Test Question

[PyleDriver]

Ok guys, who was the best general in WWII. I would love to here your responces. You will be shocked with my answer. But I think I'm correct, bring it on...

[Neal_MLC]

Mannerheim

[Flaviusx]

None. No single general was best in all circumstances and situations, given the diversity of theaters, scope, and level of combat ranging from tactical to the grand strategic. Different people fit better in different types of jobs calling for different abilities of generalship. You have to define "best" here more narrowly. Best at what? Generalship in WW2 was too diverse to narrow it down to a single man as being the best general, period.
 
Mannerheim was a fine strategist and operational level commander, though. He understood his country and theater thoroughly. Yet I wonder how well he'd do in a different place or fighting at a different level of command. We will never know how well he could manage urban warfare a la Stalingrad, or an amphibious assult, or managing a coalition of allies like Eisenhower, or leading a parachute division, or directing a mobile armored breakthrough. The most we can say is: he was very good at what his particular job was.
 
 
 
 

[rubisco]

William Slim

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Olate wark guys, who was the best general in WWII. I would love to here your responces. You will be shocked with my answer. But I think I'm correct, bring it on...

I wouldn't be surprised if your answer is based on his ability to integrate the civilian leadership into the military realities. If that is so, then leading candidates would have to be:

(a) Brooke for massaging Churchill away from some of his ahem creative fantasies back to reality

(b) Shaposhnikov initially during Stalin's period of self belief that he could give orders countermanding the professionals

(c) Antonov subsequently for actually being able to adhere to Stalins work schedule, manage the semi prima donnas of the late war fronts such as Zhukov

(d) Cavallaro for bringing some order into the Italian structure whilst still having his boss, Mussolini waiting on his white horse

Alfred

[Flaviusx]

Shaposhnikov wasn't that great at managing Stalin, actually, and most of Stalin's biggest boners occurred under his watch, most infamously the Kiev fiasco. He did about as well in this as Jodl did with Hitler. It's hard to blame Shaposhnikov too much here since Stalin probably had to take his lumps first before being willing to listen and learn from his professional staff, but still. And they had to be big lumps, being Stalin.
 
Vasilesvky is the better example for this. (And Antonov, of course, as you mentioned, but by the time he got the job Stalin had been housebroken by Vasilesvky imo.)
 
However, this is all defining "best" as best in managing civilian leadership, which I suspect isn't what Pyledriver has in mind. (It's a completely legitimate metric of accomplishment mind you, it just is a necessarily limited one since it only covers one particular aspect of generalship.)
 
Slim to me falls in the same category as Mannerheim. A guy who really understood his theater well. He particularly understood how to get the most out of aerial resupply in a theater with poor communications, a fundamental insight that nobody else quite got in that area.

[Zorch]

I would vote for a general who had to master land, air, and (maybe) sea combat, as well as operational and strategic considerations. Plus logistics, and attack/counterattack/defense/retreat. And leadership / political / managing the boss issues. And treating his men fairly. And adjusting his style to the situation at hand. And choosing & using his staff and subordinates.

Not many generals had the opportunity to do all of these.

Overall, I think logistics is the most underrated aspect of generalship.

[PyleDriver]

Zorch your getting close, so is he?

[Flaviusx]

Wouldn't this basically disqualify any German or Russian generals? No real amphibious experience. It would have to be a Brit, an American or a Japanese. It might oddly enough not be limited to just generals, either. I could think of a few admirals who had a talent for combined land/sea/air operations.
 
PD, if you want us to answer the question, you need to tell us your criteria for best. (We can then argue about whether or not that criteria is correct, but that's a different rant. Actually, almost any criteria you select would be valid within its own terms.)
 
 
 
 
 

[Zorch]

PD, is Manstein your man? I think he was good at logisitcs.

[Flaviusx]

But Manstein doesn't even meet your own definition, Zorch.
 
No amphibious experience. And he wasn't the best in dealing with Hitler, for that matter. He was purely an operational commander with no say whatsoever on strategic questions. (Such questions Hitler reserved strictly for himself. Germany had no strategists worth speaking, actually.)
 
A case can be made for him as "best" operational level land commander of WW2, but that this is different from the criteria you set forth.
 
I don't even think he was the best logistician. Slim, mentioned uptopic, I find more impressive and original as a logistician. Nor is German military theory traditionally excessively interested in logistical issues, which bit them in the ass in WW2, as famously noted by van Creveld.

[Zorch]

Flaviusx,
I'm not saying Manstein was best; I'm just trying to guess PD's choice.
I agree with you about Manstein...

[Flaviusx]

Well, he could be the best, depending on how you define best. Heh. Which I know sounds like semantic hairsplitting, but really isn't.

[Wild]

I would pick either Guderian or Kesselring

[PyleDriver]

OK heres a hint. He wasn't a field commander, however he won WWII...Come on guys you should get it now...

[Flaviusx]

That's not a terribly helpful hint.
 
That category includes, to wit:
 
Marshall, Eisenhower, Alanbrooke, and really, most of the Combined Chiefs of Staff, Antonov, possibly Stalin and FDR as their effective heads of state and commanders in chief/Generalissimos, and, hell, the King of England. Winston Churchill as Minister of War who liked to wear military uniforms (usually quite badly.) Being on the winning side of WW2 and not being a field commander is a surprisingly crowded field...
 
Probably missing a few. 

[Hard Sarge]

LOL

think you are missing his hint, who did Monty always complain about ?

[PyleDriver]

Flav, you hit it with one of those. So which one is my pick?... Alright he saved Western Europe after the war...He was the man...Yes it was Marshall...

[PyleDriver]

Another note, he was FDR's right hand in the war, and the US pulled off a two front war. Thus my vote, and we did it power and balance...

[Flaviusx]

Marshall is a pretty good pick, actually. At the grand strategic scale, anyways. Although the actual victory program was authored by Wedemeyer.
 
It's hard to say if Marshall was more important than his opposite numbers in the Soviet Union. I think Vasilevsky/Antonov compare favorably to him in their own ways. Then again, Marshall was far more important after the war than these guys, who never transcended their staff origins to become statesman and politicians. Stalin wasn't going to let that happen...