alternatehistory.com

Something that I have noticed both here and on other forums is that few non-German WW-2 generals are mentioned positively. During the entire timeframe of the Second World War, who were the good generals (typically commanding armies and above), as considered great by this forum?

The conventional wisdom here seems to me is that on the German side generally all of their generals are in the good category, if not great or even better. The Soviets get Zhukov, and maybe one or two others.* The British have Brooke and sometimes Montgomery (Alexander as well?). The Americans get Patton, sometimes, and no one else. The Finns have Mannerheim. The rest of the countries have no one of note. Is this realistic? Is it realistic that military talent was distributed that way?
Should the Western Allies get credit for their logistical capabilities?

It is often said, including here, that "amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logistics" and variations thereof. Yet, when generals are rated, combat ability is the most used rating factor.

Dilvish

*For some, the Soviets are considered to have the great generals, with sometimes no one else having great generals.
Top