Greatest General of WW II

[Zhukov41]

GEORGYI K. ZHUKOV

1.Defeated Japanese at Halkin Gol .1st campaign Japan lost in 1000 years.
2.Took over defense of Moscow with only 90,000 Soviet troops initially available and inflicted first major defeat on Germans
3.Rescued Leningrad when Germans were already inside suburbs 1941.
4.Leading planner of Operation Uranus:Stalingrad
5.Operation Mars was only planned as a diversion.
6.Leading Planner of German defeat at Kursk.
7.Leading planner of Operation Bargration
8.Conquer of Berlin "The lair of the Facist beast"

The Soviet Army was the most powerful army in the world by 1943. Zhukov was their greatest commander as judged by the man who expressed his opinion by firing squad: Josef Stalin. Case closed.

[352klr]

Well then we should just close this thread down since there's obviously no room for debate.




Go see the most overrated thread. It's where Zhukov belongs.

[nicephoras]

The Soviet Army was the most powerful army in the world by 1943. Zhukov was their greatest commander as judged by the man who expressed his opinion by firing squad: Josef Stalin. Case closed.

That's perverted. And wrong, too. Stalin only executed two generals the whole war - he probably rehabilitated more than that. (Rokossovsky at least.)That Klim and Budenny weren't shot doesn't mean they werne't utter incompetents.

The best general of WWII is a difficult question. If we're talking strictly armor, for example, it has to be Guderian. Zhukov's strategy later in the war of simply bulldozing forward no matter the human cost was hardly great generaling. And he also made mistakes in his initial action on the eastern front.

[Txtriathlete]

Off topic, in WWII was a Marshall higher, equal or below a General? Im having a major discussion with a colleague.

[heybeerman]

I always had a soft spot for Rommel. He damn near won the Desert War with very limited forces (and Italians) and having his supplies cut off all the time. He may not be #1 but is certainly up there.

[CrewDust]

Off topic, in WWII was a Marshall higher, equal or below a General? Im having a major discussion with a colleague.

Marshall is another name for a general. A Field Marshall is the equivlant of a Five Star General or Theatre Commander.

[spejic]

Zhukov's strategy later in the war of simply bulldozing forward no matter the human cost was hardly great generaling.Really, if you have more stuff and more people, you are expected to win and you usually do. It's why the mantle of "great general" so often goes to leaders on the losing side (Hannibal, Lee, Rommel, so on).

[taosjohn]

I always had a soft spot for Rommel. He damn near won the Desert War with very limited forces (and Italians) and having his supplies cut off all the time. He may not be #1 but is certainly up there.

Of course he kinda had help from one of the guys on the other side, and the supply problems weren't all on his side...

I vote for Bradley, but with the rider that criticism of Zhukov for using up troops to win is like criticism of Rommel for using 88's... Z had lots of men and he used the advantage he had and he won. Perhaps he could have won more humanely, but perhaps he couldn't. When the stakes are everything, you take the surest strategy, not the most economical...

One other note-- other than Mongomery, Patton and Bradley almost no one on the allied western side had more than one chance to show his stuff; VandeGrift for example did remarkable work at Guadalcanal, but we have no triangulation-- was the revival of en perimeter defense an inspiration or an accident of necessity? We never got to see what he might have done in a different situation. In one sense, then, the losing side has an advantage--more candidates-- since they don't get rotated out of line much...

[ratdog]

General Motors.

[CrewDust]

General Motors.


Good point.

[Zenit]

Off topic, in WWII was a Marshall higher, equal or below a General? Im having a major discussion with a colleague.

Soviet Flag Officer ranks, from top to bottom:

1. Marshal of the Soviet Union/Chief Marshal of (Artillery/Infantry/Armor)
2. Army General/Marshal of (Artillery/Armory/Infantry)
3. Colonel-General
4. Lieutenant-General
5. Major-General

I'm not sure that during WWII, that the Chief Marshal of (branch of service)/Marshal of (branch of service) ranks were not in use as of yet, however. I think that they came into use after WWII, or maybe close to the end. But I'm not sure, nicephoras may know the answer to that question. Hey, nice, wasn't Grigory Kulik a Marshal of Artillery prior to the start of WWII? Or maybe he was just the ranking officer for the Main Artillery Directorate - actually, I think that's right.

There was one rank higher than all, that being Generalissimo of the Soviet Union; the only person to ever attain that rank was, of course, Stalin.

[yasik19]

That's perverted. And wrong, too. Stalin only executed two generals the whole war - he probably rehabilitated more than that. (Rokossovsky at least.)That Klim and Budenny weren't shot doesn't mean they werne't utter incompetents.

The best general of WWII is a difficult question. If we're talking strictly armor, for example, it has to be Guderian. Zhukov's strategy later in the war of simply bulldozing forward no matter the human cost was hardly great generaling. And he also made mistakes in his initial action on the eastern front.

this is spot on.

[nicephoras]

Soviet Flag Officer ranks, from top to bottom:

1. Marshal of the Soviet Union/Chief Marshal of (Artillery/Infantry/Armor)
2. Army General/Marshal of (Artillery/Armory/Infantry)
3. Colonel-General
4. Lieutenant-General
5. Major-General

I'm not sure that during WWII, that the Chief Marshal of (branch of service)/Marshal of (branch of service) ranks were not in use as of yet, however. I think that they came into use after WWII, or maybe close to the end. But I'm not sure, nicephoras may know the answer to that question. Hey, nice, wasn't Grigory Kulik a Marshal of Artillery prior to the start of WWII? Or maybe he was just the ranking officer for the Main Artillery Directorate - actually, I think that's right.

I should know that, but don't. You've got me stumped.

There was one rank higher than all, that being Generalissimo of the Soviet Union; the only person to ever attain that rank was, of course, Stalin.

Well, I believe Suvorov was named Generalissimo - but not of the Soviet Union, of course. :p

[topcatcole]

This is more difficult to answer than it first appears. The answers so far have emphasized the combat commanders.

But World War II was won as much by the grand strategists and the logisticians and the theater commanders as it was by the combat commanders. While Patton brilliance in executing the pivot move to disengage, move and reengage 3rd Army was absolute brilliance, was Ike's decision to tell Monty to pound sand and shift a huge logistics apparatus to support that move any less brilliant?

How about Marshall? The US JCS Chairman bore the brunt of the production for war and assessing how those assets might best be employed. He fought a two front war and won both- and it wasn't close. He was never given the combat command he so desired because Roosevelt considered him the one man that was indispensable to the entire war effort. He was at once a brilliant logistician, organizer and politician. AND after all of that, he was the man who as US SECSTATE rebuilt Western Europe.

Not a bad resume.

[russ]

Marshall was a superb politician and mediator between the competing interests within both the Allies and the nascent USNME.Eisenhower was also a master of this.I don't think we can compare that to being a battle general though.Not undermining the importance of the politico-miltary sphere,just pointing out the difficulty of comparison.

[Toon³]

Marshall was a superb politician and mediator between the competing interests within both the Allies and the nascent USNME.Eisenhower was also a master of this.I don't think we can compare that to being a battle general though.Not undermining the importance of the politico-miltary sphere,just pointing out the difficulty of comparison.

I wouldn't say that Eisenhower or anyone on the American staff was a "master" of politics, if they had been then they wouldn't have trusted Stalin and would have pushed for Berlin instead of appeasing Stalin and holding back their forces.

[topcatcole]

I wouldn't say that Eisenhower or anyone on the American staff was a "master" of politics, if they had been then they wouldn't have trusted Stalin and would have pushed for Berlin instead of appeasing Stalin and holding back their forces. IIRC that wasn't Ike's call to make. The politicians (Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin) had made this decision for him.

Russ's comment was exactly what I was trying to point out- that we have been talking about ground combat commanders up to this point and that other types of generalship were also critical to the winning of WWII.

[Chizzy]

Any normal persons will say that Dwight David Eisenhower is the greatest WWII General.

[Toon³]

IIRC that wasn't Ike's call to make. The politicians (Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin) had made this decision for him.

Russ's comment was exactly what I was trying to point out- that we have been talking about ground combat commanders up to this point and that other types of generalship were also critical to the winning of WWII.


Actually it was Eisenhower's decision. As Supreme Commander he made the choices of where to advance. Churchill was desperate to get to Berlin before the Russians to keep them as far east as possible, but Eisenhower refused. He didn't want to annoy the Russians because the Americans wanted them to help finish off Japan in the pacific.

And just what did Eisenhower do to make him so great?

[Anthony]

Actually it was Eisenhower's decision. As Supreme Commander he made the choices of where to advance. Churchill was desperate to get to Berlin before the Russians to keep them as far east as possible, but Eisenhower refused. He didn't want to annoy the Russians because the Americans wanted them to help finish off Japan in the pacific.

Eisenhower felt it was a political decision. His concern was destroying the German war machine. Berlin was symbolically important, but he was more concered with getting troops into the mountains of southern German to prevent futher Nazi resistence (the Germans had been moving supplies and fanatics into the region the hopes of estabvlishing a "Nazi redoubt" there. There were even plans for Hitler to relocate to Berchesgarten to continue the war).

And just what did Eisenhower do to make him so great?

Kept an extremely fractious coalition together. Yes, by 1945, most of the troops on the Western Front were American. But Eisenhower also had large numbers of British, Canadian, French troops, and smaller numbers of Polish, Kiwi, Dutch, Belgian, and Brazilian (a division in Italy) troops (and I probably have left some folks out). The American and British field commanders never got along well (Patton and Bradley threatened to resign when it was rumored Montgomery was going to be named ground forces commander). Each of the 4 major Western powers (US, Canada, UK, and France) had different goals, sometimes at odds which each other. All had different strategies. All fought differently. Yet Ike kept them all together.