Favorite WWII Generals?
- Thread starter NoOneFamous
- Start date
To compare the Eastren Front to any other front in WW2, is not a level playing field. It was very much a total war on scale far beyond what the Westren Allies had to deal with.
As for the streotypes you posted, the Soviets didnt have a population of like a billion people. Allowing them to shrug off losses. So by 1942 they were in fact trying to keep theirs losses down to conserve manpower.
Also broadly assuming that all Soviet generals, were ruthless buchers like Zhukov simply wrong.
Could we like I don't know... Actually debate this? Instead of talking around each other?
The Soviets generally were very conscious of manpower, and with the exception of Zhukov and Stalin, generally didn't like to throw units away needlessly to advance their objectives. The Soviets simply couldn't afford to. They had lost far too many soldiers and too much of the population following Barbarossa.
Rokossovsky and Chuikov in particular were very good at conserving the meager resources they had access to. Chuikov, after all, was the man who was charged with the defense of Stalingrad proper, and he was down to skin and bones to do it.
Rokossovsky and Chuikov in particular were very good at conserving the meager resources they had access to. Chuikov, after all, was the man who was charged with the defense of Stalingrad proper, and he was down to skin and bones to do it.
I wouldn't generalise that widely; there were still plenty of terminally dumb offensives that were launched and ground to dust and the political pressure was certainly on taking ground rather than conserving men.
That said, the Hollywood perception is just really disheartening, on this forum of all places. It's not like it's some really obscure topic.
I fully agree with Fyodor Ivanovich Tolbukhin, he would have fit in fine with Bradley, Gavin, Simonds or any other good Canadian/US/UK General in WWII. He wasn't for promotion and earned the respect of his fellow Soviet generals and his troops! Not fear but respect, excellent.
Guy Granville Simonds is the best general from my perspective, but I'm biased, I'm Canadian.
Guy Granville Simonds is the best general from my perspective, but I'm biased, I'm Canadian.
To compare the Eastren Front to any other front in WW2, is not a level playing field. It was very much a total war on scale far beyond what the Westren Allies had to deal with.
As for the streotypes you posted, the Soviets didnt have a population of like a billion people. Allowing them to shrug off losses. So by 1942 they were in fact trying to keep theirs losses down to conserve manpower.
Also broadly assuming that all Soviet generals, were ruthless buchers like Zhukov simply wrong.
Who said or implied one billion? Could you chose a better method of winning an argument other than making things up?
There is no argument, or at least there shouldn't be one. You should be easily able to find information about blocking units and penal batallions and what they actually did in an average situation quite easily in the internet age. Then we can come back and hopefully discuss this in a more informed manner.
My top two of the war would be:
Major General Guy Simonds, Canadian Army
Commanded 1st Canadian Infantry Division, then II Canadian Corps,
then finally First Canadian Army during the Battle of the Scheldt in 1945
(also, that is probably the happiest picture of him I can find)
my favourite American General
is without a doubt:
General Terry de la Mesa Allen.
He commanded the Big Red One in North Africa, all the way from Oran to Mateur.
After that, he took command of the 104th Division (Timberwolves) and fought in the Battle of the Bulge, then broke the Siegried Line.
Allen looks like Red Buttons in The Longest Day. Without the church steeple, of course.
Erwin Rommel is too obvious; Kurt Student, Albrecht Kesselring.
I already said Zhukov was a butcher but the idea the Soviets weren’t conscious of their manpower limits is utterly farcical. Overall Soviet losses dropped considerably from late 1942 onwards (when considering Soviets losses in 1041-2 the two million POWs deliberately killed by the Nazi’s are also taken into account). As the Red Army was rebuilt and no longer just a huge militia. Also the Soviet tactical doctrine shifted to usage of massed artillery and armour. Utilizing massive firepower instead of troop numbers. Of course the Germans got weaker too, but that can linked to the Red Army’s improvements causing the Heer’s attrition levels to become unsustainable.
People who hold the ‘’Hollywood history’’ view of the Eastern Front or read German general’s memoirs and consider them accurate depictions of history. Tend to behave as if the Soviets really did have a population over a billion, took no heed of losses and could spam new divisions endlessly like WW2 was an RTS game. It’s a caricature and while some Soviet generals like Zhukov really were butchers this trait was by no means universal.
The best by category:
Irregular forces commander: Fertig
Tactical commander: Chuikov
Strategic commander: Zhukov
Grand strategy commander: Eisenhower
Naval commanders: Cunningham and Ramsey (RN), Nimitz (USN)
Best political commander in chief: FDR (interfered the least)
Set piece battle commander: Monty
Irregular forces commander: Fertig
Tactical commander: Chuikov
Strategic commander: Zhukov
Grand strategy commander: Eisenhower
Naval commanders: Cunningham and Ramsey (RN), Nimitz (USN)
Best political commander in chief: FDR (interfered the least)
Set piece battle commander: Monty
What has hollywood history got to do with me? I never said or implied the USSR had a billion people. I am not a Hollywood director.
My point was simple. If you talk about Soviet generals being good or not good you cannot measure them in the same way as a western general.
Perhaps Montgommery would have been bolder if he were worried about shot by Churchill.
Let's run with your point then, shall we? If we cannot discuss Soviet generals in the same breath as Wallied ones, then can we discuss say, German/Italian/Japanese/Chinese ones, or do they also need separate categories? Because their conditions of conducting war under political and material pressure were at least as different as those of the Soviet generals?
More broadly, what is the point of this exercise if you're going to discount the majority of the core combatant countries and by extension their commanders?
usertron2020
Donor
Xue Yue. If this guy had toppled Chaing and been in charge as Commander-in-Chief, the KMT bloodies the IJA so badly that by the time 1945 rolls around the IJA is fighting with their backs to the sea and holed up in Manchuria. The Non-Manchurian Chinese mainland is mostly liberated and Xue Yue has gained the precious major Pacific port China so desparately needs for Allied supplies for the KMT (and perhaps even the CCP).
Despite his role in the Long March, he very much believed in using the CCP's forces whereever and whenever possible (very much a "one war at a time kind of guy).
Despite his role in the Long March, he very much believed in using the CCP's forces whereever and whenever possible (very much a "one war at a time kind of guy).
I go for Silm and Morshead
The latter's achievments, though sort of known in Australia, are mostly underrated. He showed the weak points of Bitlzkrieg warfare and then went on to do damn well in the Pacific.
speaking od the Pacific, Yamashita's conquest of Singapore was masterful. He was able to fool Percival into surrendering when his force were on the brink of exhaustion.
The latter's achievments, though sort of known in Australia, are mostly underrated. He showed the weak points of Bitlzkrieg warfare and then went on to do damn well in the Pacific.
speaking od the Pacific, Yamashita's conquest of Singapore was masterful. He was able to fool Percival into surrendering when his force were on the brink of exhaustion.
Maur
Banned
Gavin? The one commanding 82nd, who was behind the failure of Market-Garden?
Source please. ("Enemy at the gates" doesn't count, btw
)EDIT/ Oh, already covered by RGB.