Greatest Military Mind(s) of WWII?

[AbsntMndedProf]

IYHO, who was/were the greatest military genius(es) of WWII? (I know there are many more possible names, so list any others I've missed.) Btw, I meant to allow more than one 'vote' per person. Could a moderator change the poll so that people can vote for more than one? Thanks!

Eric Maietta

[Goblin]

Rommel and Patton in a tie.

Goblin

[Orzel Bialy]

Guderian.

He mastered the early teachings of people like Fuller and Hart and helped put them into practice in actual combat. He showed not only the ability to command forces in the field at the tactical level...but also had an understanding of their organizational needs and limitations at the strategic level.

To me...everyone else takes second place....except Monty...he's last after all I've read. lol

[AbsntMndedProf]

Guderian.

He mastered the early teachings of people like Fuller and Hart and helped put them into practice in actual combat. He showed not only the ability to command forces in the field at the tactical level...but also had an understanding of their organizational needs and limitations at the strategic level.

To me...everyone else takes second place....except Monty...he's last after all I've read. lol

Il Duce has to be right down there with Monty, (If not below.). His dream of turning the Med into Italy's Mare Nostrum ran into reality when his armed forces couldn't even take Greece, or hold North Africa even when his forces greatly outnumbered the Brits.

Eric Maietta

[mogami]

Hi, IMHO the greatest cannot have lost a battle. (sorry Erwin) His victories cannot be a case of overwhelming numbers or equipment. (Like routing foot infantry with a smaller but mech/motorized force)
He will have had to faced and defeated a larger force. His battles must be decisive (resulting in the defeat of an enemy operation or securing an objective that produced a victory for his side that had strategic results)
He would have to have influenced major battles.

He would have to be the architect of his victories and not a subordinate caring out directions from above. (He could be the architect and not in actual command of the forces involved)

I think Eric von Manstein meets these requirements more then any other officer I can think of. However there remains his failure to relieve Stalingrad.

Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim: While it is true he was unable to prevent the defeat of Finland he did maintain it's independence. Finland was outnumbered and fought a long war. The Finns repeatedly achieved success where other nations facing the same military at better odds failed. It's hard to claim that without him they would have achieved these results.

(It's difficult to find any officer who both never lost and did not enjoy superiority)

I think Kesselring was much better then Rommel. His lines while pushed back were still holding when every where else the German Army was being defeated.

And then we have the Russians. Zhukov was defeated in Little Saturn. Andrei Yeremenko at Stalingrad had a gun to his head and was not exactly innovative.
However he did command large units in the remainder of war and conducted operations that the Germans were never able to stop. So while in the later periods we can argue superioty it was against these operations that the Germans always commited their best forces and at Stalingrad he did not possess any numerical advantage. Due to an injury he was not in command of forces early in war against Germany. (He was in command in the North and prevented the capture of Lenningrad) So I am almost forced to nominate Andrei Yeremenko as the best commander of WW2.

However I feel this is an almost impossible task with out clear direction as to what consitutes the best military leader.


(The movie "The Gallent Hours" ends with the words. "There are no great men, only ordinary men who because of circumstance face great challenges"

[K62_]

Great post Mogami. One thing though: if a commander fights a lot of battles, you can't expect him to win them all (not even if he is V2 ).

So I vote for Zhukov (but he's not on the list ). Many will argue that he was just lucky to be in the right spot at the right time, but there are just too many "coincidences":

-victory over the Japanese in Manchuria 1939
-defence of Leningrad 1941
-defence of Moscow 1941
-Soviet winter counter-offensive 1941
-Stalingrad and Saturn 1942
-setting up Kursk defences 1943
-lifting the siege of Leningrad 1943
-smashing up Army Group Center in Operation Bagration 1944
-taking Berlin 1945
-destroying Japanese forces in Manchuria again in 1945

Now that's a record that nobody else even comes close to, let alone surpass In his lifetime he was acclaimed as undefeated.

[serg3d]

Great post Mogami. One thing though: if a commander fights a lot of battles, you can't expect him to win them all (not even if he is V2 ).

So I vote for Zhukov (but he's not on the list ). Many will argue that he was just lucky to be in the right spot at the right time, but there are just too many "coincidences":

-victory over the Japanese in Manchuria 1939
-defence of Leningrad 1941
-defence of Moscow 1941
-Soviet winter counter-offensive 1941
-Stalingrad and Saturn 1942
-setting up Kursk defences 1943
-lifting the siege of Leningrad 1943
-smashing up Army Group Center in Operation Bagration 1944
-taking Berlin 1945
-destroying Japanese forces in Manchuria again in 1945

Now that's a record that nobody else even comes close to, let alone surpass In his lifetime he was acclaimed as undefeated.

I'm not qualified enough to judge Zhukov, but many historians (well, Suvorov just hate him) consider him good strategists but mediocre tactician - all his victories were with overwhelming superiority.
What I'm qualified enough to judge is defence of Leningrad (I was born and live there) Zhukov still remembered in the Leningrad, and remebered and hated by many. He spent a lot of resurces in lot of useless attacks (calling them "active defence"), seen their falure (well he was smart) and left for more luckrutive command, leaving the city to die slow death of starvation.

[Orzel Bialy]

interesting look from a Russian perspective.

I don't know everything about the man either...but there seems to be some logic to this post.

In Manchuria he was able to deploy a well balanced army that included a large number of tanks...which the Japanese couldn't match. So even there he had the edge really.

Leningrad was a tie for him in my book. He didn't defeat the Germans as much as he slowed them down and let the Russian winter do the rest.

Even at Moscow Zhukov "won" (tie again in my book...a win would have seen the Red Army crush AGC as it should have except the counter-attacking forces had been so crudely handled that they couldn't deliver a fatal blow.) because of numbers in the end...and if he hadn't had the Siberian units at all could he have kept the Germans out of Moscow proper?

Stalingrad...well this I will grant him a win. But it should be remembered that italmost fell apart on him there too. The German blunder of actually getting into a fight for the city made the big differnce there.

After that...he won many battles...but all with overwhelming numbers.

I know it seems like I'm trashing the guy...which isn't my intention really...he was a good strategist as was mentioned. He could plan operations very well but I too think his actual command of troops was not as good.

My 2 cents.

[sztartur2]

I voted for George C. Marshall. After making an agreement between the two powers how to fight together he created a strategic situation that shifted the ballace greatly to the allied side.

Just think about how greatly the result had affected the outcome of the WWII.
(Maybe he should rather be on the politicians' list.)

Artur.

[Fallschirmjager]

I voted for Kesselring

He put up a masterful defense in Italy even though his forces kept being stripped away

[K62_]

all his victories were with overwhelming superiority.
What I'm qualified enough to judge is defence of Leningrad (I was born and live there) Zhukov still remembered in the Leningrad, and remebered and hated by many. He spent a lot of resurces in lot of useless attacks (calling them "active defence"), seen their falure (well he was smart) and left for more luckrutive command, leaving the city to die slow death of starvation.

I claim that he was the best strategist of WW2, not a compassionate soul. That he always had overwhelming superiority is actually to his praise: it is the duty of the good general to achieve great superiority at the decisive spot. That he did again and again.

One must also remember that for the first part of the war the Soviet forces were greatly inferior in the field; yet he won important victories despite using the very blunt instrument that was the Soviet army. High casualties were inevitable because of the poor state of the troops, and that wasn't Zhukov's fault but Stalin's.

At Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bagration he totally outwitted the Germans by provoking them into making mistakes and then masterfully exploiting these. The Axis lost the war on the Eastern Front, and the man who deserves the bulk of the credit for that is Zhukov. 'nuff said

[K62_]

all his victories were with overwhelming superiority.
What I'm qualified enough to judge is defence of Leningrad (I was born and live there) Zhukov still remembered in the Leningrad, and remebered and hated by many. He spent a lot of resurces in lot of useless attacks (calling them "active defence"), seen their falure (well he was smart) and left for more luckrutive command, leaving the city to die slow death of starvation.

I claim that he was the best strategist of WW2, not a compassionate soul. That he always had overwhelming superiority is actually to his praise: it is the duty of the good general to achieve great advantage at the decisive spot. That he did again and again.

One must also remember that for the first part of the war the Soviet forces were greatly inferior in the field; yet he won important victories despite using the very blunt instrument that was the Soviet army. High casualties were inevitable because of the poor state of the troops, and that wasn't Zhukov's fault but Stalin's.

At Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bagration he totally outwitted the Germans by provoking them into making mistakes and then masterfully exploiting these. It was on the Eastern Front that the Axis lost the war, and the man who deserves the bulk of the credit for that is Zhukov. That's sufficient reason IMO to consider him the greatest military mind of WW2.

[pasternakski]

It was on the Eastern Front that the Axis lost the war, and the man who deserves the bulk of the credit for that is Zhukov. That's sufficient reason IMO to consider him the greatest military mind of WW2.

Well, now, this is saying a lot without much in the way of substantiation. It could just as easily be said that the Axis lost on the Eastern Front due to the very size of the undertaking and that the man who deserves the bulk of the credit is Old Man Winter, Russian style.

The problem with this poll is that there were dozens of men placed, sometimes by nothing more than the vagaries of chance, in positions where either their brilliance triumphed or their mediocrity (or worse) emerged. Men who succeeded historically might have failed in changed circumstances, and vice-versa.

The greatest military mind of WWII, in my estimation, has to be my uncle Russ, who, manning a .50 cal at Pearl Harbor, was credited with shooting down a Kate (probable, not verified), a radio communications tower, and the facade of the Colonnade Hotel bar, all with the same ammo belt. After the SP successfully assaulted his position, captured him, and determined he was drunk, he was busted to buck private and spent the next six months at hard labor clearing debris from the attack.

What did Russ say later? "If I woulda had more ammo, I coulda held out till I sobered up."

[Orzel Bialy]

One must also remember that for the first part of the war the Soviet forces were greatly inferior in the field; yet he won important victories despite using the very blunt instrument that was the Soviet army. High casualties were inevitable because of the poor state of the troops, and that wasn't Zhukov's fault but Stalin's.

Which important victories with inferior troops were these again...for the sake of a friendly debate?

At the Halha River and Nohomintang in Manchuria he had more tanks and firepower (infantry/arty) than the Japanese.

At Leningrad he didn't really defeat the Germans...he was able to stall them by first having the fortunate defensive factors of bad terrain and the fall rains...which he coupled with a massive bloodletting of manpower. I disagree that it was the poor state of Russian divisions that caused the high losses...it was the way they were used.

It the end winter and German indecisiveness (there was a real debate within the German HC as to what would be the best way to deal with Leningrad...and no real directive was given until a siege was proposed) could be said to have saved the city as much as Zhukov.

Moscow was more of the same...harsh winter conditions...an enemy nearing exhaustion from almost 6 months of continous advance and at the end of long supply lines...were finally blunted to a halt by an immense expendature of Russian manpower and material.

Even the winter counterattack which could have (and should have) outright destroyed AGC ended up being frittered away...and again due in large part to the use of Russian resources rather than their state of condition. (remember the Siberian divisions were very well equipped and considered some of the best in the whole Red Army!)

At Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bagration he totally outwitted the Germans by provoking them into making mistakes and then masterfully exploiting these. It was on the Eastern Front that the Axis lost the war, and the man who deserves the bulk of the credit for that is Zhukov. That's sufficient reason IMO to consider him the greatest military mind of WW2.

Stalingrad and beyond were of the German's own making really...brought about by the very bad decision making of both Hitler and the High Command alike. I will give Zhukov a "win" here...as he did take advantage of the mistakes his enemy made, which is what a good general should do. However to say he outwitted the Germans is going a bit too far in my eyes.

At Stalingrad the battle was in doubt for some time...and only once the Germans errored in being sucked deep into the city did the Russians envision the pincer movements of operations Uranus and Saturn.

At Kursk he had the luxury again of being on the defensive...and once he could let the Germans batter themselves stupid against well prepared postions before striking back...this time with a superiority of not only numbers but absolute firepower.

Again with Bagration he had not only a massive advantage in men and material...but also had the assistance of Hitler himself who refused to allow his commanders in the field the ability to fight a battle of movement...like at Kharkov earlier. Therefore Zhukov had the good fortune to strike with overwhelming force at a enemy that was willing to stand and die rather than retreat for the sake of their idiot dictator.

As such I personally believe that Zhukov was a far luckier man than the rest (as all great commanders live on luck to some point) than he was a military master mind.

Whew! :p

[K62_]

Which important victories with inferior troops were these again...for the sake of a friendly debate?

OK, for the sake of debate At the tactical level, the Red Army was for the first 2 years very, very low. It was an army of conscripts. The officer corps had recently been purged by Stalin, so the new leaders were at best of uncertain quality. After the huge losses in the summer of '41 it pretty much lacked equipment. As late as Stalingrad there were often instances of 2 men being sent in battle with a single rifle.

Its opponent was the Wehrmacht, easily the best army in the world, with 2 years' experience of fighting and a set of well-educated leaders down to the NCO level. In '41 a single German division could easily match a Soviet corps/army in fighting power. That's what I mean by inferiority and it was not of Zhukov's making, although he had to deal with it.

So this is my argument that the heavy losses were caused by the poor state of the Red Army at the lower level. What supports your claim that high losses were because of Zhukov's way of using divisions? Play any strategic scale game on the East Front (Matrix's free WiR is a good choice) and you'll see that no matter how good you are you'll constantly take higher losses than the Germans.

The Soviet '41 winter counter-offensive was actually a huge success for the time. It was Germany's first serious military setback in WW2. At the strategic level it sure reached its purpose and was a huge morale boost for the Allies. The famous Siberian divisions were just a few actually. They might have been among the best in the USSR, but I doubt any of them matched an average German division. They were so effective because Zhukov held them back and only employed them en masse and at the critical moment.

The Germans were provoked into mistake both at Stalingrad and at Kursk. At Stalingrad Zhukov chose to only commit minimal forces to defend the city and to concentrate his forces on the flanks against the very weak spots. The concentration was executed with such skill that the Germans never got to believe they were in danger, despite having the benefit of air superiority (and reconnaissance). The capture of the vital bridge at Kalach was a masterpiece of planning (the Germans later tried a similar stunt in the Ardennes in '44 and failed miserably).

At Kursk the Germans were again badly outwitted to the point that Russian arty opened up heavily 10 minutes before jump-off . Zhukov entirely anticipated the attack and built exceptionally strong defences at exactly the right spots. By this time the tactics of the Red Army were greatly improved. At the battle of Prokhorovka, the German tanks included Panthers and Tigers and had air support; but they were beaten by equal numbers of T-34s -now try to do that in SPWaW!

Therefore Zhukov had the good fortune to strike with overwhelming force at a enemy that was willing to stand and die rather than retreat for the sake of their idiot dictator.

Yes he did that but striking with overwhelming force is the result of planning not of good fortune (Zhukov's plans were actually quite complex and worthy of more study than they are usually given). It's been the goal of every strategist ever since Sun Tzu.

As such I personally believe that Zhukov was a far luckier man than the rest (as all great commanders live on luck to some point) than he was a military master mind.

Lucky? The man served for 6 years and was constantly at the right spot with the right amount of force to apply there. If you call that lucky, what will it take for you to call it skill?!

The ball is your yard, sir!

[Marek Tucan]

I have still not decided who to vote for, but definitely not Yamamoto. Altough he was quite good and most of all innovative, I won't call him 'genius'. His plan at Midway, for example, was too complicated and he didn't take into account wahat the enemy might do, he thought the US forces will act just in the way he lined up in his plan. He scattered his forces into whole pacific, leaving valuable carriers in a worthless action in the Aleutes. He kept his flag on the Yamato, but due to the radio silence he was not able to effectively command and he relied on his plan. He didn't acknowledge the results of one of the pre-Midway trainings where the 'US' side was doing almost exactly what the real US done later... I repeat, he was innovative in the terms of general principles of the naval warfare, but his operations were too complicated and too rigid. And his successes were achieved against unexpecting enemy or enemy with way inferior equipment.

Interesting opinion I found some time ago is that he helped alot the US navy by the Pearl Harbor, in fact, because the PH tragedy forced the US to form Carrier-based fleets because the 'Gun Club' didn't have any battleship:)

[serg3d]

OK, for the sake of debate

No one here argue the point that Zhukov was a good (or even exeptional) strategist.

The question is more semantic: should the Greatest Military Mind be also exeptional tactician ? And here is a moot point. Exeptional tactician should be able to win with inferior force, and this can not be proved for Zhukov.

Minor nitpicks at Prohorovka: Somethere (I think I can find link if nessecary) I had read that attack of 5th tank army was strategically pointless, because german offence was already broken on the other side of Kursk triangle. From German side there were 306 tanks and assault guns and soviet side 520, though russians had proportionally more light tanks. Russian losses were 377 tanks, german 89, and germans breaked through russian lines at the end of 2d day (though as I already told it was pointless). So in my book Prohorovka was hardly tactical/strategic success, though it showed a great moral strenght of the russian tank force.

[Orzel Bialy]

So this is my argument that the heavy losses were caused by the poor state of the Red Army at the lower level. What supports your claim that high losses were because of Zhukov's way of using divisions?

In the books "Barbarossa-The Russian-German Conflict 1941-45" and "Stumbling Colossus" (which I will admit states that the Red Army was mainly a badly trained peasant army as you stated....see I give every now and then. lol) both state that Russian general's had a very bad (old world) tendancy to just plod their troops into harms way in the hope of achieving results by overwhleming their enemies despite taking massive losses.

At both Leningrad and Moscow attacks were reported as always being massive frontal assaults in waves and eventually the bloodloss was too great for even the Russians to sustain...so by Jan/Feb they came to a halt. Had they been used differently a far worse crisis would have loomed for the German Army that winter.

The famous Siberian divisions were just a few actually. They might have been among the best in the USSR, but I doubt any of them matched an average German division. They were so effective because Zhukov held them back and only employed them en masse and at the critical moment.

The Siberian Divisions (25 infantry Div / 9 Amrored Brigades) were held back not because of any great planning...they were released because after Dec 7th the Russians knew that the Japanese would not be an offensive danger to them any time soon do to the Pacific war.

And they were indeed employed en masse...and basically ground down like the other Russian units via the unimaginative tactics used by Zhukov and his peers.

As for Stalingrad...that was a victory that I granted him...although I believe the Germans set themselves up for defeat far mor than the Russians created it. Operations Uranus and Saturn went far better than the utter disaster that Operation Mars turned into and which I left out as being too easy of a target.

At Kursk the Germans were again badly outwitted to the point that Russian arty opened up heavily 10 minutes before jump-off . Zhukov entirely anticipated the attack and built exceptionally strong defences at exactly the right spots.

Ummmm....No. The Soviets had the benefit of intelligence from their spy ring and information from deserters that tipped off the start date. That and the fact that both sides knew where the next big battle was going to be...as the Kursk salient could not be left in the German lines. The Germans were just too cocky to call it off even though they knew the Soviets were well prepared.

Lucky? The man served for 6 years and was constantly at the right spot with the right amount of force to apply there. If you call that lucky, what will it take for you to call it skill?!

That is what I'm saying...he was more of a man in the right place at the right time than one of the greatest military minds. He learned his concepts of modern war from the Germans...and blended that in with the historical Russian tendancy to trade 5 lives or more for 1. As such I just don't see him as GREAT...maybe above average.

PS...Had Zhukov been in charge at Kiev instead of Budenny do you believe the outcome would have been much different? I don't...maybe not as bad, but it would have still been a defeat.

[lynx_rattle]

PS...Had Zhukov been in charge at Kiev instead of Budenny do you believe the outcome would have been much different? I don't...maybe not as bad, but it would have still been a defeat.

I think this is the right question to ask! How can we compare these generals, when they fought in wholly different circumstances? We can't know how a Patton or Montgomery would have behaved in a losing war and we don't know what a Zhukov or Kirponos would have done with German troops. Even comparing two generals in the same army is pretty hard. Comparing two fighter pilots in the same squadron might be reasonable, but for two generals the circumstances are just too different.

I think Steel Panthers gives a good picture about what really counts. It's the 50mm L42 ricochetting from the armor of a T-34 or Klim Voroshilov. It's the 10 batteries of 150mm arty pounding your positions and masses of pesky infantry against your 105mm battery and overstretched defenses. It's the Mustang's and Thunderbolts blasting your tanks to bits and pieces. A good general can win a war only if the combatants are materially more or less even.

Well anyways, after all that, I think that von Manstein's operation at Krim 1942 is quite magnificent. But is a "panzer general" any good in defending? Maybe Kesselring would be a better choice for a defensive general. But on the other hand he did have mountainous, easily defended terrain by his side. Not the plains of Ukraine or Central Europe.

Harri

[K62_]

I'm glad you admit the Red Army was in a very bad state. Now let's say you are right; let's say Zhukov was a mediocre general; let's imagine you would be in his place after the disasters of '41. Could you do better? Remember, you have under your command very inexperienced troops. In North Africa the Americans will have a similar problem in '42; to overcome it they will need to rely heavily on arty and air support. But you don't have that. All the big guns have been lost in the retreat and the Luftwaffe rules the skies. All you have is: numbers and maybe the weather. If Zhukov failed to use his troops properly, then there must be a better way of doing it. What kind of fancy tactics would you use to break the enemy line instead of the simple and easy to understand echelon attack, with a lot of echelons?

The Siberian Divisions (25 infantry Div / 9 Amrored Brigades) were held back not because of any great planning...they were released because after Dec 7th the Russians knew that the Japanese would not be an offensive danger to them any time soon do to the Pacific war.

The Russians knew much earlier about that because of Sorge. The movement began much earlier and at the beginning of December they were already concentrated and ready to strike. Concentration is always a matter of planning, you don't just bring multiple divisions over on a single train.

And they were indeed employed en masse...and basically ground down like the other Russian units via the unimaginative tactics used by Zhukov and his peers.

Again, please supply a more imaginative tactic given the situation (rememeber, it has to be implemented by green troops with little equipment and mainly untested leaders; Siberians or no Siberians they were no match man for man to the Germans)

the utter disaster that Operation Mars turned into and which I left out as being too easy of a target.

I think this is where our ways part, since you seem to be interested in battles as tactical achievements but I look at them as elements of a strategy. If you read Manstein's memoirs you will notice his repeated frustration at not getting any reinforcements from Army Group Center during the Uranus/Saturn period. Operation Mars worked as a fixing attack and prevented the Germans from shifting troops to the critical spots. Tactically, it was won by the Germans; strategically, it worked for the Soviets. The Germans did not win anything out of it, so you can't really label it "the utter disaster".

The Soviets had the benefit of intelligence from their spy ring and information from deserters that tipped off the start date. That and the fact that both sides knew where the next big battle was going to be...as the Kursk salient could not be left in the German lines. The Germans were just too cocky to call it off even though they knew the Soviets were well prepared.

The Soviets were smart enough to get and act on good intelligence. Imagine the Germans doing the same before Stalingrad and things would have turned out differently. You call the Germans "cocky" to go forward with a predictable (and predicted) attack. I call them "dumb" Or at least outsmarted (By the way Manstein was one of the leading advocates of the attack :p)

Had Zhukov been in charge at Kiev instead of Budenny do you believe the outcome would have been much different? I don't...maybe not as bad, but it would have still been a defeat.

We're getting too relativistic here. When you look at Zhukov you look at when his leadership has actually been tested. It was tested plenty of times and never found wanting. I don't know what he would have done at Kiev and neither can you or anyone else. Let's stick to facts. I grant he wasn't a great innovator, but neither was Napoleon and that didn't work against him. Zhukov was just consistently highly efficient as a strategic level commander and that makes him better than any other military leader of WW2. He maybe wasn't a genius, but if you compare his standard of efficiency with Manstein's or anyone else's he'll come out on top. Especially since strategic proficiency must be valued above tactical brilliance.