid to stand up to Stalin. He probably saved the life of Konev, and others, by intervening with Stalin on their behalf. Zhukov's accomplishments would have been impressive enough with supportive - or even just sane - political leadership. That he was able to run a war and manage Stalin at the same time, was pretty amazing.

 

Bah, being a good general has nothing to do with handling crazy superiors, its what you do and how you prove your men on the battlefield. Zhukov might be a hero the Russian people, but it was criminal how Russian generals, and especially Zhukov used their vast resources against the Germans.

If Rommel, Von Manstein, Von Manteuffel, Kesselring, etc., had only HALF of the resources that Zhukov had, they wouldve held out indefinetly where the were stationed, wasteful, suicidal, butchering wave attacks were inexcusable. The USA had almost the same amount of men in service as the Red Army, just a few million less. Did a Western Nation like them hurl wave after terrible wave of men at the Germans? No! And for how long America in was in the war they achieved far more then what the Soviets did with their massed infatry attacks.

Youve got to remember what the German generals were fighitng with by the time 1943 rolled around. The kill ratio on the Ostfront was 15 Russian dead to a single German soldier, and the Wehrmacht at this stage in thewar was practically immobile compared to when they were at September of '39.

 

I agree, Chuikov was a great General, and probably would have been greater than Zhukov, had stalin allowed it. Chuikov was also well liked by his men, and as proved, was a very tough fighting General. Chuikov was always getting the short end of the stick, and always the tougher assignments. Whats great about Zhukov, is the fact that HE never lost a battle. Had they not had a maniac like stalin in overall command, I think Zhukovs reputation would be less harsh.

The Germans problems were that Hitler wanted to squander much needed forces and materials at all those stupid Festung Cities, and in stupid battles that didnd need to be fought and only became a war of attrition, which they coul not afford.

Another problem the Germans had, was that not enough of the senior FMs and generals, had the guts to stand up to Hitler, like Manstein did. Thats why he was forced into taking a sick leave, when Germany needed him the most.

Rommel was never really given a chance to do more than what he was able to do with next to nothing.

They should have put Manstein in command of OKW, with Gen Heinrici at his side. Neither of them gave in to Hitler and his whims. I also think von Manteuffel and von Rundstedt, could have made up a good reserve team, but definately, Manstein should have been in charge.

Had Rommel not been forced into suicide, he and Walther Model, Paul Hausser and Felix Steiner, could have been the nucleus, for the greatest commanding generals of the Wehrmacht-ever.

Had these men been in charge, or had enough freedon to react to things as they saw fit, they too would have had all the best men in the correct positions of command. What a heck of a tougher war, that could have been.

 

I always wondered that if Rommel had never be forced to sucide and been able to command again if he would have taken part in the Adennes offensive and if he did what the outcome of that would be?

It would have been very interesting, but we will never know plus I've heard stories about him being transfered to the eastern front when he was fully recovered.

Its hard to say who was the best commander on land, but I would stay that Gurdarien was one of the top.

On seas I would say its a tie between Doneitz and Nimitz. (I also think Yamoto was pretty good.)

I can't really make a good decision about the air war because I don't know enough about it. Maybe Goring (laughing)if I really thought he was that good maybe I should change my pick on land to Hilter lol.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibson:
If Rommel, Von Manstein, Von Manteuffel, Kesselring, etc., had only HALF of the resources that Zhukov had, they wouldve held out indefinetly where the were stationed, wasteful, suicidal, butchering wave attacks were inexcusable. The USA had almost the same amount of men in service as the Red Army, just a few million less. Did a Western Nation like them hurl wave after terrible wave of men at the Germans? No! And for how long America in was in the war they achieved far more then what the Soviets did with their massed infatry attacks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congratulations. You've mastered "Stereotypes of Military History 101." Until recently, all Western accounts of the Soviets vs. Germans war were based on the German accounts, and further colored by a cold war anti-Russian bias. If you want a more balanced view, try reading Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Even if you do want to stick with your stereotypes, the idea that the US contributed more than the Soviets to the defeat of Nazi Germany is... well, I'll borrow your 'Bah!' for that one.

 

Well no matter how Pro USA i may be (G O USA!!) lol
I agree that the Soviets played more a part in defeating the germans. But only because the scale of the conflict.
The eastern front occupied a HUGE percentage of the german war machine...that could have otherwise been used against the allies. In that case of course the allies would have engaged more men.
So thus since the Soviets fought a greater percentage of the german military and defeated them...i think the soviets get the distinction of playing a larger part in defeating the germans. But only because the scale of the conflict.
Strategy wise...well the soviet strategy was to just overwhelm. Which works but is costly. The allies had much better tactics But fought a smaller percentage of the german military than the soviets did.
Not to mention the fact that the Soviets fought the germans nonstop from 41-45.
But not to be repetative The soviets in my opinion did contribute more to the destruction of germany..but not that the allies didn't play a big part themselves though!

 

alath, perhaps if you actuially took the time to re-read what I said instead of skimming through it, it wasnt about Americans contributing more to the war effort! Your so eager to defend the lovable USSR, you cant fully understand what I was even saying!

You have the nerve to say that the Soviets, with their 20+ million losses during the war achieved more then America with its 400,000 losses in both Europe and the Pacific? Wrong buddy, what I was saying was that Zhukov wasnt a great general compared to Manstein, Guderian, or Rommel, just a man using vast resources to overwhelm an enemy.

I know very well that the Western Allies faced shell-shocked, depleted, and demoralized men in the West, its a given. But in spite of that, America, Britain, and Commonwealth achieved far more with far fewer losses then Zhukov and the USSR did. When you throw division after division against a depleted German regiment, the only thing your doing is wearing the enemy down. That doeset make a good general one of the best, which your forgetting in your eagerness to prove me wrong that is what this thread was about.

Welcome to the era of post-Sovet propaganda trying to justify the millions killed.

 

Hey panzergrenadier: Do me a favor and post your question on What IF? the one on Rommel being in the Ardennes Offensive, I think it will make an excellent what if? and I can go "wild" on answering it there

But to be fair with you here: I agree, I think Rommel would have been kept in command somewhere on the Western Front.

 

Before this turns into an endless back-and-forth that will never get us anywhere, let me back off and make some broader, more 'general' (lame pun fully intended) points.

It's apples and oranges to compare generals from different times and different countries, and to try to argue one was objectively, unequivocally, better than the other.

For instance, I'd say Guderian showed infinitely more brilliance on the operational-campaign level than Eisenhower... but reading Guderian's memoirs, the guy was extremely outspoken and not very diplomatic and I don't think he could have served the role Eisenhower did holding the allies together. Both these guys had some great qualities and some significant limitations, and they both did fine work in service of their respective countries.

I'm no fan of the Soviet system of government and I would never want to see it re-instituted. I lived in the CCCP for a while under that system and it was a bloody mess. Enormous powers were put in the hands of people who were utterly unfit to wield it competently or humanely. I never personally felt the full force of Soviet repression myself, but I personally know some people who did and I'm the last person in the world to defend, glorify, or apologize for the Stalinist system.

At the same time, I do admire the Russian people in many ways and I have a special admiration for the individuals who were able to accomplish great things despite the system they served under. I'd hate to see the names of Alexii Leonov, Dimitrii Shostakovich, Sergei Korilov -- and yes, Gregori Zhukov -- purged from the pages of history in a sweeping post-Soviet reactionary movement. These people are history, and they shouldn't be written off just because they served, suffered, and achieved what they did under a wicked oppressive regime.

Yes, Zhukov had numerical advantages at many points in the war... thought not always. His defense of Leningrad certainly ranks as a victory over roughly equal forces numerically; over far superior forces when both quality and quantity are considered.

Even late in the war, when Zhukov did enjoy numerical advantages, he still had major qualitative disadvantages. He couldn't do deep-penetration Blitzkrieg style offensives, because he lacked the quality subordinates all along the chain of command that Guderian had. He didn't have the secure, pervasive, real-time communication Guderian had. Hell, the vast majority of his tanks didn't even have radios in them. The same applies to force organization, force uniformity, and maybe most important, the training and experience levels of his troops. If Zhukov had tried to run a Guderian-style operation, relying on the initiative, communication, and flexibility on all levels of command that Guderian had, but attempting it using the resources he had, it would have been disastrous.

Despite the general impression of the Red Army, Zhukov wasn't just a 'charge them with endless waves of cannon-fodder infantry and drown them in our soldiers' blood' guy, either. After Tukachevsky was purged, Zhukov was the highest-ranking Soviet commander who fully embraced the concept of mobile combined arms operational warfare, and his greatest victories (Uran, Kursk, and Bagration) typify this. Yes, he had to adapt the ideal to suit the forces he had. That's what I meant in my original post by 'cutting his coat according to his cloth.' Zhukov was given an awful lot of very poor quality cloth, but he still managed to tailor a fully effective coat out of it.

There's been a great deal of high praise in this thread for Manstein, and I cannot argue with that. The man was brilliant. Sickle Stroke was the only offensive I know of in the whole war, where anybody managed a completely successful strategic campaign against superior enemy forces. Amazing guy, Manstein; great general.

But it was the very same Manstein, who, having given the Red Army three months' notice of his plans, went on to send his country's last best Panzer forces into Zhukov's trap. The Soviet victory at Kursk was not even remotely an example of crude mindless butchery on Zhukov's part: it was just the opposite. He suckered Manstein in, luring the German Panzer corps onto strong in-depth antitank defenses, waiting until the German flanks were exposed, and only then letting loose his own armour-mobile counteroffensive.

I know many will protest; 'That wasn't Manstein's fault! That was Hitler!'

Personally, I'm willing to give Manstein the benefit of the doubt on Kursk. He had the misfortune to be subordinate to a madman, and wound up paying the cost for that misfortune.

Zhukov had the same misfortune, and I'd argue he did a lot better job of coping with it. For what it's worth, Stalin the whole time was insisting on a pre-emptive Soviet offensive before Kursk. It would have been a huge mistake and Zhukov knew it, and he told Stalin 'no.' How many times did Eisenhower, Patton, or Montgomery face the prospects of trial torture and execution to stand up for what he believed to be the correct strategy? Say what you will, the man named Zhukov showed major cojones on multiple occasions.

I'm not saying he was perfect, or ideal, or even someone I'd want to work for. He was extremely savage and brutal at times, yes.

Still, you have to look at what he was given to work with. Many of his subordinates were incompetent toadying KPCC hacks, who were tirelessly pursuing their own personal safety at the cost of defending the country. Zhukov was a brutal tyrant to these kind of people, and in some cases, he actually got them to do their duty. Sometimes he was brutal to people who didn't deserve it.

But at the same time, Zhukov literally risked his own life on multiple occasions to defend those of his worthy subordinates who were forced into impossible situations and resulting losses by Stalin's dictates.

And that's the part I just can't dismiss in Zhukov: raw personal courage, and a fearless integrity in his purpose to get the Nazis out of his Rodina and then destroy them.

No allied commander faced anything like what Zhukov faced. Hell, even Hitler didn't do to his commanders what Stalin did to his.

Rommel actually was part of a plot to assassinate Hitler, and even so, he was still given the option of an easy way out -- no show trial, no torture, no persecution of your family; just take your poison and get a state funeral with full hero's honours.

None of Stalin's generals ever had that comparatively delightful option open to them. Even forget the fact, none of the Soviet Generals really were conspiring against Stalin in the first place, and still they got tried, tortured, and shot; going to their deaths with the knowledge that their wives and sons and daughters were going to wind up in Siberia, worked like slaves to the death.

In my own line of work, I have sometimes stuck my neck out in defense of people I thought were unjustly accused. And I've also stood up for policies - strategies and tactics, if you will - that were unpopular but correct. It isn't easy to do that, even under the relatively very benign circumstances I face.

I can't even imagine Zhukov's kind of courage. Nobody was ever going to have me arrested, tortured, and shot, and then go after my family too, just because I stood up for what I thought was right; right for the mission, right for my people.

Zhukov was decorated Hero of the Soviet Union, four times. Fully acknowledging the evil brutality of the Soviet political system, I'd say that might mean even more than being a hero of some humane, intelligent, compassionate nation.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Otto:
I was just wondering why we hear of air commanders of every nation save for the USSR.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not certain on this point - if others know better, please correct me - but I believe the Soviet Air Force was too much divided into subordinate groups for each Army - 'Army' in Soviet force structure closer to Allied term Corps; a group of some relatively small number of divisions (even smaller than Allied corps). So the Soviet air commander was like the man commanding artillery for Patton, or logistics for Montgomery - not exactly household names.

There was no person like Air Marshal Dowding (Battle of Britain) who was personally personally responsible for a central role in the air war. And air war was not a big part of the Russo-German conflict anyway; not on the Allies' strategic scale. Soviet airmen did well in local tactical support, but there was no big Soviet strategic-level air campaign; offense or defense.

Now to think of it, I would have to put Dowding on the list of great WWII commanders.

He had figured out the strategy he needed, and he was clear in what would save his country. He privately expressed he was grateful when Goring began to bomb London instead of airfields: Goring could kill many civillians that way, and make many more quite miserable, but only by knocking out Britain's air defense could the Germans ultimately defeat Britain.

Dowding was also able to get his strategy implemented despite strong political pressure to the contrary. Lest anyone doubt the necessity of a general to play politics well so his strategy is implemented, just look at what happened to Westmoreland. Doenitz is another example. If Guderian had posessed this skill, there might still be Nazis running Germany (and Middle East, France, Poland, Czech Republic) today.

Much credit is given to the British radar, but many British commanders saw the same radar intercepts and advocated a losing strategy. Dowding was the one who knew how to use radar and defense coordination systems to stay alive, and out-last Goring's Luftwaffe.

Maybe this points to one important quality of the great wartime commander: ability to see the problem clearly and focus on winning conditions without getting distracted by irrelevant 'clutter' considerations.

 

Dear Alath: all I can say on your first posting is that I do agree with you on several points. My memory is very faulty so things will look out of place here.

I also want to say that I commend you for what you have personally seen. You have see the side of a system that we here can only imagine. Then again, I dont think we could imagine that kind of lifestyle: whrer Medical Doctors make about $10.00 a month--according to some documentaries I have see.

Back to ww2 and Manstein and Zhukov.

One thing that if you happen to see here on other threads in these forums, is that, I too, have defended Zhukov. I am well aware of the fact that he never lost a battle--against the Japaneese or Germans.

I know he was thought of as a tyrant, but do not think he could have been much different than he was for the simple fact that stalin was his superior, and would not allow it.

Apparently, Zhukovs harshness did do what it was supposed to do, and that was to win battles and untimately, the war.

True, Mansteins personality would not let him be a good candidate for the man in charge of all Axis forces, but he would be the ideal man in charge of the German forces--hands down.

Manstein was a great general as Zhukov was. Is it supposed to be Zhukovs fault that he had superior numbers of men and weapons, and which is a fair reason to say why he in fact won all his battles?

The man had to have some common sence in order to achieve what he did achieve, same goes for Manstein.

Manstein and Rommel, could have been one heck of a "team", as Zhukov and Chuikov, could have been.

Im losing some of my chances here for points as I cannot flashback to all of your posting.

What I am trying to say is that yeah, I agree with you on some points as I did with Panzergrenadier. You both are correct in what you say. There are just too many things to ponder on what was and what could have been.

I have a question for you? Who would you think would have been the best man in the top axis military post? and im not trying to ask this as a what if, but as a serious question.

You gave a VERY intelligent and well thought out posting, and we should get you opinion on this. Im definately interested in hearing from you.

 

Alath, the Soviet Airforces were divided into small suboordinate groups and which is one of the main reasons, that they were constantly being beat time and time again, and is also why there are so many German aces that have more than 50 kills up to Erich Hartmanns 352 kills.

Had the Soviets combined airforces as a bigger force earlier, they could have had an easier time in destroying the Germans.

Later on, the Soviets did have air divisions, air corps and air armies--they learned.

 

Don't give me too much credit for when I was in CCCP. I was just a young university student, in no position to make powerful enemies. Nobody would be frightened of me enough to wind me up in Siberia. Throw a snowball at me, maybe.

Even the people I met who had felt the sharp end of the Soviet system, this was the era of glasnost. They had been through much, maybe, but not like their mothers and fathers and grandparents.

To your other question, if I am Hitler, I make Guderian chief of staff with broad authority over all aspects: training, organization, armament, strategic planning. Manstein is my field man, plans the operations and he selects his own subordinates. Brauchitsch in a diplomatic role; working with my allies and liaisons, going to the parades and shaking the hands.

And then, I listen to these guys. They are smarter than I am.

 

Alath, good choices but I have to ask, why Brauchitsch? not that I have a problem with your choice of him, but want your reasons for it. By the way, he is one of the best choices I can think of for that post.

 

Good article and well written and I agree that the Russians fought 3/4ths of the German Army.

What I disagree on is the FACT, that the western allies DID fight and destroy many German elite units, that not ALL the best Germans unite were at the Eastern Front.

I wonder what he considers Panzer Lehr?, Das Reich?, 12th SS Panzer? Divs just for quick example, trash Divisions? I hardy think so.

Another thing I strongly disagree with this report was not that the Russians did not destroy what this writer wrote, but for the fact that he was purposedly trying to make it seem as if the German Divisions destroyed in combat, were always portrayed as being all well equipped and always at full combat strength, with the best quality of men and materials that were once available. We know that most of these German Divisions were at best at maybe half-strength or less.

What this author implied was that these were all top notch soldiers instead of a growing number of units filled with children and old men.

Also, fails to mention that the Germans had been scratching the bottom of the replacement barrels, by also using sick men and men missing limbs, to try to help fill in the holes in their ranks.

Also fails to admit that the equipment was almost non-exhistant. Failing to mention that the Russiand did have an almost endless supply of materials thanks to the Western Allies. Thats why they had, the trains to ship the tanks quickly overland, and the trucks to make the Inf and Artillery more mobile and able to gain much ground at a faster rate.

At that time, the Germans were virtually out of gas. One needs gas to drive a supply truck, or a recon Halftrack or an Opel Blitz hauling an 88 into a position or a Panzer going into action.

Thanks to the WESTERN Allies sending so much stuff to Russia (Lend lease) which he apparently forgot to mention, including food, medicine, gas, oil, weapons, ammo, tires, aircraft, shoes, overcoats, money etc etc etc. Thanks to that, that helped the Russians maintain themselves and insured in victory. Without the help of America, Canada, England, India, France etc etc, I strongly believe the Germans could have fought the Russians to a standstill, a.k.a. Trench warfare like in ww1.

Im not downplaying what the Russians did accomplish, but as that write said, the record needs to be set straight, which I totally agree with but, it also needs to insure that all parties involved, need to get due recognition.

The Germans ran out of ways to supply freash trained and equipped troops, the Russians had enough to draw on. This writer also fails to mention that the Germans were starving, the Russians were not much better off-food wise but, could at least count on having something to eat daily (at this point of the war) instead of maybe hard black army bread that the Germans might be given once every 3 days or so.

Just my two pfennigs worth

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C.Evans:
Alath, good choices but I have to ask, why Brauchitsch? not that I have a problem with your choice of him, but want your reasons for it. By the way, he is one of the best choices I can think of for that post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know that much about Brauchitsch. Did he do a postwar memoir?

From what I do know, I was thinking of his languages, his grasp of history and European culture, his diplomatic style. From Guderian I get the idea he was a cultured, well-mannered, principled kind of guy. For a military liaison/diplomatic type job, he could make a good impression on his country's allies, smooth ruffled feathers when necessary. My impression is he would be respectful and respected in dealing with the leaders of other countries.