Okay so go ahead and pick your favorite ww2 commander. If you choose other then provide a name, country, and reasoning. Feel free to support your vote or criticize others (with supporting reasons). Some evaluation criteria can be Tactical knowledge, Strategic Knowledge, Accomplishments, Leadership, Planning, Execution, Intangibles.
Tomoyuki Yama(*)(*)(*)(*)a? I'd go with Rommel I think. That fox was pretty impressive, but to be honest I don't know enough to make a good choice.
Tomoyuki Yamas-h-i-t-a they censor the word s-h-i-t lol but he was a Japanese commander that took Singapore from the British using a very small force. It was once of the UK's worst defeats of the war. Tomoyuki was later sentenced for war crimes and hanged though. Rommel is regarded by many to be the best. I think Manstein is though IMO. He designed the battle plan for France, Captured Sevastapol, and his famous back-hand solution for the 3rd battle of Kharkov.
lol indeed, it looked very funny! Oh did he? Defeating France in so short a time is surely a feat, and if he's behind the plan that's very impressive.
Yes it was very remarkable. I would recommend anyone who is interested in those kind of things to research about Erich Von Manstein. He is very controversial and very interesting.
I intend to read everything about everything so I will probably come around to it eventually. slightly OT: I guess you're quite the ww2 history buff? There's one thing about ww2 which really, really interests me more than anything, and that's war plans regarding sweden. You don't happen to know anything about such things do you? Swedish defense plans, german plans to tkae over sweden etc? even allies' plans to do it, for I know they once planned it.
Why no Dwight D. Eisenhower? He had to 'herd cats' (Monty, Patton, etc.) and still get cooperation and the job done!
I wondered how long it would be before the General who never actually commanded an army in battle was nominated.
He 'merely' commanded a multi-national invasion...that ended up being the catalyst that won the war and then led him to be one of America's better presidents commanding a nation as its Commander-in-Chief.....guess it was just dumb luck, huh?!
Douglas McArthur and George Patton are two of the greatest Generals this country has ever had. Never again, thanks to the Liberal machine, will we ever have such determined and unapologetic commanders embedded in our military, who will stop at nothing to actually win a war. Imagine if either one of them were alive today to lead the War on Terror. It'd be over by now, because the enemy would be dead or surrendering.
My honest opinion is that plans were made against Sweden from all sides for 2 reasons. One was that Sweden traded to both sides so they saw it as a way to eliminate trade with the other. The other reason was fear that Sweden would eventually side with the other so they felt a need to strike first. However, Sweden maintained a position of complete neutrality and co-operated with both sides throughout the war which prevented any such action. Except that alot of people today try to judge the Swedish for so called "aiding the Nazi's" which isnt really true. - - - Updated - - - I only was allowed 10 spaces. I could have made a list of 50 candidates easily and probably 100 if i really wanted to try.
Think Patton meets most of these: "Tactical knowledge, Strategic Knowledge, Accomplishments, Leadership, Planning, Execution, Intangibles"...the intangibles were: his loyalty, trust, & devotion of his campaign regulars that served with him (he often walked point with them); also, his vision to keep going on to Russia; strategic knowledge & execution were all the Roman campaigns under Julius Caesar he had studied....
Patton is one of the greatest in history. I think one of the question's that comes into conflict when comparing to German commanders, is do you think he could have done so well if he were in the German position where he had an army that was out-numbered, under-supplied, and had to work under someone like Hitler?
He would have been shot for insubordination!! Rommel was excellent for having his hands always tied! But didnt Patton out flank him in N. Africa once?
McArthur was okay, but he was mostly an administrator, pompous aristocrat and fancy lad. As for Patton, he was a strutting, pretty-boy, parade-field general whose claim to fame was running around to field hospitals and physically abusing and beating up wounded soldiers as they lied dying in bed -- and accusing them of malingering. Patton commanded by sheer intimidation and not by example. Eisenhower allowed Patton far too much leeway. In egregious violation of the army's uniform standards, Patton wore his own custom made costume consisting of a riding crop, swagger stick, breeches, cowboy boots and two pearl-handled, silver-plated revolvers. The Germans claimed he looked like a cowboy and rodeo clown. Eisenhower ordered Patton to apologize for his use of a swagger stick to flog and beat up severely wounded combat soldiers in field hospitals. But it was a weak, meaningless half-arsed apology. Eisenhower should have ordered Patton to be flogged; stripped of his fake medals; reduced to the rank of private; and exiled to New Jersey in disgrace. The pompous Patton was finally neutralized in a vehicle crash, which most believed was actually an ambush set up by some of his own soldiers. -30-
My vote as the greatest commander of the Second World War, would go to Gen. Eisenhower. Patton was more often despised by his own men than liked. Respected perhaps, but there's little fondness for him. Talk to real WW2 veterans who served under him. I don't know what they put in history books these days saying he was both loved and admired. Having talked with many WW2 vets over the past decades, which is somethng I purposely sought to do whenever the chance presented itself. Almost universally... "hated the guy" Admired? definitely, but I didn't see much fondness for him. Take all that with a grain of salt as it's purely anecdotal, yet it seemed a shock to me at first to hear the telling of many a war story from men with genuine disdain for Gen. Patton. Anecdotal of course, so admittedly it's weak evidence to make the claim all men who served under him had respect, but no fondness. Blood n' guts Patton? His guts and your blood was a common retort amongst the GIs. Eisenhower had to get Patton on board with Montgomery, soothing the egos of two megalo-maniacs.
Sounds like the movie Patton was too 'kind' toward him? He said that he loved war, which most retired Gens do not say....
MacArthur also told us to deal with the North Korean theat while we had the opportunity, and we backed out of it like cowards. That was the beginning of America's geopolitical downfall as well as our social downfall. Now the threat has expanded into a nuclear rogue state. Should've listened to MacArthur.
They say they want civilians not Generals running the country! But if Patton & MacArthur had been let loose, what would this world look like today?
I'll go with Patton, because... Well, he won And he wanted to push on and take down the Bolsheviks as well. We should have let him.
Heinz Guderian was a leading innovator of armored warfare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian
You sound like a liberal history professor from Columbia with a hard on for strong, military men who expected the best out of their soldiers. In fact, I think you should read this: http://www.commandposts.com/2011/08/pattons-slap-remembered/ (from someone who knows wth he's talking about).
Due to his easy going style, playing lots of golf, for the 10 yrs following his presidency he was dis'd and his presidency was not considered remarkable But today, he has gained much more in the creds dept.....which has already started to happen with 'W' (staying out of Obama's hair with neg comments, etc. i.e. gracefully departing the ofc) and will continue to improve when history catches up and goes beyond partisan politics.
