NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is the best General of all time? I have to go with Moshe Dayan. The man won numerous battles for Israel with few men and weapons against the vast and well equipped Arab armies. He won these wars before the US gave weapons to Israel (that didn't start until after the 6 day war.)

http://www.krux.nl/uploadedImgs/NEWS/Israel%20moshe%20dayan%201%20bewerkte%20versie.jpg

Bah, I go for the Soviets. Zhukov basically won the war, and Tukhachevsky was years ahead of his time.

I would say Nelson, but he was an Admiral, and Napoleon was more statesman than General. So, I would say Alexander the Great. Much of his work was due to his father's contribution, but he realised the creation of an empire. Next would be Julius Caesar.

Dr Thrax, duh

Bah, I go for the Soviets. Zhukov basically won the war, and Tukhachevsky was years ahead of his time.

are you freaking kidding me? do you have no idea what tactics the soviets used to fight the war? what human rights violations they violated and how they treated their own soldiers... you're sick.

Sun Tzu.

Zhukov was a horrible general. He lost way too many of his men.

No general can compare to Moshe Dayan, not even Patton.

are you freaking kidding me? do you have no idea what tactics the soviets used to fight the war? what human rights violations they violated and how they treated their own soldiers... you're sick.
He is sick because he finds a General good at doing what he's supposed to, waging wars? :rolleyes: Being the best General doesn't necessarily mean being the nicest.

are you freaking kidding me? do you have no idea what tactics the soviets used to fight the war? what human rights violations they violated and how they treated their own soldiers... you're sick.
Zhukov was a genius, he stopped the Germans from taking Kiev (operation Zitadelle), from where the russians later mounted their attacks towards Germany. The russians in general might not have followed the human rights, but he was a splendid tactician.

Bah, I go for the Soviets. Zhukov basically won the war, and Tukhachevsky was years ahead of his time.

it's easy to win a war when you don't care about the lives of your men or any other innocent people around.

Marlborough. 10 years of victorious campaigning, never lost a battle or a siege in his career.

Zhukov was a genius, he stopped the Germans from taking Kiev (operation Zitadelle), from where the russians later mounted their attacks towards Germany. The russians in general might not have followed the human rights, but he was a splendid tactician.
Exactly. Few Generals had much consideration for human rights anyway. The best way to crush your enemies is to convince your troops that they are subhuman, for good or for ill...many Generals subscribe to this theory.

Julius Cesear

Best General Ever

NSGeneral **nods**:p

American Civil War General Ambrose E. Burnside.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/31/images/hh31n2.jpg

He sucked at fighting and organising troops, but he had the most awesome moustache ever.

NSGeneral **nods**:pYou swine... seconds ahead of me...

American Civil War General Ambrose E. Burnside.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/31/images/hh31n2.jpg

He sucked at fighting and organising troops, but he had the most awesome moustache ever.
That's just... Beautiful.

Hannibal. Killed over 50,000 Romans in one day. Not very good looking at the big picture though...

You swine... seconds ahead of me...

Frankly, I was amazed I was first.

Julius Cesear

well, the gauls were hardly a worthy advesary at the time.

American Civil War General Ambrose E. Burnside.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/31/images/hh31n2.jpg

He sucked at fighting and organising troops, but he had the most awesome moustache ever.

FTW :D :cool:

J C Smuts or Allenby

well, the gauls were hardly a worthy advesary at the time.
Caesar had opponents within the Roman Empire as well as from the outside...he fought both back.

Caesar had opponents within the Roman Empire as well as from the outside...he fought both back.

after he conquered gaul... at which point, that would make hima good politician.

(not good enough apparently)

after he conquered gaul... at which point, that would make hima good politician.

(not good enough apparently)
More of a General-Politician, though I guess yeah, he did fail ultimately :p

Chuck Horner.

Alexander the Great or Chinggis Khan. Both started in teensy disregarded provinces in some Godforsaken part of the world and ended up conquering nearly everything.

Zhukov was not a great general. Easy enough to win a war if you're 200m versus 80m and relying on one-for-one killing. But he liked Coca Cola and had it shipped to him in retirement with the caramel colour taken out and in fake bottles so he could pretend it was booze.

Alexander the Great or Chinggis Khan. Both started in teensy disregarded provinces in some Godforsaken part of the world and ended up conquering nearly everything.
Alexander was indeed a brilliant tactician, yet one must remember much of his accomplishments were in part due to what his father had achieved. The Persian Empire, although numerically superior by far to the Greeks, was not what it was once. His achievements are nevertheless remarkable.

General Sir Peter De La Billiere

"A commander who made men do almost impossible things by doing them himself first... A soldier who from the most undisciplined and uncompromising beginnings achieved complete mastery of himself and the men who fought under him"-Daily telegraph

or Mahatma Gandhi!: http://www.boloji.com/opinion/0097.htm

The Duke of Marlborough.

Brian boitano

or that first guy if he had a hook hand.... or two

I'm going to name a General I'm sure most of you have never heard of, and the motto, "the silent professional" fits him perfectly. Major General William P. Yarborough is the man responsible for the design of the airborne wings, back in WWII, and he successfully requested that President Kennedy issue an executive order, awarding the green beret to the soldiers in Special Forces.

General Yarborough did much more than get the green beret for SF troopers, he was the man who put in place, at Ft Bragg, NC. the training programs that have made Special Forces the most elite group of soldiers in the world.

The fact that most people have never heard of General Yarborough is evidence that his mission was done quietly and professionally. Bill Yarborough passed away recently and as far as I know, no one, except those of us who knew him, heard of his passing.

Rest in peace General, your job is done

Alexander was indeed a brilliant tactician, yet one must remember much of his accomplishments were in part due to what his father had achieved. The Persian Empire, although numerically superior by far to the Greeks, was not what it was once. His achievements are nevertheless remarkable.
His dad conquered Greece, but that's barely a start. Alexander got over to India and Afghanistan and beat some of the kings there before his men said "er, I think we need a holiday" and refused to go further.

Cyrus the Great probably went slightly one better by founding the Persian Empire form what was at the time just almost a city state

are you freaking kidding me? do you have no idea what tactics the soviets used to fight the war? what human rights violations they violated and how they treated their own soldiers... you're sick.

*Weeep, Weeeeep, Weeep!* Do you hear that? That's my bullshit detector. It went on, and guess who is to blame?

Zhukov didn't spare his men, but he knew what he was doing, and he stopped and pushed back the steamroller that was called Wehrmacht. The question here was not "who was the nicest person that has led troops", but who was the best general.

Besides, you can hardly blame him or Tuhatzevski for human rights violations. If you have any examples of evidence, please elt me know.

Anyways, even though Zhukov was a magnificent general, I do think that Manstein and Guderian were superior compared to even him. The thing is, every time Zhukov won he had a great advantage in numbers. Had Manstein ever faced him with even somewhere near equally strong forces, I'd say he would have won the day. But this is of course just IMO-speculation.

The best general of all times... I think I'll go with Tzingis/Ghengiz Khan. He created, united, trained and led one of the mightiest armies ever, and never lost a battle. His empire was largest in the history of mankind.

Marlborough. Anyone who studies A-Level history ought know about this guy. His armies defeated Louis XIV's French forces, and brought Britain into the Continental limelight.

That said, Slim is an interesting option, and it was hard to choose between the two. Sent over to Burma as he was deemed too unorthodox and enigmatic by the High Command, he conducted the masterful counter-strikes against the Japs.

Finally, as to Zhukov; No-one can deny that Zhukov was a great general. You can bitch and moan all you like about human rights violations, but when did the Russians ever care about the value of human life? Yes, he suffered massive casualties, but remember, his armies were not fantastically equipped yet, and, against the odds, he drove the Germans back from the Soviet Union.

Success at any cost. Its an option that is and always has been open to the Russians, with a base of manpower such as they can draw upon.

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/99006787/200.jpg

Erwin Rommel

Sun Tsu

After reading the introduction to The Art of War, anyone that can turn a bunch of concubines into a disciplined fighting force in a matter of ten minutes is a leader to be reckoned with.

the Duke of Wellington or Field Marshall Montgomery...

Sun Tsu

After reading the introduction to The Art of War, anyone that can turn a bunch of concubines into a disciplined fighting force in a matter of ten minutes is a leader to be reckoned with.

Considering he actually wasn't a general, i guess that kills your point.

In mustache category, Kaiser Wilhelm I
http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/photogallery/photo00031119/Wilhelm%20I,%20Kaiser.jpg

Overall, Frederick the Great
http://www.fredsociety.com/images/great.jpg

it's easy to win a war when you don't care about the lives of your men or any other innocent people around.

Because the Nazis cared so much more.

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/manstein02.jpg

Erich von Manstein. He basically orchestrated the first half of the second World War, he was the only one to stand up to Hitler and survive, he didn't want anything to do with shooting POWs and civilians and he won the Battle of Kursk (among many others).

And after that, he became military advisor for the new German Bundeswehr. If you can have a favourite Nazi, make this him.

Other than that, I'd like to add the Victor of the Wars of German Unification, Helmuth von Moltke Sr.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/64/Moltke-small.jpg

Patton doesn't rate very highly with me at all, and I'm not too familiar with the specifics of the Israeli-Arab Wars.

Manstein. An asshole, but a genius.

Marlborough. Anyone who studies A-Level history ought know about this guy. His armies defeated Louis XIV's French forces, and brought Britain into the Continental limelight.

Well, our A Level History studied the Nazi rise to power and consolidation of power, Russia between 1905 and 1925, Ireland in the same time period, Mussolini's rise and fall, the causes of WW2, and something else I've completely forgotten about...Although I got an A, it was 2 or 3 years ago and I've since studied completely different things in my History degree.

/hijack

Manstein. An asshole, but a genius.
A Prussian Soldier, I guess.

What "Assholeness" are you specifically referring to though?

Belisarius.

Hands down.

He was a eunuch but had more balls:cool: than most men of his time.

it's easy to win a war when you don't care about the lives of your men or any other innocent people around.

I must disagree. That incites mutiny, and mutiny incites less control.

As for me....I must say Alexander the Great. Either that or biblical Sun Tzu.

A Prussian Soldier, I guess.

What "Assholeness" are you specifically referring to though?

Didn't he commit war crimes? Or am I mistaking him for someone else?

What about this guy?

http://squeee.purehubris.com/assets/images/britishgeneral.jpg

He looks like he could woop a few colonial riff-raff.

ANd for those of you unfamiliar with Belisarius,

I present the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius

ANd for those of you unfamiliar with Belisarius,

I present the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius

I feel special. I know who Belisarius before you posted that up. I had to do a project on him when I researched Christianity. He was the most brilliant Commander of his time.

Didn't he commit war crimes? Or am I mistaking him for someone else?
There was a trial to try and convict him of things, but he was let go early (I think the trials were primarily because the Western Allies didn't actually get all that many Nazis high in the ranks - they had to use who they had for their trials).

He didn't want to sign the Komissarbefehl, which was to shoot all Russian PolitCommissars on sight, even if they were prisoners. I suppose there probably were incidents way below him, but at least personally I wasn't a political person, he was a soldier.
It's a cultural thing I guess, being a Prussian Soldier meant to turn you brain off at crucial times occasionally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein#Trial

But questions remain, so much is true. But those questions must be asked about everyone in the German Army at the time. You could find similar things about pretty much everyone of them - hell, I'ds be surprised if my own grandfather hadn't done, or at least tolerated things that he would deserve punishment for.

Erwin Rommel. Never has a general done so much with so little.

There was a trial to try and convict him of things, but he was let go early (I think the trials were primarily because the Western Allies didn't actually get all that many Nazis high in the ranks - they had to use who they had for their trials).

He didn't want to sign the Komissarbefehl, which was to shoot all Russian PolitCommissars on sight, even if they were prisoners. I suppose there probably were incidents way below him, but at least personally I wasn't a political person, he was a soldier.
It's a cultural thing I guess, being a Prussian Soldier meant to turn you brain off at crucial times occasionally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein#Trial

But questions remain, so much is true. But those questions must be asked about everyone in the German Army at the time. You could find similar things about pretty much everyone of them - hell, I'ds be surprised if my own grandfather hadn't done, or at least tolerated things that he would deserve punishment for.

Ah, okay. Thank you for the clarification. :)

He is sick because he finds a General good at doing what he's supposed to, waging wars? :rolleyes: Being the best General doesn't necessarily mean being the nicest.

So the French Generals of WW1 were really brilliant then?

So the French Generals of WW1 were really brilliant then?
Were they good at waging wars or did they suck at it? If they were brilliant at them, then they were brilliant.

Hannibal. Killed over 50,000 Romans in one day. Not very good looking at the big picture though...

Anybody who becomes the boogieman of the Roman empire is worthy of a mention.....

Anybody who becomes the boogieman of the Roman empire is worthy of a mention.....
I present to you then...

Arminius the Cheruskan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius)

I present to you then...

Arminius the Cheruskan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius)

I have to admit I said "who" until I saw Teutoburg Forest.

Yes he is indeed worthy of mention! :)

Were they good at waging wars or did they suck at it? If they were brilliant at them, then they were brilliant.

Brilliant is hardly a word to apply to people that wage war on the principle of endless manpower and equipment.

The Russians equipment was way better then the Germans and yes how long did it take them to beat them?

Brilliant is hardly a word to apply to people that wage war on the principle of endless manpower and equipment.

The Russians equipment was way better then the Germans and yes how long did it take them to beat them?
I don't see what point you are trying to raise with me...I was countering arguments that the Russian generals were less than good due to the way they treated their soldiers. Obviously, if one can wage a war with less manpower and equipment and prevail, they are potentially better generals.

He was only a Colonel so that violates the thread and of course I can't remember the name.

He commanded a German force that kept the British at bay during D-Day.

Even after the war former British commanders looked him up.....

Belarius? Hah. Why don't you all take a look at Narses, his replacement after Belisarius was fired by Justin? An Armenian eunuch servent in the palace of the emperors in Constantinople and made a general at age 74. Made Italy a part of the empire again.

He may not be the best, but he is certianly one of the most underrated.

Hannibal, Rommel, Shi Huangdi, the various Kahns, Alexander, Saldin, and Atilla the Hun all get honerable mentions in my book.

He was only a Colonel so that violates the thread and of course I can't remember the name.

He commanded a German force that kept the British at bay during D-Day.

Even after the war former British commanders looked him up.....
Michael Wittmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann).

My reading of it was that Narses simply built on and followed Belisarius' strategy. Belisarius was undone by politics; Narses used politics to gain fame and fortune at Belisarius' expense.

Incidentally, I have never heard that Belisarius was a Eunuch (though it's pretty certain Narses was). Belisarius has my vote as the best of them all.

Michael Wittmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann).

Hmmm I might be mixing up two guys and of course I can't find the book I read.

Ah well thanks! :)

I'll cast my support for Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden as he was indeed brillant and has yet be mentioned.

Erwin Rommel.

Actually, I'd like to add a third Russian to my two Soviet generals: the Russian winter. It defeated the Germans in 1242, the French in 1812 and the Germans again in 1942. As an old Russian proverb says...

"When all our other generals have been beaten, we still have General January and General February."

NSGeneral **nods**:p
Beaten to it....


hmmmm


Your mom? :eek:

Who is the best General of all time? I have to go with Moshe Dayan. The man won numerous battles for Israel with few men and weapons against the vast and well equipped Arab armies. He won these wars before the US gave weapons to Israel (that didn't start until after the 6 day war.)

Given that Israel has only been a country since 1948.. Israel wouldn't even be in the race for the best General of all time. As for who I think is.. I'd have to think on it longer.. but probably it would be an American, or UK, or perhaps even France or Germany.

Field Marshall Montgomery...
In terms of % of soldiers lost, Montgomery actually has a worse record than the much maligned Sir Douglas Haig

http://members.fortunecity.com/bubbas_barn/general_lando.jpg

Or

http://www.canadianbands.com/Kick%20Axe.html
Kick Axe, AKA Spectre General!

Zhukov was a horrible general. He lost way too many of his men.

No general can compare to Moshe Dayan, not even Patton.
You are right if you are talking about sheer arrogance and incompetence he was lucky his men saved his arse by managing to occasionally complete his BS Orders if you wish to compare Dayan to PAtton in any way he too must be a numbskull.

In terms of % of soldiers lost, Montgomery actually has a worse record than the much maligned Sir Douglas Haig
He did take more ground though but he was out ranked by two of his Divisional Commanders in Freyberg(NZ) and Leslie Morshead of Australia.

Alamein is Monty's greatest achievement but he just threw a tonne of Armour at a defensive line and watched it get practically annihilated.
But the Germans and Italians were equally hit especially from the initial Artillary assualt and the work of DAF comanded by Tedder and Coningham.


Heck Monty saw a perfect defensive box asked the general in charge of it being (Kippenberger) then went on to say it was his idea.-WTF

Duke of Marlborough, Gustav Aldolphus or Napolean for greatest ever maybe Freyberg.....

Given that Israel has only been a country since 1948.. Israel wouldn't even be in the race for the best General of all time.

I don't follow the argument. How does that work? Generals are generals. It's like saying you can't have a WW2 general because he hasn't been dead long enough

I don't follow the argument. How does that work? Generals are generals. It's like saying you can't have a WW2 general because he hasn't been dead long enough
She was trying to be polite, she doesn't like jews.
The above statement is most probably not true

I'm having a hard time choosing between a couple of great generals:

1) Alexander the Great: conquering half the known world before age 33, not a bad feat...
2) Darius the Great: commanding huge armies of elite Persian soldiers for a long time. Besides: he's got a cool name ;)
3) Hannibal: for being the first one to use the pincer-movement and completely destroying the ultimate fighting force of his day: the Roman army. Elephants: waaaaaaaagh!
4) Vercingetorix: although loosing from the Romans while outnumbering them 5 to 1, it's an enormous task to get 300.000 Gauls rallied to kick out those pesky Romans.
5) Napoleon:'nuff said.


But if I gotta choose... it'll be Hannibal. Waaaaaaaaaagh! ;)

Erwin Rommel was a nazi cover boy for the Signal magazine. Nazi propaganda created his genious. He might have been good but i think that his succeses were due to the fact that he had a superior military organisation behind him. The best german general of WWII would be Manstein!

Zhukov might haver been really good but Chuikov was probably better. Speaking of attrocities i still think that people in the US actually celebrate the greatest terrorist of all time. I am talking about a person who ordered the nuclear bombing of civilian targets twice! His name is Truman!

Lettow-Vorbeck

WW1 German commander in East Africa, fought with a tiny army of native troops and held at bay a vastly larger allied force of South African, Belgian and British forces.

My reading of it was that Narses simply built on and followed Belisarius' strategy. Belisarius was undone by politics; Narses used politics to gain fame and fortune at Belisarius' expense.

Incidentally, I have never heard that Belisarius was a Eunuch (though it's pretty certain Narses was). Belisarius has my vote as the best of them all.
Agreed, It was Belisarius that defeated the Vandals and began athe reconquest of Italy during the reign of Justinian.

Erwin Rommel was a nazi cover boy for the Signal magazine. Nazi propaganda created his genious. He might have been good but i think that his succeses were due to the fact that he had a superior military organisation behind him. The best german general of WWII would be Manstein!

Zhukov might haver been really good but Chuikov was probably better. Speaking of attrocities i still think that people in the US actually celebrate the greatest terrorist of all time. I am talking about a person who ordered the nuclear bombing of civilian targets twice! His name is Truman!
Truman in WWI wanted to go all the way to Berlin, scalp the eledrly and cut off the hands of the children.

Erwin Rommel was a nazi cover boy for the Signal magazine. Nazi propaganda created his genious.
Not completely, but I see your point. Nonetheless, on the ground as a commander of troops leading from the front he was one of the best. In fact, in France there was only one man who advanced quicker than Guderian - and that was Rommel.

But strategically, I'd agree with Manstein.

Lettow-Vorbeck
I always forget him...:(

Not completely, but I see your point. Nonetheless, on the ground as a commander of troops leading from the front he was one of the best. In fact, in France there was only one man who advanced quicker than Guderian - and that was Rommel.

But strategically, I'd agree with Manstein.


I always forget him...:(
Neu Leonstein what if Rommel had been on the Eastern Front with the 7th and Von Arnhim(sorry spelling) had had the Afrika Corp and used it as a defensive force as intended.-would this have been better?

Neu Leonstein what if Rommel had been on the Eastern Front with the 7th and Von Arnhim(sorry spelling) had had the Afrika Corp and used it as a defensive force as intended.-would this have been better?
Well, it wouldn't have been won either way.

As it was, Rommel was an inspiration for others, and he made the Allies commit huge amounts of men and material to Africa. I doubt the same could have been achieved if the Afrikakorps had never made that name for itself. I don't know much about von Arnim, but I doubt he'd been the character to pull off the same things Rommel pulled off.

And the best German Forces with the best Generals were on the Eastern Front, but ultimately it was wrong decisions from the very top that overruled any chance on the ground.

are you freaking kidding me? do you have no idea what tactics the soviets used to fight the war? what human rights violations they violated and how they treated their own soldiers... you're sick.

First: Just because he was a great general doesn't mean that he was a pleasant person or that his actions were the least bloody.

The US and the rest of the Allies weren't such nice people themselves, the US to this day still use weapons designed to maim a person like various shotguns and mines, friendly chaps, eh? (and no that "eh" does not mean I'm canadian)

edit:

Greatest general ever:

General Kenobi - He's a badass jedi-general :D can't go wrong with that.

Well, being Russian, I have to say about Zhukov. It is confrontation of ideologies in the post-WWII Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States that has made the difference in what is told in schools in Russia and in the US (and in the countries that supported these forces).
We are mostly taught about Zhukov's great victories and stuff, while in the US special attention is paid to human rights and how they were totally ignored. So the opinion by the American that Zhukov was the master of evil is biased (as well as the point made by some Russian about how cool he was in tactics, developing strategy, etc - so my opinion is out of the scope, although I don't think he was the greatest General).

Rommel. An all round class act.

From wiki:

The British Parliament considered a censure vote against Winston Churchill following the surrender of Tobruk. The vote failed, but in the course of the debate, Churchill would say: "We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great General."

Rommel. An all round class act.

From wiki:

The British Parliament considered a censure vote against Winston Churchill following the surrender of Tobruk. The vote failed, but in the course of the debate, Churchill would say: "We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great General."
Rommel is one of the best of his time, definitely.

in US history:

Ulysses S. Grant -- saved the Union with his military intelligence and resolve to take the battle to the enemy. He also had a great eye for talent, putting two other very good commanders -- William T. Sherman and Philip (or Phillip) Sheridan -- in charge of their own forces. Sherman accomplished the March to the Sea, and Sheridan ran circles around Lee's entire force and kicked ass in the Shenandoah Valley (Sheridan's Ride). In his Memoirs, Grant says how while the US had some advantage in numbers, the Confederates had the huge advantage of fighting on home soil, with the backing of the Southern people... the North had to guard their lines against sabotage not only by Confederate forces, but also by Confederate civilians. (this goes against the popular belief that the north had every advantage -- this is patently false).

George Washington -- Father of our country. Had the biggest hand in leading us to victory over Great Britain.

Spruance, MacArthur -- great US World War II general & admiral (among others, I remember these)

Robert E. Lee -- I think a campaign fought between Lee and Grant, both at full strength, would have been grand... Lee for his ability to dodge, Grant for his ability to pursue. I think Grant would have won -- who dares wins, right Brits? -- but he'd also have been embarrassed from time to time. Not that he had much opposition, but Lee totally outdueled the imbecilic or non-moving early generals of the Union's Army of the Potomac. (of course, we know now that McClellan really was against the war in the first place... which goes a long way to explaining his inaction and resulting low place in US military history.

well those are five. hehe

Well, it wouldn't have been won either way.

As it was, Rommel was an inspiration for others, and he made the Allies commit huge amounts of men and material to Africa. I doubt the same could have been achieved if the Afrikakorps had never made that name for itself. I don't know much about von Arnim, but I doubt he'd been the character to pull off the same things Rommel pulled off.

And the best German Forces with the best Generals were on the Eastern Front, but ultimately it was wrong decisions from the very top that overruled any chance on the ground.
The Afrikakorps never would have made its feared attacks because it was never untended to assualt the British forces.
Rommel had other ideas.
Von Arnim was conservative in his plans and defended Tunis well but i believe he had been on the eastern front before that.


Damn you Von Paulus for listening to Hitler...

Rommel. An all round class act.

From wiki:

The British Parliament considered a censure vote against Winston Churchill following the surrender of Tobruk. The vote failed, but in the course of the debate, Churchill would say: "We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great General."

And you were expecting him to say, what? "We got beaten by a most incompetent and mentally deficient person of uncertain vital status."

"We got beaten by a most incompetent and mentally deficient person of uncertain vital status."
http://images.art.com/images/products/regular/10088000/10088393.jpg