NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think is the greatest general of the Second World War? Discuss.

Sounds like an exam, eh?

Who do you think is the greatest general of the Second World War? Discuss.

Sounds like an exam, eh?actually it sound like deja-vu...

but im a good sport...

best General? hmmm Rommel maybe?

Depends what you mean. At a tactical level, Patton was unbeatable. At the strategic level, Zhukov and Ike were probably running neck and neck. Overall, I'd probably say Guderian, since he was the most capable at all stages of operation.

Patton, closely followed by the Desert Fox. You gotta respect a guy who tried to waste Hitler. O and worst, can anyone argue Monty?

Patton, closely followed by the Desert Fox. You gotta respect a guy who tried to waste Hitler. O and worst, can anyone argue Monty?

Monty was unimaginative, but he was far from the worst general.

Are we just going for Army Generals or can we include Naval Admirals as well?

Monty was unimaginative, but he was far from the worst general.

*cough* Market-Garden *cough*

You're all wrong. It was General Zykorski of Poland, hands down.

The Poles were the most successful resistants in the War. It took longer for the Krauts to conquer Poland than Holland, Belgium, and France combined.

Polish fighter pilots scored more kills on average.

In conclusion: POLAND OWNZ YOU ALL

General (later Field Marshall) Erich von Manstein

http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/Manstein%20WW2%20German%20Generals.htm (http://)

If this was about WWI generals, it would be a bit harder. I don't think there were any good generals in "the war to end all wars."

Erich Von Manstein, hands down.
Heinz Guderian and Zhukov come in a tie for 2nd.

I almost forgot about Guderian. The father of modern armor warfare.

What about Omar Bradley getting a mention?

He said greatest, not luckiest...lol

My vote would have to be for James Gavin, of the 82nd airborne. He more than any ohter mane was responsible for the birth of that unit, and it's sister unit, and getting the high command to see the value in such units.

Naval admirals can be advanced.

I would agree wholeheartedly with Erich von Manstein. As the architect of the German victories in France PLUS the (temporary) savior of the German forces after Stalingrad, actually managing a successful counteroffensive. Unfortunately for Germany (and fortunately for us), Hitler decided to take control of the Eastern Front and ended up canning him.

If this was about WWI generals, it would be a bit harder. I don't think there were any good generals in "the war to end all wars."


How about Lieutenant General John A. Lejeune (http://marinecorps.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=1&page_id=25), USMC?

Von Manstein.

Although greatest general here means ability to achieve millitary goals with materials and people at hand. Not great as in inventing germ theory or writting a wonderful novel or even being the first person on the moon. If only he had used his genius for good instead of nastiness. His skill help stave off the collaspse of Nazi Germany long enough for who knows how many more to be murdered.

"Fools do not know who is the greatest god in that dark panthenon. I will tell you a story of horror, of industrialized murder on the greatest scale ever known. Of human lives used to feed a nightmare, and of a man who was the greatest servant of that dark dream, Von Manstein."

Monty was not unimaginiative. He was very cautious and very unwilling to waste any of his troops. Unlike America and Russia, Britain's army was IT. There were no other soldiers to put into it. There would be no huge reserves to pop into Overlord if Britain's army suffered a large loss, and Monty knew this. He put hard training up front and had the respect and admiration of his soldiers, if not from the more eager Americans who were in a better position to gamble thier forces. Not to say that the American generals did not care if they lost troops, quite the contrary. But, they could take more operation risks because of replacements. So he was careful, stubborn, and waited before committing his troops to battle, just a different kind of general from the dashing, charismatic guys that ran our army.

My vote would have to be for James Gavin, of the 82nd airborne. He more than any ohter mane was responsible for the birth of that unit, and it's sister unit, and getting the high command to see the value in such units.

The success of the German Fallschirmjäger units in Norway, the low countries, and especially Crete (courtesy of Kurt Student, who I'd put on a top 10 WWII generals list) were pretty darn important in that as well. And William "Billy" Mitchell, the guy who (AFAIK) came up with that idea in the first place, also deserves a note.

I'd say Manstein. I'm afraid I'm not so familiar with Mannerheim (though I know he fought the Soviets to a standstill in '39 so it's really a choice between them for me but I'm not too informed to make an educated choice)

Manstein had to fight a losing battle against overwhelming forces and repeatedly came through. As for the others, Rommel was a great tactician but I don't think he did too well strategically. Monty always had OVERWHELMING strength on his side and then he didn't always win (Market-Garden specifically - 90 percent successful, what's up with that). Too bad O'Connor was captured before he could square off with Rommel. I like Patton's dash more. Patton I think was brilliant but again mostly had the might of American airpower on his side. MacArthur was a big show-off who had the gall to hang - on war-crime charges - the two generals who soundly defeated him (Homma and Yamashita).

Maharlikana

Marshal of the Soviet Union, Comrade Stalin, is clearly the greatest general of the war, followed by Marshal Zhukov, who is also a great man that upheld the greatness of his leader, Comrade Stalin!

I agree with you about Mitchell, and the german operations, but i think that Gavin was more influential than any other commander in the United States Army for getting the concept of the airborne off the ground, so to speak. If you would like to read more about him, i point you to his narrative On to Berlin where he chronicles the birth of the airborne infantry to the possibility of an airborne drop on Berlin.

To put things into perspective, if I were a German general of genius on the Eastern Front, I'd fight DAMN hard against the Soviets. The real flaw of von Manstein was that he equated loyalty to Hitler as loyalty to Germany. He was aware of the conspiracy, but never joined it ... or betrayed it. The general's conspiracy, is, of course, what allows Rommel fanboys to enjoy his brilliance without qualms. That and the fact that he never fought on the Eastern Front.

I would argue that one of the best WWI generals, to pick up on The Kea's mentioning would be Arthur Currie, a Canadian leader. He managed to get Vimy Ridge with 10,000 casualties when the French had failed with 100,000. German casualties at the Battle of Vimy Ridge were nearly twice those of the Canadians. While he didn't invent it, the Canadian Corps were some of the first to demonstrate actual learning of the lessons of the war, ie, more machine guns, creeping barrage, better training at the platoon level, etc, etc.

I agree with you about Mitchell, and the german operations, but i think that Gavin was more influential than any other commander in the United States Army for getting the concept of the airborne off the ground, so to speak. If you would like to read more about him, i point you to his narrative On to Berlin where he chronicles the birth of the airborne infantry to the possibility of an airborne drop on Berlin.

I misunderstoond the wording of your earlier post, in that case, and you are correct. And, agreed, that's an excellent read.
(BTW, I assume you support officially naming the M113?)

WW1... I'd think for the Commonwealth top brass, Currie, Plumer and Allenby... and Birdwood, confound it, Birdie belongs up there with the rest. For the Central Powers... Kemal Ataturk, Max Hoffmann and Hindenburg. For the French, the first commander at Gallipoli, d'Amade I think, is the only one of note that I can remember.

Maharlikana

I guess I should have read more about it first. All the later French and English WWI generals in the highest positions seemed to be really good at wasting men on machine guns while never visiting the front.

Zhukov. First he made Japan his bitch. Then he made Nazi germany lick his balls.

Vasili Chuikov's defense of Stalingrad was masterful! Verdun of the east. Didn't Von Manstein defend Sevastopol in 43 (I'm not an Ostfront buff really so I'm not sure at all).

Zhukov actually should rank way up there too. The way he survived the purges (well the way all those top rankers survived those horrific purges) to become Stalin's best general with a seemingly unbroken record from Khalkin-Gol to Berlin...

Maharlikana

(BTW, I assume you support officially naming the M113?)

I'm sorry, but i don't understand what you mean by this...

*ducks in case he should*

To put things into perspective, if I were a German general of genius on the Eastern Front, I'd fight DAMN hard against the Soviets. The real flaw of von Manstein was that he equated loyalty to Hitler as loyalty to Germany. He was aware of the conspiracy, but never joined it ... or betrayed it. The general's conspiracy, is, of course, what allows Rommel fanboys to enjoy his brilliance without qualms. That and the fact that he never fought on the Eastern Front.

I would argue that one of the best WWI generals, to pick up on The Kea's mentioning would be Arthur Currie, a Canadian leader. He managed to get Vimy Ridge with 10,000 casualties when the French had failed with 100,000. German casualties at the Battle of Vimy Ridge were nearly twice those of the Canadians. While he didn't invent it, the Canadian Corps were some of the first to demonstrate actual learning of the lessons of the war, ie, more machine guns, creeping barrage, better training at the platoon level, etc, etc.


Nah man, the total opposite. One of the most notable things about Von Manstein is that he was perhaps the only General unafraid to publicly dispute Hitler. He even went so far as to literally ridicule him at several dinner parties. Hitler was infuriated, but even with such blatant disrespect, knew he had to keep him on because the Stavka was owning OKH at that point. Von Manstein was informed of and asked to join in the plot (which would have never happened if he was a Hitler stooge like Jodl), and sincerely wanted to join, but could not, because he was a member of the old Prussian line of generals. It may sound silly, or like an excuse, but it is something akin to bushido, the samurai code. He summarized with the quote, "Prussian Generals do not conspire against their Fuhrer." It's literally impossible to understand how much influence the old Prussian traditions had on an old-schooler like Manstein. Despite Hitler's incompetence at many levels (which is actually overplayed these days thanks to Wehrmacht Generals trying to absolve their responsibility by blaming the Fuhrer for all errors), Von Manstein knew that, regardless of Hitler's Austrian lineage, regardless of Von Manstein's noninvolvement with the Nazi movement and realization that Hitler was not a part of and did not represent Germany, that killing Hitler at that time would nevertheless deal a great blow against the German war effort, and end all questions of the possibility of defeat.

In retrospect, the war was indubitably over by '44, and it was Hitler alone who was insane enough to prolong the war enough to ensure mass-rape of German women and utter destruction of her cities (you know it's bad when even Himmler's trying to negotiate), but there was no way to know that at the time, and what amounted to treason was simply beyond possibility for him, regardless of his dislike for Hitler. He ended up something of a tragic figure in my eyes, a good, intelligent man with a conscience caught in a terrible situation but unwilling to abandon his country at any cost. I see similarities between himself and Heinrichi; the loyalty triumphing over conscience is even sort of parallel to Gen. Robert E. Lee. Love or hate his decision, but he was not a Nazi, or even supporting of its cause.

I still stick with Manstein, not the least of which is that he was never allowed to operate at his full potential on the Eastern Front, ie, without interference from Hitler. I do this because he proved to be brilliant on multiple levels and modes of command. He was originally a staff officer, but also became a brilliant field commander.

Zhukov is a good choice for second, though. His record is pretty impressive. Most of the Western Allied commanders had major flaws in one way or another.

Rommel has to be it.

Rommel, Patton, Zhukov, Guderian, Manstein. In no real order.

As I've said in countless other polls, I'd have to put my money on Erich von Manstein. I consider myself an expert on the Ostfront, and never have I been so enthralled by such a general. On other notes, I regard Patton as a second rate general who was a bit conceited and a bit short sighted - had he been allowed to cut through France early and hit the Siegfried line I'm afraid he would have met the same results Monty met in the Netherlands.

About Manstein, the reasons I hold him in such high regards are the following:

[Poland]
During his command in Poland he unfortunately sent armored units into the Warsaw suburbs, which consequently was the first experience where German armor was bogged down in house to house fighting. However, although he was mistaken in strategy, he was able to wield out of the suburbs with his armor, and redeploy his forces in order to close an encirclement of the quickly moving remnants of the Polish Corridor and Lodz armies - and that itself deserves merits, pass any other commander's success in Poland, whether it may be Guderian or anybody else.

[France]
This speaks for itself. He was the architect of the invasion of France, and it was truly a crime that Hitler took credit for the planning of the French invasion as his own. The only thing Hitler can take credit for was loosing the kill of the BEF at Dunkirk, although enough evidence exists to prove that even had he allowed German armor to make its move, the results would have been much of the same - since Flanders is after all poor tank country.

[The Soviet Union]
His actions as the commander of the 56th Motorized Corp during the invasion of the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa was truly genius. His corp was able to destroy the 2nd Guards Rifle Army, a feat onto itself, and although he was transferred to Army Group Center, and then back to Army Group North, he was still able to keep command of whatever situation he was in, and get the job done with spectacular success.

His actions in Sevastapol, I believe, is his one dark feature. His siege of the city was not amazing at all, and the losses incurred during the investment were as high as those during the first siege of Tobruk in 1941. The only reason he received a field marshall's baton after the fall of Sevastapol was because he was able to pull a victory after the dreaded Soviet winter offensive of '41-'42.

Nonetheless, his take over of command in late November 1942 of the Army Group South proved his true genius at war. He almost opened a channel for escape to the 6th Army, and parts of the 4th Panzer Army, during Operation Winter Tempest [December 12th, 1942]. If you're interested in Stalingrad I suggest you read the memoirs of General Raus, called Panzer Operations - there's a lot of insight on the beginnings of operations for Winter Tempest concerning the involvement of the 6th Panzer Division.

His taking of Kharkov in March '43 with the II SS Panzerkorp deserves all the merit he receives today - for although it was done with a crack elite division, it was also done against a numerically superior enemy.

Moreover, his Army Group achieved the furthest success during Operation Citadel [June 5th to roughly July 12th], and I believe had he been allowed to continue he would have made impressive headway. I do not doubt his ability to foresee tactical and strategical situations.

----------
----------

In short, there is overwhelming evidence to show Manstein's genius, and frankly, I do not believe that Rommel, Guderian or Patton could live up to Manstein's legacy.

Furthermore, I absolutely detest Zhukov and Koniev as commanders. The only Soviet commander I truly respect as a genius was Rokossovsky, who did not get what he deserved - he deserved Berlin. Unfortunately, he was put in command of a front too far away to do much with Berlin.

Well, to toss in some other names, I'd vote on Admiral William 'Bull' Halsey (USN), some of his actions with Enterprise kept America in the Pacific side of the war till the Navy could rebuild the fleet. For a while there, he was in command of the ONLY carrier taskgroup in the Pacific because Enterprise was the only carrier left.

I'd also note Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku (IJN), Pearl Harbor was well planned out and accomplished, even if I happen to disagree with it personally ;). Midway was also well planned out and would have flattened America if we hadn't already broken the Japanese code.

Well, to toss in some other names, I'd vote on Admiral William 'Bull' Halsey (USN), some of his actions with Enterprise kept America in the Pacific side of the war till the Navy could rebuild the fleet. For a while there, he was in command of the ONLY carrier taskgroup in the Pacific because Enterprise was the only carrier left.

I'd also note Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku (IJN), Pearl Harbor was well planned out and accomplished, even if I happen to disagree with it personally ;). Midway was also well planned out and would have flattened America if we hadn't already broken the Japanese code.

Yeah, I like Hallsey, but I lost a lot of respect for him for taking the obvious bait at Leyte Gulf. He abandoned the entire landing force and sent the fleet after a few Japanese decoys. Luckily, for no apparent reason other than cowardice, the Japanese battle group sent to destroy the landing force got scared in the strait and turned back, when they had a large group of undefended troop ships just asking to be sunk not far away.

I'd have to go with Raymond Spruance. He had to assume unexpected command at Midway when Black Jack Morrison lost it, and was absolutely brilliant. Unlike Hallsey, Spruance was prudent enough to not be overzealous and pursue the enemy into a trap, which it tried to set upon retreating. Chester Nimitz should get his share of credit as well, he did a fine job as CincPac, certainly better than Kimmel. Nagumo was certainly ambitious, he just underestimated the USN and our intel capabilities, though he had no reason not to given the great upper hand Japan held at the time.

I think you mean FRANK JACK FLETCHER? Well, technically it was Halsey who should have had command but he came down with a skin rash and handpicked Spruance (who was a cruiser commander not an aviator). Spruance commanded USS Hornet and USS Enterprise while Frank Jack Fletcher commanded USS Yorktown's task group (which had to leave later because she had been damaged at Coral Sea).

Ah the things from watching Hollywood movies...
Maharlikana

Chester Nimitz should get his share of credit as well, he did a fine job as CincPac, certainly better than Kimmel.
Agreed, Admiral Nimitz was the master chess player in the Pacific. I was trying for admirals that had more of a hands on command as opposed to the grand masters who moved the fleets like chess peices.

That and if I didn't, my list was going to get very, very long. ;)

take your picks out of Rommel,Barrowclough,Freyberg and Mantueful,Kluge,Morshead

[QUOTE=NERVUN]I'd also note Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku (IJN), Pearl Harbor was well planned out and accomplished, even if I happen to disagree with it personally ;). QUOTE]

Where was Pearl Harbor well acomplished? I agree that the planning was done good, but the result? The Japanese sunk a few ships, damaged the ship yards and pissed off a whole country. They didn't achieve much else. Alright, they hidnered teh American navy for a while but weren't able to finish them off.
I mean look at it. The fuel depots in Perarl Harbor where almost completely untouched. Just a couple of bombs on it and there would have been a hell of a fire work. I don't consider Pearl Harbor a success, sine it only took the US a couple of months to get their pazific fleet back in action.

Alright, originally i was going Rommel, because he's the one springing to my mind first when i think of brilliant WW II generals, but from what I heard here i think I'm gonna go with von Mannstein too.

Mao Zedong.

Chiang Kaishek, top from the bottom.

Where was Pearl Harbor well acomplished? I agree that the planning was done good, but the result? The Japanese sunk a few ships, damaged the ship yards and pissed off a whole country. They didn't achieve much else. Alright, they hidnered teh American navy for a while but weren't able to finish them off.
I mean look at it. The fuel depots in Perarl Harbor where almost completely untouched. Just a couple of bombs on it and there would have been a hell of a fire work. I don't consider Pearl Harbor a success, sine it only took the US a couple of months to get their pazific fleet back in action.
A few ships? Um, he destroyed Battleship Row. At that time, Naval tactics was centered around the battleship, only a few crazies, Admirals Yamamoto and Nimitz amoung them, had any idea that aircraft carriers would become far more important, and Yamamoto didn't quite get it right. It also shocked the hell out of America, since we hadn't been attacked by another power on our own stomping ground since The War of 1812. He also took out a good chunk of the aircraft stationed at Pearl and came damn near close to blocking the channel (Thankfully the USS Nevada lived up to her name and managed to beach herself before that happened).

Yeah, America was able to get back in the war in a few months, which surprised the hell out of us as well (Everyone underestimated the US ability to regear and produce at war time levels, even the US). Then look at the accomplishment of getting that huge a fleet across the Pacific to perform a corrdinated attack like that, without being spotted, and lose only 20 planes and 5 mini-subs.

No, Pearl was a well thought out plan, Midway was to be as well, and would have crushed the remaining American fleet. Adm Nimitz, however, was able to outdo Adm Yamamoto and cripple the Imperial Japanese Navy then.

Mao Zedong.

Chiang Kaishek, top from the bottom.
Uh... based upon what? Mao screwed up a number of times and Chiang couldn't figure out if he was supposed to be fighting Mao or the Japanese.

I'd say Field Marshal Mannerheim... well he probably wasn't the greatest, but just had to throw it in there. :D

My vote goes also to Field Marshall Mannerheim.

He lead the Finnish people in a war against Soviet Union and managed to keep Finland as an independent country. Finland lost about 25.000 men and Soviets abut 250.000.

[QUOTE=NERVUN]I'd also note Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku (IJN), Pearl Harbor was well planned out and accomplished, even if I happen to disagree with it personally ;). QUOTE]

Where was Pearl Harbor well acomplished? I agree that the planning was done good, but the result? The Japanese sunk a few ships, damaged the ship yards and pissed off a whole country. They didn't achieve much else. Alright, they hidnered teh American navy for a while but weren't able to finish them off.
I mean look at it. The fuel depots in Perarl Harbor where almost completely untouched. Just a couple of bombs on it and there would have been a hell of a fire work. I don't consider Pearl Harbor a success, sine it only took the US a couple of months to get their pazific fleet back in action.

Alright, originally i was going Rommel, because he's the one springing to my mind first when i think of brilliant WW II generals, but from what I heard here i think I'm gonna go with von Mannstein too.

Too true... then again, he shouldn't have put the aerophobic battleship sailor Nagumo in charge of his CARRIER STRIKING FORCE. Talk about bad command decisions. He didn't finish the job at Pearl when everyone wanted to (well there was the threat of the undiscovered American carriers but the way things turned out in those early days it was providential that the American carriers didn't meet the Japanese ships in a Coral Sea like battle. Enterprise and Yorktown IIRC vs the SIX Carriers of the First Carrier Striking Force with their pre-war veteran crews and Fuchida in command? Not a nice thought) and his indecision at Midway (granted he didn't have the info but you'd think he could have at least sent off the planes loaded with bombs to do their level best instead of switching, switching, switching) borders on the criminal.

Rommel was a great general to be sure, a superior tactician but not always the best strategist. His dash to the wire during Operation Crusader was pretty futile considering the 8th Army was nearly beaten. Then again, the Germans should have taken out Malta instead of Crete (even if it cost them their fallschirmjager divisions) and just treated Crete like the USA did Rabaul - isolated and cut off it would have withered on the vine (and wasted the 2nd New Zealand Division and Freyberg in the process instead of having those boys in the desert to dish out the damage). Then again, Hitler's reluctance to commit forces (until it was too late) to this desert 'sideshow' which was the Italian's job anyways (so he thought) stifled Rommel time and time again, particularly when they were set to go at Alam Halfa.

Cathenia

Rommel, Zhukov, Guderian.

Manstein and Zhukov, fairly equally.

Uh... based upon what? Mao screwed up a number of times and Chiang couldn't figure out if he was supposed to be fighting Mao or the Japanese.

The Second World War was basically a turning point for the Chinese Civil War. Mao very skillfully and ruthlessly manipulated the situation to his advantage, while poor Chiang decided he wouldn't fight the Japanese and let them invade his rich heartland.

I'd say Field Marshal Mannerheim... well he probably wasn't the greatest, but just had to throw it in there. :D
oh come on be fair what about Mark Clarke?

-snip-
Rommel was a great general to be sure, a superior tactician but not always the best strategist. His dash to the wire during Operation Crusader was pretty futile considering the 8th Army was nearly beaten. Then again, the Germans should have taken out Malta instead of Crete (even if it cost them their fallschirmjager divisions) and just treated Crete like the USA did Rabaul - isolated and cut off it would have withered on the vine (and wasted the 2nd New Zealand Division and Freyberg in the process instead of having those boys in the desert to dish out the damage). Then again, Hitler's reluctance to commit forces (until it was too late) to this desert 'sideshow' which was the Italian's job anyways (so he thought) stifled Rommel time and time again, particularly when they were set to go at Alam Halfa.

Cathenia
The Taking of Crete was a necessity as it was a serious threat to the Rumanian Oilfields(If Britain realised this..)

If this was about WWI generals, it would be a bit harder. I don't think there were any good generals in "the war to end all wars."


I commend to you the example of General Monash, ANZAC.

During the German offensives late in the Great War, the French were having troubles with mutinies, the British with poor leadership and the Americans did not have sufficient trained men to make any real difference as yet. Admittedly, Haig was learning, but not quickly, and not on a small unit level. As the ANZACs, being the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps, had started off in small unit training, platoon level or so, they were very well versed for actions such as Gallipoli and the Western Front, as well as the mobile cavalry war in the Middle East. In fact, the last truly successful cavalry charge to succeed in an assault was by the ANZACs at Beersheba. The Polish cavalry in WWII, while successful to a fair extent, didn't have enough numbers to stop the panzers totally.

Anyway, back to the German offensives. There was a time when the 5 ANZAC divisions held 30% of the Western Front. Their mates had fought and died for that ground, and they weren't going to let anyone take it away from them. There is even a story about an Australian company having taken a winery in a counterattack, and then being uncontactable for 4 days. Every messenger sent mysteriously disapeared..... When, in the fluid nature of war, the Germans came back, that vineyard was the only piece of Allied ground to remain in Allied hands until relief could arrive.

As a divison commander at Gallipoli, he learnt the lessons of trench warfare well, coming up against the Turks as led by Kemal Ataturk, who was mentioned in an earlier post as a very capable leader himself. Monash had to deal with the incompetencies of an Allied supreme command who had grown up with the cavalry charges of Colonial wars, and some of whom still believed in the tactical doctrine of the Napoloenic Wars, not having paid attention to the American Civil or Franco-Prussian Wars.

As for WWII, well....

Patton, Mannerheim, Monty, Guderain, Rommel, von Mannheim, Ike, Macarthur, Zhukov, Rokossovsky, they all had their points, and I sure would not like to come up against them. There were some brilliant ideas out there that no-one has mentioned yet, like who was the guy who thought up the idea of funnelling the Japanese army down the Malayan Peninsula on bicycles to attack Singapore from land? All the artillery was in emplacemtns facing the sea to guard against naval assault, and so could not be turned to face inland. Also, the unsung bloke who commanded the ANZACs at Tobruk, where those tough rats of ours held out for months.

Personally, I'd've like to have been a grunt under Monty, given they way he had of looking after his men, but I did like Mannerheim's defence in the Winter War. Thus, no real preference, but keep up the nice debate, fellahs.

oh come on be fair what about Mark Clarke?

Sure, they wouldn't have handed Torch to Clarke if he wasn't pretty good. He certainly wasn't the best though, and this is about who we think is THE best general of the war. I think the tragedy of Montecassino alone prevents Clarke from being included there. If it wasn't his specific order, and I believe it was, it still fell under his umbrella of supervision. The whole Italian campaign progressed slower than expected, and was in retrospect largely unnecessary. Salerno and especially Anzio could have been handled better. Then again, considering it was an extension of the North Africa/Sicily campaigns, which were largely undertaken solely to keep Germany and Russia bashing eachother to pieces while the Allies continued preparing Overlord, this is to be expected.

By the way, the people downplaying Rommel should consider that OKH basically abandoned him logistically long before El Alamein. Sometimes even the best man can't win when the conditions get bad enough. Erwin was the real deal, no doubt about it.

Personally, I'd've like to have been a grunt under Monty


Yeah, I hear Arnhem went splendidly. Sounds like a jolly ol' time, hehe.

Pearl harbor was the turning point in WWII.

Personally, I'd've like to have been a grunt under Monty,

Market Garden was a total fuckup though. And from what I've read Montgomery was almost as hostile to Ike and Patton as the Germans were.

Patton
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his!"
-heh, great quote

General Bill Slim, a soldiers soldier who fought the Japanese on a shoestring and beat them face up. Manstein was the best in europe hands down!

Market Garden was a total fuckup though. And from what I've read Montgomery was almost as hostile to Ike and Patton as the Germans were.

And it was returned!